Chapter 8 - Coroner Gunn of Caithness, wrongly called Crowner Gunn and (Clan) Gunn Chief
**AA8. Coroner Gunn of Caithness; the first Gunn in history
The individual chapters can be downloaded as pdfs from latrobe.academia.edu/AlastairGunn
There is much to be said about the first Gunn known in history and who was important until around 1452 (see chapter 8.3) namely the Gunn who held the position of coroner of Caithness.
The spelling of coroner was not fixed at this time; dictionaries had not been invented so coroner appeared as crowner in some documents but both words apply to the same position. Professor Houston in his work The Coroners of Northern Britain c. 1300-1700 makes it clear that the positions are the same; ‘‘what people called ‘coroners’ or ‘crowners’ (or variant spellings thereof) … in Scotland…’.[1] To make his point more clear - ‘Closely connected with the sheriff was the CROWNER or CORONER.’[2] The Shorter Oxford Dictionary also has a meaning for Crowner as ‘= Coroner’[3]. Mark Rugg Gunn also makes the point ‘Crowner … is the same word as Coroner’.[4] The title of Professor Houston’s book is the point The Coroners of Northern Britain c. 1300-1700 – the legal position is ‘Coroner’.
Those who use a two syllable ‘crown / er’ for the position of coroner may hope a regal ‘Crown’ can be added somehow to ‘Clan’ Gunn history to make it seem more glamorous and significant. Such a two-syllable pronunciation of the word is just wrong; the Scottish misspelling of coroner is pronounced in three syllables. The ‘c / row / ner’ prounced syllables are ‘K’, ‘row’ as in rowing boat, and ‘ner’ – Coroner.
Note that Coroner Gunn has stories attached to him about the brooch he wore, probably associated with the office he held. He was never called ‘Chief of the Clan Gunn’ in the various histories; again showing that his supposed position of ‘Chief of the Clan Gunn’ has no basis.
Coroner Gunn was, though, the first Gunn to emerge into history which is much more important.
8.1 The position and significance of a Coroner
Duties of a Coroner
The position of Coroner in Scottish law in Coroner Gunn’s time had - in essence – nothing to do with coroner under English or American law as we view it today. The coroner’s position was secondary to the Sheriff of an area[5] and the Sheriff was ‘on a par with the provincial earls and lords.’[6]
Professor R. A. Houston writes that the Scottish coroner position ‘dealt more with living miscreants and their assets than with bodies and goods of the dead; they were men of action who had a robust role in the administration of justice…. Scottish coroners functioned as executive judicial officers who serviced circuit courts which dealt especially (if not exclusively prior to 1532) with criminal matters’ [7] and that Scottish coroners ‘arrested suspects and seized goods on behalf of the king’s judges. They dealt with the living rather than with the wrongfully dead. They also had quasi-military functions and some powers of summary justice[8] when maintaining law and order…’.[9] Coroners ‘were executive legal officers or bailiffs… and received securities from litigants, arrested (cited) indicted criminals, enforced attendance at hearings, or seized forfeited goods in cases involving breach of the king’s peace...’[10]
The ‘Coroner’s main role was protecting the king’s financial interests so he (the king) could profit from potentially lucrative revenues like the confiscation of property of felons and the forfeiture of sureties, but their job was also to bring the king’s justice into the localities. Unpopular they may sometimes have been…’[11] That makes sense as confiscating property, arresting people so they are jailed, killing people etc. is rarely appreciated by the families of those so dealt with. Especially in the mid-1400s with no social security. This role was echoed in the legal system of England and Wales 1063-1284; ‘justice in medieval times was a source of profit to the king.’[12] The position of Scottish coroner could be ‘fluid’[13] – ‘what a holder made of his job depended on his personality and that of his immediate superior, as well as the circumstances in which both operated.’[14] Houston also notes ‘The title invested its holder with authority while physical symbol such as brooch, wand, porteous roll or halberd (the coroner had the right to bear arms…) publicly intimated status.’[15] Here we probably see the origin of the ‘great brooch’ stories[16] which are attached to Coroner Gunn; was it just his badge[17] of coronial office?
And then there is the question of the Sherrif who was legally superior to the coroner. A major issue concerning the Caithness coroner is in a 1358 letter[18] by King David of Scotland which pointed out that a hundred or so years before Gunn was coroner in Caithness the position of Caithness coroner existed but the quotation below shows the coroner’s superiors the Sherrif and bailies lived in Inverness whilst only the coroner was in Caithness. The king expected the coroner to have responsibility for proclaiming that no-one would go to the Orkney Islands for any reason other than pilgrimage or business reasons – and if they did such people would lose ‘all’.
Letters: letters patent to the sheriff and bailies of Inverness and the coroner of Caithness to make public proclamation forbidding entrance to OrkneyDavid, by the grace of God king of Scots, to his sheriff, bailies of Inverness and their lieutenants or lieutenant, and the coroner of Caithness to whom the present letters shall come, greeting. We order and command you that, as quickly and as often as you shall be asked you shall cause to be forbidden and publicly proclaimed in burghs, courts and public places in our name, that nobody of whatever status he be should presume to enter the lands or harbours of Orkney in any way, except by reason of pilgrimage or for carrying out trade, or in other peaceful and lawful business, under pain of losing all which may be lost to our royal majesty. In testimony of which matter we have ordered our seal to be appended to the present letters in patent form. At Scone in our parliament held in the same place, 18 November in the twenty-ninth year of our reign [18 November 1358].
And this continued in Coroner Gunn’s time. The Sheriff with jurisdiction for Caithness was in Inverness so Coroner Gunn would at least for some of the time - if not all of the time – have some sort of quasi-Sheriff authority. The courts certainly visited Caithness from the 1260s[19] on (and there is record that in 1263-66, at least, the Court at Inverness involved Caithness people[20]) but it seems that was the job of an itinerant justiciar (a justiciar was more important than a coroner[21]) paid for by the Sheriff. Caithness was legally separated from Inverness only in 1503[22] which is after Coroner Gunn’s time. So, given the quasi-Sheriff aspect and the lack of an Earl, Coroner Gunn was more than an everyday coroner and was the King’s representative (after all, the King would have appointed him.)
An earlier Caithness coroner
A 1438 Retour of Inquest relating to Caithness is discussed by Mark Rugg Gunn, and was based on the Gunn papers of 1911.[23] It says that a Magnus Crowner (Coroner) lived and had sons including Thomas. Mark Rugg Gunn’s view is ‘that this document can be disregarded’[24] for Gunn history and I agree. There is no mention of these ‘Crowner’ names in any other Gunn history – or myth - and no Gunn surname is given for the ‘Crowner’. So why should it be Gunn? ‘Crowner’ is a position and there is no support for the Caithness coronial position being inherited.[25] There is also no known link to show this ‘Magnus Crowner’ was the same person as Coroner Gunn and so the document probably applied to an earlier holder of the coronial position. In other words, just because there may have been a document which mentioned a ‘Crowner’ of Caithness near the right time period does not mean that ‘Crowner’ was Coroner Gunn.
As well, the years are a problem – Coroner Gunn was operating in Caithness but dead by 1452, see chapter 8.2. If the Retour of 1438 applied to Coroner Gunn it meant he would have been Coroner of Caithness for about fifteen years from the say mid 1430s to 1452ish. That seems a long period for such a senior, physically demanding position especially as the Retour has Thomas being adult in 1438. So Magnus, father of Thomas, would have to be say around forty–five years of age; one doubts he could still be Coroner in his late fifties. As such, the 1438 document cannot apply to Coroner Gunn.
I note the original document has not been sighted since 1911; it might have been poorly read and ‘Crowner’ may have been another, not-related word.
A later Caithness coroner
There are legal documents which relate to a coroner of Caithness; the key point is which coroner.
From a 1456 inventory of the goods of the Earl of Caithness’s late father-in law, namely Alexander Sutherland, there is mention of ‘Alexander the Crouner’s son’ as owing for the tiend[26] of Dale, Thurso and the river with other goods that he tuk of myn that comes to 24 merks and mair’, while ‘Henry, the Crounar’s son’ also owed for tiends and cattle that he had taken ’40 merks and mer’.[27] The will, to which the inventory relates, has an item; ‘I leave to the Crowner a horse.’[28] Remember that Sir Robert Gordon pointed out that Coroner Gunn was flourishing when there were no Earls – and this inventory is from the Earl of Caithness’s father-in-law. If an Earl exists then Coroner Gunn does not. This means that the ‘Crowner’ mentioned was not Coroner Gunn but the Coroner who probably succeeded him; the position of coroner could be inherited but mainly it was not so inherited. As well, a new Coroner would require a horse (or further horse?) to get around Caithness to do his duty. A new coroner implies that the Alexander and Henry so mentioned are also not Gunns.
These later documents can be ignored for Gunn history.
8.2 Coroner Gunn; name and life
Name
It is worth restating that we have no idea who Coroner Gunn’s parents were so to link him to mythic earlier supposed ‘Gunn Chiefs’ is ridiculous. We also don’t know his first name. Some people have used ‘George’ but ‘George’ with its links to England’s ‘St. George’ seems an improbable name for the Scottish Highlands in the 1400s as Caithness was more Gaelic / Norse, than Anglo-Norman. One suspects George has no factual origin but was used to humanise the important but un-named Gunn; and to soften history by anglicising a key figure. Mark Rugg Gunn’s view is that George 'appears to be traditional rather than founded on fact’[29] - as it’s not a fact it should not be used.
