Rhaegar was WAY better than Robert

[dariopatke]

3 hours ago, Blueroses said:

Because he never loved nor felt close to his brothers as he did with Ned who he grew up with in the Eyrie.

I do not believe that he did not love them (they were his brothers, they were given two castles that could have gone to his children and they were both in SC), but he did not love them as much as he loved Ned. Anyway Ned was better choise then them.

3 hours ago, The Wolves said:

Of course we consider his actions but that doesn't mean he was ever a king. Rhaegar was a prince and died as one, never a king. 

Soory, but I really do not see this as an excuse. 

[theMADdestScientist_]

1 hour ago, Joy Hill said:

We know he caused the situation that led to their deaths, and did nothing to protect them.

Did nothing to protect them? then why did he brought an army of 40 thousand men with him to the trident? if that wasn't to protect his children, then what was that? he died trying to protect them.

 

1 hour ago, Joy Hill said:

There's also the issue of humiliating Elia in front of the whole realm when she had just recovered from giving birth.

Of course, giving a garland of roses to another woman in a tourney is an insult, but there are bigger insults, much bigger. Robert insulting and humiliating Cersei for 14 years, in front and behind her back, until this killed him, is an example.

I like Elia, a lot actually, but i can see this isn't a black and white story, to be pitying one and hating the other, this doesn't exist in this story. Look at Jaime, he tried to kill Bran and at some point was looking to kill Arya as well, but many people, including me, like him a lot, the difference here, is that we read about Jaime, we know him, but we know nothing about Rhaegar, so it makes it easy to go right into the simplest conclusion, because one does not know the character.

If anything, Rhaegar had noble reasons to give a "bunch of roses" to Lyanna, when other people would have scolded her for the things she "did". It seems he wasn't looking for the prettiest face he could find, unlike many out there.

He gave a bunch of roses to a girl who protected the weak, when these so called "knights" did nothing, and this tells alot about the person Rhaegar is, not perfect, but not bad by no means, he is pretty rare actually, especially when you realize how Brienne has been treated by most men.

1 hour ago, Joy Hill said:

Jaime dreams of Rhaegar's ghost telling him "I left my wife and your children in your hands", but when he remembers the last conversation they had Rhaegar does not as much as mention them. Jaime simply assumes Rhaegar wanted him to protect them. Regardless, not moving them from KL and leaving one 17 year old of doubtful loyalty is not great protection.

No, Rhaegar did not ask Jaime to protect his children before leaving, he didn't need to do that, Jaime has a duty to defend the royal family, Rhaegar doesn't need to ask Jaime to do his duty, and Jaime's age does not matter, his duty does.

[The Hoare]

3 hours ago, devilish said:

erm they invaded the Riverlands

Because Lady Catelyn was stupid enough to kidnap Tyrion.

It was Tywin's obligation to do what he did

[The Wolves]

59 minutes ago, dariopatke said:

 

Soory, but I really do not see this as an excuse. 

I'm not excusing anything. 

Im trying to remind you that Rhaegar was never king so to compare his job as King to Robert's would be useless because Rhaegar was never a king. 

[Joy Hill]

45 minutes ago, LordDraymonDarklyn said:

Did nothing to protect them? then why did he brought an army of 40 thousand men with him to the trident? if that wasn't to protect his children, then what was that? he died trying to protect them.

 

Of course, giving a garland of roses to another woman in a tourney is an insult, but there are bigger insults, much bigger. Robert insulting and humiliating Cersei for 14 years, in front and behind her back, until this killed him, is an example.

I like Elia, a lot actually, but i can see this isn't a black and white story, to be pitying one and hating the other, this doesn't exist in this story. Look at Jaime, he tried to kill Bran and at some point was looking to kill Arya as well, but many people, including me, like him a lot, the difference here, is that we read about Jaime, we know him, but we know nothing about Rhaegar, so it makes it easy to go right into the simplest conclusion, because one does not know the character.

If anything, Rhaegar had noble reasons to give a "bunch of roses" to Lyanna, when other people would have scolded her for the things she "did". It seems he wasn't looking for the prettiest face he could find, unlike many out there.

He gave a bunch of roses to a girl who protected the weak, when these so called "knights" did nothing, and this tells alot about the person Rhaegar is, not perfect, but not bad by no means, he is pretty rare actually, especially when you realize how Brienne has been treated by most men.

