7. The Gunn / Keith feud myth
7. The Gunn / Keith feud myth
The individual chapters can be downloaded as pdfs from latrobe.academia.edu/AlastairGunn
The idea that the Gunns and the Keiths had some sort of longlasting feud is much written about but does not stand examination. If the Gunn Keith feud did not exist then the story about the Keiths involvement in the death of Coroner Gunn – see chapter 8.3 - becomes extremely questionable through lack of motivation.
There are two parts to the supposed feud; assorted battles supposedly between Gunns and Keiths (but which often did not include Keiths but often included Mackays) and a couple of Gunn of Braemore stories. The Braemore stories are both set after the death of Coroner Gunn which means that they have no relationship to the killing of Coroner Gunn but are discussed in 7.2 and 7.3.
7.1 Gunn / Keith / Mackay battles – or not?
We do not know when Coroner Gunn was born but his death was approximately 1452, as discussed in chapter 8.3. The following supposed Gunn / Keith / Mackay ‘battles’ are in – or near – the Coroner’s lifetime. The battle years should be treated with caution; they are likely, but not necessarily totally accurate, dates.
1426. Harpsdale (being eight miles – about thirteen kilometres - south of Thurso).
Sir Robert Gordon in his Genealogical History of the Earldom of Sutherland is the earliest recorder by a long way of Sutherland events. He wrote -
In the days of Robert, Earl of Sutherland, the year 1426, Angus-Dow Mackay, and his son Niel, assembling all the forces of Strathnaver, they entered into Caithness with all hostility, and spoiled the same. The inhabitants of Caithness convened with all diligence, and fought against Angus-Dow Mackay at Harpsdale, where there was great slaughter on either side. The report hereof came to the ears of King James the First (1394-1437), who thereupon came north to Inverness, of intention to pursue Angus-Dow Mackay. Hearing of the king's being at Inverness, he came and submitted himself to the king's mercy, and gave his son Niel in pledge for his good obedience from thenceforward: which submission the king accepted, and sent Niel Mackay to remain in captivity on the Bass Rock who from thenceforth was always called Niel-Bass Mackay[1]
Note the singular lack of the word Gunn in the account. Mark Rugg Gunn – in 1969, about three hundred and forty years after Gordon - records this as a Gunn Mackay battle but does allow that ‘it was no means certain that Gunns were involved.’[2] The Mackays were punished for the battle by King James the First, but no-one else was. If it had been ‘Gunns versus Mackays’ then Gunns would have been in the records along with the Mackays.[3]
So the battle of Harpsdale is not a Gunn / Keith battle – it’s not even a battle where Gunns were specifically mentioned. The battle of Harpsdale is between the Mackays and some of the people of Caithness. Gunns might have been part of ‘the forces of Strathnaver’ or ‘the inhabitants of Caithness’, but that does not make it into a Gunn / Keith battle.
1437. Knock Stanger (near Sandside, Dounreay). As a consequence of the preceding battle the son of the Chief of the Mackay (Niel Mackay) was held hostage to the Mackays’ good behaviour, but was released in 1437 and he then raided in northern Caithness, where probably some Gunns (and others) lived. In this raid the local people were chased to Dounreay. Mark Rugg Gunn notes that ‘the battle was probably aimed primarily at the followers of Sutherland of Duffus’ and that ‘the Gunns are not specifically mentioned.’[4] In other words, Mackays raided an area where some random Gunns may have lived who then fled due to the raiders.
So, that’s another Gunn / Keith battle which lacks records and which, at worst, involved Gunns as victims, along with other local inhabitants. There is no evidence to support the idea of an interclan feud.
1438[5] Tannach Moor (four miles south of Wick). Again, it’s worth noting Gordon’s record of this battle. He uses 1464[6] as the year which seems unlikely; an Earl of Caithness was around and one suspects a Coroner of some sort would also be around and both would deal with the events described as it would be their legal duty to do so --
… some serious disputes had arisen between Keith of Ackergill and the Guns and other inhabitants of Caithness. The Keiths, mistrusting their own forces, they sent to Angus Mackay (the son of Niel-Wasse) intreating him to come to their aid; whereunto he easily condescended. Then did the inhabitants of Caithness convene in all haste, and met the Strathnaver men and the Keiths, at a place in Caithness called Blare Tannie, i.e The Moor of Tanach. There ensued a cruel fight, with great slaughter on either side. In the end the Keiths had the victory…[7]
So, according to Gordon, this battle starts off as the Keiths against the ‘Guns and other inhabitants of Caithness’; the second mention though removed ‘Guns’ and just has ‘inhabitants of Caithness’. This battle is not Guns versus Keiths and Mackays; the battle is best viewed as Keiths (with Mackays) against Caithness people (with some ‘Guns’).
Note that Keith is ‘of Ackergill’ which is not the same as saying Chief of the Clan Keith, and that no individual Gunn is specifically mentioned. There was no landed ‘of’ Gunn or Chief Gunn; it would be mentioned along with Keith of Ackergill.
A second account uses language similar to Gordon’s account --
About the year of God 1438, there fell some variance betwixt the Keiths and some others of the inhabitants of Caithness. The Keiths, mistrusting their own forces, sent to Angus Mackay of Strathnaver (the son of Neil Wasse), entreating him to come to their aid, whereunto he easily yielded; so Angus Mackay, accompanied with John Mor MacIan-Riabhaich, went into Caithness with a band of men, and invaded that country. Then did the inhabitants of Caithness assemble in all haste, and met the Strathnaver men and the Keiths at a place in Caithness called Blair-tannie. There ensued a cruel fight, with slaughter on either side. In the end the Keiths had the victory,[8]
This version has no mention of the Gunns.
