Are Gunns really a Clan?
What is a clan? / Are the Gunns really a clan?
It actually is an interesting issue and one which is very hard to find a clear legal answer...
It actually is an interesting issue and one which is very hard to find a clear legal answer...
Part One
Confusion between biological and sociopolitical dimensions of clans stems from nineteenth century Highlandism and its later perpetuation in the myriad of books celebrating tartanry (such as Robert Bain's The Clans and Tartans of Scotland, originally published in 1958). Reedited through the years, Bain's text is still a staple of heritage enthusiasts libraries and still states that blood relationship was the "important fundamental in the clan system " (1961:15). Biological kinship was important for the clan elite, from whom a chief would come, but not for all clansfolk. Clans were variably composed of a minority of immediate kin and a majority of non-kin inhabiting the clan's territorial base. Bain divides the clan between "broken men" (those without a chief who join the clan for protection and thereafter claim the chief's name), and "native men" (whom Bain interpreted as a small core group of the chief's blood relatives). Yet this distinction is overwhelmed by his and other authors' discussions of "cultural inheritance," and of hereditary "natural rights" to certain tartans. Historically the importance of kinship varied with the extent and power of the clan in question .... The American, and especially southern, emphasis on "blood" kinship within the clan could also be seen as an American cultural influence on concepts of Scottish heritage and / or an American elaboration of tartanism. ... By donning a tartan one claims the aristocrats of the clan as one's own "cousins" and the heroic deeds of clansfolk as one's own heritage.
(The bold is by me.)
Pages 79-80, R. Celeste Ray, Highland Heritage; Scottish Americans in the American South, University of North Carolina Press, 2001
In other words the majority of Gunns are probably not descended from one Gunn.
Part Two
Are Gunns really a clan?
What is a clan? - From the Court of the Lord Lyon
The clan system is closely bound up with Scottish heraldry. The best definition of a clan provided by a heraldic authority is contained in Nisbet's "System of Heraldry", published in 1722: ‘A social group consisting of an aggregate of distinct erected families actually descended, or accepting themselves as descendants of a common ancestor, and which has been received by the Sovereign through its Supreme Officer of Honour, the Lord Lyon, as an honourable community whereof all of the members on establishing right to, or receiving fresh grants of, personal hereditary nobility will be awarded arms as determinate or indeterminate cadets both as may be of the chief family of the clan.’
http://www.scotarmigers.net/pdfs/info-leaflet-12.pdf
This gets interesting; if Gunn history starts with the coroner, and if Smibert is right about the name origin, then it can be questioned as to whether Gunns are a clan...
Now at Lord Lyon's website the following is stated -
What is a clan? This page is currently under review.
The quote which formerly appeared here attributed to Nisbet's A System of Heraldry (1722) is more properly attributed to Sir Thomas Innes of Learney, Lord Lyon King of Arms from 1945 to1969, writing as editor of Frank Adam's Clans, Septs and Regiments of the Scottish Highlands.
http://www.lyon-court.com/lordlyon/239.html
So, Lord Lyon does not deny the earlier statement but nor does the website now support it. The question of what legally counts as a clan is not clear...
Part Three
But
From a letter - to the below website - 'received from the Court of the Lord Lyon 28 August 2002'
"I think it would be fair to say that there are official clans that both have a clan chief and do not have a clan chief, but we would not normally use the word "official". There is either a clan or there is not, be it with a chief or chiefless. It is not so much the case that the clan is recognised, it is that there has been a recognised chief of the name, and that constitutes a chief or an organised group of people being either a clan or family." Quoted on http://www.electricscotland.com/webclans/clanmenu.htm accessed 17 January 2014
Now the change of colour - obviously - is by me. The Gunns have never had a Chief recognised by Lord Lyon. As I explore elsewhere it is very questionable whether the Gunns ever had Chiefs - they had a chieftain or chieftains perhaps... What happens if the Gunns are not a Clan but more a non-kindred regional 'tribe'? Obviously by common usage the Gunns are a Clan but is there a legal definition of a Scottish clan?
