On the non-existent Gunn ‘Chiefs’ before Gunn coroner / crowner
There is no reference to the Gunns in the public records until 1647 when they appear on the scene as covenanters.
Page 124, 'Northern Scotland' Volumes 7-9, Centre for Scottish Studies, University of Aberdeen, 1986.
Page 124, 'Northern Scotland' Volumes 7-9, Centre for Scottish Studies, University of Aberdeen, 1986.
The ‘Chiefs’ between Snaekoll and Gunn coroner are traditionally viewed as--
Ottar[2]
Both of the above ‘Chief’ lines start with Ottar and the normal view is put forward by Mark Rugg Gunn[3];
Ottar is mentioned twice in Eirspennill’s ‘Hakon Hakon’s Son’s Saga’[4] The first occasion is when he visited Norway. ‘After that King Hakon went to Bergen. There Gillechrist and Ottar, Snaekoll’s son, and many Hebrideans, came to meet him there from the west beyond the sea and they had many letters concerning the needs of their lands.
This is the supposed proof that 'Chief Gunn' Snaekoll had a son called Ottar. Now certainly a Snaekoll had a son Ottar - but this Snaekoll and Ottar are not Gunns even though the information has been absorbed into the Gunn quasi-official histories.
There are many reasons why the above Ottar does not relate to the Gunns –
As well, in the extremely detailed Orkneyinga Saga –
The Orkneyinga Saga would have had such detail about these key events concerning Snaekoll as all the gossip about an Earl murderer (Snaekoll) would have been in the Saga as they were the gossip magazines of their time. The absence of information about Snaekoll’s marriage and childen[5] is a very strong indication that such events did not happen as the Saga does otherwise have significant detail about where Snaekoll lived, and with whom, before he was exiled to Norway.
Without Snaekoll having a son Ottar the supposed Gunn Chief connection to the Orkneys disappears.
James De Gun
Now consider James de Gun / de Gunn[6]; is it possible go from the Scandinavian Ottar to a ‘Norman’ James de Gunn in one generation? It seems not--
“Some Norman lords had inherited names by 1066 ... More great landowners adopted family names in the course of the twelfth century, and most noble and knightly families had them by 1250.... Some wealthy Londoners used hereditary second names in the later twelfth century and they were common, if not universal by the second half of thirteenth century... In remoter, less “developed” regions the process was considerably delayed. In Wales, second names became fixed in gentry families by around 1550.”[7]
Now, given Snaekol’s birth in around 1200 this meant the non-existing Ottar ought to have been born say 1220-1230 which means a James De Gunn (if he existed) was born around 1250-1260. It seems extremely unlikely that a family in the obscure Scottish highlands would have a fixed Norman surname hundreds of years before surnames were fixed for gentry families in Wales. Lord Lyon’s position is that Scottish ‘surnames were generally adopted in the 17th century’[8]; so the surname De Gunn as well as being hundreds of years before Wales is also about four hundred years before surnames were adopted in Scotland. And if Gunn had become ‘De Gunn’ with all its Norman power connotations, then De Gunns would have remained the surname.
Jakop Gun / James Gun
A Jakop / James Gun seems better. Jakob is a valid Norwegian translation for James, so it’s at least a possibility. It seems an alternative for James de Gun. But the issue of having a surname when they have not been adopted by the rest of Scotland remains a major issue. And where does the name come from; what primary source uses it?
Ingram
After one or other of the James we are meant to have Ingram, or Sir Donald Gunn of Clyth, depending on the family tree. Now Ingram is fascinating; the only 'proof' offered is from Robertson's Index to the Records of Charters 1309 -1413. So what is this volume? It is
An index, drawn up about the year 1629, of many records of charters, granted by the different sovereigns of Scotland between the years 1309 and 1413, most of which records have been long missing. With an introduction, giving a state, founded on authentic documents still preserved, of the ancient records of Scotland, which were in that kingdom in the year 1292. To which is subjoined, indexes of the persons and places mentioned in those charters .. (being from the first page of the 1798 printing)
The traditional view of Ingram (Gunn) is that in King David's time (1324-1371) - ‘it appears from a charter of the reign that ‘Inghram Guyn was a witness .... ’[15] But this was an 1880 mention of Robertson's book from a popular magazine of the time. This then becomes in Mark Rugg Gunn's text (page 35) 'Ingram Gun witnessed a charter in the time of King David (1329-1370) and died about 1340'. But the 1880 extract was not accurate. When one looks at the actual book there is no mention of Gunn (in any spelling variation) in the Index of the book (see, for example, page 188) nor is there any mention in the book itself. I may have missed the reference (sections are in Latin) - but would the text's Index also miss it as well?
