That’s was a good point about the Mallisters being unprovoked. But those same lords that were sworn to the Tullys must have felt their oath of fealty to the king was more important. As Walder Frey would say “I said some words but I also swore oaths to the crown”. I suspect because of past grievances and the state the Riverlands are in, not all the Riverlands will be backing the Tullys once Aegon makes his presence known, even if Red Wedding 2.0 goes off without a hitch.
I for one hold Hoster Tully’s motives in suspect. I don’t believe he joined the rebels out of the goodness of his heart or out of a sense of duty and justice to his bannerman. I truly believe it was a bid for power, and that Brandon and the Mallister’s deaths were just the pretext he needed to make that happen.
Now the reason why I bring this up is because in the latest Dany chapter you said that Dany’s vision of the Red Wedding for her to let bygones be bygones with the houses that rebelled again her family. Now while that might apply to the Starks, Baratheons, Arryns and even Lannisters. I really don’t see what motivation either she or Aegon would have to not punish the Tullys for their part in the rebellion.
If she learns of how Hoster joined the rebels after they gave in to his demands for marriages, wouldn’t that reflect badly on Edmure and the Blackfish and make Dany reluctant to let bygones be bygones with them?
The whole “swearing oath of fealty to the king” is kind of questionable as there’s little independent evidence that lords swear fealty directly to the king, and it would seem to run against Aegon the Conqueror’s model for maintaining the status quo. For example, Stannis and Davos’ debate in ASOS seems to suggest it’s an open question:
“It is every man’s duty to remain loyal to his rightful king, even if the lord he serves proves false,” Stannis declared in a tone that brooked no argument.
A desperate folly took hold of Davos, a recklessness akin to madness. “As you remained loyal to King Aerys when your brother raised his banners?” he blurted.
I do think you’re being a bit unfair to Hoster Tully, however. I think he joined for a number of reasons. First, he was probably in danger himself – after all, he had arranged with Rickard Stark to give his daughter’s hand in marriage to Brandon Stark and both men were declared traitors, which might make him next. Second, he had suffered an indirect harm himself – Brandon was virtually his goodson and the king had essentially widowed his daughter, and Mallister was his bannermen.
But yes, Hoster Tully wanted his dynastic alliances confirmed. I don’t see that as a particularly evil action. Certainly he was less selfless than Jon Arryn, but does anyone hold it against John Hancock that his opposition to British taxation came from the fact that he was a smuggler?
But as for why they should let bygones be bygones – it’s not just that the rebels were morally justified, but it’s also about breaking the cycle of retaliation. Aegon and/or Dany are going to come back to a Riverlands that’s been fractured by total war and the breakdown of all taboos on violence. If they single out House Tully for revenge, the Tullys are going to fight to the last and it’s just going to make things worse.
RFTIT Tumblr Backup 