R+L=J v.89

[MtnLion]

Yeah, of course, he switched sides twice, first from Aerys to Robert (switch or die), then from Joffrey to Dany (switch or retire).

There is the option of the Night's Watch, he may yet again switch sides. ;) This will be interesting.

[MtnLion]

Catelyn saw Ned with a baby. The baby was Jon. (In Winterfell)

Catelyn said that when she arrived with Robb, Ned was already there with Jon and his wetnurse. She probably didn't know whether she travelled with them or if she's a woman they found in Winterfell.

As I recall, Catelyn mentions Jon in the care of his wetnurse, no mention of Ned being present when she arrived. However, it would be strange for Jon and wetnurse to arrive and take up residence without some direction from the Lord. We know that Ned had some errands to run, like returning a horse, and letting families know about sacrifices.

[Aeron_Damphair]

I thought this thread was about R+L=J.

The Barristan thing tied in like 4 pages ago, but I admit even I had forgotten why. Something about Ned seeing the ToJ 3 as the most honorable knights to ever don the white cloak even though he also generally thought Barristan honorable. When discussions quibble about little details, you can go off on tangents that are hard to trace to origin.

[BearQueen87]

As I recall, Catelyn mentions Jon in the care of his wetnurse, no mention of Ned being present when she arrived. However, it would be strange for Jon and wetnurse to arrive and take up residence without some direction from the Lord. We know that Ned had some errands to run, like returning a horse, and letting families know about sacrifices.

Yes the quote seems to imply he was in the North but not at Winterfell

Ned brought his bastard home with him, and called him "son" for all the North to see. When the wars were over at last, and Catelyn rode to Winterfell, Jon and his wet nurse had already taken up residence.

[ArabellaVidal]

"Switched sides" though, meaning it was chosen for him. I love Selmy but had Joffery and Cersei not thrown him out, would he have honestly gone searching for Dany?

I've always wondered what he would have done in regards to the Sansa situation given how they were introduced to each other.

As for R+L=J, I agree with Unmaskedlurker's assessment of the theory and hope someone takes up the challenge. Please?

[Jon_Samwell_Snow]

What Sansa thing?

Never mind, I remembered.

I think I saw another R+L=J theory in forum.

[honeyed chicken]

Not generational, I will be 63 soon. Reading comprehnsion and retention are key to putting pieces of the puzzle together. With some of the others, I am positive that some of them are literature biased, like Ygrain who teaches literature.

By generational, I was referring to the youthful air of certitude (both for and against) on this thread.

[teej6]

Oh, you think he’s dead, do you? LOL

Jocking aside, I certainly can't exclude Jon will die, but only when his story arc is complete. It's basic narrative economy: incipit, crescendo, climax/payoff. As for the 'hero protected by his destiny', I'm a classicist and Greek tragedy has taught me early on to never expect a 'Disney end' from a tale. Some posters on these boards think Martin has kind of 'revolutionized' storytelling by employing 'unexpected' twists and characterial 'greyness'. Well, a careful look at a few tragic (anti)heroes and relative story arcs will offer us some food for thoughts. I believe Martin is simply following in on the path established 3000+ years ago by some illustrious predecessors (he even mentions Homer as an inspiration) and ASoIaF is at its core a classical tragedy, whose symbolical and emotional backbone is supported by archetypes. In short, the song is the same but there are endless ways of singing it.

^ This. The Greek and Hindu myths (both of which have many similar stories/characters) did not have happy endings in the modern sense. These stories had cataclysmic wars in the end and the author(s)' side may have prevailed but the main heroes/protagonists had to pay a heavy price to achieve this victory. Why, even the Arthurian tale doesn't have a happy ending. Like FrozenFire3, I believe that GRRM is following these story lines. These myths have the usual hidden prince, chosen one, reluctant hero tropes but the heroes in these stories don't always have happy endings. They may end up achieving the goals they were destined to but not in a manner that modern readers expect them to. This may mean several things like the hero having to do uncharacteristic (maybe even unvirtuous/dishonorable) deeds, or losing people close to him, or perhaps even dying. So what if Jon Snow is a typical classical hero. As long as GRRM can tell a good story about his journey from bastard to the destined savior of the world, it does not matter. This is why I don't get the argument about cliched or predictable characters. If GRRM's aim was simply to destroy tropes, ASoIAF would eventually become predictable and so boring.