I note the following though -
So Robertson, which is the key document, does not support any 'Ingram' Gunn.
It is worth noting that the ‘People of Mediaeval Scotland’ site has a massive archive of all extant Scottish documents covering the period 1093-1314 in which are many important non-Gunn Ingrams (in all sorts of spellings) – but no Ingram Gunn (of any spelling).[14].
Consider, as well, the name Ingram - ‘Ingram (‘Gunn’) was of interest to Moncrieffe[9], because the name was not normally seen that far north. It was however a favourite of Sir Gilbert de Ummfraville, the Norman husband of Maud, daughter of Malcolm, the Earl of Caithness. Moncrieffe hypothesised that Ingram was born and named at a time when Maud’s descendants still had some influence in Caithness...’[10]. Now Gilbert de Ummfraville died in 1245[11]. He had a son, also Gilbert, who took part in the fighting between Henry III of England and his barons, and in the Scottish expeditions of Edward I of England. There is record of a Lord Ingram de Unfraville[12] in 1293. Ingram Umfraville also signed the Declaration of Arbroath. But why would such a name be chosen by a random Scottish highland family; Ingram is only a name associated with the husband of a daughter of the Earl of Caithness. What would they gain from it? If one was trying to gain favour it would be far more logical to use the name of the actual Earl or equivalent. There is no clear logic for choosing the name.
Overall there is no proof that Ingram Gunn existed and there is no logic for the name to be chosen; I note Burke’s Peerage has just a token ‘Gun’ for the period around 1300.
Late addition to Ingram
I have been reliably informed that one should view 'Ingram' as a mistake in that he should not have appeared in any discussion of Gunn 'chiefs'.
The knights
Theoretically the Chiefs then included – depending on the tree - Sir John Gunn, Sir Donald Gunn (Sir Donald Gun of Clyth and Ulbster according to one view), Sir James Gunn[20] of Clyth and Ulbster then Gunn coroner but where is the primary source evidence?
Consider, as well, the knighthoods. The Gunns before ‘Sir John Gunn’ did not have knighthoods, but then they do and then the knighthood disappears. And no mention of these knights appears in any paperwork and, of course, we get the first real Gunn - the coroner – at the end of this list. But he was not a knight, yet knighthoods were inheritable. If Gunn coroner was not the oldest son he would not have become the knight, but as the coroner is meant to have been so important his older brother would have been mentioned in the histories and he’s not so mentioned.
The real issue of knighthoods is simple; it was not traditional in Scotland (King Malcolm was only knighted in 1158). It was an Anglo-Norman import encouraged by King David and ‘when knights appear in Scotland they bear names that indicate an English or even Continental origin. What, therefore of the native Scot? The general opinion in the mid-twelfth century was that the Scots were barbarians.’[21] So, knighthoods were introduced into Scotland and they were important; the ‘absence of any class dividing line below the rank of baron, between noble and non-noble, in Scottish freeholding landed society made knighthood important as an index of high standing, especially for the upwardly mobile. That, and the endurance of feudal bonds and of the forty day military service obligation of knights, gave the knight a social significance that was relatively sharper than that which it enjoyed in, say, the English sub-baronial genteel society of knights and esquires’[22] So, with Scottish knights we are talking of important figures in local history, much more so than with English knights of the time, but there are no primary sources for Gunn knights and there should be as Scottish knights were significant figures.
