Talk:Clan Gunn

incorrect information[edit]

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 Asliefsson (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. Smibert (1850) suggests otherwise - that the name is Celtic or pre-Celtic reflecting those who lived in the area. (In the same way that Caithness reflected the Catti who lived there.) The are many flaws with the idea of a Viking link, not least that there is no known proved link - and much to suggest otherwsie. See http://clangunn1.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/concerning-ottar-snaekolls-son-or-part.html

Thanks for the info but blogs are banned as sources on Wikipedia.QuintusPetillius (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 (actually we know the Chief led a regiment - we do not known if had Gunns), led 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, although he was the son of the heir male.

The person who has been identified as the heir to the chiefship, William Sinclair Gunn, died in the spring of 2009. His son, and the heir apparent, has been quoted in Scottish newspapers as being interested in being chief, but not in leading the Clan, which, of course, should be the first priority of any chief. He, like his father, has not taken the formal steps to be recognized as chief by the Lyon Court, so at this time the situation remains the same, with Iain Gunn as Commander. Gunn of Banniskirk, the appointed commander of the clan, is much-respected and loved by his clansmen and clanswomen 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 Lord Lyon has rejected the claim and rejected the idea of converting the Commander to Chief.

(There is no 'Clan Gunn Australia' as shown in the links.)

Not all the Clan Gunn likes the idea; it's just the Clan Gunn Societies arrogantly believe they have a right to speak for all Gunns when they do not! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.231.92 (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The below is irrelevant as Lord Lyon has rejected the idea.

This idea is only contentious for a few. The majority of the Clan (not true - perhaps the majority of the Clan Societies which is not the same thing) , who actually know the Commander, think he will be a great chief if given the opportunity. (Disregarding societies, the clan members in Scotland, many of whom signed the original petition to the Lyon Court, seem to think Iain would make a good chief). The protestors are merely squeezing sour grapes. If you understood the ancient history of many Scottish Clans you would know that sometimes bloodlines failed and someone had to take the reins. Some times the chief simply failed. In the current case the bloodlines of the supposed heir have not yielded a leader and there is some doubt about the descent through the female line. (No doubt about female descent - Lord Lyon has accepted the idea quite some time ago). (Female descent has been accepted but the particular female in the line still has questions). The heir male (not proven) (he has not petitioned as yet and may never do so. The genealogy done by Hugh Peskett for Michael James Gunn shows him as heir male although my understanding is there are more questions in the genealogy than originally thought) is an American who has expressed mild interest from time to time but has made no move to petition. If I read you correctly, you would rather have a person with no strong interest or ability to provide leadership and representation of the Clan over a person who has actually served the Clan for over 40 years and has exhibited the necessary qualifications to lead. I hope that you do not get your wish. The Lyon Court will make the ultimate decision, which may be to do nothing. The Clan may never have a chief but if we have a Commander of the quality of Banniskirk we will be well-served. For someone who thinks having a chief is an anachronism you seem overly concerned about bloodlines. At any rate, as said above, the Lyon Court thinks enough of the idea to consider appointing an officer of the court to work with the Clan. If a family convention is held and the result is ratified by the Lyon, whatever it happens to be, then we - including you - will simply have to live with it. And, to address a major point you made, the Clan Societies outside the UK are not driving this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.108.70.7 (talk) 03:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

clan hostilities[edit]

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

changes to article[edit]

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)

crest badge and coat of arms[edit]

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)[reply]

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 information. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The crest badge was in use over 150 years ago. I do not know its exact origin 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)[reply]

During his visit to my home recently I asked the commander how the crest badge came into use, since there are no recorded arms for a chief of the Clan Gunn. His comment was that it was in use traditionally and that he felt it came from arms matriculated by an early Gunn armiger. Until such time as someone actually ascends to the chiefship and is granted arms by the Lyon Court it is probably safe and best to continue to use the traditional crest badge, which is widely known and accepted. Sorry to have been so long in replying to the query.

I think the whole Crest issue needs revisiting --

The full document of Coats of Arms and Crest Badges by Lord Lyon can be found at http://www.scotarmigers.net/pdfs/info-leaflet-2.pdf and it says -

Many established and reputable Clans do not have a Chief, where the Chief’s line has died out or been lost — possibly through long past emigration of the line who are now heirs to the Chief ship. No Chief can exist for such Clans till a claimant comes forward and proves to the Lord Lyon King of Arms that he is the senior heir, when the Lord Lyon will Officially Recognise him as the Chief  ... In some such cases, the Arms and Crest of a former Chief are known from past records, though not the present Chief. His clansmen may wear the Crest Badge of the last known Chief, which would be the same as that of his present undiscovered successor. In some cases there is no such record, and the clansmen have no Crest Badge for their Chief at all, nor will have until a Chief is discovered.