Mannistanes (near Halberry) There is the absurd, undated story of the battle of Mannistanes - the ‘Hill of many stones’. The Gunns were meant to have fought the Keiths and won even though the Devil[9] helped the Keiths. Mannistanes is where ‘the Gunns commemorated the day by burying the dead ... in regular rows setting up standing stones as a gravestone at the head of each warrior’[10]. So, this battle included the Devil and incorporated ancient standing stones into a good tale but there is, unsurprisingly, no historic support for this story. Ironically the only battle that Gunns ever ‘won’ is the most blatantly unlikely to have ever happened.
Mannistanes is a Neolithic / Bronze Age[11] site which again wrecks the whole Gunn / Keith battle idea as the Neolithic / Bronze Age predates the Gunns and Keiths. The ‘Hill o Many Stanes’ is discussed in The Lore of Scotland; A Guide to Scottish Legends[12] – note the word legend. The text records that in ‘the 1970s Professor Alexander Thom argued that they (the stones) were used to calculate the movements of the moon’. The text also points out that the ‘Manistanes’ may have had a religious significance as they are near burial cairns. The stones are laid out in fan shapes[13] - which is known throughout Caithness and Sutherland but which is otherwise unknown in the United Kingdom – and it is suggested that ceremonial / artistic / religious / astronomy reasons were the cause of this shape. The book does not provide any support for a Gunn / Keith battle.[14]
Folklore Jennifer Westwood and Sophia Kingshill in their The Lore of Scotland A Guide to Scottish Legends record a Dirlot Castle story[15] where a pool near the castle held a treasure, stored there by the Castle’s owner to keep it safe. Various swimmmers tried to find the treasure but they were all never seen again except for some of their internal organs which floated to the top of the pool. This suggests the pool contained a kelpie / water horse. Westwood and and Kingshill point out this story was first recorded in 1937 but by 1977 it appeared in a different form this being that the Castle was now owned by a ‘Clan Gunn Chief’[16] who had invaded the Thurso area and returned with lots of gold. The Keiths (of course!) arrive at the castle to fight for the gold. The Gunns lose so the Gunn Chief’s wife hurls the gold – by then in a cauldron - into a deep pool.
So we have another piece of storytelling able to masquerade as Gunn / Keith ‘history’ – but we have a clear statement as to the original story and its alteration by 1977. If this 1977 fiction had been written, say, two hundred years earlier many would now accept it as history like so much other Gunn mythic ‘history’…
SUMMARY Overall, we have three battles which might have included some Gunns, but only one of which specifically mentions Keiths and Gunns (in passing). In the three battles there is no mention of any ‘Gunn Chief’ nor ‘Clan Gunn’ on the warpath. It’s not much of a Gunn / Keith clan feud then. Sure, it’s unpleasant and reflects the nastiness of the time; but a big feud? No. The Gunn Keith battles which were meant to be the basis of the feud which explained why the Keiths supposedly murdered Coroner Gunn has no significant base in these events.
I am ignoring the Mannistanes ‘event’ and the cauldron of gold story as both are obviously fictional.
7.2 Helen Gunn of Braemore story, supposedly set around 1410
The story in Mark Rugg Gunn’s view is that –
…. Lachlan Gunn of Braemore … had a beautiful daughter Helen. She was meant to marry her cousin Alexander Gunn. Donald Keith of Ackergill who was acting as factor of the Braemore property saw her and made an ‘indecent proposal’ to her which she rejected and so he brought some Keiths to Braemore on her wedding night. There was a fight. Helen was seized and taken to the Keith’s Ackergill Tower where she became a ‘victim of the brutal and licentious Keith’ so threw herself ‘headlong’ from the battlements. This was meant to have happened somewhere between 1400 and 1420.[17]
This story has nothing to do with the Keiths supposed murder of Coroner Gunn as there is the insurmountable problem of ‘Braemore’ land. The Braemore Gunns are descended from Robert Gunn, accepted as the probable second son of Coroner Gunn; see chapter 11.1 for the family. Now, the Braemore Gunns only come into existence once the Coroner’s family scatters after his death. So, self-evidently, the Helen Gunn of Braemore story has nothing to do with the feud which supposedly caused Coroner Gunn to be killed as he was already dead or the Braemore Gunns would not be in existence. So the event can’t have happened in 1400-1420 as the Coroner died about 1450, see chapter 8. That’s a problem.
As well, it’s hard to work out exactly which generation Lachlan Gunn of Braemore was (or even if he existed) but he was at least the grandson of Robert Gunn as Robert Gunn’s son is ‘Donald of Braemore.’[18] Lachlan’s daughter was obviously at least a further generation along; or the great grandniece of Coroner Gunn if you prefer.
Problems with the Helen Gunn of Braemore story
The Helen Gunn of Braemore story fails as an historical event.
