lyannas:

“Your bastard was accused of grievous crimes,” Catelyn reminded him sharply. “Of murder, rape, and worse.”

“Yes,” Roose Bolton said. “His blood is tainted, that cannot be denied. Yet he is a good fighter, as cunning as he is fearless. When the ironmen cut down Ser Rodrik, and Leobald Tallhart soon after, it fell to Ramsay to lead the battle, and he did. He swears that he shall not sheathe his sword so long as a single Greyjoy remains in the north. Perhaps such service might atone in some small measure for whatever crimes his bastard blood has led him to commit.” He shrugged. “Or not. When the war is done, His Grace must weigh and judge. By then I hope to have a trueborn son by Lady Walda.”

This is a cold man, Catelyn realized, not for the first time.

this is one of those things that have made me wonder what robb would have done had the red wedding not happened, and had roose bolton at the very least remained loyal. ramsay was known and noted to have committed crimes around the dreadfort, including raping and murdering donella hornwood. rodrik was meant to capture him and try him for these crimes later, but of course rodrik is later killed (in any case, he captured Reek instead). ramsay of course later proves that he’s loyal to robb by taking back winterfell and sending robb a piece of theon’s skin to show that vengeance had been exacted against the man who killed bran and rickon.

robb does not make mention of ramsay to roose after this except to ask for whatever news ramsay had sent him. roose does say that robb may judge ramsay as he likes; though we do know that roose would never let ramsay die so long as he doesn’t have another heir. so had walda not been pregnant after all of this, and ramsay is brought to answer for his crimes, what would robb do? reward roose for his loyalty and allow him his bastard son? or kill him?

robb’s lack of oversight on roose is, of course, part of his undoing. he puts great faith in roose bolton and believes his loyalty to be true. yet we know that roose is in charge of brutal men, men who are technically Stark men, and they commit atrocities in Harrenhal and beyond, all while secretly working for tywin.

just another thing to consider.

This is not a vague point though. It’s easy to guess Robb’s action towards Ramsay in light of his execution of Rickard Karstark and before that Ned’s own handling of Jorah Mormont’s slaving. The notion that Ramsay’s fabricated leadership of the Northern forces against the Ironborn could atone for his crimes was Roose’s notion, not anything that Robb as much as hinted at or promised. We might argue that Robb didn’t set Roose straight here but I don’t think he really needed to? Roose did end his speech by making a point about submitting to Robb’s judgement on the matter, and a pretty standoffish comment about having another child that suggested that he simply did not care about Ramsay’s fate (and I quite disagree that this meant that Roose would never let Ramsay die as long as he did not have an heir. Roose does not care about the continuance of his House beyond him as we’ve seen from his casual mention of Ramsay killing any trueborn sons he has with Walda, and he definitely did not want Ramsay to succeed him.)

I can say with confidence that Robb is most definitely not letting Ramsay off no matter what. On a character level, I really can’t see Robb simply pardoning Ramsay under any circumstances. This is the guy who refused to let Rickard Karstark’s murder of Tion Frey and Willem Lannister go unpunished regardless of his personal friendship with Rickard’s sons or the services rendered by both Rickard and his three sons, two of whom died protecting Robb with the third being a captive of the Lannisters, to House Stark. It was a heinous crime that Robb refused to let slide for personal connections or previous loyalty or Rickard’s high birth or any other consideration. If Robb was willing to execute the Lord of Karhold despite knowing that this irrevocably loses him Karhold, he most definitely is not going to let a bastard reputed for his monstrosity and whose own father expressed indifference to his fate off on the basis of rewarding Roose’s or even Ramsay’s (supposed) loyalty. Not only would that go against what we know of Robb and what we’ve seen him do, but it would be the same sort of dishonor and injustice that Robb refused to condone with Rickard Karstark. (And I mean, there was also the situation of Ned and Jorah which included the same element of a “loyal” vassal committing a crime, and the Starks holding them as accountable for their crimes as anyone else. Loyalty, high birth, previous support, etc does not matter. Roose was still ostensibly a loyal supporter of Robb and the Starks when Ser Rodrick was sent to arrest and try Ramsay after all.)

On a political level, Robb quite literally can’t let Ramsay off the hook. Ramsay’s crimes were not only horrific but also a common knowledge in the North by this point. To let him go under any pretext would utterly destroy Robb’s legitimacy because it’d mean he didn’t enforce the law and willingly refused to get justice for Ramsay’s victims, which is an awful message to send in and of itself but it gains more political weight from the fact that Ramsay’s most famous victim was a noble woman whose husband and son died fighting for Robb, and who has kin in the Manderlys, the most powerful of House Stark’s vassals. These aren’t circumstances that even allow for a “reduced sentence” like the Wall, which is further compounded by Robb’s execution of Rickard Karstark because he can’t tell the Karstarks that he executed their lord for committing a crime then turns around and doesn’t mete out the same punishment to Ramsay. Not to mention that failing to execute Ramsay would translate as “you can commit crimes and victimize nobles and smallfolk alike, but as long as you’re loyal to me, I’ll get you off”, and show Stark justice as this inconsistent thing that depends on the whim of the King of the North, which undermines the rule of the law and would have terrible consequences for Robb’s rule all around, from making justice a selective action to angering pretty much all his bannermen to displaying some weird inordinate favoring of House Bolton, the historical enemies of the Starks. Robb would have to be a flat out idiot to even consider this, and that’s without taking into account questions of morality. And for what? Why would Robb even want to spare a guy who has the reputation of a monster, who he knew practiced flaying and whose most famous act is raping and starving a noble lady? Rewarding loyalty is not a logical argument here.

Now, I’m endlessly puzzled by the timeline of Ramsay’s betrayal and how that relates to Roose’s defection because it’s difficult for me to see Ramsay taking such a step without Roose’s blessing for several reasons, though I recognize that there was not enough time between Ramsay’s departure from Winterfell as Reek and his return with the Dreadfort army for a correspondence with Roose but that’s neither here nor there. The significance here, though, is that Roose’s loyalty at this point and the prevention of the Red Wedding means that Robb would find out what really happened in Winterfell sooner or later because, as Roose informs Catelyn and Robb, Ramsay took some Winterfell survivors to the Dreadfort, meaning that if Roose somehow stays loyal and Robb makes it back to the North, Ramsay has a number of people that can inform Robb of the truth of the Sack of Winterfell (also Theon who holds the truth about the disappearance of Bran and Rickon along with the Reeds), and it’s unfathomable that he’d be able to claim that they all just died of natural reasons prior to Robb’s arrival, though his monstrosity could mean he stages a fire inside the Dreadfort or something so he could claim their accidental death and cover his tracks. Still, that does not account for Wex or Wyman Manderly’s itch to bring down Ramsay or the Liddle. Robb’s return to the North means that Ramsay’s treachery will surely come to light so Robb will be returning to a new body count of Winterfell residents, a tortured or dead Theon, and the information that Ramsay was behind it all.

So by any calculation, and whatever scenario we’re talking about, Robb is indisputably executing Ramsay. The only thing that would prevent that, other than the canon events, is if Ramsay is killed before Robb gets to him.