No, Rhaegar did not ask Jaime to protect his children before leaving, he didn't need to do that, Jaime has a duty to defend the royal family, Rhaegar doesn't need to ask Jaime to do his duty, and Jaime's age does not matter, his duty does.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree (at least until we have more information).

But I agree that a character having faults is not a reason to dislike them.

[theMADdestScientist_]

16 minutes ago, Joy Hill said:

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree (at least until we have more information).

But I agree that a character having faults is not a reason to dislike them.

Unfortunately, i think we will never know much about the character. I wish we had more stuff about Rhaegar, Elia, Lyanna, Brandon and Rickard Stark, so to have more things to talk and argue, but it seems George will leave a lot of things ambiguous

 

[Joy Hill]

6 minutes ago, LordDraymonDarklyn said:

Unfortunately, i think we will never know much about the character. I wish we had more stuff about Rhaegar, Elia, Lyanna, Brandon and Rickard Stark, so to have more things to talk and argue, but it seems George will leave a lot of things ambiguous

 

I think we'll find out quite a lot about Rhaegar and Lyanna. The puzzle of their story looms over the whole series. 

[Boarsbane]

You certainly give Rhaegar the benefit of the doubt on everything you throw Robert under the bus for.

[Praetor Xyn]

That's a pretty low bar unless we're talking combat prowess, in which case Bob Prime is Hulk smash.

[theblackdragonI]

2 hours ago, LordDraymonDarklyn said:

 

Of course, giving a garland of roses to another woman in a tourney is an insult, but there are bigger insults, much bigger. Robert insulting and humiliating Cersei for 14 years, in front and behind her back, until this killed him, is an example.

I like Elia, a lot actually, but i can see this isn't a black and white story, to be pitying one and hating the other, this doesn't exist in this story. Look at Jaime, he tried to kill Bran and at some point was looking to kill Arya as well, but many people, including me, like him a lot, the difference here, is that we read about Jaime, we know him, but we know nothing about Rhaegar, so it makes it easy to go right into the simplest conclusion, because one does not know the character.

If anything, Rhaegar had noble reasons to give a "bunch of roses" to Lyanna, when other people would have scolded her for the things she "did". It seems he wasn't looking for the prettiest face he could find, unlike many out there.

He gave a bunch of roses to a girl who protected the weak, when these so called "knights" did nothing, and this tells alot about the person Rhaegar is, not perfect, but not bad by no means, he is pretty rare actually, especially when you realize how Brienne has been treated by most men.

No, Rhaegar did not ask Jaime to protect his children before leaving, he didn't need to do that, Jaime has a duty to defend the royal family, Rhaegar doesn't need to ask Jaime to do his duty, and Jaime's age does not matter, his duty does.

There's not much of a point trying to compare them both as husbands really they were both bad. Rhaegar left his wife for a girl he most likely didn't love (at the time, maybe he did at the ToJ) but to fulfill a prophecy and Robert whored.

I agree about not knowing enough of Rhaegar he really could have been a great/horrible person behind closed doors. For all we know he did take Lyanna against her will and rape her. Unlikely, but possible. 

I really don't think he gave Lyanna roses because she was chivalrous. Far more likely he realised she was necessary for the prophecy/ he convinced himself she was. 

As for the OP, I think they were both inherently good men but not good in power. It's clear from the way Ned thinks of him that Robert in the Vale was an all round great guy. If he had been left without responsibility he probably would have had a great life and been a great father and friend. Similarly Rhaegar was by all accounts a great dude. The prophecy went to his head and led him to commit actions that I'm sure he never would have had he not been so obsessed with the prophecy. So it's not as easy as saying one was better than the other. Rhaegar caused a civil war that led to thousands dead, Robert gave the realm 15 years of peace. Rhaegar was a great husband and father (till Lyanna), Robert was not. Its not as clear cut, they both had their strengths and weaknesses. 

[Laughing Storm Reborn]

I laughed... then i cried... then i laughed... till i died...

PS: at least we have grrm on video saying bob was a good guy, rhaegar i don't know Jack but apparently some folks do 

[The Marquis de Leech]

14 hours ago, dariopatke said:

We are talking about medieval times. And for all they know she was kidnapped. 

No we're not. 

We're talking about an invented fantasy world (and if the distinction seems artificial, I'd point out that Westeros' legal system is infinitely more rudimentary than those found in fourteenth century Western Europe).

