Well... Holy shit, she's a badass. --CrappyScrap (talk) 17:10, June 6, 2016 (UTC)

Yes, yes she is. GoT is DEFINITELY about women power.. at any age!! Love it. haha QueenBuffy 17:14, June 6, 2016 (UTC)

Age[]

The TV show itself stated in on-screen dialogue that one year passed between Seasons 1 and 2, and then one year passed between Seasons 2 and 3.

Some have brought up issues with the TV Timeline due to how they've played it fast and loose:

We're assuming that "one TV season equals one year" all the time until proven otherwise, but we at least don't have any on-screen dialogue stating the passage of time from Season 4 onwards - could only one year, or even six months, have passed during all of Seasons 4 and 5?

The thought occurs: in Season 5, Lyanna Mormont is directly stated to be ten years old.

I wonder if Season 6 will state she is eleven years old. This could be useful.--The Dragon Demands (talk) 04:33, April 23, 2016 (UTC)

I've already proven that season four cannot possibly take place over the course of a whole year. They haven't really played "fast and loose"... yes, it would be useful for us to have the timeline of events accurately mapped, but it's certainly not necessary for the show, and I very much doubt that the average fan cares. Timeskips occur, and the writers aren't under any obligation to explicitly spell out how long they are. - 08:15, April 23, 2016 (UTC)

Well, they are under an obligation - it's called "internal continuity" :) -The Dragon Demands (talk) 11:23, April 23, 2016 (UTC)

Father?[]

I've heard Theories that Tormund might be this girl's father. They said he fucked a bear once and I believe her mother was called (or nicknamed) a bear. Thoughts?Werebereus - ಠ_ಠ 23:21, June 28, 2016 (UTC)

Kingmaker[]

Lyanna stated that she "didn't care that Jon Snow is a bastard" when she declared he was the only king she would serve. The problem with herself, and the other Northern lords, acclaiming someone as their king with complete disregard to the laws of succession is that they all apply those same laws to their own houses for their own rightful successions. To be a reigning lord and the head of one's house, they're expected to uphold these laws. So when they overlooked the legitimate-born Sansa Stark, they all overstepped their authority by naming Jon their king, despite him (officially) being illegitimate. It would be as if the Anglo-Norman loyalists of Empress Matilda were to name Earl Robert of Gloucester their king, just because he was their general in the field against King Stephen. Sansa was the sole representative of House Stark, and was the driving force behind the rebellion against House Bolton's paramountcy in the North. She also deserved the credit for alerting the Arryn army to come to Winterfell, which completely turned the tide in the Battle of the Bastards. Jon nearly lost that battle due to his momentary recklessness. Being saved by the Knights of the Vale, I view it as a bit comical for the Northerners to be naming Jon the victor, when the actual tactical victory was due to the work of others. He fought valiantly on the field, yes, but his generalship that day was wanting.

If the Northern lords, including Lady Mormont, were to ignore the laws of succession when it suited them, then they should beware of any related bastards or ambitious younger-siblings whom may consider themselves more competent to rule their houses and lands. And even if Lady Mormont has no such bastard-cousins/siblings etc, she may have caused a precedent which may affect her in the future.

One may forgive the Northerners for needing a leader for the challenges to come. They could be forgiven for believing Bran Stark to be dead. But naming Jon King in the North while Sansa Stark was the official Lady of Winterfell in that moment is tantamount to treason. --Fenrir51 (talk) 15:33, July 2, 2016 (UTC)

"Where was Robert in the line of succession?!" -- Renly Baratheon, late Season 1

--The Dragon Demands (talk) 02:27, July 3, 2016 (UTC)

The difference here is that during Robert's Rebellion 20 years earlier, the Starks, Baratheons, Arryns and Tullys were overthrowing the Targaryrens because they were blatantly abusing their power at the cost of their kingdom's peace and stability. Whereas during the Battle of the Bastards, some of those Northern lords at the gathering in Winterfell had fought for House Stark. And the sole representative in Winterfell get's passed over for her half-brother. Robert was nominated as the leader and face of his rebellion because he was the closest relation to the Targaryen dynasty. And they weren't seeking to split from the Seven Kingdoms, but to replace those who they viewed as failing to live up to their responsibilities.

They fought to restore House Stark because they were their liege-lords for centuries. Jon Snow was not their liege-lord, nor any kind of lord except for being Lord Commander of the Night's Watch. Which he basically deserted. Personally, I view making him the King in the North comes across as simple audience-appeasement. And sure, having Winterfell in the hands of one of the good guys. But seeing Jon has no right to it, even as Ned Stark's alleged bastard, it's going to fuel some hostility within the Northern ranks. --Fenrir51 (talk) 13:53, July 3, 2016 (UTC)

King Jon died and is released from his oath. Bran knows that Jon is Jaehaerys, Lord of House Targaryen and rightful king. (He did hear Lyanna saying Jon's name) In the books Jon is already legitimized by King Robb 79.250.27.74 21:47, July 13, 2016 (UTC).

Being native to Bear Island[]

Since there was a warrior women culture in bear island, could we think Lyanna is a warrior like her mother?