Will the tombs reveal Jons parentage? [Spoilers]

[MtnLion]

15 hours ago, tugela said:

She would be trueborn, and he would be a bastard. So the order of inheritance would be pretty clear unless she was also Rhaegar's bastard.

On the contrary, Daenerys was born nine months after her mother fled to Dragonstone.  It is just as likely that she is Darry's or some other's daughter as she is the mad king's.  Her mother was a Targaryen, yes, but they do not inherit through the female line. 

So, if we take Daenerys at her word, that she is a Targaryen, why shouldn't we take Jon (after he learns about it) at his word that he is a Targaryen?  The son's sons, grandsons, great-gransons all come before the brother (and sister).  Specifically, females and their descendants are barred from inheriting in the Targaryen line.  (Jon is not a bastard, that was his cover to protect him from Robert's wrath at Targaryens.  There are three Kingsguard that died protecting their king.  See at the tower of joy, the link is in my signature.) 

The Great Council could make an exception, but they would need to make a fair comparison of the claimants before making their decision.  The foreshadowing in the books tells me that Daenerys will eventually submit to Jon, but it will cost her to resist.  There is even a foreshadowing that Daenerys will loose at least one, likely two, and maybe all of her dragons. 

[MtnLion]

1 hour ago, El Guapo said:

 Rhaegar was already married and I see no reason why the people of Westeros will suddenly embrace polygamy, a practice that was stopped over what, 150 years ago,

 

That is the thing with precedence, it has happened, and we have not been told that it stopped.  GRRM even said that there must be more examples, and that he would make them up if necessary. 

[MtnLion]

2 hours ago, farm_ecology said:

The rumour that a dragon lives Winterfell

The hairs on the back of my neck stood up.  The rumor mill has it right.  There is a dragon living at Winterfell, he is Jon Targaryen.  (Targaryen == Dragon)  Barristan says that Rhaegar loved his Lady Lyanna and the Kingdom bled for it.  I sure wish we had gotten more information from him in the show.  I expected him to be around for the end. 

[CalvoHobbo]

2 hours ago, MtnLion said:

On the contrary, Daenerys was born nine months after her mother fled to Dragonstone.  It is just as likely that she is Darry's or some other's daughter as she is the mad king's.  Her mother was a Targaryen, yes, but they do not inherit through the female line. 

So, if we take Daenerys at her word, that she is a Targaryen, why shouldn't we take Jon (after he learns about it) at his word that he is a Targaryen?  The son's sons, grandsons, great-gransons all come before the brother (and sister).  Specifically, females and their descendants are barred from inheriting in the Targaryen line.  (Jon is not a bastard, that was his cover to protect him from Robert's wrath at Targaryens.  There are three Kingsguard that died protecting their king.  See at the tower of joy, the link is in my signature.) 

The Great Council could make an exception, but they would need to make a fair comparison of the claimants before making their decision.  The foreshadowing in the books tells me that Daenerys will eventually submit to Jon, but it will cost her to resist.  There is even a foreshadowing that Daenerys will loose at least one, likely two, and maybe all of her dragons. 

Well said. Your comment makes me think of the Blackfyre rebellion though. It would be nice if Dany accepted the rule, if Jon wanted it, or if Jon submitted himself, but I'm not so sure that those things would happen, specifically because GRRM has gone through a lot of trouble explaining the multiple Blackfyre rebellions to us. Because of the character traits Jon and Dany have, I am hard pressed to be persuaded to believe any reasons why they would fight each other, but the history of Westeros seems to suggest it's inevitable. 

With regard to Jon's "outing," I mentioned before that I think there is a really good opportunity for this information to already be recorded secretly by the order of the maesters and hidden in Old Town, leaving a perfect opportunity for Sam to discover it, possibly at the same time as when Jon finds out through Bran/crypt etc and/or when Dany finds out through Quaithe (I hadn't thought of that but I really like that possibility). Sam as Sam wouldn't have any influence with The Great Council, but Maester Sam certainly may. What if Sam becomes a Grand Maester? 