[Alia of the knife]

Completely agree, well said. :)

[mambru]

Once again you misunderstand me, but once again I'll take part of the responsibility because I wasn't as clear as I could have been. I was not appealing to consensus on this thread. I was appealing to consensus among Westerosi.

If it's the consensus in Westeros, then surely you'll have no problem showing me where in the books a number of objective Westerosi (or even one) said that Barristan had acted dishonorably in renouncing landless, throneless Viserys even though he belonged to the overthrown Targaryen dynasty (as I asked in my post to you).

And sorry to hark back a little, but this exchange embodies a lot of what has always puzzled me regarding the Jon-IS-king theory:

Oh, yeah, that's another rule that doesn't actually exist in the books AFAIK, but you're still using it to prove your theory - the rule that a KG must be with the King at all times, or else he is without protection... and therefore, the KG must remedy this instantly by abandoning whatever mission they've been assigned to to run to the king. You think the fact that the KD didn't IMMEDIATELY run to Viserys (even though Viserys has a knight they admitted is trustworthy, and a garrison of soldiers) proves that they don't think Viserys is the King.

This weirdly specific rule that that a KG must be with the King at all times, or else he is without protection... and therefore, the KG must remedy this instantly by abandoning whatever mission they've been assigned to to run to the king...can you QUOTE me anyplace in the books where this weird rule appears?

IIRC, this rule doesn't appear in the books. In fact the books specifically contradict that supposed rule. The books say (during the KG meeting Jaime presided over) that the king CAN be left with trustworthy non-KG men...and the book doesn't specify what time limit exists on this and under what other circumstances this can occur besides a meeting of the KG. So again, you're relying on a rule you've essentially invented without evidence, to prove your theory, instead of tailoring your theory to the rules that actually appear in the books.

I don't think it is making up rules to observe that the KG have chosen to be with Jon and not Viserys and infer that Viserys is not king. No reason to go point by point.

So it looks to me like you're using this totally unwritten rule that "A Kingsguard must be with the King at all times, and if the King is without a Kingsguard, the KG MUST abandon all their duties and run to the King immediately" to prove that Jon is the King, because according to this unwritten rule, if Viserys is the King the KG would have abandoned their orders to protect Jon and run to Viserys immediately. But you're also using your unproven assumption that Jon is the King to prove that the rule exists.

That is, in brief: "We know Jon is the King, because the Kingsguard are with him, and the rule is that the Kingsguard must ALWAYS be with the King, and so they would have abandoned Jon if he was NOT the King. And the proof that the rule exists is that the Kingsguard stayed faithfully by King Jon's side, following that rule."

There IS no rule written in the books that the KG must run to the King immediately if he has no Kingsguard - in fact, the books say that the king CAN be left with trustworthy non-Kingsguard for an unspecified period of time. So you're using the unproven assumption that Jon is the King to prove that the rule exists, and you're using your unproven assumption about that rule of the KG to prove that Jon is the King. That looks like circular logic to me. You can't use one unproven assumption to prove another unproven assumption.

And IMO, I do think Duskendale seems to indicate that the KG are NOT free to abandon everything and rush to the King's side regardless of previous obligations and commands. Yes, I know that Duskendale's lord threatened to kill Aerys if his fort were taken, so an open attack won't work. But you're telling me it took six months for the Kingsguard to figure out it might be possible to sneak in through the sewers?

And once Barristan decided it was possible, why did he meekly ask permission from Tywin to do it, IF the KG rule is that NO obedience to the orders of a lesser authority can stop the KG from rushing to the King's side?

[hoyasaxa]

I think you might be thinking of Wylla? The wet nurse at Starfall? She nursed Jon as a baby and when asked by Robert to say Jon's mother's name Wylla is the one Ned gives (and then hurriedly moves the scene along)

Yah you're right. Thank you for clarifying!

[Ser Creighton]

^ This. The Greek and Hindu myths (both of which have many similar stories/characters) did not have happy endings in the modern sense. These stories had cataclysmic wars in the end and the author(s)' side may have prevailed but the main heroes/protagonists had to pay a heavy price to achieve this victory. Why, even the Arthurian tale doesn't have a happy ending. Like FrozenFire3, I believe that GRRM is following these story lines. These myths have the usual hidden prince, chosen one, reluctant hero tropes but the heroes in these stories don't always have happy endings. They may end up achieving the goals they were destined to but not in a manner that modern readers expect them to. This may mean several things like the hero having to do uncharacteristic (maybe even unvirtuous/dishonorable) deeds, or losing people close to him, or perhaps even dying. So what if Jon Snow is a typical classical hero. As long as GRRM can tell a good story about his journey from bastard to the destined savior of the world, it does not matter. This is why I don't get the argument about cliched or predictable characters. If GRRM's aim was simply to destroy tropes, ASoIAF would eventually become predictable and so boring.