To begin with Sir Robert Gordon’s A Genealogical History of the Earldom of Sutherland text includes the death of Coroner Gunn and has much more about the Gunns. His book, though, has no mention of any Helen Gunn of Braemore. If the incident had happened it would be mentioned in that text as the people involved would have been important (especially the Keiths) and the killings / rape / suicide consequently remembered - the killings / rape / suicide are also not mentioned in any other document of the time. The Helen Gunn of Braemore incident not being in Gordon’s book is prima facie evidence that the event did not happen. Yes, it happened in Caithness and his book’s title only mentioned Sutherland – but the book’s content covers Caithness as well as Sutherland and the Helen Gunn of Braemore story would be too well-known to ignore.
Secondly, if true this story would have been the basis – or a good part - of a feud however the Royal Commission of Ancient and Historical Monuments has Ackergill Tower being built about 1500[19] which is significantly after the supposed story happened.
Thirdly, Mark Rugg Gunn’s view is that Lachlan Gunn was ‘a small proprietor in Braemore’[20] - so why did Braemore need a factor? Factors – estate managers - are normally for large estates not for a ‘small proprietor’. No Keith would be a servant at a small estate as the Keiths were important people; Keiths would be more inclined to have Gunns of Braemore as factors on their estate rather than the other way around. And the Keiths had more than enough land at Ackergill – and money - to keep themselves busy without leaving their own land for employment. So, a Keith being Factor at Braemore does not ring true.
Fourthly, in Mark Rugg Gunn’s view ‘complete lawlessness existed throughout Scotland, and especially north of the Highland border’[21] at this time which would increase the chance of the Helen Gunn myth being true if his view was accurate. It’s not true. Parliaments existed and passed laws,[22] ‘the magnates who dominated Scotland’s regional societies were in 1400 acutely aware of their ties to king and kingdom’[23] and the role of Coroner would not have existed in a lawless state yet the position of Caithness Coroner existed from at least 1358.[24] The Caithness Coroner of the Helen of Braemore time would have dealt with the murders / rape / suicide if it had happened, especially as it involved the Keiths. And it would then have been in Gordon’s history, and detailed in historical documents. Sure, law and order wasn’t perfect but ‘complete lawlessness’ was not true, and only ‘complete lawlessness’ would allow for the Helen Gunn of Braemore melodrama to be true.
Overall the supposed Helen of Braemore event should be ignored as it lacks historical evidence; it is nothing but a a romantic, melodramatic fiction so loved in Victorian times.
7.3 Another Braemore Gunn story, perhaps from the late 1400s
The following Braemore story (and there are variations) is set after the Coroner’s death; it – like the Helen Gunn of Braemore story - lacks supporting evidence. The tale is worthy of an opera and its amorality is interesting. And its amorality involves Braemore Gunns; this story does not reflect well on them. The key figure in this story is a giant over nine feet tall, being but one reason why this story cannot be history. And, of course, this story is not in Sir Robert Gordon’s history. Nor can the Robert Gun of the story be historically identified…
The castle of Berrydale, or Berridale, is remarkable on account of its last inhabitant, who was a giant, called William More. His history is singular.
About the end of the fifteenth century or a bit later, Hector Sutherland, commonly called Hector More; or Meikle Hector, was proprietor of of the estate of Langwell. He was descended from the family of Duffus, and resided in a castle on a rock in the water-mouth of Berrydale; the ruins of which are still visible. He built a house at Langwell for his eldest son William, who married a beautiful woman and resided there. Some time afterwards William’s wife was in childbed of her first child, and Robert Gun, tacksman of Braemore, came over the hills to Langwell, accompanied by some of his clan, on a hunting party. Robert Gun proposed to his friends they that they would pay a visit to Hector More’s son and his young wife; which they accordingly did. Robert Gun, upon seeing the woman in bed, fancied her. Upon their way home, Gun declared to his companions that he would have William Sutherland’s wife to himself; and that the only means by which he could accomplish his design was to take away her husband’s life. His friends, whose consciences were no more straightlaced than his own, having approved of his intention, they accompanied him the next day over the hills and lay in ambush in the woods near William Sutherland’s house, until they observed him come out to the garden, when Robert Gun shot him with an arrow from his bow. They went immediately into his house, took his wife out of bed, and carried her and her infant child in a large basket they had prepared for that purpose to Braemore, where Gun resided. As soon as the mother recovered, she was reconciled to Robert Gun, notwithstanding of his murdering her husband. She begged of him to call her son William after his deceased father, though she knew, had her husband been alive, he would have named him Hector after his own father Hector More. Robert Gun held the lands of Braemore from the Earl of Caithness in tack, but he would pay no rent to his Lordship. After being much in arrear to the Earl, his Lordship sent John Sinclair of Stercock, with a party of men under arms, to compel Gun to make payment; but Gun convened his clan, and they defeated John Sinclair with his party. Several were killed, and John Sinclair was wounded in the engagement. Young William’s mother lived the remainder of her life with Robert Gun, and had two sons by him. After these sons had arrived at maturity, young William and they went one day went a-hunting; and William being more successful than the other two killed a roe, which he desired his two brothers carry home. They objected to this drudgery, and said that he might carry home his won prey himself. But William, who by this time had heard of his father’s tragical end, told them, with a menacing aspect, that if they would not carry home the roe he would revenge some of their father’s actions upon them; which intimidated them greatly (although they were ignorant of the cause of his threatening), as they knew he had more personal styrength than them both, he being then about nine feet high, and stout in proportion. They accordingly carried home the roe, and told their mother that William had threatened them in such a manner. She communicated this circumstance to their father Robert Gun, adding, that she suspected William had heard of his father’s death. Robert Gun, being afraid of young William’s personal strength, wished to be in friendship with him, and proposed that he should marry his (Gun’s) sister, who resided with them in the character of a housekeeper. William did not relish the match, and would not accept of her. Soon afterwards Robert Gun made a feast at his house, where he collected serval of his friends, and contrived to make young William so much intoxicated that he was carried to bed, and Robert Gun put his sister to bed with him. When William awakened next morning he was surprised to find Gun’s sister in bed with him. She told he might recollect that the ceremonies of marriage passed betwixt the preceding evening, and that she was now his lawful spouse. He got up in a passion, and declared that he was imposed upon, and that he would hold no such bargain. Robert Gun flattered him, and said, as he was now married to his sister he would make the match as agreeable as possible, by putting him in possession of the estate of Langwell; and in order to accomplish his promise, he, with a few of his connections, concealed themselves near Hector More’s castle on the rock until early in the morning. When the drawbridge was let down, they forced their way into the castle, and carried Hector More (who was then an old feeble man) out of his castle, and left him in a cot-house in the neighbourhood, wher he remained for some little time, and afterwards in Sutherland, and passed the remainder of his days with one of his relations, Sutherland of Rearcher.
