Does Jon learn about his parentage due to the death of Rickon Stark? (spoilers potentially)

[Rumy Stark]

3 minutes ago, Jayc said:

Even if he tells Jon who else would believe them?

"Oh by the way, my brother traveled in time and found out my daddy is Rheagar Targ."

The only way those in story believe who Jon is has to be something similar to Dany hatching the dragons. Telling aint gonna work.

But what would be the point of hatching dragons at this point? They'd be too small to make a different in the final battle which is, at least in the show, right around the corner. 

I guess the issue here is trying to figure out why it matters that R + L = J, assuming that's true, and assuming that's what will be discovered in the crypts or at the TOJ, etc. *shrug*

[Xarkar]

3 hours ago, joma said:

but seriously why would Jon accept Rickons death when Jon knows Mel could bring him back, plus hes the only true born 'walking' heir of winterfell.

Jon doesnt even want to be alive at this point.  When he came back he said he didnt like the idea (or something similar) and then we see him telling Mel if he falls not to bring him back.

 

[Jayc]

7 minutes ago, Rumy Stark said:

But what would be the point of hatching dragons at this point? They'd be too small to make a different in the final battle which is, at least in the show, right around the corner. 

I guess the issue here is trying to figure out why it matters that R + L = J, assuming that's true, and assuming that's what will be discovered in the crypts or at the TOJ, etc. *shrug*

Im not saying hatching the dragons, but something like that for everyone to see. 

Seeing something in the crypts, or Bran telling him isn't enough for anyone else to believe. It has to be dramatic and visual and witnessed. 

Look at the effort from Dany AFTER she hatched 3 dragons in public. She had to steel an army, sack 3 cities, escape the Khal. Virtually no one believed who she was,  or cared who she was. In order for Jon to become the most significant character in the show to those in the story he is going to have to do something even more dramatic.

[Remdawg]

22 minutes ago, Jayc said:

Even if he tells Jon who else would believe them?

"Oh by the way, my brother traveled in time and found out my daddy is Rheagar Targ."

The only way those in story believe who Jon is has to be something similar to Dany hatching the dragons. Telling aint gonna work.

I know the show hasn't made too much of this idea but in the books there is the concept of King in Name vs. King in Deed. I think Jon's parents matter in so much as he's a Stark but its a misdirection. All that matters is he takes the mantle and does the deeds. 

[RhaenysBee]

43 minutes ago, Jayc said:

The only way those in the story finding out about Jon's true lienage would require some sort of burning, dragon, fire resurrection, which a lot of us, including me thought we would see at the beginning of this season. Bran telling Jon isn't going to mean much to anyone else. Who is going to believe them?

I just don't see Bran as the one who makes the big reveal to the those in the story. He's going to find out, but Its going to have to be something dramatic like Dany and the dragon hatching. I just don't see it happening with Jon.

For us the viewers, if we know, then that makes his character that much more important in the story. His ability to survive, etc...  

Unless Jon dies and is reborn again this time with fire, or the dragons show up and Rheagar or Viserion ends up being his best buddy, I don't see another likely scenario where those in the story find out other then Bran.

That is without a doubt a pretty big issue both in the books and on the show. How will the world find out that Jon is Rhaegar and Lyanna's son (if he is)? Because obviously we need more than a greenseer's word. Does the world have to find out? 

I mean I can make up half a hundred scenarios for this to go down. 

If Jon is really Rhaegar and Lyanna's son and this fact has any significance in his plot and the final outcome of the story, the world needs to know and accept it. How this will happen? Time to let my fantasy loose. Say there is a document to prove this. Maybe in Howland's possession, maybe in Lyanna's tomb, maybe in someone else's possession, this is just me tossing up ideas. Say the people left after the final battle have respect for written documents and don't tear the document (A la Cersei). If we pair this with Jon having proved himself, things might as well work out. Maybe it won't because people are dicks and they will demand more proof. Maybe they don't even need a document, people will just believe him because he is an honorable guy who saved the world. As a die hard Rhaegar fan, that wouldn't even bother me. 

(And I personally don't think that any fire related epicness is necessary to support R+L=J because fire is Daenerys's agenda and Jon is only half Targaryen (if he is at all))

If it doesn't have any significance to his plot and it only affects his character (it will give him new strength, new purpose, the ancient inner turmoil over who his mom is will be resolved) the world doesn't necessarily has to find out, it's enough if he does. 

Maybe Jon isn't even Lyanna and Rhaegar's child because Daenerys is. Maybe they are both Lyanna and Rhaegar's children. In that case, the question of evidence is not a question because Daenerys is good at PR and if she shouts down from Drogon's back that they are Rhaegar's children people will believe and accept it. 