Life
It is impossible to exactly pin down when Gunn was coroner of Caithness but he died no later than June 1452[30] as Sir Robert Gordon makes clear as he wrote that when the Coroner was alive ‘he floorished (as) there wes no Earle of Catteynes, that earldome being yit in the king’s hands, and was thereafter given to William Sinckler.’[31] That makes sense - the stories attached to Coroner Gunn’s power are logical only when he was in charge of Caithness; that is, before the Earls of Caithness took over as he would have not had the amount of power or fame attributed to him when Earls were around as he would have been subordinate to them. The word ‘floorished’ is key; Coroner Gunn was alive and busy before the Earldom of Caithness was recreated in June 1452.
The Earldom of Caithness was held by the King from 1375 to 1452. Technically the title was held by various royals 1375-1434 with the title in abeyance 1434-1452. It was recreated in June 1452 for Sir George Crichton who resigned it back to the King before Crichton’s death in August 1454. It is unclear if Sir George Crichton ever visited Caithness. There was then a brief gap before the ‘William Sinckler’ (William Sinclair) mentioned by Sir Robert Gordon was created Earl of Caithness on 28 August 1455. The lack of mention of Sir George Crichton is unimportant, as said it is not even clear he made Caithness as he was a very busy man; Gordon’s use of ‘floorished’ is a word one would not use for a period of just one year so it does not mean the gap between August 1454 and August 1455.
So, Coroner Gunn died before June 1452; the implication of Gordon’s ‘thereafter’ suggests he died some time before an Earldom was recreated so Coroner Gunn may have died a little earlier than June 1452.
But what would Gunn have needed as Coroner? He needed somewhere to live, to hold prisoners in jail, somewhere to store confiscated goods and somewhere to entertain visiting justiciars etc.. He would also have needed somewhere which suited the importance of his position. His accommodation was never the supposed ‘Gunn castles’; they are too small and more fortified farmhouses. See chapter 8.5. But with no Earl of Caithness in place - and no Sheriff - it seems reasonable that a castle associated with the Earldom be used by Gunn as he was also acting as Sheriff(ish) and Earl(ish) – and being the King’s representative. But which castle? Castle Sinclair Girnigoe is associated with the Earls of Caithness and that castle is known to have been built on an older castle.[32] That older castle might be where Gunn lived. Or was it Wick castle? The castle used by Coroner Gunn is unclear; it’s the principle that Gunn would have used an existing castle - and not a ‘Gunn castle’ - which is important. Sir Robert Gordon provides support for Coroner Gunn using Castle Sinclair Girnigoe, see chapter 8.3.
Did Hugh MacDonald of Sleat visit Coroner Gunn?
Such a castle is important because it provides support for the possible visit of Hugh Macdonald of Sleat’s – Sleat is on Skye on the west coast of Scotland – visit to Coroner Gunn. One version is -
(Hugh) stopped at Caithness where Hugh was entertained by a member of the Clan Gunn who was the Crowner of the region. Gunn's hospitality was lavish, and during the visit Hugh is said to have formed a ''matrimonial alliance'' with his daughter.[33]
There is no mention of this event in Sir Robert Gordon’s history, the event only appears in much later histories. There is general acceptance that Hugh MacDonald of Sleat had a son from an unknown Gunn – the son was Donald Gallach. There is some consideration that it was Coroner Gunn’s daughter.[34] If it was the Coroner’s daughter it makes sense for Hugh to have visited the Coroner; a girl would not be sent to the other side of the country at this time. There is no record of a marriage between the female Gunn and Hugh MacDonald. Some argue that Hugh visted the Coroner in 1460[35] but this goes against Gordon’s comment that Coroner Gunn lived when there were no Earls of Caithness and William Sinclair was created Earl of Caithness on 28 August 1455 – and the Coroner was dead by 1452, as already discussed.
The 1460 date is also unlikely as the Earl of Caithness excused himself from visiting Norway in that year (the Earl of Caithness was also Earl – Jarl – of the Orkney Islands at this time so also owed allegiance to the King of Norway as well as to the Scottish King) as he was too busy dealing with his ‘old great enemy’[36] namely John McDonald Lord of the Isles (being Hugh of Sleat’s brother). John MacDonald was a slippery character[37] – sometimes he was in open revolt against the King of Scotland and sometimes not, but John MacDonald was also happy to raid the Orkney Islands. In July 1462 he even went into alliance with England against the Scottish King aiming for full independence. This alliance failed and meant the end of John MacDonald’s power.
What this meant for Hugh MacDonald is simple – his family was questionable and so was he. The only reason offered for the 1460 date – which should be 1461 – was that ‘Hugh made a successful raid in the Orkneys’[38] in June 1461.[39] In other words Hugh attacked part of the Earl of Caithness and Jarl of Orkney’s land. Hugh could hardly visit the Coroner of Caithness (if he had been alive then) after committing the violence; it would have been the Coroner’s responsibility to arrest him and his crew, not feed and water them – and certainly not to allow his daughter to go off with Hugh. As well, it was usual for successful warriors to return to their homes after battle, in this case on the west coast of Scotland rather than go down to Caithness for a social visit especially as there had been ‘great slaughter’.[40]
Did Hugh really ‘get involved’ with a daughter of Coroner Gunn before the Coroner died in 1452? I suspect not. There was no reason for his Lord of the Isles line to go visiting the east coast of Scotland as they had their own massive estates on the west coast to look after, and I can find no record of them so visiting the Scottish east coast. As well Hugh would be young; he was probably born somewhere around 1436[41] so making him no more than sixteen.
Another view says Hugh ‘married, secondly, a lady of the Clan Gunn of Caithness’.[42] Given the time a second marriage is possible and note the words the ‘lady of the Clan Gunn of Caithness’ – it does not say Coroner’s daughter. Was she even a ‘Gunn of Caithness’? She may have been a female Irish Gunn and Irish Gunns do not have a link with Highland Gunns.
Overall, I accept Hugh had a child by a Gunn, probably out of marriage. I suspect it was not from the Coroner’s daughter but more likely a Gunn from the west coast of Scotland, and that time has merged this early female Gunn into supposedly being the Coroner’s daughter. She was certainly the first historically known female Gunn…
8.3 Coroner Gunn’s death c. early 1450s
Tradition is the only authority we have for the fact of this conflict having really taken place.
Donald Sage[43]
There has been an enormous amount written about Coroner Gunn’s death and there are many variations of the story. The logical way to think about Coroner Gunn’s death is to consider the earliest account of it which was written by Sir Robert Gordon about one hundred and seventy years or so after the event. His account of the ‘battle of St Tayr’ in Caithness is[44] -
After some dissention between the Kaithes and the Clangun, ther was a meitting appointed for ther reconciliation at the chappll of St Tayr in Catteynes, not farr from Girnigo, wher they should meitt, with twelve hors on either syd. The Cruner … with the most pairt of his sone and principall kinsmen, came at the appointed time to this chappell, to the number of twelve; and as they were within the cheappell at their prayers, the Laird of Innervgie and Ackrigell arrived ther, with tuelve hors, and two men vpon upon everie hors. So these tuentie-four men rushed in at the door of the chappell and invaded the Cruner and his company at Vnawars (unawares), who nevertheless made great resistance. In end, the Clangun were slain, and the most pairt of the Kaiths also … James Gun, the Cruner his sone, being absent, and hearing of his father’s death, retired himself and his famile into Sutherland, wher he settled himself, and begat this William Mack-James… [45]
So, to restate Gordon’s account of the Coroner’s death; there were problems between Coroner Gunn and local Keiths, a meeting for a reconciliation of the two sides was arranged to be held in St Tayre’s[46] Church with twelve horse for each side, Coroner Gunn with ‘most part of his’ sons and kinsmen arrived before the Keiths and went into the church. Then a Keith, Laird of Inverugie and Ackergill, arrived with two men on each horse and killed all the Gunns who were in the church, but suffered heavy losses whilst doing so. The Coroner’s son James was not there and after this battle moved to Sutherland with his family. Note that Gordon points out that St Tayr was not far from Girnigoe (castle). There is no reason for this information to be added bar that it hints that Coroner Gunn was living at Girnigoe Castle which is a point I have already discussed.
In other words, Gordon says all the Gunns were killed at this battle, including the most part of his sons and principal kinsmen. And the killing of these Gunns was by the local branch of the Keith family.
Much later versions of the event say the killing was organised by the Chief of the Clan Keith (the Clan Keith Chief was William Keith Marischall of Scotland, then made Earl Marischall of Scotland around 1458. He actually died in 1463 and there is no record of him living or visiting Caithness) and that some sons of Coroner Gunn survived and took revenge on the Keiths including killing this extremely important Chief of the Clan Keith. These embellished stories should be ignored; Gordon’s account (as it is the earliest known by many, many years) is either accurate or it is not, one cannot randomly add to it.