Robert Gun then returned in triumph to Braemore, and conducted William Sutherland his espoused wife to their castle, and gave them all the possessions of the estate of Langwell. William being very much dissatisfied with Robert Gun’s conduct, and not liking the company of his sister as spouse, went and complained of his grievances to the Earl of Caithness; who promised him redress as soon as he returned from the Orkneys, wher he was going to quell a rebellion, along with the Baron of Roslin, and wished that he (William), being a very stout man, would accompany him. William consented to do so, and returned to Berriedale to bid his friends farewell before he would go on so dangerous an expedition. Just as he was parting with them at the burial ground on the braes at the east side of the water of Berrydale, he told his friends that he suspected he never would return from Orkney. He then laid himself down on the heath near the burial ground, and desired his companions to fix two stones in the ground, the one at his head and the other at his feet, in order to show to posterity his uncommon stature; which stones remain there still;, and the exact difference between them is nine feet and five inches… [25] (He apparently died in the Orkney battles, perhaps in 1530.)
A nine-foot five-inch human? There is no record for such in human history. These Braemore stories cannot be accepted as history.
***
[1] Pp. 63 – 64, Sir Robert Gordon, A Genealogical History of the Earldom of Sutherland written between 1615 and 1625.
[2] Page 40, Mark Rugg Gunn, Clan Gunn.
[3] See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Harpsdale accessed 7 February 2013.
[4] Page 40 Mark Rugg Gunn, Clan Gunn.
[5] Page 40 ibid.; 1438 is Mark Rugg Gunn’s year for this battle is the date given in Conflicts of the Clans first published by the Foulis Press in 1764, written from a manuscript from the time of King James VI of Scotland (1566 - 1625).
[6] As well, this battle concerns a son of Niel Mackay - Niel is mentioned as being an adult in battle in 1426; Gordon’s 1464 year seems very late for a child from him.
[7] Page 69, Sir Robert Gordon, A Genealogical History of the Earldom of Sutherland.
[8] From Conflicts of the Clans. In this account battle is dated as 1438.
[9] Page 46, Mark Rugg Gunn Clan Gunn and see Page 64, A. Mackenzie, ‘The Celtic Magazine’, Volume 6.
[10] Page 46. Mark Rugg Gunn, Clan Gunn.
[11] Page 110, ed. Donald Omand, The Caithness Book.
[12] Pages 359-360, J. Westwood & S Kingshill, The Lore of Scotland A Guide to Scottish Legends.
[13] Page 44, ed. Donald Omand, The New Caithness Book.
[14] Pages 359-360, J. Westwood and S. Kingshill, ibid.
[15] Pages 350-352, J. Westwood and S. Kingshill, The Lore of Scotland A Guide to Scottish Legends.
[16] There are many impossibilities in these stories starting with the Gunns never having an historic chief nor a castle of any sort, let alone Dirlot castle. Interesting that the Gunns are the bad guys in this story.
[17] From Pages 38-39 Mark Rugg Gunn, Clan Gunn. A Victorian romantic poem of the myth can be found in Appendix 6. There are many such myths and legends floating around the Caithness / Sutherland area; see J. Westwood and S Kingshill’s The Lore of Scotland A Guide to Scottish Legends. It’s where this story (and much other Gunn ‘history’) belongs.
[18] Page 271 Mark Rugg Gunn, Clan Gunn.
[19] http://canmore.rcahms.gov.uk/en/site/9145/details/ackergill+tower/&biblio=more accessed 7 February 2013.
[20] Page 37, Mark Rugg Gunn, Clan Gunn.
[21] Page 40, Mark Rugg Gunn, ibid.
[22] See eds. Keith M. Brown’s and Roland Tanners’ The History of the Scottish Parliament Volume 1; Parliament and Politics in Scotland 1235-1560.
[23] Chapter 3, M. Brown and S. Boardman, ‘Survival and Revival: Late Medieval Scotland’ in Ed. Jenny Wormatt, Scotland A History.
[24] See chapter 8 and see page 86, Ed. Donald Omand, The New Caithness Book.
[25] Pages 19-22, R. Forsyth, The Beauties of Scotland, Volume V. Or see pages 131-134 (Eds) D. J Withington and I. R. Grant reprinted version of the 1791-1799 The Statistical Account of Scotland Volume XVIII Caithness and Sutherland.