More to the point, neither you, I, the poster I quoted, or George R.R. Martin lives in either Westeros or Medieval Europe. We're living in the twenty-first century. Saying that someone deserves death for "stealing a woman from another man" is embracing some very barbaric ideas - even if such an idea may hold in Westeros (which it doesn't, at least not for nobility and royalty), to trumpet it "out of universe" is just wrong. It's like saying that pillaging is OK, because it's just paying the Iron Price.  

[Wall Flower]

19 hours ago, devilish said:

Rhaegar had the surname, he was groomed to the job and after Aerys anyone would have been a better option. However he was irresponsible. Kidnapping Lyanna was stupid especially when he knew that half Westeros would seek justice about it from a mad king. Rhaegar didn't start the war but he certainly pushed the Stark-Baratheon-Arryn coalition to it

Robert never wanted to be king. He was barely trained to become a LP (his parents died when he was young) let alone a king. He was pushed in a role he hated at a time when he was suffering from depression and he was lumped with a wife he never loved. Could he had done a better job? Of course he could but at least he didn't start a civil war

This is where I am more critical of Robert. He was actually around 16 when his parents died, an adult in Westerosi terms, and had excellent role models in his father, Steffon, and his foster-father, Jon Arryn. I don't doubt that his parents' death affected him but he seems to have become stuck at that teenage level of irresponsibility and self-centredness.

Rhaegar undoubtedly received a princely education but his closest adult male role models were his father, Aerys, and his father's hand, Tywin Lannister (and we all know how Tywin's kids turned out). As far as mentoring goes, I think Robert got the better deal.

[NorthGirl]

On 06/02/2017 at 9:46 PM, Emie said:

A while back I made a post about how terrible of a person Rhaegar was for abandoning Elia and their kids and basically starting a war that killed thousands. While I'm still displeased with what he did, I actually think he was a MUCH better man than Robert. Not only was Robert a drunken womanizing moron who put his country in debt, but let's face it, he never actually loved Lyanna. I've noticed that some people like to make Robert out to be this romantic tragic hero, but was he really? Ned himself even said that Robert never really knew Lyanna. She was very intelligent, kind, funny and had a great "fire" about her as Ned would say. Lyanna is in fact the type of woman that turns Robert off. He preferred a woman who would sit pretty and keep her mouth shut while he does whatever he wants. And we all know that was not Lyanna at all. She would definitely have a thing or two to say to him about his escapades. Her fire would have driven him mad. He only "loved" her because she was physically beautiful and he would become part of the Stark family and be a brother to Ned. 

Rhaegar on the other had probably did see Lyanna's fire and was in fact truly in love with her and who she was. He saw her as a human being and not as an object, which makes him better than Robert. That among other things, he most likely would have been a very intelligent and competent ruler who obviously would have been SO much better than his mad father. 

I think it's a faulty premise to equate genuine love for Lyanna to being a good person. Even if Rhaegar loved her, he basically held a middle finger to his subjects and made a move that could only lead to further discontent from the other leading parties of the 7K and just a generation before his father's, a Baratheon started a rebellion for insult in matters of betrothal. He knew this, so if he did it for love he's piece of trash in my humble opinion. And yes I place more of the blame on him because Lyanna was 14/15 and he was a grown man past his mid-twenties with a wife and two kids.

And even if Robert genuinely loved her, he still raped and abused Cersei for 14 years, how the hell is love for anyone ever supposed to excuse that? Of course I am saying all of this as it pertains to his moral fibre, not whether he is likeable or whatever.  

Full disclosure, I despise Robert and find Rhaegar to be quite repulsive.

15 hours ago, Blueroses said:

As for Rhaegar, I don't know. At least he stayed kind and gentel to Elia. I've read somewhere before that considering that Elia was a dornish and that her weak health won't allow her to bear more children, she may didn't even have a problem with Rhaegar taking a "lover". But I will not make any deffinitive judgement on that untill/if we have a new book with more explanations.

I don't think it matters because what's at stake is not Rhaegar's sweet sweet loving but the fact that if Rhaegar can be so open about not caring for her, some people can get it in their heads to replace her and a nice nubile alternative can be a great tool. Her life and safety, as well as that of her kids', are in danger because of his actions. Let's remember what happened to their children AFTER both Rhaegar and Aerys were dead. I don't know how much you've read up on the Blackfyre Rebellions* but after a 5 generations civil war between the legitimate Targaryens and descendants of legitimised bastards, I would be surprised if she did. It take this even more seriously then any princess prior to the Blackfyres would have in her situation. Which would have already been plenty.

*not being a dick, I kind of was unaware of just how long  and arduous this stupid war was before reading the World book.