Is Gordon’s account of the Coroner’s death totally accurate?[47] He was not, after all, there at the time. He wrote of an event which had been remembered in oral history; Gordon’s book was the first written history. One should reject facts not provided by Gordon but it is also right to question that which he wrote as his was not a first-hand account. Gordon is certainly not perfect – for example, he wrote that ‘Clan-gun (are named)… from one called Gun, whom they alledge to have been the king of Denmark his son, and came many days agoe from Denmark and settled himself in Catteyness’[48] which as an origin for ‘Clan’ Gunn is supported by no-one.
The problems with Gordon’s account of the death of Coroner Gunn are -
1) Concerning the Church of St Tayr. It would be useful to have a record showing that St Tayr was definitely in existence in the 1440s / early 1450s. The Church may have been there, but then again it may not have been. The RCAHMS[49] does not assign a period to it.
The first record of the church is in 1762 by Bishop Forbes who decribed it as ‘very singular (small)’[50] – POWiS (Places of Worship in Scotland) gives the Chapel measurements[51] of forty-seven feet by twenty-seven feet six inches or, if you like about fourteen and a third metres by eight and a half metres metres so how on earth are the thirty six Gunn / Keith men fighting to the death in it? Consider the furniture in the church as well. It’s physically impossible I would suggest, even allowing for the smaller body size of those years. Why would the Keiths enter such a small space to fight? Much easier to just wait at the door and kill those trying to escape, or burn the chapel down. The tiny size of St Tears places a question mark over whether any battle occurred inside the Church.
And why would Coroner Gunn be praying in such a tiny rural church? All castles have chapels, Coroner Gunn lived in a castle with, presumably, his own cleric – or at least one deputed to serve his chapel. If Coroner Gunn had wanted prayers it would have been held in his own castle chapel, with his own cleric and done in style worthy of his importance in Caithness. The rural church prayer idea seems like a bit of later public relations spin.
If the tiny Church was meant to have been chosen as neutral territory for a place for discussion between rival groups then that seems illogical as it was too small, and unimportant, a place for such a meeting (he was the Coroner after all, and the Keiths were important local aristocracy); a much larger, more important Church would have been found.
And why was there no lookout at the Chapel given the problems associated with this supposed event and so stop the sneaky Keiths? The Coroner was not an innocent;[52] he was obviously good at his important job which required a man of action. The lack of a lookout also suggests the story was invented.
But were the Gunns attacked near the church? That’s possible – and the church was perhaps the nearest geographical landmark to where the battle happened. The remains of the church are about halfway between the Keiths of Ackergill and Castle Sinclair Girnigoe which is where I think Coroner Gunn lived. The church is, more importantly, on the way from Castle Sinclair Girnigoe to just about anywhere in Caithness as the Castle is situated to the north of Wick on an isolated bay. People would have known the track the Gunns used to leave or return to their castle – and it was and still is – an empty land.
I find the likelihood that the Gunns were attacked in the church as hugely unlikely but them being attacked near the church seems quite possible.
2) Concerning the Keiths. The idea of Keiths being ‘honourable’ and so riding two fighting men on a horse (there are other Scottish myths like this story)[53] to the Gunn battle, then consequently being hugely dishonourable by killing the Gunns in church lacks logic. The Church had its own power and such sacrilege as the St Tayr killings would have been known; Keiths would be in the religious records and probably would have had to go on pilgrimage to Jerusalem, or something equivalent, to redeem themselves after desecrating a holy place. So, again the Keith / Gunn battle in the church doesn’t ring true – a battle near it again seems more likely.
The argument that the battle was result of a longstanding Gunn / Keith feud I have shown to be highly unlikely – see chapter 7.
Overall I find this Gunn / Keith battle impossible to believe; Coroner Gunn represented the King in Caithness, and the local Keiths were a significant part of one of the most important families in Caithness and Scottish history – around 1350 John Keith, being the second son of Edward Keith, Marischall of Scotland, married Mary Cheyne owner of Ackergill and Inverugie and it all became ‘Keith land’. Both Coroner Gunn and the Keiths were extremely socially significant and both represented law and order; neither Coroner Gunn nor the Keiths were hillbilly feud families. Keiths and Coroner Gunn’s family were families of importance; they would be more inclined to support each other than kill each other. As well, Coroner Gunn was the representative of law and order in Caithness; an important family could not expect to kill him and get away with it. It would have made the historic records of the day; by contrast the extended feud which started around 1490 between the Campbells, Drummonds, MacGregors, MacLarens and Grahams is ‘recorded chapter by chapter in the parliament and privy council papers of Scotland’.[54]
3) Consequences of the event. Gordon gives no consequences for this event which at first thought seems unusual. But although the position was significant it was not an inherited position – the main concern would have been to appoint a new coroner. As well, Caithness was not the Royal Court at Edinburgh; was the murder meant to have been tidied up when an Earl was appointed? If the Earl had known that it was the Keiths he could easily have arranged for them to be arrested and take over Ackergill for the King; but this did not happen. The Earl had the power to do this; the lack of such an event again suggests that the Keiths did not kill the Gunns.
But is the lack of consequence for the murder of Coroner Gunn due to something simple? Coroner Gunn was about arresting rogues and criminals; local Caiths if you like. The idea that Coroner Gunn died in a brawl / battle with a group of Caiths[55] (not Keiths) - Caithness people – probably because of his role as Coroner is more logical than an attack by Keiths. As Professor Houston said; coroners could be ‘unpopular’[56] – had Coroner Gunn annoyed too many people for too many years by arbitrary behaviour? Do not forget the coroner had powers of arrest, property confiscation, some aspects (at least) of summary justice, and was without anyone to restrict his behaviour. Was the Coroner trying to arrest some Caiths but ran into trouble? Had some Caiths enough of the Coroner’s behaviour – it would not take much for Coroner Gunn to be seen as tyrannical – and so decide to surprise and kill him? If Coroner Gunn and the other Gunns were killed by a group of Caithness people then it would explain the reason for the attack, and provide a reason for lack of any known consequence as without knowledge of who the murderers had been, no action could readily be taken.
SUMMARY It is not finally clear who killed the Coroner Gunn but logic suggests he was murdered by some Caithness people, probably near St Tayr’s Church around 1450.
8.4 Coroner Gunn’s children
Coroner Gunn’s children are problematic in name, order and number. Other than the first two sons they are of little significance bar for those who believe in septs; one view is that ‘septs were a Victorian invention’.[57] Sir Robert Gordon’s account of Coroner Gunn’s death said that ‘most pairt of his (Coroner’s) sone and principall kinsmen’ were killed so some of the extensive lists of the Coroner’s children seem unlikely. I discuss the Sept question in chapter 11.8.
The first two sons were James and Robert; the property they have after the Coroner’s death suggest they were the two oldest members of the Coroner’s family in that it is fair to assume that the oldest (and presumably strongest) got most property.
The 1896[58] tree records Coroner Gunn’s children, in order, as –
· James of Killernan. See chapter 10.
· Robert of Braemore, sometimes called Robson Gunns. Some question the Braemore for Robert and attach that estate to his eldest son but given the money involved in getting the wadset of an estate I suspect Braemore is best attached to Robert. See page 193.
· William, ‘Gunn ancestor of the Williamsons of Bankirk’ (Banniskirk?)
· The 1868 / 1870 trees (see chapter 9.2) record John as the third son of the Coroner (‘from whom Cattaig Gunns’)
· The fourth son was Alexander (Dale) died in 1456.
· The fifth son was Torquil ‘died of his wounds.’
· The sixth son was Henry Gunn (Dale). The 1868 / 1870 family trees have Strathalladale and Forsinard as places attached to this line.
· One daughter of the Coroner – Mary? - married Hugh McDonald of Slate (Sleat), Isle of Skye.
· There was a further daughter of the Coroner - Binie? Of Blaglaton?
Many other suggestions and orders for the children are known.
This text is about core Gunn issues, not about getting lost in the midst of myriad possibilities for Coroner Gunn’s children. I accept James as first son and Robert as second son but the rest have, in essence, faded from history. I certainly question whether a daughter married Hugh MacDonald of Sleat; see chapter 8.2.
8.5 The supposed Coroner Gunn castle(s)
Castle Gunn … Of historical records there are none.[59]
Lovely word castles; it evokes all sorts of splendour and glory however the supposed Gunn castles are not castles as, firstly, they are far too small; the Gunn ‘castles’ are, at best, fortified farm houses. But these supposed fortified houses are so small they do not appear in Nigel Tranter’s monumental five volume The Fortified House in Scotland; Volume 5 dealt with North and West Scotland, by implication the ‘castles’ lack significance.
Before discussing the two ‘castles’ normally wrongly linked with the Gunns it is sensible to dispose of two others which are occasionally linked with the Gunns. The first of these is Dirlot castle.[60] This castle is normally associated with the Cheynes; given that the Cheynes are known to be extremely wealthy landowners and the Gunns have no primary source material associated with them at this time, let alone with them having a castle, it is reasonable to ignore these occasional much later references to Gunns at Dirlot castle. In terms of Coroner Gunn a Dirlot castle would certainly be irrelevant as it was so far from the main Caithness area.
Donald Sage also makes reference[61] to a ruined ‘castle’ at Kinbrace known as ‘crown-laird.’ Canmore[62] – the ‘National Record of the Historic Environment’ of Scotland – says of the name where the ruin is that ‘it is said to mean ‘the old field’ or ‘the old cairns’. There is no support for Sage’s view that it was a ‘castle’ – as well it is too far from the main part of Caithness for it to have any relevance for Coroner Gunn who after all had a major job to do in Caithness, not inland Sutherland. Sage did not link this ‘castle’ to the Gunns.