Some further points concerning Scottish knights (1424-1513)
1. ‘First and foremost a knight was expected to have a noble lineage and prove he was directly descended from a line of knights... heredity was a prime concern with regard to eligibility for knighthood in the fifteenth century.’ [23]
2. Exceptions occurred. But ‘it was through royal service that (gave) ... final legitimisation for entry into knighthood’[24]
It seems unlikely that the Gunn knights existed given lack of primary sources mentioning them, lack of descent from knights and lack of known Royal service. In particular, speaking especially of 1507-1508. ‘despite popular tradition and rather surprisingly, it seems that there was no formally established Scottish order of knighthood at this time.’[25] Given Gunn coroner was around one hundred years earlier, for the Gunns to be knighted[26] they would have had to have done something extreme which royalty appreciated. That would have been known and recorded in the historical records and a Gunn knighthood is not; Gunn coroner would have been more likely to be knighted than the invisible people before him. Overall the knighthoods seem romantic fictions to glamorise Gunn history.
To restate - the original ‘Chiefs’ were meant to go
Ottar, using the sources claimed for him, does not exist and any family for Snaekoll is extremely doubtful as the primary sources which should have mentioned his family – and which could have easily done so - do not so mention a family. This breaks the ‘Chief Gunn’ link to the Orkneys. Ingram Guyn seems to have been a misreading and the knighthoods of Sir John Gunn, Sir Donald Gunn and Sir James Gunn are extremely unlikely to have existed although propertied Gunns named John, Donald and James were possible in Caithness and Sutherland, in fact likely given their first names.
Overall one has to view the line of ‘Gunn Chiefs’ before the Crowner as at the very least, in the classic Scottish term, ‘not proved’ no matter how many times it has been uncritically repeated. I go further and say it is extremely unlikely that there was any Orkney link, or any knights. The key points remain - there is no proof that Snaekoll had any family and and we don’t know who Gunn coroner's parents were, let alone his grandparents.
Gunn history starts with the coroner.
*****
Footnotes
[1] Page 35, Mark Rugg Gunn.
[2] I have reused material from the entry on ‘Orkney issues’ (Scottish history tab) as it is valid for both discussions.
[3] Pages 31-32, Mark Rugg Gunn
[4] More accurately, Hákonar saga Hákonarsonar.
[5] Mark Rugg Gunn’s assumptions in his text, pages 31-32 are of interest. He writes - It is not at all clear what lands Ottar held, or his relationship to the King of Norway. Snaekoll had retired to Caithness to lands outside the King’s immediate jurisdiction, and it is possible that Ottar was attempting to claim some of Snaekoll’s former property. ‘Ottar Gunn’ did not exist so he would not have held lands, and there is no proof that Snaekoll returned to Caithness – the Sagas would have recorded the information if he had. It is more likely that he died in Norway; that is the logical implication because no Scottish return was mentioned in the Saga. Mark Rugg Gunn is here justifying a preconception of Gunn history under the guise of it being actual history.
[6] The only ‘de Gunn’ I have noted is of a British Engineer mentioned in Pepys ‘Diary’ see page 438, Granville Penn, Memorials of the Professional Life and Times of Sir William Penn, Knt. Admiral and General of the Fleet during the interregnum; Admiral and Commissioner of the Admiralty and Navy, After the Restoration from 1644-1670, published 1833 London By James Duncan.
[7] Page 155, Stephen Wilson, The Means of Naming: A Social and Cultural History of Personal Naming in western Europe, University College London, 1998.
[8] Court of the Lord Lyon, ‘Coat of Arms and Crest Badges’ 2013 booklet. Even in 1652 the name Gunn was not fixed; Gun and Gune / Gune / Gunes were used by Alexander Gunn (Mackeamish).
[9] Sir Iain Moncrieffe was Albany Herald at the Court of the Lord Lyon. It is, arguably, an Anglo-Norman family.
[10] Page 56, David Goudsward, The Westford Knight and Henry Sinclair
[11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umfraville accessed 30 January 2013
[12] Records of the Parliament of Scotland to 1707 ; John Balliol: Translation; 1293, 9 February, Scone, Parliament; Parliamentary Record; 9 February 1293; Legislation: second roll of parliament; 1293 /2/15
(footnotes 13-19 deleted)
[20] At least according to Burke’s Peerage without Clyth and Ulbster.
[21] Pages 154-155, David Crouch, The Image of the Aristoctacy in Britain 1000-1300, Routledge, London, 1992
[22] Being from a review of K Stevenson’s Chivalry and Knighthood in Scotland 1424-1513 by Dr Maurice Keen, University of Oxford http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/613 accessed 31 January 2013.