I reject any notion that LF knows the secret, because I agree that he would've used it, and I'm not so sure the timing works out. Didn't he get to KL towards the beginning of Robert's Rebellion? Now Varys on the other hand, I would certainly expect to know the secret. Varys could have many reasons to not disclose it. I've read some on here speculate that Varys is a Blackfyre etc, or may likely have some Targaryan based reason for helping Dany. But what if that is also why he appeared sympathetic to Ned? What if he wanted Ned to come clean with him in the final hours of Ned's life? We do know that Varys was active during the time of Rhaegar and Lyanna, and we know that he influenced Aerys in a way that turned him against Rhaegar. If that is true, considering how much information Varys always has, how could he not know about R + L?  

 

 

 

[MtnLion]

28 minutes ago, CalvoHobbo said:

I reject any notion that LF knows the secret, because I agree that he would've used it, and I'm not so sure the timing works out. Didn't he get to KL towards the beginning of Robert's Rebellion?

I will answer this for you.  Littlefinger was quite young, and in love with Catelyn, at Riverrun.  It appears that a year after Harrenhal, Catelyn's (and Lyanna's) betrothals are announced, and a date set, causing Littlefinger to challenge Brandon.  Brandon answers the challenge and after Littlefinger refuses to yield six times (I believe is the number, offhand) Brandon splits him open from buckle to neck.  For a fortnight Lysa tends Littlefinger, as he is too wounded to move, but after that fortnight Hoster ejects him from Riverrun.  He is born away on a litter to his home in the Fingers, still gravely wounded as Brandon is charging off to King's Landing.  (He had excused himself, promising to wed Catelyn when he returned from a "short errand", and he was on his way back when he received some word that had him rush off.)  It is about a year later that the war ends, and Ned returns home to Winterfell.  GRRM has said that Littlefinger was in no condition to cause any hostilities during the war, and I would agree.  That he would know anything about Ned and Jon is pretty dubious, as well. 

[tugela]

11 hours ago, Rory Snow said:

Unless Rhaegar & Lyanna were wed, then Jon's not a bastard and since Rhaegar was Aerys' heir, Jon becomes Rhaegar's heir.. or something like that..

Rhaegar was already married.

The only way to have a legitimate marriage would be for Rhaegar to have escaped death at the Trident (by having someone glamoured being there in his place, for example - potentially explained by all the mentions of the rubies on his cuirass) and then marrying Lyanna after Elia was murdered. That would imply that Rhaegar is still alive however. That could be rationalized in terms of him escaping to the north, crossing beyond the wall, and being turned into the Night King by the children. Since he is a "dragon", his WW form would have dragon horns, hence the small dragon like horns all over the Night King's head.

Jon will learn his true parentage when he meets the Night King face to face, and NK says in Darth Vader fashion: "Jon, I am your father".

Star wars with Valyrian steel rather than light sabres!!

[tugela]

4 hours ago, BulletTooth_Tony said:

the Iron Islands does it still.  Children of salt wives carry the full name and can inherit from their father.  And the Targaryen's have dragons again, for at least this moment, so the might makes right rules they previously used to justify it once again exist.  In theory, anyway.

The salt wives are concubines.

[tugela]

6 hours ago, Andrés Garcia said:

You are severely overstating your case. The presence of a Targaryen wedding cloak would indicate that Lyanna and Rhaegar were married. The term 'proof' is inappropriate here. What we are after with regard to Jon's parentage is evidence and indicators. A wedding cloak by its own may not be very good evidence, but in conjunction with some other piece of information, it may be enough in terms of story and characterization.

Even if there were Rhaegar items there, so what? It still would not prove Jon was Lyanna's son, just that she spent time with Rhaegar, which everyone already knows.

[tugela]

3 hours ago, MtnLion said:

On the contrary, Daenerys was born nine months after her mother fled to Dragonstone.  It is just as likely that she is Darry's or some other's daughter as she is the mad king's.  Her mother was a Targaryen, yes, but they do not inherit through the female line. 

So, if we take Daenerys at her word, that she is a Targaryen, why shouldn't we take Jon (after he learns about it) at his word that he is a Targaryen?  The son's sons, grandsons, great-gransons all come before the brother (and sister).  Specifically, females and their descendants are barred from inheriting in the Targaryen line.  (Jon is not a bastard, that was his cover to protect him from Robert's wrath at Targaryens.  There are three Kingsguard that died protecting their king.  See at the tower of joy, the link is in my signature.) 

The Great Council could make an exception, but they would need to make a fair comparison of the claimants before making their decision.  The foreshadowing in the books tells me that Daenerys will eventually submit to Jon, but it will cost her to resist.  There is even a foreshadowing that Daenerys will loose at least one, likely two, and maybe all of her dragons. 