One also has to remember that we have no idea who Coroner Gunn’s parents were; we would know of them if they had a Gunn castle. The reality is that Coroner Gunn had a castle provided due to his position so it was not really a ‘Gunn castle.’
*****
There are generally considered to be two ‘Gunn castles’, one at Bulnacraig and the other at Halberry.
Gunn’s castle (Bulnacraig)
This castle is described by the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland as ‘a small rectangular keep about 37 by 23ft with walls some 3ft thick on a peninsular rock isolate by a wall built on a rock shelf. Immediately outside the building at the NE angle is a circular depression some 9ft in diameter and 2 to 3ft deep, probably indicating a well ...1911 ... the alleged wall is probably a sink-hole caused by drainage through a rock fault. Date not ascertained.’[63]
So this Gunn ‘castle’ was a building of 37 feet by 23 feet (11.3 metres by 7 metres); we are not talking motte and bailey castles here, we are talking more a very large room. In some ways it’s sensible to view it as a defensive tower house or farm house. Even Mark Rugg Gunn finds that ‘it is hard to believe that this abode was used for any length of time or as a permanent residence.’[64] One surely needs it to be large enough for a permanent residence for it to qualify as a castle.
Halberry Castle / Cruner Gunn’s Castle
The ‘castle of Easter Clyth ... commonly called Cruner Gunn’s castle’[65] note the word ‘commonly’.
Descriptions of it are very similar from a range of sources, suggesting borrowed language and perhaps just one source, the first 1769 comment –
· A 1769 comment says ‘on a rock in the edge of the sea in Easter Clyth, there is an old building, called Cruner Gunn’s castle.’[66]
· ‘(On) a rock on the edge of the sea, in Easter Ayth, there is an old building called Cruner Gunn’s Castle’[67] is an 1802 description.
· An 1809 identification says ‘on a rock in the edge of the sea in Easter Clyth, there is an old building, called Cruner Gunn’s castle.’[68]
But was it a castle[69] in any real way? The official ‘Royal Commission on Ancient and Historical Monuments’ description of it is ‘The foundation of a rectangular keep 44ft by 28ft (1911) ... Halberry Castle is the turf-covered footings of a tower 19.0 by 6.0 by 0.6m high, defended on the landward side by a deep ditch spanned by a causeway. The ditch appears to have been mutilated by quarrying at its NW end. From a point 4.0m NW of the tower, there is a low turf-covered wall running N across the promontory forming a second line of defence, the gap between the wall and the tower being the entrance. Between the tower and the ditch are the vague footings of a rectangular building 8.0 by 4.5m. which is probably contemporary with the tower. Date not verified. (1967)’[70]
So the 1967 measurement has a 20 metre by 6 metre tower (not castle) with possibly an attached rectangular building. Big enough for an extended family in times of trouble and even, perhaps, with a shed to hold cattle or horses; the promontory on which the tower is on suggests one would not leave one’s animals out to be taken by invaders. And why have such a small building there - it’s certainly not a castle to dominate the sea. It’s on the cliff edge to enable defence from land. It’s a defensive building, like many of the brochs of earlier years. A suggestion is that a farmer who rents from 100 to 150 acres requires a stable of 24 feet by 14 feet for six horses.[71] So Halberry has a possible stable suitable for someone running a farm of 100 to 150 acres; it’s not illogical to assume that the house matched the criteria for a farm.
The idea that Coroner Gunn ruled ‘in medieval splendour in his castle at Halberry’[72] as some believe but which is not in Gordon’s history, is impossible when one considers its size; the idea is only plausible when Coroner Gunn was living in a borrowed castle, probably Sinclair Girnigoe castle due to his job. See 8.3.
Other points against these Gunn ‘castles’
Neither castle was large enough to have been able to lock up criminals and store confiscated property which the Coroner had to do as part of his job as Coroner.
Neither Gunn ‘Castle’ appeared on the April 1642 map of Caithness[73] which featured, amongst much else, ‘Ackergill’ and ‘Girnigo or Castell Sincleer’; this lack of appearance suggests, at the very least, the unimportance or non existence of these ‘Gunn’ buildings.
Books such as Exploring Scotland’s Heritage: The Highlands[74] by Joanna Close-Brooks and published by The Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland make no mention of any Gunn ‘castles’.
Given the ‘Gunn castles / fortified farm houses’ do not feature in early histories of the county but appear as named buildings only many hundreds of years[75] after the Coroner’s death the use of the word ‘Gunn’ as part of the name of these ruins is highly questionable.
Overall
No sources give primary support for the name Gunn to be attached to these ‘castles.’ They are also not mentioned in the earliest history of the time.
Mark Rugg Gunn quotes the Rev. Alexander Gunn who suggested Snaekoll (see chapter 2.2) built Gunn’s castle and possibly Halberry castle[76] which is impossible. As already discussed, there is no proof Snaekoll made it out of Norway and much to suggest he died there. If Snakeoll had been alive and had inherited the lands of his grandparents and had returned in say 1240 a real castle (not a farm house) would have been built as he would have been wealthy but he would have built it in the Orkney Islands. And he would have been in the historic records; the return of a person who killed an Earl and was forced in disgrace to Norway but somehow managed to get back to the Orkney Islands would not have been ignored, especially with the lands he would have owned.
A Gunn myth[77] is attached to one of the castles and Snaekoll; ‘Gunn of Clyth (Snaekoll) while in Denmark gained the affection of a Danish Princess,’ and ‘in returning home with the lady and attendants, the vessel was wrecked upon a rock and every soul perished. A pot full of gold was found on this rock ... the body of the princess was thrown on the shore and buried at Ulbster ... Gunn is said to have returned before her, having repented of his marriage, and only caring of her wealth. When she arrived at night on a ship at the coast, he had put a light signal at the worst place for landing, and all were drowned as he intended. He never secured the gold that was on board, and when the clan discovered his treachery they drove him from his castle.’[78]
It's a ludicrous story. There is no proof that Snaekoll[79] returned to Scotland, let alone of him marrying twice (one would have thought Danish royal records would record marriage of a princess to a Scottish noble. Such records are not visible.)
The Clan Gunn USA website[80] even gives credence to a variation of this myth as it says that ‘Castle Gunn was destroyed by the King of Norway, whose daughter one of the Gunn chiefs (the only option is Snaekoll) had married, though he already had a wife at Castle Gunn. When the second wife sailed to Caithness to join her husband, the Gunn clan arranged for the beacon to be placed on a dangerous rock at Ulbster and so wrecked the ship and all aboard were drowned. The castle was destroyed in revenge and the Gunn chief and his retainers were slain.’ Now, it’s an interesting variation with all the ‘clan’ being responsible this time (the whole story leaves Gunns in an awkward moral place); but the problems increase. It’s too small to be a castle a princess would marry into, the Gunns were too minor, the ‘Gunn’ who would have been in Norway would be carrying too much political baggage (Earl-slayer) for a princess to marry and information about this attack – after all it involves the King of Norway - would be available from Norwegian and Scottish historical sources and it isn’t.
Overall the Gunn ‘castles’ are not castles; they are far too small and are, at best, fortified farmhouses. Their Gunn links are not proved. Coroner Gunn probably lived in a castle but it was one associated with his job, not one which his family owned.
***
[1] Page 3 and page 39, R. A. Houston The Coroners of Northern Britain c. 1300 – 1700.
[2] Page 31, A. Jeffrey, The History and Antiquities of Roxburghshire and Adjacent Districts; From The Most Remote Period to the Present Time Vol. 2.
[3] Page 464, The Shorter Oxford Dictionary on Historical Principles, Volume 1. 3rd Edition.
[4] Page 43, Mark Rugg Gunn, Clan Gunn.
[5] ‘The Scottish Sherriff was, from the twelfth century, ‘the king’s judicial, financial, administrative officer’. Page 2, R. A. Houston The Coroners of Northern Britain c. 1300 – 1700.
[6] See http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/633/1/Grant_Franchises.pdf accessed 2 April 2019.
[7] Page 3, R. A. Houston The Coroners of Northern Britain c. 1300 – 1700.
[8] Summary justice? That means killing people.
[9] Page 38, R. A. Houston ibid.
[10] Page 55, R. A. Houston ibid.
[11] Page 44, R. A. Houston ibid.
[12] Page 147, A.H. William An Introduction to the History of Wales, Volume II, Part I 1063-1284.
[13] Page 46, R. A. Houston The Coroners of Northern Britain c. 1300 – 1700.
[14] Page 52, R. A. Houston ibid.
[15] Page 70, R. A. Houston ibid.
[16] Page 14, Thomas Sinclair, The Gunns.
[17] Was it anything more than ‘In wet weather, the plaid was thrown loose, and covered both shoulders and body; and when the use of both arms were required, it was fastened across the breast by a large silver bodkin, or circular brooch, often enriched with precious stones, or imitations of them, having mottos engraved, consisting of allegorical and figurative sentences. These were also employed to fix the plaid on the left shoulder.’ Pp. 77-78, Col. David Stewart Sketches of the Highlanders of Scotland, Vol.1. In other words; due to his job of arresting people, the coroner required both arms to be free and so always wore a brooch. As well, see page 14 Thomas Sinclair The Gunns where he quotes the ‘great brooch which he wore as the badge or cognizance of his office of coroner.’