Also on your point about the conversation in season 1, while I LOVE that scene and it is definitely a perfect illustration of my understanding of Robert, it is a show adlib and combined with the explicitly stated intention of portraying a good man being a bad king, I am not sure it can be taken to reflect book Robert's feelings (whatever they are) about Lyanna. Then again, George might think Daario Naharis is cool so...

13 hours ago, devilish said:

Bob just couldn't understand why it was bad to sleep with other women when he was promised or married to the daughter of one of the most powerful Lords in Westeros or the madness behind humiliating his brother by sleeping with his wife's cousin on their wedding bed. 

And that's the sole reason why I see Robert as a worse person then Rhaegar. Unlike the stag, Rhaegar was given top quality education which was sealed by Tywin's and Selmy's own approval. He was a man designed to rule, a person who could understand the consequences of his actions and the pain such actions could bring. His actions not only caused the end of the Targ dynasty and costed the lives of his wife, his father, his brother and his children. It also paved the way for a new king who hated the role and was simply not good at it. All of which occurred not out of love but because of a stupid prophecy

Well, for Robert, I don't think he's unaware. In fact, one of the very few things I will give Robert is that he's aware of what a piece of trash he is. He just also is aware that he can get away with whatever the hell he wants and like all immature assholes he needs to be told he's great and nothing is his fault.

As for Rhaegar, and I guess this comes more from the WOIAF book than anything, he was woefully passive as a prince. The choice of wife for a Crown Prince is highly political move and he did not participate or care. He seemed to have done little while his father grew mad and only built a faction by being the better alternative. He had his bros, was closed off from everyone and that makes me believe that it was basically by association that people @joined his faction" against Aerys'.

Oh and following your logic, Rhaegar fucking up when he knew better would make him a bigger asshole in my opinion.

13 hours ago, Stormking902 said:

So many of you are saying o Robert never truly loved Lyanna, have you ever heard of love at first site?Robert was a GOOD man prior to the rebellion and there is absolutly no proof Robert would have cheated on Lyanna if they did get married, also Ned was like a brother to Bob I cant see him running around with every whore in KL since Ned would obviously here about it. 

Ummm...even if I believed in LOVE at fist sight, his behaviour while she was alive hardly speaks of love. He had a bastard before their betrothal and continued whoring afterwards. He was fucking whores during the Battle of the Bells, when he believed that "Rhaegar was raping Lyanna a hundred times". That's a terrifying definition of love. And honestly, I don't see any evidence that he was a better person pre-Rebellion. All we get is Ned thinking he has changed but then also getting flashback that seem to indicate that he just wasn't paying attention to Robert's faults as much and there were more redeeming sides that Ned saw. But Ned is not exactly a great reader of people. And that also holds for this posthumous pedestal he seems to have put Rhaegar on.

And sure, there is no "proof" that he would have cheated on her because we have not seen an alternative universe created by the author where that situation happens. But we have some strong evidence for it, unless we are no longer taking past behaviour as the best predictor of future behaviour? 

Ned was still like a brother to him while he was whoring before being king and as he was betrothed to Lyanna, why would it change? He still drags Ned to a place he says is dangerous and openly says he wants Ned to do the hard job while he plans to do fuck all. If the root of the argument is that he loved Ned so much, his best bro being alive and all, that should take precedence over his broken heart especially because his broken heart has nothing to do with dragging Ned down to hell with him. Shouldn't he want to preserve the family of the one he "loved" so dearly?

 

12 hours ago, Joy Hill said:

Rhaegar was a horrible prince, Robert was a horrible king. Both of them were horrible husbands and fathers (although Robert has the excuse of having had a wife who was equally horrible to him). It's hard to say which one was "better".

Lol this is said more succinctly than I could ever hope to achieve.

11 hours ago, LordDraymonDarklyn said:

Why? did he committed any crimes before this so called "abduction"? did he abused the others? burned people alive? treated them bad? i don't remember reading about it.

 Elia asked him if he was going to make a song for their newborn son, which means he must have done something like this before, probably for Rhaenys.

Not abusing and burning people is a very low bar to clear.

And making a song up is not much of an indicator of good parenting. Affection, at the most.

10 hours ago, Joy Hill said:

Making off with the daughter of a great House betrothed to the lord of another great House, and then hiding in a hole for a long time while the war he started escalates is enough to make him a spectacularly bad prince in my eyes. Robert didn't burn anyone alive, I still consider him to be a terrible king.

