Could the Tuttle's be distant Tullys?
Weird theory, I know but I can't shake the feeling they have something to do with one another. It could be like how Karstarks are distant Starks. They have similar features (green eyes, medium brown hair, pale skin, round or oval facial structure), both fight for the Starks and we're never told how House Tuttle even began. Is it possible some bolts fell loose from the Tully's?
Sign in to comment in this discussion.
Comments
Well the Tully's are lords from the Riverlands and the Tuttle's are smallfolk from the North, so that's quite a distance between eachother. Their appearance is probably just a coincidence.
Tuttle isn't a noble house they're commoners.
I'm saying remnants of the Tully's could have birthed children (perhaps bastards) into small town in which they abandoned but took the name Tuttle due to the number of bastard Tully's
The real question is why the Tuttles have a surname at all. They're pig-farming smallfolk, not nobles, which means they wouldn't have one. I can only assume Lord Forrester gave Duncan the opportunity to have one when he made him castellan somehow.
I think they may have been intended to be a larger family. Not a noble house or anything like that, mabye just a big enough family to have a surname, mabye.
The same way well known commoners like Janos Slynt have surnames. Duncan likely took the name after becoming Castellan in order to distinguish himself from the small folk. Gared, wanting to become a great warrior someday, did the same. Gregor may have also promised that the Starks would grant the Tuttles an actual noble house, and with Ned (and later Robb) as lord, that woud've been perfectly feasible. However, given the current power balance, such a case is quite unlikely in the near future.
Everybody has f**** surname. Martin is just lazy to create one for common people.
First of all there is no house Tuttle, they are just family that serves Forresters.
Unlikely.
A noted by others the Tuttles were smallfolk, not nobles from a cadet branch of the Tullys. Duncan appears to be the first of his family to rise to prominence, and Gared was born into a family of pig farmers. Also there is no indication that Duncan ever had the Riverlands bastard surname of Rivers.
How f**** ignorant of you. Not in the sort of time period this is set in. Europeans only started using surnames between the eleventh and fifteenth century. The Netherlands didn't use them at all until Napoleon annexed them in 1795. The fact is, when you're illiterate and unlikely to travel further than the next town over in your lifetime you don't need the distinction of a surname. If you needed to specify, you'd just say where you were from (Pate of Duskendale). Gradually some people started to use their profession as a surname (Baker, Smith, Fletcher etc), so instead of being Tom the carpenter, you'd become 'Tom Carpenter', but otherwise smallfolk didn't bother. Davos is a good example, being a lowborn from Flea Bottom. He didn't become Davos 'Seaworth' until Stannis made him a nobleman and gave him land. He chose a surname, because he didn't have one and suddenly needed one. But some lowborns still don't bother to choose one when they rise in the hierarchy. Bronn just became 'Ser Bronn of the Blackwater'.
Uh no. Its based off medieval politics and society, and in those days peasants didnt have surnames. It wasn't until much later they did and based it to distinguish their families career (blacksmiths = smith, etc) it was very VERY rare to have an uncommon surname outside nobility.
Every citizen of Roman empire had a surname.
This is a very heated conversation over surnames.
This isnt based off the roman empire, its more closely related to the british medieval. Where peasants did not have surnames.
The arguments on the forums get more ridiculous every day.
Actually it kind of is based parly on the later Roman period. Khal Drogo is basically Attila while Danerys is Honoria. Game of Thrones is not set at any particular time in history with parts of it being in the great migration period where as others are the high middle ages and the end of feudalism. So it's perfectly reasonable for peasants to have surnames.
I'm sorry bro but you're wrong on both counts. GoT is an amalgamation of history much of the Westrosi history is certainly based on British medieval history but as with the example I showed there are bits that are borrowed from all over.
On the surname issue I can personally attest to having a family tree that goes back to 1210 with an ancestry of peasant farmers. So even if your point about GoT being solely set around the war of the roses you'd still be wrong by at least 250 years.
Certainly Game of Thrones is an amalgamation of different cultures throughout history, but Drogo and Daenerys are in Essos, not Westeros, and some of Essos does have naming conventions similar to that of the Roman Empire. So that example doesn't really apply to Westeros where the majority of the story is set, and especially not to the 'everyone' has a surname generalization. And while it's perfectly reasonable for some of the peasants to have surnames, which they certainly do for various reasons (Slynt, Seaworth etc.), just based on the books, leaving actual history aside, there's no suggestion that all of them do. Quite the contrary, most don't.
Tullys have red hair though?
I think only Catelyn but not in the show
They describe Hoster as well as Edmure as having reddish beards. So maybe the males have red brown hair and the females as having pure ginger. But yeah definitely not in the show.
The Tuttles probably just got their surname when Duncan was elevated to castellan, and the similarity to House Tully is likely a coincidence, as even in our world, some unrelated names are slightly similar. Besides, Westeros has plenty of families with similar names, I mean there are at least three with "wood" as a part of it (Waynwood, Hornwood, Smallwood), so it is most likely a coincidence.
Well he does resemble a fish...
Tuttle's ain't even a house.. They are small folk of a smaller northern house (Forresters).