Rhaella had a child, but that doesn't mean it lived. The theory regarding Daenerys is that she was Rhaegar's bastard, and was switched with Rhaella's stillborn child at birth in order to make her legitimate, since then she would have a claim to the throne which she otherwise would not have. That would have been very important to Targaryen loyalists looking to some future re-instatement of the dynasty. It would have been done for political reasons, and kept secret for the same reasons.

[BulletTooth_Tony]

27 minutes ago, tugela said:

The salt wives are concubines.

Their children would be considered bastards elsewhere... but not to Iron Islanders.  They carry the fathers name.

[drayrock]

6 hours ago, farm_ecology said:

I disagree that it must have something to do with Jon, there are plenty of other possibilities. 

Though something I only just considered: The rumour that a dragon lives Winterfell - I wonder is a reference to this in some way? Even so far as Rheagar himself being buried alongside Lyanna below the crypts? I agree that there are ways Ned probably could have done it, I just think having a very simple "son of x and y" would be very unsatisfying.

Although it did lead me to an amusing exchange:

Jon: "I.....I'm the son of Lynanna and Rhaegar?"

Sansa: "W-wait? You didn't know? Come on Jon, I thought everyone knew!"

Davos: "Yeah Snow, everyone figured it out. It's the worst kept secret in Westeros."

Tormund: "Even I knew, and I have no idea who Liona and Rhigar are!"

Lmao spot on. Tormund part da best.

The evidence is fairly stacked in favor of it being a Jon reveal:

1. Multiple Jon Snow dreams about the crypts and him not belonging there "him not being a stark" associating the crypts with Jons heritage.

2. Ned also dreams of the crypts shortly after thinking of how sad he is he won't see Jon again (indicating he won't be able to tell him the truth). This is also right after he thinks through his children and doesn't list Jon.

3. The very thing you mention, a dragon under winterfell, is more subtle evidence that the truth to Jons heritage, that he is the last dragon, lies in the crypts of winterfell. In asoif, typically these blantaly implausible stories have a symbolic payoff. The crone that Arya runs into is a great example, using the house's banners like stag, kraken, and lion to foreshadow future events. 

I think it's much more plausible these dragon under winterfell hints are subtle clues about a character or plot point than a literal ice dragon under winterfell. When in lore has there been an ice dragon? Even regular dragons cotf, and the others - the other magical entities - are mentioned in Lore. What narrative purpose would it serve, other than being super cool for fantasy fans?

Jon is the ice dragon mentioned and hinted at and the truth of this lies under winterfell.

My point with the double cut scene and the headstone was just a cool subtle way to reveal it. At this point, the build up has been 4 books long, two decades worth of waiting for some. I anticipate many will be dissappinted by the reveal just because of the hype machine that waiting has created. Personally I find something more subtle and less gimmicky/bread crumby more believable and rich. And I like it more than the predictable  Howland reed reveals...so some character we don't really know that has stayed out of the conflict for 5 books just comes into drop some knowledge about Jons parents? To what purpose? Unless he thinks it will help him become lord of winterfell, or has some green dream that Jon must know or the world ends, it doesn't make narrative since. Feels uninspired and unrealistic.

This way, Jon finds out on his own (with the help of Bran perhaps). It is revealed to both Starks (natural and bastardo) who had no prior knowledge, while still being a very intimate experience for Jon. It's more beautiful this way. His bastardness has defined and shaped him (for the better imo), it should be a personal experience. If done right, where the camera and Jon note the head stones of his other siblings (cousins) and uncles/aunts (mother) I think the build up would be subtle with hints for non readers about what was to come and great for fans who already know. I.e "Arya daughter of Eddard Stark of Winterfell and Caytelyn Tully of Riverunn, Lyanna Stark, daughter of Riksrc Stark of winterfell" and so on and so forth. 15 minutes later when you cut back to Jon and ghost leads him down its a build up and you get the "Jon Snow son of Rhaegar Targaryen of Dragonstone and Lyanna Stark of winterfell"

Interesting idea that Rhaegar is buried down there. To me seems a bit out of place and doesn't work with the timeline of robert's rebellion. I think it was Ned's love for his sister that kept this secret for do long, I don't imagine cold Ned stark had much love for rhaegar...granting him s place in the crypts would be quite an honor and an unnecessary risk getting his bones there (why would he at that point...he didn't know he was Jons father)

 

 

[CalvoHobbo]

29 minutes ago, tugela said:

Rhaegar was already married.