[18] David II: Translation; 1358, 12 November, Scone, Parliament; Parliamentary Records; 18 November 1358; Letters: letters patent to the sheriff and bailies of Inverness and the coroner of Caithness to make public proclamation forbidding entrance to Orkney; 1358 / 11 / 2.
[19] Page 238 Alice Taylor, The Shape of Medieval Scotland.
[20] Page 235 Alice Taylor, ibid.
[21] ‘Coroners remained under the control of justiciars until at least the sixteenth century’. Page 55 R. A. Houston The Coroners of Northern Britain c. 1300 – 1700.
[22] Page 56 R. A. Houston. ibid.
[23] Page 35 Mark Rugg Gunn Clan Gunn and see http://clangunn.weebly.com/the-gunn-papers-the-northern-chronicle-1111911-and-821911.html accessed 29 May 2017 for the 1911 newspaper report.
[24] Page 35 Mark Rug Gunn, Clan Gunn.
[25] The position of coroner could be inherited, especially by those with estates and castles which Gunns did not have. The position seems more often to be a personal appointment than inherited. See Chapter 3 ‘Scottish Coroners; Origins and Development of the Office’ R. A. Houston The Coroners of Northern Britain c. 1300 – 1700.
[26] Tiends are ‘tithes’ for maintaining the clergy. Dale and Thurso being churches, or Church regions.
[27] Page 67 https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=36T5QWT70dYC&pg=PA67&lpg=PA67&dq=henry+crounar%27s+son&source=bl&ots=2oqocnSKDF&sig=ACfU3U3bHbzOh8xbmeXxhrMaCf0iOc1iBQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwibn-Tz5rbhAhW8TxUIHUeRB9cQ6AEwAHoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=henry%20crounar's%20son&f=false accessed 4 April 2019.
[28] Page 164, Iain Moncrieffe of that Ilk, The Highland Clans; the dynastic origins, chiefs, and background of the clans and of some other families connected with Highland history.
[29] Page 44, Mark Rugg Gunn, Clan Gunn.
[30] Page 93 Sir Robert Sinclair, A Genealogical History of the Earldom of Sutherland.
[31] Page 93 Sir Robert Sinclair, ibid.
[32] See http://www.caithness.org/caithness/castles/sinclairgirnigoe/ accessed 28 May 2017 and http://her.highland.gov.uk/SingleResult.aspx?uid=%27MHG417%27 accessed 29 June 2017.
[33] Page 397 Donald J. MacDonald of Castleton, Clan Donald.
[34] Page 49, Mark Rugg Gunn, Clan Gunn.
[35] Page 49, Mark Rugg Gunn ibid.
[36] Page 197, W.P.L. Thompson, The New History of the Orkneys.
[37] Page 451 https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TYnfhTq2M7EC&pg=PA415&dq=John+MacDOnald+1434+1503&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj0js6vy7bhAhUCsXEKHQCaBmwQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=John%20MacDOnald%201434%201503&f=false accessed 4 April 2019.
[38] Page 49, Mark Rugg Gunn Clan Gunn.
[39] Page 197, W.P.L. Thompson, The New History of the Orkneys.
[40] Page 197, W.P.L. Thompson, ibid.
[41] See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_of_Sleat for one example.
[42] Page 87, Alexander Mackenzie, History of the MacDonalds and Lords of the Isles.
[43] Page 65, Donald Sage, Memorabilia Domestica. Other families / clans have similar unverifiable horror stories set in the past; the supposed suffocation of followers of Clanranald of Eigg on Canna in the late 1500s is but one example. See page 39-40, J. L. Campbell, Canna The Sory of a Hebridean Island. It is as if the story tellers of old knew that a horror story was required to be added to a ‘history’…
[44] This version is also used in The Feuds of the Clans, by Rev. Alexander MacGregor.
[45] Page 92, Sir Robert Gordon A Genealogical History of the Earldom of Sutherland.
[46] One view is that the spelling should be ‘Chapel of Teer’; ‘Teer being a Caithness form of Deer … the abbot of Deer (Aberdeenshire) had lands and and tenants in Caithness’. See http://docplayer.net/96111001-Page-1-of-66-j-woodside-together-in-christ-following-the-northern-saints-p-3-2.html accessed 5 March 2019.
[47] Building on some ideas raised at http://ramscraigs.com/?cat=13.
[48] Page 92-93, Sir Robert Gordon A Genealogical History of the Earldom of Sutherland.
[49] RCAHMS being the Royal Commission for the Anient and Historic Monuments of Scotland, https://canmore.org.uk/site/9146/shorelands-sttears-chapel accessed 7 June 2017.
[50] Bishop Forbes 1762, see http://www.scottishchurches.org.uk/sites/site/id/307/name/St+Tears+Chapel%2C+Wick+Wick+Highland accessed 28 June 2017.
[51] http://www.scottishchurches.org.uk/sites/site/id/307/name/St+Tears+Chapel%2C+Wick+Wick+Highland accessed 28 June 2017.
[52] Many of the reports of this battle suffer from wish fulfilment; an example is ‘The Crowner was doubtless keen to come to terms with the Keiths ... and to preserve his own status and save his people ... For this purpose he agreed to meet the Keiths...’ Page 49, Mark Rugg Gunn, History of the Clan Gunn. We do not have any primary source justification for the Coroner / Crowner’s thought process.
[53] The ‘treachery’ part of the Gunn / Keith fiction is the same as in so many other clan myths – I recommend the tale of Lochiel Chief of Clan Cameron and Atholl head of the Roberstons (Clan Donnachaidh) who had fought each other for many years but finally supposedly decided to try and talk it out by themselves, but guess what, they both cheat and have hidden supporters ready for battle and one has more than twice as many as the others… Page 84, Stuart MacHardy The Well of the Heads And Other Tales of Scottish Clans. Sound familiar? What about two men on each horse? It’s in the Orkneyinga Saga – there is a battle between Sigurd the Mighty Earl of Orkney and Mael Brigte a Pictish nobleman, perhaps a Mormaer of Moray. And Sigurd supposedly brought two men on each horse for the forty-horse a side battle and easily won. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A1el_Brigte_of_Moray for a simple summary. Or pages 83-4 James Hunter Last of the Free; A History of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. In James Hunter’s view about this battle between Sigurd and Mael Brigte ‘Such …tales ought not to be taken literally.’ I worry when one side loses due to treachery by the other side; it sounds like a fictional excuse for incompetence. I am far more confident with history when a fair fight has happened and one side just loses.
[54] See pages 267-268, Rory Stewart The Marches.
[55] Do not forget that spelling is not fixed at this time; Keith and Caith sound the same and might have been written the same way.
[56] Page 39 and page 44 R. A. Houston The Coroners of Northern Britain c. 1300 – 1700.
[57] https://www.scotclans.com/what-is-a-clan-by-dr-bruce-durie/ accessed 6 April 2019.
[58] See section 9.1 for discussion of this tree.
[59] Page 159, Ed. D. Omand, The New Caithness Book.
[60] See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clan_Gunn#Castles accessed 5 February 2013.
[61] Page 61, Thomas Sage, Memorabilia Domestica.
[62] https://canmore.org.uk/site/6653/kinbrace accessed 23 September 2018.
[63] See http://canmore.rcahms.gov.uk/en/site/8944/details/gunn+s+castle+bulnacraig/ accessed 5 February 2013.
[64] Page 34, Mark Rugg Gunn, Clan Gunn.
[65] Page 236, The Topographical, Statistical and Historical Gazeteer of Scotland Volume First A-H.
[66] Page 354, A Thomas Pennant, A Tour in Scotland, Volume 1.
[67] Page 81, George Alexander Cooke (editor of the Universal System of Geography), A General Description of Scotland to which is prefixed a Complete Travelling Guide.
[68] Page 154, John Pinkerton, A General Collection of the Best and Most interesting Voyages and Travels in all Parts of the World, Vol. 3.
[69] Page 313, Donald Sage, Memorabilia Domestica records ‘Castle Gunn, or the fortalice of the ‘Great Gunn of Ulbster’ the old Norse lord of the district, situated on an almost entirely insulated rock jutting out to sea.’ A fortalice is not a castle but a small fort, there was never a Gunn of Ulbster and there is not the slightest evidence to support any Gunn Norse origin so Sage’s view lacks credence and reflects the Victorian myths of his time. Especially as he then goes on to discuss the Danish princess who supposedly drowned there –Norwegian records have no such knowledge of a lost princess to a Gunn of Ulbster.
[70] https://canmore.org.uk/site/8945/halberry-castle accessed 15 August 2019.
[71] Page 27, Captain John Henderson, General View of the Agriculture of the County of Caithness with Observations on the Means of its Improvement.
[72] http://www.caithness.org/caithness/castles/gunn/historicfamiliesgunnhalberrycastles.htm accessed 6 February 2013.
[73] http://maps.nls.uk/view/00000277 National Library of Scotland (NLS), accessed 29 June 2017.