I have to reject the notion of Jon as a classical hero archetype. On appearance and the surface Jon may seem to fit the bill. But Jon is and always has been a mixed bag. He has some makings of the everyman, but his birth right comes into conflict with this. He has some tell tale signs of a Post Marxist class warrior though often times his high born status has granted him opportunities that he would not have otherwise as a high born bastard he walks between two classes and none in a sense.

Superfluous man? A bit but he lacks the existential boredom. But actually rather close to the concept in many ways.

Frozen Fires comment on anti-heroes is appropriate for Jon but is a very broad term these days, Sam as well could be considered an anti-hero. Sometimes when Jon is in a mood he takes on the a role more fitting of a Byronic hero figure. Though Jaime and Tyrion far surpass him in this category. A goal oriented hero, very true with Jon yet we just watched him stray from the path he has chosen to walk. Tragic? There is tragedy around Jon but will it end for him like this? There is tragedy around just about everyone in and out of the books. Pragmatic anti-hero? He does try to be pragmatic at times, but often both Jon and the reader view being pragmatic through the eyes of a highly moral compass. There is not a lot of neutrality in Jon and not a lot of high morality in pragmatism.

Some readers often think that Jon' comment on a good deal ending with both sides being unhappy is a good thing. In truth this usually leads to renewed conflict, as we see one unhappy side decided to stab Jon. In his preparation for the Others, he sent off his fleet and men to Hardhome though he questioned the probability of success along with his other officers. But he just had to try despite the odds. Not pragmatic. His use of the Wildlings was pragmatic in one sense even Marsh understood that. But not so pragmatic that the food supply is brought into question, or all the extra mouths to feed outside the Wildling Warriors which Jon mentions as being about 1 in 5 or 1 in 4. That is not pragmatic. Tywin for all his flaws was one of the books most pragmatic figures. Jon wanting to March south was not pragmatic at all, he was removing a great portion of strength from the wall, this force would take casualties in battle. It threatens to involve the crown, he is leaving a point with a strategic advantage of shelter and food to March hundreds of miles south in winter to a heavily defended super fortress with a superior force.

Here you see Jon' morality in conflict with his practicality. I would not call any of the characters in the book a hero, Martin by his own admission does not believe in them. He does believe in heroic deeds, but prefers a more realistic look at his character, exploring the conflict of the human heart, what drives their individual choices, failure and redemption.

Some fans often turn a blind eye to the failures of individual characters but Martin loves failure because it allows him to explore redemption. Some things are beyond redeeming but that does not stop him from exploring those aspects. The man seemed almost giddy with his idea to throw Bran from a window. Fans probably thought they were getting this young sort of King Arthur type and then I tossed him out the window. He loves to use sorrow and grief to motivate character choices along with anger and frustration.

I think it is advisable for readers to take a good look at the Dance epilogue if you haven't in awhile, there is a lot to be found their including subtle symbolic hints about Jon and other main characters but also there appears to be a changing gears involving tone and themes.

2/3 of that chapter is devoted to Martin getting his ducks in a row, he basically gives you an update on where the World Stands and throws in lots of little hints about characters. But it's the last third of the chapter that you seem him literally change gears. In half a page he goes from autumn to winter. The moment he does everything gets darker, colder, shadowed. Morality is out the door, here is where people start getting their hands dirty. I also suggest exploring the imagery of the White Winter Raven bathed in Moonlight and cold, the children emerging from the dark with their daggers ready to strike at a man. The very begining of the chapter also opens with an almost Poe like sort of tapping, rapping, rapping and we eventually end up with Ravens.

And the raven, never flitting, still is sitting, still is sitting

On the pallid bust of Pallas just above my chamber door;

And his eyes have all the seeming of a demon's that is dreaming,

And the lamp-light o'er him streaming throws his shadow on the floor;

And my soul from out that shadow that lies floating on the floor

Shall be lifted - nevermore!