The only way to have a legitimate marriage would be for Rhaegar to have escaped death at the Trident (by having someone glamoured being there in his place, for example - potentially explained by all the mentions of the rubies on his cuirass) and then marrying Lyanna after Elia was murdered. That would imply that Rhaegar is still alive however. That could be rationalized in terms of him escaping to the north, crossing beyond the wall, and being turned into the Night King by the children. Since he is a "dragon", his WW form would have dragon horns, hence the small dragon like horns all over the Night King's head.

Jon will learn his true parentage when he meets the Night King face to face, and NK says in Darth Vader fashion: "Jon, I am your father".

Star wars with Valyrian steel rather than light sabres!!

You should really read the Tower of Joy thread opening post provided in the link by MtnLion's signature. There is quite a bit of evidence to demonstrate that Rhaegar and Lyanna WERE married, and yes, it polygamy, no it was not illegal, there is a history of it, some quite recent with regard to Rhaegar and and arguably it would've been acceptable (though not necessarily embraced) by the nobility in Westeros. 

It's a really well thought out and well written synopsis of the the R+L=J theory and the nature of Jon's heredity. 

[tugela]

5 minutes ago, BulletTooth_Tony said:

Their children would be considered bastards elsewhere... but not to Iron Islanders.  They carry the fathers name.

Westerosi common law is not based off Iron Island social custom. They could marry their sheep, but that doesn't mean sheep marriage would ok everywhere else.

[tugela]

4 minutes ago, CalvoHobbo said:

You should really read the Tower of Joy thread opening post provided in the link by MtnLion's signature. There is quite a bit of evidence to demonstrate that Rhaegar and Lyanna WERE married, and yes, it polygamy, no it was not illegal, there is a history of it, some quite recent with regard to Rhaegar and and arguably it would've been acceptable (though not necessarily embraced) by the nobility in Westeros. 

It's a really well thought out and well written synopsis of the the R+L=J theory and the nature of Jon's heredity. 

Not according the faith currently held by most Westerosi. While it is true that some kings hundreds of years previous had multiple wives, it was hundreds of years previous, and they were kings (who can do whatever they please). Rhaegar was not a king and hence bound by social custom and practice in force in contemporary society.

Also, for a marriage to be valid among highborn families, it would have to have been properly witnessed. It would also require the consent of the brides family, which clearly was not given as judged by the reaction of her father and brother. Not to mention, any highborn marriage had to be approved by the king before it could happen. Plus she was already betrothed to another. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that any such marriage was witnessed.

so, there are many strikes against:

1) It violated social custom.

2) It lacked consent from the brides family.

3) The king did not consent for the marriage to happen.

4) Lyanna was already betrothed, and that would have to be undone first before she could marry someone else.

5) No one witnessed it

It is reasonable to conclude then that no such legitimate marriage took place.

[Beric Zoolander]

Just have a hard time thinking that Ned would keep it secret and then just have it on full display in the crypts, as much as the crypts are a maze to most and would be hard to find.  It's still there to find.  Just doesn't seem reasonable. 

[BulletTooth_Tony]

14 minutes ago, tugela said:

Westerosi common law is not based off Iron Island social custom. They could marry their sheep, but that doesn't mean sheep marriage would ok everywhere else.

It's the Faith of Seven that forbids it.  The Faith of Seven is practiced in only half the continent...

We have no examples of the Old Gods dictating life and morals, let alone on this... unless we consider Wildlings and Craster part of that, in which yes, they take multiple wives.

And Dany tells Quentyn before his stupidity that her marriage to Hizdahr won't prevent him from marrying her.

And again, might makes right.  A King holds the absolute power in spite of Tommen being weak before the High Sparrow.  We don't know the details of any potential marriage between Rhaegar and Lyanna, but let's assume for laughs that Aerys himself facilitated it.  Now what?  He legitimized it in this example.  It's legal.  We also know that Rhaegar had plans to win at the Trident and return and remove his father from the throne by his own force.  Maybe the loyal lords already secretly annointed him King and his marriage was legal by his own right.  This is where the story needs to unfold.  There are many ways it's a valid marriage outside of the fact that the Targaryens do whatever they want.