[74] HMSO, Edinburgh 1986. Nigel Tranter in Volume 5 of his The Fortified House in Scotland; North and West Scotland, also makes no mention of these Gunn ‘castles / houses’. W. Mackay Mackenzie in The Mediaeval Castle in Scotland also has no mention of any Gunn castle. Nor are they are not mentioned in Foden’s Wick of the North when he discusses the castles of the area. See his page 13.
[75] For example, in ‘The Celtic Magazine Volume 6’ Published in 1881. See https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=E5QEAAAAQAAJ&q=gunns+castle&dq=gunns+castle&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjZw97osePUAhVjJMAKHbgeCR0Q6AEITTAI accessed 29 June 2017. There are other Scandinavian Princess Scottish fictional stories – Fitzroy Maclean provides a fine example in his West Highland Tales. Such stories might have evolved from the history of Margaret Maid of Norway who died aged seven but who was recognised as Queen of Scotland. She died in Orkney on her way to Scotland.
[76] Page 3,3 Mark Rugg Gunn, Clan Gunn.
[77] Recorded in chapter 16 ‘Tales and Legends’ of ed. D. Ormand, The New Caithness Book. The chapter title says it all – it’s not history. See, as well, chapter 2 of this text.
[78] Page 28-29, Thomas Sinclair, The Gunns.
[79] There is no logical reason for this person to be anyone other than Snaekoll or (his never existed son) Ottar. Actually, there is no proved Gunn before Coroner Gunn, but when has myth got anything to do with provable history?
[80] http://www.clangunn.us/gunn.htm accessed 6 February 2013. I note its mention that the Gunns ‘appeared to possess virtually the whole of Caithness’ in the 12th and 13rh centuries; this, I am sure, would be a surprise to the Earls of Caithness, the Cheyne family (see page 36 Mark Rugg Gunn, Clan Gunn; ‘Reginald Cheyne had a third of the County’), Johanna of Strathnaver’s family and others with documented records of their ownership. Now the fact that Gunns lived throughout Caithness at this time is a different matter from ‘possession’.
The individual chapters can be downloaded as pdfs from latrobe.academia.edu/AlastairGunn
There is much to be said about the first Gunn known in history and who was important until around 1452 (see chapter 8.3) namely the Gunn who held the position of coroner of Caithness.
The spelling of coroner was not fixed at this time; dictionaries had not been invented so coroner appeared as crowner in some documents but both words apply to the same position. Professor Houston in his work The Coroners of Northern Britain c. 1300-1700 makes it clear that the positions are the same; ‘‘what people called ‘coroners’ or ‘crowners’ (or variant spellings thereof) … in Scotland…’.[1] To make his point more clear - ‘Closely connected with the sheriff was the CROWNER or CORONER.’[2] The Shorter Oxford Dictionary also has a meaning for Crowner as ‘= Coroner’[3]. Mark Rugg Gunn also makes the point ‘Crowner … is the same word as Coroner’.[4] The title of Professor Houston’s book is the point The Coroners of Northern Britain c. 1300-1700 – the legal position is ‘Coroner’.
Those who use a two syllable ‘crown / er’ for the position of coroner may hope a regal ‘Crown’ can be added somehow to ‘Clan’ Gunn history to make it seem more glamorous and significant. Such a two-syllable pronunciation of the word is just wrong; the Scottish misspelling of coroner is pronounced in three syllables. The ‘c / row / ner’ prounced syllables are ‘K’, ‘row’ as in rowing boat, and ‘ner’ – Coroner.
Note that Coroner Gunn has stories attached to him about the brooch he wore, probably associated with the office he held. He was never called ‘Chief of the Clan Gunn’ in the various histories; again showing that his supposed position of ‘Chief of the Clan Gunn’ has no basis.
Coroner Gunn was, though, the first Gunn to emerge into history which is much more important.
8.1 The position and significance of a Coroner
Duties of a Coroner
The position of Coroner in Scottish law in Coroner Gunn’s time had - in essence – nothing to do with coroner under English or American law as we view it today. The coroner’s position was secondary to the Sheriff of an area[5] and the Sheriff was ‘on a par with the provincial earls and lords.’[6]
Professor R. A. Houston writes that the Scottish coroner position ‘dealt more with living miscreants and their assets than with bodies and goods of the dead; they were men of action who had a robust role in the administration of justice…. Scottish coroners functioned as executive judicial officers who serviced circuit courts which dealt especially (if not exclusively prior to 1532) with criminal matters’ [7] and that Scottish coroners ‘arrested suspects and seized goods on behalf of the king’s judges. They dealt with the living rather than with the wrongfully dead. They also had quasi-military functions and some powers of summary justice[8] when maintaining law and order…’.[9] Coroners ‘were executive legal officers or bailiffs… and received securities from litigants, arrested (cited) indicted criminals, enforced attendance at hearings, or seized forfeited goods in cases involving breach of the king’s peace...’[10]
The ‘Coroner’s main role was protecting the king’s financial interests so he (the king) could profit from potentially lucrative revenues like the confiscation of property of felons and the forfeiture of sureties, but their job was also to bring the king’s justice into the localities. Unpopular they may sometimes have been…’[11] That makes sense as confiscating property, arresting people so they are jailed, killing people etc. is rarely appreciated by the families of those so dealt with. Especially in the mid-1400s with no social security. This role was echoed in the legal system of England and Wales 1063-1284; ‘justice in medieval times was a source of profit to the king.’[12] The position of Scottish coroner could be ‘fluid’[13] – ‘what a holder made of his job depended on his personality and that of his immediate superior, as well as the circumstances in which both operated.’[14] Houston also notes ‘The title invested its holder with authority while physical symbol such as brooch, wand, porteous roll or halberd (the coroner had the right to bear arms…) publicly intimated status.’[15] Here we probably see the origin of the ‘great brooch’ stories[16] which are attached to Coroner Gunn; was it just his badge[17] of coronial office?
And then there is the question of the Sherrif who was legally superior to the coroner. A major issue concerning the Caithness coroner is in a 1358 letter[18] by King David of Scotland which pointed out that a hundred or so years before Gunn was coroner in Caithness the position of Caithness coroner existed but the quotation below shows the coroner’s superiors the Sherrif and bailies lived in Inverness whilst only the coroner was in Caithness. The king expected the coroner to have responsibility for proclaiming that no-one would go to the Orkney Islands for any reason other than pilgrimage or business reasons – and if they did such people would lose ‘all’.
Letters: letters patent to the sheriff and bailies of Inverness and the coroner of Caithness to make public proclamation forbidding entrance to OrkneyDavid, by the grace of God king of Scots, to his sheriff, bailies of Inverness and their lieutenants or lieutenant, and the coroner of Caithness to whom the present letters shall come, greeting. We order and command you that, as quickly and as often as you shall be asked you shall cause to be forbidden and publicly proclaimed in burghs, courts and public places in our name, that nobody of whatever status he be should presume to enter the lands or harbours of Orkney in any way, except by reason of pilgrimage or for carrying out trade, or in other peaceful and lawful business, under pain of losing all which may be lost to our royal majesty. In testimony of which matter we have ordered our seal to be appended to the present letters in patent form. At Scone in our parliament held in the same place, 18 November in the twenty-ninth year of our reign [18 November 1358].
And this continued in Coroner Gunn’s time. The Sheriff with jurisdiction for Caithness was in Inverness so Coroner Gunn would at least for some of the time - if not all of the time – have some sort of quasi-Sheriff authority. The courts certainly visited Caithness from the 1260s[19] on (and there is record that in 1263-66, at least, the Court at Inverness involved Caithness people[20]) but it seems that was the job of an itinerant justiciar (a justiciar was more important than a coroner[21]) paid for by the Sheriff. Caithness was legally separated from Inverness only in 1503[22] which is after Coroner Gunn’s time. So, given the quasi-Sheriff aspect and the lack of an Earl, Coroner Gunn was more than an everyday coroner and was the King’s representative (after all, the King would have appointed him.)
An earlier Caithness coroner
A 1438 Retour of Inquest relating to Caithness is discussed by Mark Rugg Gunn, and was based on the Gunn papers of 1911.[23] It says that a Magnus Crowner (Coroner) lived and had sons including Thomas. Mark Rugg Gunn’s view is ‘that this document can be disregarded’[24] for Gunn history and I agree. There is no mention of these ‘Crowner’ names in any other Gunn history – or myth - and no Gunn surname is given for the ‘Crowner’. So why should it be Gunn? ‘Crowner’ is a position and there is no support for the Caithness coronial position being inherited.[25] There is also no known link to show this ‘Magnus Crowner’ was the same person as Coroner Gunn and so the document probably applied to an earlier holder of the coronial position. In other words, just because there may have been a document which mentioned a ‘Crowner’ of Caithness near the right time period does not mean that ‘Crowner’ was Coroner Gunn.
As well, the years are a problem – Coroner Gunn was operating in Caithness but dead by 1452, see chapter 8.2. If the Retour of 1438 applied to Coroner Gunn it meant he would have been Coroner of Caithness for about fifteen years from the say mid 1430s to 1452ish. That seems a long period for such a senior, physically demanding position especially as the Retour has Thomas being adult in 1438. So Magnus, father of Thomas, would have to be say around forty–five years of age; one doubts he could still be Coroner in his late fifties. As such, the 1438 document cannot apply to Coroner Gunn.