The individual chapters can be downloaded as pdfs from latrobe.academia.edu/AlastairGunn
The idea that the Gunns and the Keiths had some sort of longlasting feud is much written about but does not stand examination. If the Gunn Keith feud did not exist then the story about the Keiths involvement in the death of Coroner Gunn – see chapter 8.3 - becomes extremely questionable through lack of motivation.
There are two parts to the supposed feud; assorted battles supposedly between Gunns and Keiths (but which often did not include Keiths but often included Mackays) and a couple of Gunn of Braemore stories. The Braemore stories are both set after the death of Coroner Gunn which means that they have no relationship to the killing of Coroner Gunn but are discussed in 7.2 and 7.3.
7.1 Gunn / Keith / Mackay battles – or not?
We do not know when Coroner Gunn was born but his death was approximately 1452, as discussed in chapter 8.3. The following supposed Gunn / Keith / Mackay ‘battles’ are in – or near – the Coroner’s lifetime. The battle years should be treated with caution; they are likely, but not necessarily totally accurate, dates.
1426. Harpsdale (being eight miles – about thirteen kilometres - south of Thurso).
Sir Robert Gordon in his Genealogical History of the Earldom of Sutherland is the earliest recorder by a long way of Sutherland events. He wrote -
In the days of Robert, Earl of Sutherland, the year 1426, Angus-Dow Mackay, and his son Niel, assembling all the forces of Strathnaver, they entered into Caithness with all hostility, and spoiled the same. The inhabitants of Caithness convened with all diligence, and fought against Angus-Dow Mackay at Harpsdale, where there was great slaughter on either side. The report hereof came to the ears of King James the First (1394-1437), who thereupon came north to Inverness, of intention to pursue Angus-Dow Mackay. Hearing of the king's being at Inverness, he came and submitted himself to the king's mercy, and gave his son Niel in pledge for his good obedience from thenceforward: which submission the king accepted, and sent Niel Mackay to remain in captivity on the Bass Rock who from thenceforth was always called Niel-Bass Mackay[1]
Note the singular lack of the word Gunn in the account. Mark Rugg Gunn – in 1969, about three hundred and forty years after Gordon - records this as a Gunn Mackay battle but does allow that ‘it was no means certain that Gunns were involved.’[2] The Mackays were punished for the battle by King James the First, but no-one else was. If it had been ‘Gunns versus Mackays’ then Gunns would have been in the records along with the Mackays.[3]
So the battle of Harpsdale is not a Gunn / Keith battle – it’s not even a battle where Gunns were specifically mentioned. The battle of Harpsdale is between the Mackays and some of the people of Caithness. Gunns might have been part of ‘the forces of Strathnaver’ or ‘the inhabitants of Caithness’, but that does not make it into a Gunn / Keith battle.
1437. Knock Stanger (near Sandside, Dounreay). As a consequence of the preceding battle the son of the Chief of the Mackay (Niel Mackay) was held hostage to the Mackays’ good behaviour, but was released in 1437 and he then raided in northern Caithness, where probably some Gunns (and others) lived. In this raid the local people were chased to Dounreay. Mark Rugg Gunn notes that ‘the battle was probably aimed primarily at the followers of Sutherland of Duffus’ and that ‘the Gunns are not specifically mentioned.’[4] In other words, Mackays raided an area where some random Gunns may have lived who then fled due to the raiders.
So, that’s another Gunn / Keith battle which lacks records and which, at worst, involved Gunns as victims, along with other local inhabitants. There is no evidence to support the idea of an interclan feud.
1438[5] Tannach Moor (four miles south of Wick). Again, it’s worth noting Gordon’s record of this battle. He uses 1464[6] as the year which seems unlikely; an Earl of Caithness was around and one suspects a Coroner of some sort would also be around and both would deal with the events described as it would be their legal duty to do so --
… some serious disputes had arisen between Keith of Ackergill and the Guns and other inhabitants of Caithness. The Keiths, mistrusting their own forces, they sent to Angus Mackay (the son of Niel-Wasse) intreating him to come to their aid; whereunto he easily condescended. Then did the inhabitants of Caithness convene in all haste, and met the Strathnaver men and the Keiths, at a place in Caithness called Blare Tannie, i.e The Moor of Tanach. There ensued a cruel fight, with great slaughter on either side. In the end the Keiths had the victory…[7]
So, according to Gordon, this battle starts off as the Keiths against the ‘Guns and other inhabitants of Caithness’; the second mention though removed ‘Guns’ and just has ‘inhabitants of Caithness’. This battle is not Guns versus Keiths and Mackays; the battle is best viewed as Keiths (with Mackays) against Caithness people (with some ‘Guns’).
Note that Keith is ‘of Ackergill’ which is not the same as saying Chief of the Clan Keith, and that no individual Gunn is specifically mentioned. There was no landed ‘of’ Gunn or Chief Gunn; it would be mentioned along with Keith of Ackergill.
A second account uses language similar to Gordon’s account --
About the year of God 1438, there fell some variance betwixt the Keiths and some others of the inhabitants of Caithness. The Keiths, mistrusting their own forces, sent to Angus Mackay of Strathnaver (the son of Neil Wasse), entreating him to come to their aid, whereunto he easily yielded; so Angus Mackay, accompanied with John Mor MacIan-Riabhaich, went into Caithness with a band of men, and invaded that country. Then did the inhabitants of Caithness assemble in all haste, and met the Strathnaver men and the Keiths at a place in Caithness called Blair-tannie. There ensued a cruel fight, with slaughter on either side. In the end the Keiths had the victory,[8]
This version has no mention of the Gunns.