[23] Page 13-14, K Stevenson’s Chivalry and Knighthood in Scotland 1424-1513
[24] Page 14, K Stevenson’s Chivalry and Knighthood in Scotland 1424-1513
[25] Page 192, Andrea Thomas ‘The Renaissance’ in ed. T. M. Devine and J Wormald’s The Oxford Handbook of Modern Scottish History, Oxford University press, 2012
[26] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Thistle accessed 31 January 2013 confirms no Scottish order of Knighthood by 1558. And the Gunns, in remote Caithness, were meant to have them in the 1300s!
- (Snaekoll), Ottar, James de Gun, Ingram, Sir Donald Gun of Clyth and Ulbster, Sir James Gun of Clyth and Ulbster) - the New Hebrides tree[1] (the Rev. Alexander Gunn of Watten omits James de Gun)
- (Snaekoll), Ottar, Jakop / James Gun, Gun, Sir John Gunn fl. 1331, Sir Donald Gun, Sir James Gun fl 1390 - Burke’s Peerage
Ottar[2]
Both of the above ‘Chief’ lines start with Ottar and the normal view is put forward by Mark Rugg Gunn[3];
Ottar is mentioned twice in Eirspennill’s ‘Hakon Hakon’s Son’s Saga’[4] The first occasion is when he visited Norway. ‘After that King Hakon went to Bergen. There Gillechrist and Ottar, Snaekoll’s son, and many Hebrideans, came to meet him there from the west beyond the sea and they had many letters concerning the needs of their lands.
This is the supposed proof that 'Chief Gunn' Snaekoll had a son called Ottar. Now certainly a Snaekoll had a son Ottar - but this Snaekoll and Ottar are not Gunns even though the information has been absorbed into the Gunn quasi-official histories.
There are many reasons why the above Ottar does not relate to the Gunns –
- The dates. R. Andrew McDonald in The Kingdom of The Isles Scotland’s Western Seaboard c 1100-c.1336 (Scottish Historical Review Monograph 4, Tuckwell Press, Scotland, 1998 – page 88) agrees with the quotation but provides a time for the visit; 1224. Now we have a good idea when Snaekoll ‘supposed Gunn’ was born; his mother's first husband was well-known and definitely killed in 1198 so if we say Snaekoll was born circa 1200 that means the above child Ottar - if Snaekoll's son - was on the boat when aged around four. And 'had many letters' with him. No mother nor father mentioned, nor servants... Now, Snaekoll is actually free in 1224 - he only kills the Earl in 1230 - so why would 'his' child be on a boat to Norway without him? It doesn’t make sense.
- And don't forget the Hebrides and Caithness are worlds apart at this time; why would the Hebrideans drop in for this random child?
- Especially as the Hebrideans have their own Ottar son of Snaekoll (in fact several possibilities); the Sudreyan chief Ottar Snaekollson is well known and is the most likely candidate. So a boat from the Hebrides goes to Norway with just Hebridean linked people of the right ages, or the Hebridean boat picks up a random young child in Caithness? I know which option makes logical sense. There are also many Hebridean options for Gillechrist.
As well, in the extremely detailed Orkneyinga Saga –
- There is no mention of a marriage for Snaekoll (Ottar’s supposed father).
- Nor is there any mention of children for Snaekoll.
- Nor is there mention of Snaekoll’s supposed return to the Orkneys - or to mainland Scotland - after his exile.
The Orkneyinga Saga would have had such detail about these key events concerning Snaekoll as all the gossip about an Earl murderer (Snaekoll) would have been in the Saga as they were the gossip magazines of their time. The absence of information about Snaekoll’s marriage and childen[5] is a very strong indication that such events did not happen as the Saga does otherwise have significant detail about where Snaekoll lived, and with whom, before he was exiled to Norway.
Without Snaekoll having a son Ottar the supposed Gunn Chief connection to the Orkneys disappears.