There is a very gothic like feel to the final scene of the epilogue. Robert Strong is also mentioned heavily in the epilogue, which is a take on Mary Shelley' Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus, which lends to the dark gothic horror romance novel. I suspect Darkness will be the main theme of winds both within and without and we will see all the characters having to make dark choices not matter how much we like them and may not want to see it. How else can we appreciate the light if we do not explore the darkness?

I think this will delve farther into the human condition than previous works by Martin, and the idea of heroes and villains may become something more along the lines of survival, sorrow, and redemption. Though I think redemption for some and not all.

I don't think it is impossible for Martin to create heroic figures, and readers may decide that this is a hero, but he will generally give people enough to question the notion. Though in some cases if you want someone to be something bad enough you may just label it that way. I don't know if labeling will really help understand the character but I guess it makes some feel better. If you were to look at Dany's titles that would be the kind of labeling you would need to do to describe what class you think the individual character falls into. I prefer to think of him as Jon Snow the protagonist of his life.

[The guy from the Vale]

^ This. The Greek and Hindu myths (both of which have many similar stories/characters) did not have happy endings in the modern sense. These stories had cataclysmic wars in the end and the author(s)' side may have prevailed but the main heroes/protagonists had to pay a heavy price to achieve this victory. Why, even the Arthurian tale doesn't have a happy ending. Like FrozenFire3, I believe that GRRM is following these story lines. These myths have the usual hidden prince, chosen one, reluctant hero tropes but the heroes in these stories don't always have happy endings. They may end up achieving the goals they were destined to but not in a manner that modern readers expect them to. This may mean several things like the hero having to do uncharacteristic (maybe even unvirtuous/dishonorable) deeds, or losing people close to him, or perhaps even dying. So what if Jon Snow is a typical classical hero. As long as GRRM can tell a good story about his journey from bastard to the destined savior of the world, it does not matter. This is why I don't get the argument about cliched or predictable characters. If GRRM's aim was simply to destroy tropes, ASoIAF would eventually become predictable and so boring.

I fully agree. The "hidden prince" trope has already been subverted (if you can call it that) in one of its earliest versions 2500 years ago. Oedipus was the hidden prince of Thebes, and ultimately became king of Thebes not due to his birth, but because he freed Thebes from the Sphinx. His discovery, years later, that he actually was the son of his predecessor was many things, but certainly not a happy moment for him - because it meant he was an incestuous kinslayer.

[Dornishwoman's Husband]

http://moviepilot.com/posts/2014/07/18/game-of-thrones-sean-bean-confirms-that-fan-theory-about-jon-snow-s-mother-2094244?lt_source=external,manual,manual#!bjL3jb

Looks like Sean Bean confirmed he's not Jon Snow's daddy :)

[Jon Weirgaryen]

http://moviepilot.com/posts/2014/07/18/game-of-thrones-sean-bean-confirms-that-fan-theory-about-jon-snow-s-mother-2094244?lt_source=external,manual,manual#!bjL3jb

Looks like Sean Bean confirmed he's not Jon Snow's daddy :)

We know. We knew.

Depends on which interview you read. In this one, http://www.vulture.com/2014/07/sean-bean-legends-game-thrones-chat.html he no more than confirms that he feels, the interviewer's idea of Bran seeing him in a flashback is worthwile and he would be oh so happy if that was true.

added: yes he also confirms that he is Bran's father but not Jon's father. Just for completenes ... and not getting misunderstood.

and since I am at it, here's the other one: http://moviepilot.com/posts/2014/07/18/game-of-thrones-sean-bean-confirms-that-fan-theory-about-jon-snow-s-mother-2094244?lt_source=external,manual

Is it iappropriate to quote my own ramblings from upthread?

[UnmaskedLurker]

If it's the consensus in Westeros, then surely you'll have no problem showing me where in the books a number of objective Westerosi (or even one) said that Barristan had acted dishonorably in renouncing landless, throneless Viserys even though he belonged to the overthrown Targaryen dynasty (as I asked in my post to you).

And sorry to hark back a little, but this exchange embodies a lot of what has always puzzled me regarding the Jon-IS-king theory:

So it looks to me like you're using this totally unwritten rule that "A Kingsguard must be with the King at all times, and if the King is without a Kingsguard, the KG MUST abandon all their duties and run to the King immediately" to prove that Jon is the King, because according to this unwritten rule, if Viserys is the King the KG would have abandoned their orders to protect Jon and run to Viserys immediately. But you're also using your unproven assumption that Jon is the King to prove that the rule exists.