Mannistanes (near Halberry) There is the absurd, undated story of the battle of Mannistanes - the ‘Hill of many stones’. The Gunns were meant to have fought the Keiths and won even though the Devil[9] helped the Keiths. Mannistanes is where ‘the Gunns commemorated the day by burying the dead ... in regular rows setting up standing stones as a gravestone at the head of each warrior’[10]. So, this battle included the Devil and incorporated ancient standing stones into a good tale but there is, unsurprisingly, no historic support for this story. Ironically the only battle that Gunns ever ‘won’ is the most blatantly unlikely to have ever happened.
Mannistanes is a Neolithic / Bronze Age[11] site which again wrecks the whole Gunn / Keith battle idea as the Neolithic / Bronze Age predates the Gunns and Keiths. The ‘Hill o Many Stanes’ is discussed in The Lore of Scotland; A Guide to Scottish Legends[12] – note the word legend. The text records that in ‘the 1970s Professor Alexander Thom argued that they (the stones) were used to calculate the movements of the moon’. The text also points out that the ‘Manistanes’ may have had a religious significance as they are near burial cairns. The stones are laid out in fan shapes[13] - which is known throughout Caithness and Sutherland but which is otherwise unknown in the United Kingdom – and it is suggested that ceremonial / artistic / religious / astronomy reasons were the cause of this shape. The book does not provide any support for a Gunn / Keith battle.[14]
Folklore Jennifer Westwood and Sophia Kingshill in their The Lore of Scotland A Guide to Scottish Legends record a Dirlot Castle story[15] where a pool near the castle held a treasure, stored there by the Castle’s owner to keep it safe. Various swimmmers tried to find the treasure but they were all never seen again except for some of their internal organs which floated to the top of the pool. This suggests the pool contained a kelpie / water horse. Westwood and and Kingshill point out this story was first recorded in 1937 but by 1977 it appeared in a different form this being that the Castle was now owned by a ‘Clan Gunn Chief’[16] who had invaded the Thurso area and returned with lots of gold. The Keiths (of course!) arrive at the castle to fight for the gold. The Gunns lose so the Gunn Chief’s wife hurls the gold – by then in a cauldron - into a deep pool.
So we have another piece of storytelling able to masquerade as Gunn / Keith ‘history’ – but we have a clear statement as to the original story and its alteration by 1977. If this 1977 fiction had been written, say, two hundred years earlier many would now accept it as history like so much other Gunn mythic ‘history’…
SUMMARY Overall, we have three battles which might have included some Gunns, but only one of which specifically mentions Keiths and Gunns (in passing). In the three battles there is no mention of any ‘Gunn Chief’ nor ‘Clan Gunn’ on the warpath. It’s not much of a Gunn / Keith clan feud then. Sure, it’s unpleasant and reflects the nastiness of the time; but a big feud? No. The Gunn Keith battles which were meant to be the basis of the feud which explained why the Keiths supposedly murdered Coroner Gunn has no significant base in these events.
I am ignoring the Mannistanes ‘event’ and the cauldron of gold story as both are obviously fictional.
7.2 Helen Gunn of Braemore story, supposedly set around 1410
The story in Mark Rugg Gunn’s view is that –
…. Lachlan Gunn of Braemore … had a beautiful daughter Helen. She was meant to marry her cousin Alexander Gunn. Donald Keith of Ackergill who was acting as factor of the Braemore property saw her and made an ‘indecent proposal’ to her which she rejected and so he brought some Keiths to Braemore on her wedding night. There was a fight. Helen was seized and taken to the Keith’s Ackergill Tower where she became a ‘victim of the brutal and licentious Keith’ so threw herself ‘headlong’ from the battlements. This was meant to have happened somewhere between 1400 and 1420.[17]
This story has nothing to do with the Keiths supposed murder of Coroner Gunn as there is the insurmountable problem of ‘Braemore’ land. The Braemore Gunns are descended from Robert Gunn, accepted as the probable second son of Coroner Gunn; see chapter 11.1 for the family. Now, the Braemore Gunns only come into existence once the Coroner’s family scatters after his death. So, self-evidently, the Helen Gunn of Braemore story has nothing to do with the feud which supposedly caused Coroner Gunn to be killed as he was already dead or the Braemore Gunns would not be in existence. So the event can’t have happened in 1400-1420 as the Coroner died about 1450, see chapter 8. That’s a problem.
As well, it’s hard to work out exactly which generation Lachlan Gunn of Braemore was (or even if he existed) but he was at least the grandson of Robert Gunn as Robert Gunn’s son is ‘Donald of Braemore.’[18] Lachlan’s daughter was obviously at least a further generation along; or the great grandniece of Coroner Gunn if you prefer.
Problems with the Helen Gunn of Braemore story
The Helen Gunn of Braemore story fails as an historical event.
To begin with Sir Robert Gordon’s A Genealogical History of the Earldom of Sutherland text includes the death of Coroner Gunn and has much more about the Gunns. His book, though, has no mention of any Helen Gunn of Braemore. If the incident had happened it would be mentioned in that text as the people involved would have been important (especially the Keiths) and the killings / rape / suicide consequently remembered - the killings / rape / suicide are also not mentioned in any other document of the time. The Helen Gunn of Braemore incident not being in Gordon’s book is prima facie evidence that the event did not happen. Yes, it happened in Caithness and his book’s title only mentioned Sutherland – but the book’s content covers Caithness as well as Sutherland and the Helen Gunn of Braemore story would be too well-known to ignore.
