Post by Some Pig No Doubt on May 13, 2016 19:57:00 GMT
Although I absolutely believe Jon is older than Robb by anywhere from 1-6 months, I also absolutely believe that George worked himself into a continuity problem with the ages of the boys. Catelyn believes Ned sired him on campaign after their marriage, which should make Robb older than Jon by at least a month. However, in the text, Jon's name day occurs earlier in the year than Robb's - like late summer (Augustish, if you want to use the Roman calendar) whereas Robb's is more like late fall (Octoberish).
The only way this timing is possible is to have Jon being significantly younger than Robb, like nearly a year, but that isn't the case according to Cat's POV recollections and that "of an age" comment. So OK, maybe Jon was given a fake name day....fine and great, except that if this is supposed to be Ned's bastard son fathered out of his "needs" while off fighting the war, why the hell does he give him a name day that falls before that of his eldest son?
Then, if you want to bring the SSM about Dany being 8-9 months younger than Jon into it, there is absolutely no way that Jon can be 8-9 months older than Dany and still be younger than Robb, unless we want to believe that extreme preemies were surviving in medieval times, because Robb is not even 8-9 months older than Dany. Thing is, you can discount Dany's birth story and leave her out of it completely, but still work backwards using known events of the war - Assault on Dragonstone, lifting of the siege at SE, etc - to get an idea of approximately when things happened....and still, none of it works out.
I have gone over this timeline with a fine-toothed comb and have come to the conclusion that this is a GRRM-centric plot hole that has no resolution. IMO fans are just going to have to suspend disbelief or accept "I goofed" when the final reveal happens, because he wrote an unsolvable problem.