I note the original document has not been sighted since 1911; it might have been poorly read and ‘Crowner’ may have been another, not-related word.
A later Caithness coroner
There are legal documents which relate to a coroner of Caithness; the key point is which coroner.
From a 1456 inventory of the goods of the Earl of Caithness’s late father-in law, namely Alexander Sutherland, there is mention of ‘Alexander the Crouner’s son’ as owing for the tiend[26] of Dale, Thurso and the river with other goods that he tuk of myn that comes to 24 merks and mair’, while ‘Henry, the Crounar’s son’ also owed for tiends and cattle that he had taken ’40 merks and mer’.[27] The will, to which the inventory relates, has an item; ‘I leave to the Crowner a horse.’[28] Remember that Sir Robert Gordon pointed out that Coroner Gunn was flourishing when there were no Earls – and this inventory is from the Earl of Caithness’s father-in-law. If an Earl exists then Coroner Gunn does not. This means that the ‘Crowner’ mentioned was not Coroner Gunn but the Coroner who probably succeeded him; the position of coroner could be inherited but mainly it was not so inherited. As well, a new Coroner would require a horse (or further horse?) to get around Caithness to do his duty. A new coroner implies that the Alexander and Henry so mentioned are also not Gunns.
These later documents can be ignored for Gunn history.
8.2 Coroner Gunn; name and life
Name
It is worth restating that we have no idea who Coroner Gunn’s parents were so to link him to mythic earlier supposed ‘Gunn Chiefs’ is ridiculous. We also don’t know his first name. Some people have used ‘George’ but ‘George’ with its links to England’s ‘St. George’ seems an improbable name for the Scottish Highlands in the 1400s as Caithness was more Gaelic / Norse, than Anglo-Norman. One suspects George has no factual origin but was used to humanise the important but un-named Gunn; and to soften history by anglicising a key figure. Mark Rugg Gunn’s view is that George 'appears to be traditional rather than founded on fact’[29] - as it’s not a fact it should not be used.
Life
It is impossible to exactly pin down when Gunn was coroner of Caithness but he died no later than June 1452[30] as Sir Robert Gordon makes clear as he wrote that when the Coroner was alive ‘he floorished (as) there wes no Earle of Catteynes, that earldome being yit in the king’s hands, and was thereafter given to William Sinckler.’[31] That makes sense - the stories attached to Coroner Gunn’s power are logical only when he was in charge of Caithness; that is, before the Earls of Caithness took over as he would have not had the amount of power or fame attributed to him when Earls were around as he would have been subordinate to them. The word ‘floorished’ is key; Coroner Gunn was alive and busy before the Earldom of Caithness was recreated in June 1452.
The Earldom of Caithness was held by the King from 1375 to 1452. Technically the title was held by various royals 1375-1434 with the title in abeyance 1434-1452. It was recreated in June 1452 for Sir George Crichton who resigned it back to the King before Crichton’s death in August 1454. It is unclear if Sir George Crichton ever visited Caithness. There was then a brief gap before the ‘William Sinckler’ (William Sinclair) mentioned by Sir Robert Gordon was created Earl of Caithness on 28 August 1455. The lack of mention of Sir George Crichton is unimportant, as said it is not even clear he made Caithness as he was a very busy man; Gordon’s use of ‘floorished’ is a word one would not use for a period of just one year so it does not mean the gap between August 1454 and August 1455.
So, Coroner Gunn died before June 1452; the implication of Gordon’s ‘thereafter’ suggests he died some time before an Earldom was recreated so Coroner Gunn may have died a little earlier than June 1452.
But what would Gunn have needed as Coroner? He needed somewhere to live, to hold prisoners in jail, somewhere to store confiscated goods and somewhere to entertain visiting justiciars etc.. He would also have needed somewhere which suited the importance of his position. His accommodation was never the supposed ‘Gunn castles’; they are too small and more fortified farmhouses. See chapter 8.5. But with no Earl of Caithness in place - and no Sheriff - it seems reasonable that a castle associated with the Earldom be used by Gunn as he was also acting as Sheriff(ish) and Earl(ish) – and being the King’s representative. But which castle? Castle Sinclair Girnigoe is associated with the Earls of Caithness and that castle is known to have been built on an older castle.[32] That older castle might be where Gunn lived. Or was it Wick castle? The castle used by Coroner Gunn is unclear; it’s the principle that Gunn would have used an existing castle - and not a ‘Gunn castle’ - which is important. Sir Robert Gordon provides support for Coroner Gunn using Castle Sinclair Girnigoe, see chapter 8.3.
Did Hugh MacDonald of Sleat visit Coroner Gunn?
Such a castle is important because it provides support for the possible visit of Hugh Macdonald of Sleat’s – Sleat is on Skye on the west coast of Scotland – visit to Coroner Gunn. One version is -
(Hugh) stopped at Caithness where Hugh was entertained by a member of the Clan Gunn who was the Crowner of the region. Gunn's hospitality was lavish, and during the visit Hugh is said to have formed a ''matrimonial alliance'' with his daughter.[33]
There is no mention of this event in Sir Robert Gordon’s history, the event only appears in much later histories. There is general acceptance that Hugh MacDonald of Sleat had a son from an unknown Gunn – the son was Donald Gallach. There is some consideration that it was Coroner Gunn’s daughter.[34] If it was the Coroner’s daughter it makes sense for Hugh to have visited the Coroner; a girl would not be sent to the other side of the country at this time. There is no record of a marriage between the female Gunn and Hugh MacDonald. Some argue that Hugh visted the Coroner in 1460[35] but this goes against Gordon’s comment that Coroner Gunn lived when there were no Earls of Caithness and William Sinclair was created Earl of Caithness on 28 August 1455 – and the Coroner was dead by 1452, as already discussed.
The 1460 date is also unlikely as the Earl of Caithness excused himself from visiting Norway in that year (the Earl of Caithness was also Earl – Jarl – of the Orkney Islands at this time so also owed allegiance to the King of Norway as well as to the Scottish King) as he was too busy dealing with his ‘old great enemy’[36] namely John McDonald Lord of the Isles (being Hugh of Sleat’s brother). John MacDonald was a slippery character[37] – sometimes he was in open revolt against the King of Scotland and sometimes not, but John MacDonald was also happy to raid the Orkney Islands. In July 1462 he even went into alliance with England against the Scottish King aiming for full independence. This alliance failed and meant the end of John MacDonald’s power.
What this meant for Hugh MacDonald is simple – his family was questionable and so was he. The only reason offered for the 1460 date – which should be 1461 – was that ‘Hugh made a successful raid in the Orkneys’[38] in June 1461.[39] In other words Hugh attacked part of the Earl of Caithness and Jarl of Orkney’s land. Hugh could hardly visit the Coroner of Caithness (if he had been alive then) after committing the violence; it would have been the Coroner’s responsibility to arrest him and his crew, not feed and water them – and certainly not to allow his daughter to go off with Hugh. As well, it was usual for successful warriors to return to their homes after battle, in this case on the west coast of Scotland rather than go down to Caithness for a social visit especially as there had been ‘great slaughter’.[40]
Did Hugh really ‘get involved’ with a daughter of Coroner Gunn before the Coroner died in 1452? I suspect not. There was no reason for his Lord of the Isles line to go visiting the east coast of Scotland as they had their own massive estates on the west coast to look after, and I can find no record of them so visiting the Scottish east coast. As well Hugh would be young; he was probably born somewhere around 1436[41] so making him no more than sixteen.
Another view says Hugh ‘married, secondly, a lady of the Clan Gunn of Caithness’.[42] Given the time a second marriage is possible and note the words the ‘lady of the Clan Gunn of Caithness’ – it does not say Coroner’s daughter. Was she even a ‘Gunn of Caithness’? She may have been a female Irish Gunn and Irish Gunns do not have a link with Highland Gunns.
Overall, I accept Hugh had a child by a Gunn, probably out of marriage. I suspect it was not from the Coroner’s daughter but more likely a Gunn from the west coast of Scotland, and that time has merged this early female Gunn into supposedly being the Coroner’s daughter. She was certainly the first historically known female Gunn…
8.3 Coroner Gunn’s death c. early 1450s
Tradition is the only authority we have for the fact of this conflict having really taken place.
Donald Sage[43]
There has been an enormous amount written about Coroner Gunn’s death and there are many variations of the story. The logical way to think about Coroner Gunn’s death is to consider the earliest account of it which was written by Sir Robert Gordon about one hundred and seventy years or so after the event. His account of the ‘battle of St Tayr’ in Caithness is[44] -
After some dissention between the Kaithes and the Clangun, ther was a meitting appointed for ther reconciliation at the chappll of St Tayr in Catteynes, not farr from Girnigo, wher they should meitt, with twelve hors on either syd. The Cruner … with the most pairt of his sone and principall kinsmen, came at the appointed time to this chappell, to the number of twelve; and as they were within the cheappell at their prayers, the Laird of Innervgie and Ackrigell arrived ther, with tuelve hors, and two men vpon upon everie hors. So these tuentie-four men rushed in at the door of the chappell and invaded the Cruner and his company at Vnawars (unawares), who nevertheless made great resistance. In end, the Clangun were slain, and the most pairt of the Kaiths also … James Gun, the Cruner his sone, being absent, and hearing of his father’s death, retired himself and his famile into Sutherland, wher he settled himself, and begat this William Mack-James… [45]
So, to restate Gordon’s account of the Coroner’s death; there were problems between Coroner Gunn and local Keiths, a meeting for a reconciliation of the two sides was arranged to be held in St Tayre’s[46] Church with twelve horse for each side, Coroner Gunn with ‘most part of his’ sons and kinsmen arrived before the Keiths and went into the church. Then a Keith, Laird of Inverugie and Ackergill, arrived with two men on each horse and killed all the Gunns who were in the church, but suffered heavy losses whilst doing so. The Coroner’s son James was not there and after this battle moved to Sutherland with his family. Note that Gordon points out that St Tayr was not far from Girnigoe (castle). There is no reason for this information to be added bar that it hints that Coroner Gunn was living at Girnigoe Castle which is a point I have already discussed.