Secondly, if true this story would have been the basis – or a good part - of a feud however the Royal Commission of Ancient and Historical Monuments has Ackergill Tower being built about 1500[19] which is significantly after the supposed story happened.
Thirdly, Mark Rugg Gunn’s view is that Lachlan Gunn was ‘a small proprietor in Braemore’[20] - so why did Braemore need a factor? Factors – estate managers - are normally for large estates not for a ‘small proprietor’. No Keith would be a servant at a small estate as the Keiths were important people; Keiths would be more inclined to have Gunns of Braemore as factors on their estate rather than the other way around. And the Keiths had more than enough land at Ackergill – and money - to keep themselves busy without leaving their own land for employment. So, a Keith being Factor at Braemore does not ring true.
Fourthly, in Mark Rugg Gunn’s view ‘complete lawlessness existed throughout Scotland, and especially north of the Highland border’[21] at this time which would increase the chance of the Helen Gunn myth being true if his view was accurate. It’s not true. Parliaments existed and passed laws,[22] ‘the magnates who dominated Scotland’s regional societies were in 1400 acutely aware of their ties to king and kingdom’[23] and the role of Coroner would not have existed in a lawless state yet the position of Caithness Coroner existed from at least 1358.[24] The Caithness Coroner of the Helen of Braemore time would have dealt with the murders / rape / suicide if it had happened, especially as it involved the Keiths. And it would then have been in Gordon’s history, and detailed in historical documents. Sure, law and order wasn’t perfect but ‘complete lawlessness’ was not true, and only ‘complete lawlessness’ would allow for the Helen Gunn of Braemore melodrama to be true.
Overall the supposed Helen of Braemore event should be ignored as it lacks historical evidence; it is nothing but a a romantic, melodramatic fiction so loved in Victorian times.
7.3 Another Braemore Gunn story, perhaps from the late 1400s
The following Braemore story (and there are variations) is set after the Coroner’s death; it – like the Helen Gunn of Braemore story - lacks supporting evidence. The tale is worthy of an opera and its amorality is interesting. And its amorality involves Braemore Gunns; this story does not reflect well on them. The key figure in this story is a giant over nine feet tall, being but one reason why this story cannot be history. And, of course, this story is not in Sir Robert Gordon’s history. Nor can the Robert Gun of the story be historically identified…
The castle of Berrydale, or Berridale, is remarkable on account of its last inhabitant, who was a giant, called William More. His history is singular.
About the end of the fifteenth century or a bit later, Hector Sutherland, commonly called Hector More; or Meikle Hector, was proprietor of of the estate of Langwell. He was descended from the family of Duffus, and resided in a castle on a rock in the water-mouth of Berrydale; the ruins of which are still visible. He built a house at Langwell for his eldest son William, who married a beautiful woman and resided there. Some time afterwards William’s wife was in childbed of her first child, and Robert Gun, tacksman of Braemore, came over the hills to Langwell, accompanied by some of his clan, on a hunting party. Robert Gun proposed to his friends they that they would pay a visit to Hector More’s son and his young wife; which they accordingly did. Robert Gun, upon seeing the woman in bed, fancied her. Upon their way home, Gun declared to his companions that he would have William Sutherland’s wife to himself; and that the only means by which he could accomplish his design was to take away her husband’s life. His friends, whose consciences were no more straightlaced than his own, having approved of his intention, they accompanied him the next day over the hills and lay in ambush in the woods near William Sutherland’s house, until they observed him come out to the garden, when Robert Gun shot him with an arrow from his bow. They went immediately into his house, took his wife out of bed, and carried her and her infant child in a large basket they had prepared for that purpose to Braemore, where Gun resided. As soon as the mother recovered, she was reconciled to Robert Gun, notwithstanding of his murdering her husband. She begged of him to call her son William after his deceased father, though she knew, had her husband been alive, he would have named him Hector after his own father Hector More. Robert Gun held the lands of Braemore from the Earl of Caithness in tack, but he would pay no rent to his Lordship. After being much in arrear to the Earl, his Lordship sent John Sinclair of Stercock, with a party of men under arms, to compel Gun to make payment; but Gun convened his clan, and they defeated John Sinclair with his party. Several were killed, and John Sinclair was wounded in the engagement. Young William’s mother lived the remainder of her life with Robert Gun, and had two sons by him. After these sons had arrived at maturity, young William and they went one day went a-hunting; and William being more successful than the other two killed a roe, which he desired his two brothers carry home. They objected to this drudgery, and said that he might carry home his won prey himself. But William, who by this time had heard of his father’s tragical end, told them, with a menacing aspect, that if they would not carry home the roe he would revenge some of their father’s actions upon them; which intimidated them greatly (although they were ignorant of the cause of his threatening), as they knew he had more personal styrength than them both, he being then about nine feet high, and stout in proportion. They accordingly carried home the roe, and told their mother that William had threatened them in such a manner. She communicated this circumstance to their father Robert Gun, adding, that she suspected William had heard of his father’s death. Robert Gun, being afraid of young William’s personal strength, wished to be in friendship with him, and proposed that he should marry his (Gun’s) sister, who resided with them in the character of a housekeeper. William did not relish the match, and would not accept of her. Soon afterwards Robert Gun made a feast at his house, where he collected serval of his friends, and contrived to make young William so much intoxicated that he was carried to bed, and Robert Gun put his sister to bed with him. When William awakened next morning he was surprised to find Gun’s sister in bed with him. She told he might recollect that the ceremonies of marriage passed betwixt the preceding evening, and that she was now his lawful spouse. He got up in a passion, and declared that he was imposed upon, and that he would hold no such bargain. Robert Gun flattered him, and said, as he was now married to his sister he would make the match as agreeable as possible, by putting him in possession of the estate of Langwell; and in order to accomplish his promise, he, with a few of his connections, concealed themselves near Hector More’s castle on the rock until early in the morning. When the drawbridge was let down, they forced their way into the castle, and carried Hector More (who was then an old feeble man) out of his castle, and left him in a cot-house in the neighbourhood, wher he remained for some little time, and afterwards in Sutherland, and passed the remainder of his days with one of his relations, Sutherland of Rearcher.