There's also the issue of humiliating Elia in front of the whole realm when she had just recovered from giving birth.

 Regardless, not moving them from KL and leaving one 17 year old of doubtful loyalty to keep them safe is not great protection.

Totes agree with the first paragraph. Especially, the hiding away part.

Ugh... when I remember she had just given birth, and almost died, the ick factors shoots through the roof. Just gruesome and a clear "well, since you're of no use to me anymore" move. 

To be fair to Rhaegar (gag), he had left them at Dragonstone, Aerys forcefully moved them to KL and when Rhaegar got back, he might have thought his father was way too unstable to try and go against his wishes. Still definitely believe he should have just done it and forgotten about his crazy dad. Once they were gone, there was little Aerys could do. Although, it is entirely possible that she was being guarded by members of Aerys' faction and trying to get them might led to an altercation that would have been detrimental to an already tenuously allied side.

Anywhoooo, I wholeheartedly believe they can be the same level of terrible. It is really hard to determine what is objectively worse. Both on the personal and the political levels, their being so far up their own asses made enemies of everyone who should have had an interest in defending them. People presumably working to depose his father, one of whom wanted him as king, could not back Rhaegar and the Lannisters instead of working towards his success were waiting on baited breath for the day Robert outlived his usefulness.

PS: someone mentioned Cersei not being as toxic with Rhaegar but let's remember this is someone who at 9/10 years old was torturing her newborn baby brother by twisting his penis, calling a nursemaid a cow with udders and later insults a poor fortune teller to get a prediction she wants out of her. Last time I checked, Robert did not trigger any of that behaviour. 

Sorry this is long and not saying anything new, but I have so many thoughts about the thoughts on this subject and I always come away with a new perspective.

[Lord Wraith]

10 hours ago, The Hoare said:

Because Lady Catelyn was stupid enough to kidnap Tyrion.

It was Tywin's obligation to do what he did

Agreed.

10 hours ago, The Wolves said:

I'm not excusing anything. 

Im trying to remind you that Rhaegar was never king so to compare his job as King to Robert's would be useless because Rhaegar was never a king. 

Agreed on the bit about Rhaegar not being King. Since we don't know Rhaegar's motivation for crowning and maybe kidnapping Lyanna its hard to judge, at least for me. As far as Robert goes we can see directly how he was as king and to wasn't great and he didn't seem to care about being king.

[devilish]

11 hours ago, The Hoare said:

Because Lady Catelyn was stupid enough to kidnap Tyrion.

It was Tywin's obligation to do what he did

Cat is married to a Stark and she was obeying her husband orders following an alleged crime done by Tyrion on a Stark. Tywin from all the people know how difficult it is to control a daughter whose married to a powerful husband

Tywin's pre-emptive attack was sound military strategy. He hoped to smash the Riverlands forces and make Hoster/Edmure hostages before the Vale and the North could react. With Hoster and Edmure hostages and forced to bend the knee, Robb's incursion to the South would be interpreted as an invasion rather then a rescue mission. The Riverlands Lords or even the Vale might interpret Robb's intention as hostile (ie it puts Hoster/Edmure's life in danger) which might have turned the Vale against the North.

I applaud Tywin's tactics however lets not kid ourselves that Tywin invaded the Riverlands because Cat did boo boo to the imp. If Tywin took that at heart then he should considered taking his armies to the mountains of the Vale to confront Lysa about her arrogance in judging his son. 

 

[desire]

I think you read the title of the series a song of ice and fire wrong

[devilish]

3 hours ago, Wall Flower said:

This is where I am more critical of Robert. He was actually around 16 when his parents died, an adult in Westerosi terms, and had excellent role models in his father, Steffon, and his foster-father, Jon Arryn. I don't doubt that his parents' death affected him but he seems to have become stuck at that teenage level of irresponsibility and self-centredness.

Rhaegar undoubtedly received a princely education but his closest adult male role models were his father, Aerys, and his father's hand, Tywin Lannister (and we all know how Tywin's kids turned out). As far as mentoring goes, I think Robert got the better deal.

16 is quite a young age for somebody to become Lord even for medieval standards. Also Steffon spent most of his late life away from the Stormlands. He served in the small council following the defiance of Duskendale and then he was sent to Volantis to search for Rhaegar's bride. 

Jon Arryn must have surely done his best with the boy which is evident considering Robert's military expertise during the rebellion. However there's a limit to what he could do. The boy was stronger then most men. He was LP to a very powerful region and he was the king's cousin. Discipline is very hard to enforce under such circumstances.