James De Gun
Now consider James de Gun / de Gunn[6]; is it possible go from the Scandinavian Ottar to a ‘Norman’ James de Gunn in one generation? It seems not--
“Some Norman lords had inherited names by 1066 ... More great landowners adopted family names in the course of the twelfth century, and most noble and knightly families had them by 1250.... Some wealthy Londoners used hereditary second names in the later twelfth century and they were common, if not universal by the second half of thirteenth century... In remoter, less “developed” regions the process was considerably delayed. In Wales, second names became fixed in gentry families by around 1550.”[7]
Now, given Snaekol’s birth in around 1200 this meant the non-existing Ottar ought to have been born say 1220-1230 which means a James De Gunn (if he existed) was born around 1250-1260. It seems extremely unlikely that a family in the obscure Scottish highlands would have a fixed Norman surname hundreds of years before surnames were fixed for gentry families in Wales. Lord Lyon’s position is that Scottish ‘surnames were generally adopted in the 17th century’[8]; so the surname De Gunn as well as being hundreds of years before Wales is also about four hundred years before surnames were adopted in Scotland. And if Gunn had become ‘De Gunn’ with all its Norman power connotations, then De Gunns would have remained the surname.
Jakop Gun / James Gun
A Jakop / James Gun seems better. Jakob is a valid Norwegian translation for James, so it’s at least a possibility. It seems an alternative for James de Gun. But the issue of having a surname when they have not been adopted by the rest of Scotland remains a major issue. And where does the name come from; what primary source uses it?
Ingram
After one or other of the James we are meant to have Ingram, or Sir Donald Gunn of Clyth, depending on the family tree. Now Ingram is fascinating; the only 'proof' offered is from Robertson's Index to the Records of Charters 1309 -1413. So what is this volume? It is
An index, drawn up about the year 1629, of many records of charters, granted by the different sovereigns of Scotland between the years 1309 and 1413, most of which records have been long missing. With an introduction, giving a state, founded on authentic documents still preserved, of the ancient records of Scotland, which were in that kingdom in the year 1292. To which is subjoined, indexes of the persons and places mentioned in those charters .. (being from the first page of the 1798 printing)
The traditional view of Ingram (Gunn) is that in King David's time (1324-1371) - ‘it appears from a charter of the reign that ‘Inghram Guyn was a witness .... ’[15] But this was an 1880 mention of Robertson's book from a popular magazine of the time. This then becomes in Mark Rugg Gunn's text (page 35) 'Ingram Gun witnessed a charter in the time of King David (1329-1370) and died about 1340'. But the 1880 extract was not accurate. When one looks at the actual book there is no mention of Gunn (in any spelling variation) in the Index of the book (see, for example, page 188) nor is there any mention in the book itself. I may have missed the reference (sections are in Latin) - but would the text's Index also miss it as well?
I note the following though -
- Page 4 of Robertson has an Ingram de Gynes. In the time of Robert the Bruce; 'to Laurence Abernethy, of the lands of Lambertoun, whilks (which) was Ingram de Gynes, Berwick'. Now the concept of the Gunns holding land at Berwick is too far fetched to be plausible. There are further references to this family including on page 7, charter 60, with Ingeramus de Gynes losing possession in Edinburgh in King Robert the First's time. The de Gyne family can be traced; in 1327 the King of England appointed John de Gynes to assist the Sherrif on a matter concerning the Archbishop of York, the daughter Mary probably married the Earl of Cornwall (1334) (pages 244, 274 of Syllabus (in English) of the documents relating to England and other Kingdoms contained in the coillection known as ''Rymer's Foedera'. Volume 1 1066-1377, T.D. Hardy, London 1869.) Robert de Gynes is of importance in Wraybury in the early 1300s and so on. The key point is that the de Gynes are not the Gunns.
- There is an Ingrahame Cullan on page 53 - in King David II time - of Robertson so it is possible that a misreading of handwritten notes - or poor typesetting, or poor editing - explains the mysterious Ingram Gunn and that it is really Ingrahame Cullen.
- The only other 'Ingram' choice is Ingramo (Ingeramo) de Ummfraville and he is on page xiii of Robertson and is discussed below.
So Robertson, which is the key document, does not support any 'Ingram' Gunn.
It is worth noting that the ‘People of Mediaeval Scotland’ site has a massive archive of all extant Scottish documents covering the period 1093-1314 in which are many important non-Gunn Ingrams (in all sorts of spellings) – but no Ingram Gunn (of any spelling).[14].