That is, in brief: "We know Jon is the King, because the Kingsguard are with him, and the rule is that the Kingsguard must ALWAYS be with the King, and so they would have abandoned Jon if he was NOT the King. And the proof that the rule exists is that the Kingsguard stayed faithfully by King Jon's side, following that rule."

There IS no rule written in the books that the KG must run to the King immediately if he has no Kingsguard - in fact, the books say that the king CAN be left with trustworthy non-Kingsguard for an unspecified period of time. So you're using the unproven assumption that Jon is the King to prove that the rule exists, and you're using your unproven assumption about that rule of the KG to prove that Jon is the King. That looks like circular logic to me. You can't use one unproven assumption to prove another unproven assumption.

And IMO, I do think Duskendale seems to indicate that the KG are NOT free to abandon everything and rush to the King's side regardless of previous obligations and commands. Yes, I know that Duskendale's lord threatened to kill Aerys if his fort were taken, so an open attack won't work. But you're telling me it took six months for the Kingsguard to figure out it might be possible to sneak in through the sewers?

And once Barristan decided it was possible, why did he meekly ask permission from Tywin to do it, IF the KG rule is that NO obedience to the orders of a lesser authority can stop the KG from rushing to the King's side?

Ok, I have tried to explain this point to you over and over again, but for some reason I feel compelled to try again. You are building a straw man. You are mischaracterizing what people think the rule happens to be. The rule is not that the at least one KG must physically be with the king at all times--we know that is not true under specific circumstances. For example, when the KG are having their meeting, no KG will be with the King. Under extreme circumstances where the KG have been ordered by the king to guard someone else during a crisis, the KG follow the king's orders. No one has said that there is a "run to the king" rule--you are misunderstanding the position of the majority on the board (and no--I am not saying that because you in the minority you are wrong, I am saying that I merely find your reasoning unpersuasive and you continually mischaracterize the position of the people taking the opposing view).

The point that people have been trying to make to you is that the "first duty of the KG" is to guard the king. No one is using the guarding of Jon as proof of this duty. Multiple characters make this point in the story (Jaime being one--I cannot remember the others). In order to satisfy this first (or primary) duty, at least one KG must be assigned to guard the king. You may say I am making this up, but I don't think so. The first duty necessitates at least one KG being assigned as the guard to the king for the first duty to be able to be satisfied. In addition, if you look throughout the series, while there may be times when the king does not have a physical KG guarding him, there is never a time when at least one KG has not generally been assigned as the principal duty of that KG to guard the king. The opposite has not happened in the story because if it happened, the KG would not be fulfilling their first duty.

So the issue becomes, if the king dies and the new king is without a KG assigned to him, what is the obligation of the KG? Logically, someone in charge (hand of the king or LC of the KG or new regent if new king is a minor or new king--whoever is in position to make the decision) needs to assign at least one KG to the new king. If a KG is not near someone in charge, then yes, the KG probably should attempt to get to where the new king happens to be to make sure at least one KG has been assigned to protect the new king. That may not mean "run to the new king" but it means get to the new king as soon as practicable and start the duty as guard to the new king. Again--I do not believe I am making up this rule. If you look at the behavior after Robert died, there is an effort of the KG to move the assignments to make sure Joffrey has adequate protection. This behavior is merely a logical extension of the known fact that the first duty of the KG is to protect the king.

So now move to the ToJ situation. The KG are asked by Ned why they are not with Viserys at Dragonstone. Ned is basically asking them why they are not with the new king (and giving them passage to leave unmolested and go to Dragonstone). Their answer is that the KG do not flee. This answer would be incoherent if Viserys is the king. And they don't just say they don't flee, Hightower says they don't flee, and Dayne adds "then or now." That statement is so important. When Viserys first goes to Dragonstone (then), the KG would not have any reason to go with him as he was at best 3rd in line to the throne (behind Aerys and Aegon) and so going to him "then" would have been fleeing when the king is still in Westeros and the dynasty is under attack. But Dayne makes a point to add "now" to the sentiment. That addition only makes sense if Dayne wants to clarify that going to Viserys NOW would be fleeing. How does that make sense if Viserys is their king? They make it clear in other statements to Ned that they are still loyal to the Targ dynasty and consider Robert the Usurper. They make it clear that they are KINGSGUARD and take their VOWS very seriously. They say that going to Dragonstone NOW would be fleeing. The first duty of the kingsguard is to protect the king. How can these facts not add up to the conclusion that Viserys must not be king in their eyes and they are fulfilling their vows to the new king--Jon.