 

[Melisandre's Rubies]

3 hours ago, TwiceBorn said:

Or can they? I am confused. I can't tell if Jon's wounds are healing. LSH is basicly a stinking zombie and Berric does not regrow his eye.

I was referring more to the fact that they don't just stay an open wound. Losing an eye, regardless of whether you die it won't grow back. If you suffer from a severe cut, you will probably be left with a scar even if you survive it. Dondarrion has scars from his wounds but he is not still bleeding, suffering from an infection, etc. They have shown us Dondarrion who bears the scars of his wounds but not unhealed wounds. Jon's wound to his face has healed but he still bears a scar. Similar as to how Tyrion is left with a scar from the Blackwater, whatever the magic it can allow them to come back and heal from the wounds but no more than one would naturally. As for the books, my assumption on LSH's wounds, both physical and mental, not healing fully are in large part because of how long she was dead before she was brought back. 

Assuming then that while one can heal from a burn, one can't heal from being literally roasted. Even now with the technology we have if a certain amount of the body is burned, depth of the burn, impact on internal organs, can still be deadly. We haven't seen any resurrections where someone is missing vital organs except perhaps in wights, but they are walking dead not undead. 

[~DarkHorse~]

4 hours ago, joma said:

but seriously why would Jon accept Rickons death when Jon knows Mel could bring him back, plus hes the only true born 'walking' heir of winterfell.

They could try, but the Lord of Light only brings back those who serve a higher purpose in the upcoming war. That is unlikely to be Rickon, unfortunately. 

But after her success with Jon, it would be strange if Jon and Davos don't consider having Mel try to resurrect him.

[Ser Not Appearing]

The idea that he finds a rusted old harp, a voice in his head says he's King and then not only he but others buy into it is ... preposterous.

It's a worse basis for a system of government than strange women lying in ponds and distributing swords.

[TickTak7]

5 hours ago, El Guapo said:

There is no "Targs = fire proof" thing.  Viserys was burned and so was Jon.

There is however a "Daenerys = Fireproof"  thing on the show.

 

I believe the director of that episode meant for the interpretation to be Targs = fire proof. 

[tugela]

7 hours ago, TwiceBorn said:

Or can they? I am confused. I can't tell if Jon's wounds are healing. LSH is basicly a stinking zombie and Berric does not regrow his eye.

Wounds will reheal just as they would if they were still alive. Berric does not regrow his eye because regrowing eyes is not part of healing.

Jon will end up with scars where the blades entered his body, but beyond that he should be the same.

[Nymeria Pao]

Um, why would Jon bury Rickon in the crypts?  Aren't the crypts only for the old Kings of the North and after the Targs only the Wardens of the North?  Isn't the whole thing about Lyanna being down there the whole hint that she was the Queen of Westeros and that's why Ned put her there?  Maybe there is something in her tomb but I don't think Rickon's death would show it.  Maybe if they get Ned's bones? 

But this is the show so maybe it doesn't matter.

[El Guapo]

30 minutes ago, Nymeria Pao said:

Um, why would Jon bury Rickon in the crypts?  Aren't the crypts only for the old Kings of the North and after the Targs only the Wardens of the North?  Isn't the whole thing about Lyanna being down there the whole hint that she was the Queen of Westeros and that's why Ned put her there?  Maybe there is something in her tomb but I don't think Rickon's death would show it.  Maybe if they get Ned's bones? 

But this is the show so maybe it doesn't matter.

The more important question is why would Jon after burying Rickon in the crypts think it would be swell idea to desecrate his aunts tomb.

 

 

[RhaenysBee]

41 minutes ago, Nymeria Pao said:

Um, why would Jon bury Rickon in the crypts?  Aren't the crypts only for the old Kings of the North and after the Targs only the Wardens of the North?  Isn't the whole thing about Lyanna being down there the whole hint that she was the Queen of Westeros and that's why Ned put her there?  Maybe there is something in her tomb but I don't think Rickon's death would show it.  Maybe if they get Ned's bones? 

But this is the show so maybe it doesn't matter.

I think Ned buried Lyanna (AND Brandon who wasn't queen of anything) there because he really loved them and was shaken by their death and was willing to go against tradition to reunite the family at least in the crypts. 

10 minutes ago, El Guapo said:

The more important question is why would Jon after burying Rickon in the crypts think it would be swell idea to desecrate his aunts tomb.

 

 

He absolutely wouldn't. The only time there's a reason or excuse to open Lyanna's tomb is AFTER finding out she was Jon's mother. I can see Bran/LF/whoever telling Jon that he is Lyanna's son and if he doesn't believe he should open her tomb blah blah. And then Jon opens the tomb and finds... a document? A letter? A harp? A bunch of roses? I don't know. But I don't think it's necessary to harass Lyanna's tomb to make a point. 

