Talk:Clan Gunn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject on Scottish clans This article is supported by the Clans of Scotland WikiProject, which gives a central approach to Scottish clans and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Clan Gunn, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] incorrect information

There is an enormous amount of incorrect information on the Clan Gunn and many other Scottish Clans on the internet. This article, which has been tweaked a great deal, started out with some inconsistencies and downright incorrect information. Most of this now appears to have been dealt with.

Early on there were some statements in the article, since corrected, that do need to be addressed further:

Olaf the Black, Norse King of Man, who has been touted as the ancestor of the clan was, in fact, only distantly related. The son of Olaf, variously called "Guin", "Guinne" and "Gunnie", and supposed by some to be the name-father of the clan, never existed. This is well-documented fact, not theory. Olaf was actually a contemporary of some well-known early Gunn chieftains, making it impossible for him to have been the progenitor of the clan. The idea that Olaf was the ancestor of the clan comes from some mistakes made in a 17th century "history" that, in fact, did not even mention the Clan Gunn. The best-documented and most likely ancestor of the clan is Sweyn Asliefson (Asliefarson in some references). There is also a theory that Sweyn's brother Gunni may have been the actual ancestor of the clan, but this is not yet proven. The confusion about Olaf the Black may also have risen from the fact that Sweyn's father was Olaf Hrolfsson.

The Gunns may have had Jacobite tendancies, surrounded as they were by supporters of the Stuarts, but there is no evidence that they were out in force wearing the white cockade. What is known for sure is that they did form a company of Loudon's regiment, lead by their chief. However, they apparently spent most of their time of service marching about their own neighborhood, watching for a potential landing of Jacobite forces. There is a report that some Gunns fought with the Farqhuarsons at Culloden. This appeared in a contemporary magazine that gave no details. Three Gunns from Sutherland were captured and transported after Culloden but, again, there are no details of where they served or how they were taken.

The last chief of the Clan Gunn was Morrison Gunn, d. 1785, as stated in the article. Again, there has been considerable ink devoted to the erroneous idea that Gunn of Rhives was actually the last chief of the clan. He was not, for the reasons stated. The person who had the strongest claim to the office of chief during the 19th century, actually outlived George. It is likely that he did not even know he was in line to be chief. He apparently left no descendants.

The person who has been identified as the heir to the chiefship, William Sinclair Gunn of Inverness, appears to have no interest in ascending to the office. Until such time as he either takes the steps to become chief, or dies, this matter is unlikely to be settled. For Gunns everywhere this is not a major problem. Gunn of Banniskirk, the appointed commander of the clan, is much-respected and loved by his clansmen and women and would make a grand chief, should he have the opportunity to gain the office.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.20.49.100 (talk) date

[edit] clan hostilities

I'm sure that any hostilities between the clans were resolved before 1978. Anyone have more accurate information?question.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.113.57.167 (talk) date

The actual bloodletting ended about 100 years after the Battle of St. Tears, when the Crowner's grandson is supposed to have ambushed and killed George Keith, extinquishing the male line of the Keiths. "Officially" the feud continued until 1978, when the treaty was signed but there is no record of fighting between the two clans after the mid-16th century. Hopefully this answers your question.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.20.49.100 (talk) date

[edit] changes to article

8/20/07 I have made some minor changes to the article. A previous contributor had used the surnames Robison and Robinson when referring to the Robson Gunns of Braemore, a cadet branch of the clan. These surnames were not used by the Braemore branch, as far as is known through contemporary records. A minor point to avoid any confusion. Robison and Robinson are spelling variations of Robson, which were not used in the time frame of the article. Both surnames are, however, common throughout Scotland these days, including in the Highlands. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.132.143.138 (talk) 12:01, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] crest badge and coat of arms

The person who has written a substantial amount of the piece on the Gunn Crest badge has made several glaring errors. The first statement regarding the “true coat of arms” is refuted by the Lyon Court’s recent ruling that no arms of the chief of the Clan Gunn are found in any of the registries consulted. The results of a search for chiefly arms were made known during the early to mid-nineties when there were two contenders for the vacant office of chief. One of the contenders, Michael James Gunn of Wick, believed he had found the chiefly arms, which were then in his possession, but the court ruled against him. As of this time there are no chiefly arms of the Clan Gunn known. The arms in Burke’s General Armoury, referred to by the writer are those of individual members of the Clan who have obtained grants of arms, not those of the chief. There is no such thing as arms of the Clan Gunn. There are the arms of the chief and the arms of individual members of the Clan who have obtained them through the Court of the Lord Lyon, the Scottish heraldic authority. As pointed out in another part of the article, arms in Scotland are assigned to individuals, not families.

The author of these statements also touches on the arms found on the Westford Knight, a rock carving in Westford, Massachusetts, which is purported to be the effigy of Sir James Gunn, mentioned earlier. The late Sir Iain Moncreiffe of that Ilk, Albany Herald of the Lyon Court, opined that these arms may be the earliest known representation of arms of a member of the Clan Gunn. However, Sir Iain qualified his comments by saying that these arms resembled those of members of other clans in the far north of Scotland when assigning them to a member of the Clan. While research is ongoing, there is still no solid documentary evidence to support this theory, plausible as it may be.

Finally, the writer refers to the crest badge as a coat of arms, when they are not the same. The crest is the device that surmounts the arms, not the arms themselves. In ancient times crests were worn on the crown of a knight’s helm while the arms were worn on the shield and surcoat. Since the writer does not cite a source for his statement that the dexter hand grasping a sword encircled by buckle and strap is not the true crest badge to be worn by the members of the Clan Gunn, we should probably continue to consider it as legitimate. It has been used for many years and was redesigned by the late Don Pottinger in the mid-eighties. Until such time as documentation is presented proving otherwise it will remain the crest badge of the Clan Gunn.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.20.49.100 (talk) 20:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I waited for the author of the information on the coat of arms/crest badge to reply to my comments above. However, he/she did not, so I deleted the erroneous informaiton. I also deleted the reference to the ancient tartan being good for camouflage. In fact, the ancient tartan is the brightest of the four tartans commonly worn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.20.49.100 (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Today I have made a couple of minor changes in the story of Gunn of Rhives. The changes concerned his appointment as a factor by the Countess of Sutherland.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.132.143.138 (talk) date
If there are no chiefly arms for GUNN how did the crest badge (its crest and motto) come to be? Is it from an Armiger's arms, or from the arms of a Clan Commander, or just made up by a clan society? Do you know? It'd be something to mention in the article.--Celtus (talk) 08:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The crest badge was in use over 150 years ago. I do not know its exact origina but it was definitely not "made up" by a clan society. The commonly used badge of today superficially resembles the badge of the Commander. I will contact the Commander to see what light he can shed on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.132.143.138 (talk) 11:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)