I know I have tried to make these points to you before, to no avail. But I have tried to answer your specific concern in an attempt to explain where your logic breaks down and how you are misunderstanding the position that others are taking. Try to follow my reasoning carefully and with an open mind, and see if maybe you might at least open up to the possibility that the 3 KG at ToJ are guarding the new king (and therefore, R&L were married).

[BearQueen87]

There IS no rule written in the books that the KG must run to the King immediately if he has no Kingsguard - in fact, the books say that the king CAN be left with trustworthy non-Kingsguard for an unspecified period of time. So you're using the unproven assumption that Jon is the King to prove that the rule exists, and you're using your unproven assumption about that rule of the KG to prove that Jon is the King. That looks like circular logic to me. You can't use one unproven assumption to prove another unproven assumption.

And IMO, I do think Duskendale seems to indicate that the KG are NOT free to abandon everything and rush to the King's side regardless of previous obligations and commands. Yes, I know that Duskendale's lord threatened to kill Aerys if his fort were taken, so an open attack won't work. But you're telling me it took six months for the Kingsguard to figure out it might be possible to sneak in through the sewers?

And once Barristan decided it was possible, why did he meekly ask permission from Tywin to do it, IF the KG rule is that NO obedience to the orders of a lesser authority can stop the KG from rushing to the King's side?

Do you mean small meetings between the KG where they have to swear that the King is protected by other people? If yes, the situations are wholly different. Tommen, in this case, is inside the Red Keep, with Gold Cloaks and Lannister guards, not smack dab in the middle of a rebellion after the city has fallen. The 7KG meeting only meet for 15-20 mins in the red Keep. This is a very brief window of time. This is not: the prince/heir apparent has fled because the rebels are bearing down on us.

And I still really don't think you can use Duskendale. Like Apple Martini pointed out some pages back, Aerys had a KG but the KG was killed. The KG storming the gates puts the king in MORE danger in this case.

[stateofdissipation]

Another thread asked the significance of the men that Ned brought with him to the ToJ. It failed to address the obvious:

House Sark White, a direwolf courant argent. House Dustin of Barrowton two longaxes bladed gules crossed, a crown between sable, House Glover of Deepwood Motte Silver mailed fist on scarlet, House Cassel Ten white wolf heads, House Wull Azure, three wooden buckets tenné, a bordure chequy cendrée and white, House Ryswell of the Rills Bronze, a horse's head sable orbed and maned gules within a bordure, Only Howland Reed is the head of House Reed and the Lord of Greywater Watch had no coat of arms

---- Ethan Glover (Silver mailed fist on scarlet) had been arrested along with Brandon and was Aerys' prisoner in King's Landing. Hightower was present for the execution of Brandon and Rickard.

The signficance of the men Ned brought with him to the ToJ was visual. Hightower, Dayne, and Whent at the Tower of Joy saw 7 riders approaching. Lord of the North and five men that were recognizably members of five houses of the North (Aerys' prisoner was among them). 600 miles south of King's Landing.

The showdown at the ToJ starts from there.

[FrozenFire3]

I fully agree. The "hidden prince" trope has already been subverted (if you can call it that) in one of its earliest versions 2500 years ago. Oedipus was the hidden prince of Thebes, and ultimately became king of Thebes not due to his birth, but because he freed Thebes from the Sphinx. His discovery, years later, that he actually was the son of his predecessor was many things, but certainly not a happy moment for him - because it meant he was an incestuous kinslayer.

This post is plain perfection. We could pile up precedents btw.

Now I wonder, when people cling and appeal to Martin's unprecedent and extraordinary trope subverting, is it simply lacking knowledge or...?

[The other prince]

http://moviepilot.com/posts/2014/07/18/game-of-thrones-sean-bean-confirms-that-fan-theory-about-jon-snow-s-mother-2094244?lt_source=external,manual,manual#!bjL3jb

Looks like Sean Bean confirmed he's not Jon Snow's daddy :)

I still think it is a big deal to hear it from Sean Bean.