Consider, as well, the name Ingram - ‘Ingram (‘Gunn’) was of interest to Moncrieffe[9], because the name was not normally seen that far north. It was however a favourite of Sir Gilbert de Ummfraville, the Norman husband of Maud, daughter of Malcolm, the Earl of Caithness. Moncrieffe hypothesised that Ingram was born and named at a time when Maud’s descendants still had some influence in Caithness...’[10]. Now Gilbert de Ummfraville died in 1245[11]. He had a son, also Gilbert, who took part in the fighting between Henry III of England and his barons, and in the Scottish expeditions of Edward I of England. There is record of a Lord Ingram de Unfraville[12] in 1293. Ingram Umfraville also signed the Declaration of Arbroath. But why would such a name be chosen by a random Scottish highland family; Ingram is only a name associated with the husband of a daughter of the Earl of Caithness. What would they gain from it? If one was trying to gain favour it would be far more logical to use the name of the actual Earl or equivalent. There is no clear logic for choosing the name.
Overall there is no proof that Ingram Gunn existed and there is no logic for the name to be chosen; I note Burke’s Peerage has just a token ‘Gun’ for the period around 1300.
Late addition to Ingram
I have been reliably informed that one should view 'Ingram' as a mistake in that he should not have appeared in any discussion of Gunn 'chiefs'.
The knights
Theoretically the Chiefs then included – depending on the tree - Sir John Gunn, Sir Donald Gunn (Sir Donald Gun of Clyth and Ulbster according to one view), Sir James Gunn[20] of Clyth and Ulbster then Gunn coroner but where is the primary source evidence?
Consider, as well, the knighthoods. The Gunns before ‘Sir John Gunn’ did not have knighthoods, but then they do and then the knighthood disappears. And no mention of these knights appears in any paperwork and, of course, we get the first real Gunn - the coroner – at the end of this list. But he was not a knight, yet knighthoods were inheritable. If Gunn coroner was not the oldest son he would not have become the knight, but as the coroner is meant to have been so important his older brother would have been mentioned in the histories and he’s not so mentioned.
The real issue of knighthoods is simple; it was not traditional in Scotland (King Malcolm was only knighted in 1158). It was an Anglo-Norman import encouraged by King David and ‘when knights appear in Scotland they bear names that indicate an English or even Continental origin. What, therefore of the native Scot? The general opinion in the mid-twelfth century was that the Scots were barbarians.’[21] So, knighthoods were introduced into Scotland and they were important; the ‘absence of any class dividing line below the rank of baron, between noble and non-noble, in Scottish freeholding landed society made knighthood important as an index of high standing, especially for the upwardly mobile. That, and the endurance of feudal bonds and of the forty day military service obligation of knights, gave the knight a social significance that was relatively sharper than that which it enjoyed in, say, the English sub-baronial genteel society of knights and esquires’[22] So, with Scottish knights we are talking of important figures in local history, much more so than with English knights of the time, but there are no primary sources for Gunn knights and there should be as Scottish knights were significant figures.
Some further points concerning Scottish knights (1424-1513)
1. ‘First and foremost a knight was expected to have a noble lineage and prove he was directly descended from a line of knights... heredity was a prime concern with regard to eligibility for knighthood in the fifteenth century.’ [23]
2. Exceptions occurred. But ‘it was through royal service that (gave) ... final legitimisation for entry into knighthood’[24]
It seems unlikely that the Gunn knights existed given lack of primary sources mentioning them, lack of descent from knights and lack of known Royal service. In particular, speaking especially of 1507-1508. ‘despite popular tradition and rather surprisingly, it seems that there was no formally established Scottish order of knighthood at this time.’[25] Given Gunn coroner was around one hundred years earlier, for the Gunns to be knighted[26] they would have had to have done something extreme which royalty appreciated. That would have been known and recorded in the historical records and a Gunn knighthood is not; Gunn coroner would have been more likely to be knighted than the invisible people before him. Overall the knighthoods seem romantic fictions to glamorise Gunn history.
