I just thought I would mention that I have donated copies of my Key issues for a Clan Gunn history to the Orkney Islands library service - a copy is meant to be available from the Kirkwall library and the other will be at Stromness library. For other places of public access of the text see http://clangunn.weebly.com/clan-gunn-blog/key-issues-for-a-clan-gunn-history-access
The Orkney islands were a great place to go for a holiday - the neollithic archaeology was wonderful (it's a UNESCO World Heritage Site) and this includes Skara Brae, Maes Howe, the Ring of Brodgar, Stenness standing stones, the Broch of Gurness and much more. There was also good Viking history and we had a great trip around Scapa Distillery (near Kirkwall) which has excellent whisky. A visit to Hoy island was important to understand the Orkney islands in both World Wars (Scapa Flow and all that) and seeing the 'Old Man of Hoy' was of real interest. We also visited Rousay island for more great archaeology. I could go on but you get the idea of how fascinating these islands are...
Just a shame the Clan Gunn does not originate from the Orkney islands...
For information about how to acquire a copy see http://clangunn.weebly.com/key-issues-for-a-clan-gunn-history-by-alastair-gunn.html or check eBay where I often place a copy for sale.
It may yet be possible to throw further light on the possibility that the Gunns are a remnant of the Picts...'
Page 43, Ian Grimble, Chief of Mackay, 1993 edition
As I have often discussed, the Gunns do not have an Orkney / Norse / Viking origin but are far more likely to be part of the original Pictish inhabitants of Sutherland / Caithness / Strathnaver.
See http://clangunn.weebly.com/clan-gunn-has-no-orkney-origin.html for why the Orkney / Norse / Viking origin fails.
Maclean of Ardgour v. Maclean 1941 S.C. 613:
" From an allowance of proof the Court excluded all questions relating to the chieftainship and the relative positions of the parties within the clan, holding that neither chiefship of a whole clan nor chieftainship of a branch of a clan was a legal status justiciable in a court of law, but had the character of a social dignity only, and, accordingly, that the Lord Lyon had no jurisdiction to decide the disputed question of who had right to the chieftainship either directly or incidentally when disposing of the claims for supporters and for a birthbrief. [..] Observations: [...] on the meaning of "chief" and "chieftain" in the law and practice of arms, with opinion by the Lord Justice-Clerk that in the recorded cases in which a Lord Lyon had made a declaration of chiefship the declaration had been merely a ministerial act and not a finding in his judicial capacity upon a disputed question."
Lord Justice-Clerk, in Maclean of Ardgour v. Maclean 1941 S.C. at p. 636:
"There is no instance in the registers of any judicial decision by Lyon in a disputed question of chiefship or chieftainship…. In none of the writs which were before us can I find any support for a conclusion that Lyon at any time either claimed, or exercised, a jurisdiction to determine disputes as to which of competing claimants to chiefship or chieftainship was to be preferred."
Lord Wark, in Maclean of Ardgour v. Maclean 1941 S.C. at p. 657:
"I agree with your Lordships that Lyon has no jurisdiction to entertain a substantive declarator of chiefship of a Highland clan, or of chieftainship of a branch of a clan. [...] The question of chiefship of a Highland clan, or chieftainship of a branch of a clan, is not in itself, in my opinion, a matter which involves any interest which the law can recognise.