[yakisikli123]

9 hours ago, ilikethesebooks said:

I had a thought earlier, perhaps Rickon will die in the battle/be executed by Ramsey. Battle ends, Jon and friends win the battle, Jon goes into the crypts to bury Rickon, finds Rhaegar's harp or something like that maybe in Lyanna's tomb or Bran whispers something to him and he learns of R+L=J that way perahps?

5 hours ago, Jayc said:

Or that Bran will learn but it won't be until he next encounters Jon that Jon learns, etc. 

This seems unlikely to happen and also Bran or Daenerys, why should he believe them.

It should be anybody from TOJ (Howland Reed) nobody else.

The others would believe more easy for example Bran or Daenerys or Mel or Davos or wildlings, but Jon, for him its very important subject, therefore it should someone, who was personally there.

 

 

[TickTak7]

1 hour ago, Ser Not Appearing said:

The idea that he finds a rusted old harp, a voice in his head says he's King and then not only he but others buy into it is ... preposterous.

It's a worse basis for a system of government than strange women lying in ponds and distributing swords.

I agree. 

However, the reveal of his parentage combined with a potential victory for him at Winterfell, combined with the whole coming back from the dead thing, is a pretty good campaign platform if he is to be the new King in the North. 

Don't forget, the Northern lords appointed Robb Stark as their King in the North - he wasn't a legitimate King or someone that was recognized by the crown, just someone the North appointed on their own. 

The North could do the very same to Jon Snow

[tugela]

4 minutes ago, TickTak7 said:

I agree. 

However, the reveal of his parentage combined with a potential victory for him at Winterfell, combined with the whole coming back from the dead thing, is a pretty good campaign platform if he is to be the new King in the North. 

Don't forget, the Northern lords appointed Robb Stark as their King in the North - he wasn't a legitimate King or someone that was recognized by the crown, just someone the North appointed on their own. 

The North could do the very same to Jon Snow

The coming back from the dead thing will not carry much weight, because almost no one saw him dead in the first place. The only witnesses are people who are a select few individuals with no real social standing, and any claims that he was resurrected would be met with general scepticism.

[RhaenysBee]

7 minutes ago, TickTak7 said:

I agree. 

However, the reveal of his parentage combined with a potential victory for him at Winterfell, combined with the whole coming back from the dead thing, is a pretty good campaign platform if he is to be the new King in the North. 

Don't forget, the Northern lords appointed Robb Stark as their King in the North - he wasn't a legitimate King or someone that was recognized by the crown, just someone the North appointed on their own. 

The North could do the very same to Jon Snow

While I kinda agree, let's keep in mind that Jon, as of now, is a bastard and Robb was a legitimate Stark and the Lord of Winterfell. 

At the end of the day though, Jon will be whatever Martin wants him to be in whatever way Martin decides. 

[permaximum]

10 hours ago, ilikethesebooks said:

Yeah doesn't make sense but the plot is gonna stall hard if Mel just revives everyone who dies in Jon's company. 

No. The plot has already stalled hard when Mel resurrected Jon. After that any sane person would call for all the red priests in the realm and pay for their resurrection services. That way he can keep himself and loved ones alive no matter what.

Too bad there wasn't a red priest nearby when Ned, Robb, Catelyn, Oberyn, Stannis, Robert, Barristan etc. died. Through some nonsensical plot armor Jon was resurrected by Mel thanks to Davos' totally out-of-character corpse protection services, then his sudden realization of resurrection as a possiblity and finally his surprising pressure on Melisandre for someone he saw for a few hours at most.

And you still worry the plot may stall...

[IrisBest]

7 hours ago, RhaeBee said:

 

If it doesn't have any significance to his plot and it only affects his character (it will give him new strength, new purpose, the ancient inner turmoil over who his mom is will be resolved) the world doesn't necessarily has to find out, it's enough if he does. 

 

I've been wondering if this might be how it goes, since it could end up being impossible to prove and maybe ultimately only a few characters will know about it. It'll be highly relevant to Jon and a few others personally and would certainly have a big impact on his dynamic with Dany when/if they meet, which may be the most important thing, plot-wise. 

Idk why but I really like the idea of Rhaegar or Lyanna (or both) having left a letter to Jon which Ned perhaps hid in the tomb. Mostly because it'd be more interesting if Jon actually got a real message from one or both of his bio parents which answers questions (for Jon and the readers) instead of just finding some symbolic item.

[Maid So Fair]

There are plenty of good reasons for Jon to visit the crypts even if Rickon lives. Paying respects to his dead father for example. Sansa certainly hanged out there a lot when she was at WF even though nobody had died recently.