Robert was surely an arse, who could keep it in his pants and who had absolutely no idea about money but so were most kings. That's why there's laws about bastards and that's why small councils were set and hand of the kings were appointed. The important thing was not to get things too far like for example raping a noble woman whose father can raise armies or by crushing the economy to the ground. Robert stayed away from the former and had a rather unconventional way how to the settle the latter (ie by not releasing Jamie which means Joffrey will inherit Westerosi treasury from his mummy and his grandpa). He could have done better with raising his children (2 turned good 1 turned bleh) but again, that's mummsie's job which could have been delegated to somebody else. God knows how much Joffrey needed a year or two with grandpa at CR. Gregor Clegane would have been perfect to teach the boy some 'sword fighting'. Also Robert shouldn't have worried too much since he should have never become king. He was expected to be LP of a military oriented region and in constant alert to pounce if a foreign invasion occur or a Warden decides to play dirty. We both agree that Robert was 100% trained and fit for that role

Rhaegar is somehow different. He was gifted with everything, beauty, a sense of duty, intelligence, a sense of control, maturity and dignity way beyond others (and certainly above Robert's). Unlike Robert, Rhaegar was groomed from day 1 to rule.  Sure his father was cuckoo but he was protected by Tywin whom, for many reasons, acted more of a father to him then towards his own offspring (Tywin's ambition > his children). I disagree regarding the role model thing. Rhaegar had plenty of people to look up to including Sir Arthur Dayne and Selmy. The boy's rare level of maturity and down to earth mentality allowed him to treat these people as wise people and friends which contributed in him become far more mature than his age suggest.

The fact that he committed such silly mistake that not even Robert would do is frustrating. He knew his father was cuckoo and hated him and he also knew that the Northern people are proud. Best case scenario he would have been dethroned and disgraced, with his children losing their right to the throne and him being sent to the wall. Worse case scenario - well all know that

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Orphalesion]

4 hours ago, Wall Flower said:

This is where I am more critical of Robert. He was actually around 16 when his parents died, an adult in Westerosi terms, and had excellent role models in his father, Steffon, and his foster-father, Jon Arryn. I don't doubt that his parents' death affected him but he seems to have become stuck at that teenage level of irresponsibility and self-centredness.

I think one of the things ASoIaF tries to point pout that, yes, in primitive feudal societies people were forced to grow up quickly and conduct themselves as adults at an early age....but that doesn't mean they automatically have the mental maturity to cope with the situations and demands placed thrust upon them. AI can't imagine it being pleasant to be suddenly saddled with so much responsibility at such an early age, right after your parents died without warning.

Also do we know about Steffen's character? Or that of his wife?

Of course that all isn't an excuse for Robert's character, after all Ned faced the same situation after having his whole family wiped out,  but I still think there must be earlier reasons for his mental issues than Lyanna's death. 

Yes those things happened all the time in RL Feudal times, that's why the books repeatedly show us how much life sucks in societies like that.

[dariopatke]

14 hours ago, The Wolves said:

I'm not excusing anything. 

Im trying to remind you that Rhaegar was never king so to compare his job as King to Robert's would be useless because Rhaegar was never a king. 

Yes, but he was a crown prince and he was likely plotting to become king.

8 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

No we're not. 

We're talking about an invented fantasy world (and if the distinction seems artificial, I'd point out that Westeros' legal system is infinitely more rudimentary than those found in fourteenth century Western Europe).

More to the point, neither you, I, the poster I quoted, or George R.R. Martin lives in either Westeros or Medieval Europe. We're living in the twenty-first century. Saying that someone deserves death for "stealing a woman from another man" is embracing some very barbaric ideas - even if such an idea may hold in Westeros (which it doesn't, at least not for nobility and royalty), to trumpet it "out of universe" is just wrong. It's like saying that pillaging is OK, because it's just paying the Iron Price.  

I am against death penalty actually. But if you look at past times some things made sense then that do not make sense now, fe there was codex in 14th century in my ciuntry that is beyond barbaric today, but back then it was considered a good thing.

I know that Westeros is fantasy world, but whey I talk about it I usually go with our medieval age because itnis as close as we can get.

And I never said I would kill a man for stealing my wife, you are taking things out of context.

A man kidnapped your fiancee, what do you do? Try to rescue her. A man wishes you dead, what do you do? Defend yourself. We can do it with help of police, but Robert was in very weird position