Confusion between biological and sociopolitical dimensions of clans stems from nineteenth century Highlandism and its later perpetuation in the myriad of books celebrating tartanry (such as Robert Bain's The Clans and Tartans of Scotland, originally published in 1958). Reedited through the years, Bain's text is still a staple of heritage enthusiasts libraries and still states that blood relationship was the "important fundamental in the clan system " (1961:15). Biological kinship was important for the clan elite, from whom a chief would come, but not for all clansfolk. Clans were variably composed of a minority of immediate kin and a majority of non-kin inhabiting the clan's territorial base. Bain divides the clan between "broken men" (those without a chief who join the clan for protection and thereafter claim the chief's name), and "native men" (whom Bain interpreted as a small core group of the chief's blood relatives). Yet this distinction is overwhelmed by his and other authors' discussions of "cultural inheritance," and of hereditary "natural rights" to certain tartans. Historically the importance of kinship varied with the extent and power of the clan in question .... The American, and especially southern, emphasis on "blood" kinship within the clan could also be seen as an American cultural influence on concepts of Scottish heritage and / or an American elaboration of tartanism. ... By donning a tartan one claims the aristocrats of the clan as one's own "cousins" and the heroic deeds of clansfolk as one's own heritage.
(The bold is by me.)
Pages 79-80, R. Celeste Ray, Highland Heritage; Scottish Americans in the American South, University of North Carolina Press, 2001
In other words the majority of Gunns are probably not descended from one Gunn.
Part Two
Are Gunns really a clan?
What is a clan? - From the Court of the Lord Lyon
The clan system is closely bound up with Scottish heraldry. The best definition of a clan provided by a heraldic authority is contained in Nisbet's "System of Heraldry", published in 1722: ‘A social group consisting of an aggregate of distinct erected families actually descended, or accepting themselves as descendants of a common ancestor, and which has been received by the Sovereign through its Supreme Officer of Honour, the Lord Lyon, as an honourable community whereof all of the members on establishing right to, or receiving fresh grants of, personal hereditary nobility will be awarded arms as determinate or indeterminate cadets both as may be of the chief family of the clan.’
http://www.scotarmigers.net/pdfs/info-leaflet-12.pdf
This gets interesting; if Gunn history starts with the coroner, and if Smibert is right about the name origin, then it can be questioned as to whether Gunns are a clan...
Now at Lord Lyon's website the following is stated -
What is a clan? This page is currently under review.
The quote which formerly appeared here attributed to Nisbet's A System of Heraldry (1722) is more properly attributed to Sir Thomas Innes of Learney, Lord Lyon King of Arms from 1945 to1969, writing as editor of Frank Adam's Clans, Septs and Regiments of the Scottish Highlands.
http://www.lyon-court.com/lordlyon/239.html
So, Lord Lyon does not deny the earlier statement but nor does the website now support it. The question of what legally counts as a clan is not clear...
Part Three
But
From a letter - to the below website - 'received from the Court of the Lord Lyon 28 August 2002'
"I think it would be fair to say that there are official clans that both have a clan chief and do not have a clan chief, but we would not normally use the word "official". There is either a clan or there is not, be it with a chief or chiefless. It is not so much the case that the clan is recognised, it is that there has been a recognised chief of the name, and that constitutes a chief or an organised group of people being either a clan or family." Quoted on http://www.electricscotland.com/webclans/clanmenu.htm accessed 17 January 2014
Now the change of colour - obviously - is by me. The Gunns have never had a Chief recognised by Lord Lyon. As I explore elsewhere it is very questionable whether the Gunns ever had Chiefs - they had a chieftain or chieftains perhaps... What happens if the Gunns are not a Clan but more a non-kindred regional 'tribe'? Obviously by common usage the Gunns are a Clan but is there a legal definition of a Scottish clan?