Now I could be wrong but given there has been no Clan Gunn Chief recognised by Lord Lyon there are no Gunn Chief granted arms by Lord Lyon so there is legally no Crest Badge for the Gunns according to the Lyon statement. And he's the man who writes the rules. 85.210.207.40 (talk) 15:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You probably are wrong. Around the mid-80s, the crest badge used by Clan Gunn was re-designed by Don Pottinger who was the artist for the Lyon Court. Whether or not that gives the badge any authority is debatable but in point of fact, an officer of the court did the work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.108.54.145 (talk) 13:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The crest badge seem to have come from Gun / Gunn Munro of Braemore's arms 'I have been reliably informed'; it can be found with a search. Those with an original copy of Sinclair's book can find it on the title page.

Secondly just because a crest badge has been tidied up by someone who works for Lord Lyon does not mean it is Lord Lyon approved; all Lord Lyon's documents state clearly that crest badges must come from the arms of the Chief. No ifs or buts about it. Lyon writes in his current Coats of Arms and Crest Badges booklet (note the last sentence) -

Many established and reputable Clans do not have a Chief, where the Chief’s line has died out or been lost — possibly through long past emigration of the line who are now heirs to the Chiefship. No Chief can exist for such Clans till a claimant comes forward and proves to the Lord Lyon King of Arms that he is the senior heir, when the Lord Lyon will Officially Recognise him as the Chief  ... In some such cases, the Arms and Crest of a former Chief are known from past records, though not the present Chief. His clansmen may wear the Crest Badge of the last known Chief, which would be the same as that of his present undiscovered successor. In some cases there is no such record, and the clansmen have no Crest Badge for their Chief at all, nor will have until a Chief is discovered.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.48.68 (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Lyon Court has yet to come down on the many users of this badge in Scotland and require them to stop using it, I would assume that this matter is of no great import to anyone except yourself, which was really my point in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.108.54.145 (talk) 13:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC) Clan[reply]

The point being that the law is broken; the Clan Gunn Crest Badge does not legally relate to the Clan Gunn. Lyon Court has other things to do than chase up on this matter - not least as I expect its ability to deal with legal issues outside Scotland (let alone the UK) would be minimal. If people want to pretend the Clan Gunn Crest Badge has merit then so be it. It's this belief in fairy tales I find ludicrous. I like academic and legally based Gunn history - not myths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.66.253 (talk) 22:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Opaque phrase[edit]

I cannot parse "with "'n being second son'". Perhaps someone who understands it can improve it. --Wetman (talk) 22:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I have never encountered that before and, with some knowledge of Norse naming patterns, I would have expected to run across it. Perhaps the writer can cite a source for this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.20.49.108 (talk) 18:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tartan[edit]

Would it be worth finding another picture of the tartan? The picture referenced in the article appears to be quite different to the Gunn tartan on most of the clan heritage sites. 81.157.75.34 (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The tartan depicted, as the caption says, is based on the description of Gunn Tartan in the Vetarium Scotium, the almost certainly bogus work published by the Sobieski Stuarts (they claimed to be the unknown children of Bonnie Prince Charlie) in the 19th c. A lot of modern tartans are based on the descriptions in that book including the Gunn tartan. It would be nice to add the four modern variants if illustrations can be found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.20.49.108 (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism?[edit]

the order of the crescent sun sounds kind of fake, and this article is the only mention of it. Tinynanorobots (talk) 05:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality[edit]

This is the first time I've felt compelled enough by an article's clearly not-neutrality to create an account and do something about it. There is a significant amount of language in the entry that is clearly not neutral (one example: "And, with the increasing power of genealogical sites on the internet (such as ancestry.co.uk) it will be only a matter of time before the real Chief is found (if that actually matters)." ). I'd really like to see this cleaned up, by myself or others, to edit and update this to not be quite so biased. Tricoteuse (talk) 14:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)Tricoteuse[reply]

Hi Tricoteuse. I will remove the line in question. Its a stupid line. Ancestry.co.uk is not going to identify the real chief anyway.QuintusPetillius (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Links to personal website...[edit]

Leodgunn, you've added an external link to your personal website several times now, and been reverted by two different editors. Please have a look at WP:EXT, which gives guidance on this, and in particular the line that runs "you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent". If you've an interest in the history of the clan, consider editing the article itself, which would be welcomed. Hchc2009 (talk) 22:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll remove my link if Clan Gunn removes theirs. It is there personal site as well.

I have just as much right to add my external link as you do or anyone else does: wikipedia, the peoples encyclopedia. I am an historian my link is "external" you have NO right to keep deleting it. Leave it up or I'll get the page suspended and removed for edit warring. There are other external links on the page I did not remove, only mine was removed. You have no right to remove an external link as long as it applies.

Please also see: Wikipedia:Identifying and using self-published works#The problem with self-published sources.QuintusPetillius (talk) 07:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know who this is and he is no historian, just a person who claims to be a Gunn and really is not. He just likes to stir up whatever muck he can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.110.143.56 (talk) 23:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Clan Gunn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:54, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]