To restate - the original ‘Chiefs’ were meant to go
- (Snaekoll), Ottar, James de Gun, Ingram, Sir Donald Gun of Clyth and Ulbster, Sir James Gun of Clyth and Ulbster - the New Hebrides tree (the Rev. Alexander Gunn of Watten omits James de Gun)
- (Snaekoll), Ottar, Jakop / James Gun, Gun, Sir John Gunn fl. 1331, Sir Donald Gun, Sir James Gun fl 1390 - Burke’s Peerage
Ottar, using the sources claimed for him, does not exist and any family for Snaekoll is extremely doubtful as the primary sources which should have mentioned his family – and which could have easily done so - do not so mention a family. This breaks the ‘Chief Gunn’ link to the Orkneys. Ingram Guyn seems to have been a misreading and the knighthoods of Sir John Gunn, Sir Donald Gunn and Sir James Gunn are extremely unlikely to have existed although propertied Gunns named John, Donald and James were possible in Caithness and Sutherland, in fact likely given their first names.
Overall one has to view the line of ‘Gunn Chiefs’ before the Crowner as at the very least, in the classic Scottish term, ‘not proved’ no matter how many times it has been uncritically repeated. I go further and say it is extremely unlikely that there was any Orkney link, or any knights. The key points remain - there is no proof that Snaekoll had any family and and we don’t know who Gunn coroner's parents were, let alone his grandparents.
Gunn history starts with the coroner.
*****
Footnotes
[1] Page 35, Mark Rugg Gunn.
[2] I have reused material from the entry on ‘Orkney issues’ (Scottish history tab) as it is valid for both discussions.
[3] Pages 31-32, Mark Rugg Gunn
[4] More accurately, Hákonar saga Hákonarsonar.
[5] Mark Rugg Gunn’s assumptions in his text, pages 31-32 are of interest. He writes - It is not at all clear what lands Ottar held, or his relationship to the King of Norway. Snaekoll had retired to Caithness to lands outside the King’s immediate jurisdiction, and it is possible that Ottar was attempting to claim some of Snaekoll’s former property. ‘Ottar Gunn’ did not exist so he would not have held lands, and there is no proof that Snaekoll returned to Caithness – the Sagas would have recorded the information if he had. It is more likely that he died in Norway; that is the logical implication because no Scottish return was mentioned in the Saga. Mark Rugg Gunn is here justifying a preconception of Gunn history under the guise of it being actual history.
[6] The only ‘de Gunn’ I have noted is of a British Engineer mentioned in Pepys ‘Diary’ see page 438, Granville Penn, Memorials of the Professional Life and Times of Sir William Penn, Knt. Admiral and General of the Fleet during the interregnum; Admiral and Commissioner of the Admiralty and Navy, After the Restoration from 1644-1670, published 1833 London By James Duncan.
[7] Page 155, Stephen Wilson, The Means of Naming: A Social and Cultural History of Personal Naming in western Europe, University College London, 1998.
[8] Court of the Lord Lyon, ‘Coat of Arms and Crest Badges’ 2013 booklet. Even in 1652 the name Gunn was not fixed; Gun and Gune / Gune / Gunes were used by Alexander Gunn (Mackeamish).
[9] Sir Iain Moncrieffe was Albany Herald at the Court of the Lord Lyon. It is, arguably, an Anglo-Norman family.
[10] Page 56, David Goudsward, The Westford Knight and Henry Sinclair
[11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umfraville accessed 30 January 2013
[12] Records of the Parliament of Scotland to 1707 ; John Balliol: Translation; 1293, 9 February, Scone, Parliament; Parliamentary Record; 9 February 1293; Legislation: second roll of parliament; 1293 /2/15
(footnotes 13-19 deleted)
[20] At least according to Burke’s Peerage without Clyth and Ulbster.
[21] Pages 154-155, David Crouch, The Image of the Aristoctacy in Britain 1000-1300, Routledge, London, 1992
[22] Being from a review of K Stevenson’s Chivalry and Knighthood in Scotland 1424-1513 by Dr Maurice Keen, University of Oxford http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/613 accessed 31 January 2013.
[23] Page 13-14, K Stevenson’s Chivalry and Knighthood in Scotland 1424-1513
[24] Page 14, K Stevenson’s Chivalry and Knighthood in Scotland 1424-1513
[25] Page 192, Andrea Thomas ‘The Renaissance’ in ed. T. M. Devine and J Wormald’s The Oxford Handbook of Modern Scottish History, Oxford University press, 2012
[26] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Thistle accessed 31 January 2013 confirms no Scottish order of Knighthood by 1558. And the Gunns, in remote Caithness, were meant to have them in the 1300s!