Robert Gun then returned in triumph to Braemore, and conducted William Sutherland his espoused wife to their castle, and gave them all the possessions of the estate of Langwell. William being very much dissatisfied with Robert Gun’s conduct, and not liking the company of his sister as spouse, went and complained of his grievances to the Earl of Caithness; who promised him redress as soon as he returned from the Orkneys, wher he was going to quell a rebellion, along with the Baron of Roslin, and wished that he (William), being a very stout man, would accompany him. William consented to do so, and returned to Berriedale to bid his friends farewell before he would go on so dangerous an expedition. Just as he was parting with them at the burial ground on the braes at the east side of the water of Berrydale, he told his friends that he suspected he never would return from Orkney. He then laid himself down on the heath near the burial ground, and desired his companions to fix two stones in the ground, the one at his head and the other at his feet, in order to show to posterity his uncommon stature; which stones remain there still;, and the exact difference between them is nine feet and five inches… [25] (He apparently died in the Orkney battles, perhaps in 1530.)
A nine-foot five-inch human? There is no record for such in human history. These Braemore stories cannot be accepted as history.
***
[1] Pp. 63 – 64, Sir Robert Gordon, A Genealogical History of the Earldom of Sutherland written between 1615 and 1625.
[2] Page 40, Mark Rugg Gunn, Clan Gunn.
[3] See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Harpsdale accessed 7 February 2013.
[4] Page 40 Mark Rugg Gunn, Clan Gunn.
[5] Page 40 ibid.; 1438 is Mark Rugg Gunn’s year for this battle is the date given in Conflicts of the Clans first published by the Foulis Press in 1764, written from a manuscript from the time of King James VI of Scotland (1566 - 1625).
[6] As well, this battle concerns a son of Niel Mackay - Niel is mentioned as being an adult in battle in 1426; Gordon’s 1464 year seems very late for a child from him.
[7] Page 69, Sir Robert Gordon, A Genealogical History of the Earldom of Sutherland.
[8] From Conflicts of the Clans. In this account battle is dated as 1438.
[9] Page 46, Mark Rugg Gunn Clan Gunn and see Page 64, A. Mackenzie, ‘The Celtic Magazine’, Volume 6.
[10] Page 46. Mark Rugg Gunn, Clan Gunn.
[11] Page 110, ed. Donald Omand, The Caithness Book.
[12] Pages 359-360, J. Westwood & S Kingshill, The Lore of Scotland A Guide to Scottish Legends.
[13] Page 44, ed. Donald Omand, The New Caithness Book.
[14] Pages 359-360, J. Westwood and S. Kingshill, ibid.
[15] Pages 350-352, J. Westwood and S. Kingshill, The Lore of Scotland A Guide to Scottish Legends.
[16] There are many impossibilities in these stories starting with the Gunns never having an historic chief nor a castle of any sort, let alone Dirlot castle. Interesting that the Gunns are the bad guys in this story.
[17] From Pages 38-39 Mark Rugg Gunn, Clan Gunn. A Victorian romantic poem of the myth can be found in Appendix 6. There are many such myths and legends floating around the Caithness / Sutherland area; see J. Westwood and S Kingshill’s The Lore of Scotland A Guide to Scottish Legends. It’s where this story (and much other Gunn ‘history’) belongs.
[18] Page 271 Mark Rugg Gunn, Clan Gunn.
[19] http://canmore.rcahms.gov.uk/en/site/9145/details/ackergill+tower/&biblio=more accessed 7 February 2013.
[20] Page 37, Mark Rugg Gunn, Clan Gunn.
[21] Page 40, Mark Rugg Gunn, ibid.
[22] See eds. Keith M. Brown’s and Roland Tanners’ The History of the Scottish Parliament Volume 1; Parliament and Politics in Scotland 1235-1560.
[23] Chapter 3, M. Brown and S. Boardman, ‘Survival and Revival: Late Medieval Scotland’ in Ed. Jenny Wormatt, Scotland A History.
[24] See chapter 8 and see page 86, Ed. Donald Omand, The New Caithness Book.
[25] Pages 19-22, R. Forsyth, The Beauties of Scotland, Volume V. Or see pages 131-134 (Eds) D. J Withington and I. R. Grant reprinted version of the 1791-1799 The Statistical Account of Scotland Volume XVIII Caithness and Sutherland.