[El Guapo]

8 minutes ago, BulletTooth_Tony said:

It's the Faith of Seven that forbids it.  The Faith of Seven is practiced in only half the continent...

We have no examples of the Old Gods dictating life and morals, let alone on this... unless we consider Wildlings and Craster part of that, in which yes, they take multiple wives.

And Dany tells Quentyn before his stupidity that her marriage to Hizdahr won't prevent him from marrying her.

And again, might makes right.  A King holds the absolute power in spite of Tommen being weak before the High Sparrow.  We don't know the details of any potential marriage between Rhaegar and Lyanna, but let's assume for laughs that Aerys himself facilitated it.  Now what?  He legitimized it in this example.  It's legal.  We also know that Rhaegar had plans to win at the Trident and return and remove his father from the throne by his own force.  Maybe the loyal lords already secretly annointed him King and his marriage was legal by his own right.  This is where the story needs to unfold.  There are many ways it's a valid marriage outside of the fact that the Targaryens do whatever they want.

 

No she doesn't.

Though I don't think Dany has a problem with polygamy on principle.

 

[tugela]

Since Aerys was paranoid about what Rhaegar was up to, it is extremely unlikely that he would have been party to anything like that. Rhaegar was basically committing treason.

The reason why the king has to approve marriages at a certain social level is because such marriages have political implications.

Rhaegar was never king so whatever he did carried no legal force. There was no marriage. A hypothetical marriage would fail all of the tests required for validity.

The Starks would have been entirely within their rights to seize Lyanna and marry her off to Robert, no matter what arrangement she and Rhaegar might have had, and THAT would have been a legitimate marriage.

[drayrock]

36 minutes ago, Beric Zoolander said:

Just have a hard time thinking that Ned would keep it secret and then just have it on full display in the crypts, as much as the crypts are a maze to most and would be hard to find.  It's still there to find.  Just doesn't seem reasonable. 

Fair enough, there are dissenters to every theory. I personally find it much more hard to believe he'd trust in a person or persons - with all their associated personal motivations or ambitions- or some kind of bread crumb trail. 

Personally I don't find it a risk as previously mentioned. Crypts and tombs in modern day ruins are still unexplored, and these tombs have people looking for and through them!  This is a crypt, that by almost a lawful tradition, allows very few outsiders in, and has been kept sacred for much longer, and therefore is much larger and more protected, than any tomb we've seen from a civilization in nonfictional human history. To me, it's not unrealistic to hide a tiny a r+L= J tomb in it, and I'd hardly call it full display if its in the depths of such a place we're describing. Particularly if it's past the collapsed part, physically blocked.

In my view, Ned made it for himself and his guilt, not for Jon. Jon only finds it with the help of the Brab/ the old gods and the power of weir-net. That's the beauty. Even if it was meant to be found it would be to provide a true history long after Ned and Robert and probably Jon had died. Not to give Jon insight.

Under your view of Ned Stark, nobody reveals it, only Bran and the reader/viewer know. At least until or if Bran comes in contact with Jon again....not as if Ghost can just bark the truth to him.

I wouldn't hate this, way less fan servicey. Beautiful in its own way...Jon becomes the hero and the man he must be despite his heritage...as a bastard...in a world where name and title mean so much. I could see George going this route.

I think the show might go more towards what I described though. They've given Jon an arc this season:

1. Not believing in anything, being totally lost. Nothing to live for. Not the Jon snow of before, that person died, he is a bit different.

2. Finding something to live for from an external party, I.e fighting for Sansa snd Rickon.

3. Literally regaining the internal will to live when he escaped being trampled in battle of the bastards. This comes after being pretty resigned to death at the start of the battle as the cavalry charges toward him.

To me, the obvious next step after died, resurrected, and resurrected with a true purpose is living with your new, true identity. And that identity is tied to his heritage and purpose, he'll need to know that when the dragons come around and he's gotta ride one!!

 

 

[Andrés Garcia]

1 hour ago, tugela said:

Even if there were Rhaegar items there, so what? It still would not prove Jon was Lyanna's son, just that she spent time with Rhaegar, which everyone already knows.

The answer to your 'so what?' is in the quote you replied to. Since it escaped you, I will make it clearer:

A wedding cloak by its own may not be very good evidence, but in conjunction with some other piece of information, it may be enough in terms of story and characterization.