In other words, Gordon says all the Gunns were killed at this battle, including the most part of his sons and principal kinsmen. And the killing of these Gunns was by the local branch of the Keith family.
Much later versions of the event say the killing was organised by the Chief of the Clan Keith (the Clan Keith Chief was William Keith Marischall of Scotland, then made Earl Marischall of Scotland around 1458. He actually died in 1463 and there is no record of him living or visiting Caithness) and that some sons of Coroner Gunn survived and took revenge on the Keiths including killing this extremely important Chief of the Clan Keith. These embellished stories should be ignored; Gordon’s account (as it is the earliest known by many, many years) is either accurate or it is not, one cannot randomly add to it.
Is Gordon’s account of the Coroner’s death totally accurate?[47] He was not, after all, there at the time. He wrote of an event which had been remembered in oral history; Gordon’s book was the first written history. One should reject facts not provided by Gordon but it is also right to question that which he wrote as his was not a first-hand account. Gordon is certainly not perfect – for example, he wrote that ‘Clan-gun (are named)… from one called Gun, whom they alledge to have been the king of Denmark his son, and came many days agoe from Denmark and settled himself in Catteyness’[48] which as an origin for ‘Clan’ Gunn is supported by no-one.
The problems with Gordon’s account of the death of Coroner Gunn are -
1) Concerning the Church of St Tayr. It would be useful to have a record showing that St Tayr was definitely in existence in the 1440s / early 1450s. The Church may have been there, but then again it may not have been. The RCAHMS[49] does not assign a period to it.
The first record of the church is in 1762 by Bishop Forbes who decribed it as ‘very singular (small)’[50] – POWiS (Places of Worship in Scotland) gives the Chapel measurements[51] of forty-seven feet by twenty-seven feet six inches or, if you like about fourteen and a third metres by eight and a half metres metres so how on earth are the thirty six Gunn / Keith men fighting to the death in it? Consider the furniture in the church as well. It’s physically impossible I would suggest, even allowing for the smaller body size of those years. Why would the Keiths enter such a small space to fight? Much easier to just wait at the door and kill those trying to escape, or burn the chapel down. The tiny size of St Tears places a question mark over whether any battle occurred inside the Church.
And why would Coroner Gunn be praying in such a tiny rural church? All castles have chapels, Coroner Gunn lived in a castle with, presumably, his own cleric – or at least one deputed to serve his chapel. If Coroner Gunn had wanted prayers it would have been held in his own castle chapel, with his own cleric and done in style worthy of his importance in Caithness. The rural church prayer idea seems like a bit of later public relations spin.
If the tiny Church was meant to have been chosen as neutral territory for a place for discussion between rival groups then that seems illogical as it was too small, and unimportant, a place for such a meeting (he was the Coroner after all, and the Keiths were important local aristocracy); a much larger, more important Church would have been found.
And why was there no lookout at the Chapel given the problems associated with this supposed event and so stop the sneaky Keiths? The Coroner was not an innocent;[52] he was obviously good at his important job which required a man of action. The lack of a lookout also suggests the story was invented.
But were the Gunns attacked near the church? That’s possible – and the church was perhaps the nearest geographical landmark to where the battle happened. The remains of the church are about halfway between the Keiths of Ackergill and Castle Sinclair Girnigoe which is where I think Coroner Gunn lived. The church is, more importantly, on the way from Castle Sinclair Girnigoe to just about anywhere in Caithness as the Castle is situated to the north of Wick on an isolated bay. People would have known the track the Gunns used to leave or return to their castle – and it was and still is – an empty land.
I find the likelihood that the Gunns were attacked in the church as hugely unlikely but them being attacked near the church seems quite possible.
2) Concerning the Keiths. The idea of Keiths being ‘honourable’ and so riding two fighting men on a horse (there are other Scottish myths like this story)[53] to the Gunn battle, then consequently being hugely dishonourable by killing the Gunns in church lacks logic. The Church had its own power and such sacrilege as the St Tayr killings would have been known; Keiths would be in the religious records and probably would have had to go on pilgrimage to Jerusalem, or something equivalent, to redeem themselves after desecrating a holy place. So, again the Keith / Gunn battle in the church doesn’t ring true – a battle near it again seems more likely.
The argument that the battle was result of a longstanding Gunn / Keith feud I have shown to be highly unlikely – see chapter 7.
Overall I find this Gunn / Keith battle impossible to believe; Coroner Gunn represented the King in Caithness, and the local Keiths were a significant part of one of the most important families in Caithness and Scottish history – around 1350 John Keith, being the second son of Edward Keith, Marischall of Scotland, married Mary Cheyne owner of Ackergill and Inverugie and it all became ‘Keith land’. Both Coroner Gunn and the Keiths were extremely socially significant and both represented law and order; neither Coroner Gunn nor the Keiths were hillbilly feud families. Keiths and Coroner Gunn’s family were families of importance; they would be more inclined to support each other than kill each other. As well, Coroner Gunn was the representative of law and order in Caithness; an important family could not expect to kill him and get away with it. It would have made the historic records of the day; by contrast the extended feud which started around 1490 between the Campbells, Drummonds, MacGregors, MacLarens and Grahams is ‘recorded chapter by chapter in the parliament and privy council papers of Scotland’.[54]
3) Consequences of the event. Gordon gives no consequences for this event which at first thought seems unusual. But although the position was significant it was not an inherited position – the main concern would have been to appoint a new coroner. As well, Caithness was not the Royal Court at Edinburgh; was the murder meant to have been tidied up when an Earl was appointed? If the Earl had known that it was the Keiths he could easily have arranged for them to be arrested and take over Ackergill for the King; but this did not happen. The Earl had the power to do this; the lack of such an event again suggests that the Keiths did not kill the Gunns.
But is the lack of consequence for the murder of Coroner Gunn due to something simple? Coroner Gunn was about arresting rogues and criminals; local Caiths if you like. The idea that Coroner Gunn died in a brawl / battle with a group of Caiths[55] (not Keiths) - Caithness people – probably because of his role as Coroner is more logical than an attack by Keiths. As Professor Houston said; coroners could be ‘unpopular’[56] – had Coroner Gunn annoyed too many people for too many years by arbitrary behaviour? Do not forget the coroner had powers of arrest, property confiscation, some aspects (at least) of summary justice, and was without anyone to restrict his behaviour. Was the Coroner trying to arrest some Caiths but ran into trouble? Had some Caiths enough of the Coroner’s behaviour – it would not take much for Coroner Gunn to be seen as tyrannical – and so decide to surprise and kill him? If Coroner Gunn and the other Gunns were killed by a group of Caithness people then it would explain the reason for the attack, and provide a reason for lack of any known consequence as without knowledge of who the murderers had been, no action could readily be taken.
SUMMARY It is not finally clear who killed the Coroner Gunn but logic suggests he was murdered by some Caithness people, probably near St Tayr’s Church around 1450.
8.4 Coroner Gunn’s children
Coroner Gunn’s children are problematic in name, order and number. Other than the first two sons they are of little significance bar for those who believe in septs; one view is that ‘septs were a Victorian invention’.[57] Sir Robert Gordon’s account of Coroner Gunn’s death said that ‘most pairt of his (Coroner’s) sone and principall kinsmen’ were killed so some of the extensive lists of the Coroner’s children seem unlikely. I discuss the Sept question in chapter 11.8.
The first two sons were James and Robert; the property they have after the Coroner’s death suggest they were the two oldest members of the Coroner’s family in that it is fair to assume that the oldest (and presumably strongest) got most property.
The 1896[58] tree records Coroner Gunn’s children, in order, as –
· James of Killernan. See chapter 10.
· Robert of Braemore, sometimes called Robson Gunns. Some question the Braemore for Robert and attach that estate to his eldest son but given the money involved in getting the wadset of an estate I suspect Braemore is best attached to Robert. See page 193.
· William, ‘Gunn ancestor of the Williamsons of Bankirk’ (Banniskirk?)
· The 1868 / 1870 trees (see chapter 9.2) record John as the third son of the Coroner (‘from whom Cattaig Gunns’)
· The fourth son was Alexander (Dale) died in 1456.
· The fifth son was Torquil ‘died of his wounds.’
· The sixth son was Henry Gunn (Dale). The 1868 / 1870 family trees have Strathalladale and Forsinard as places attached to this line.
· One daughter of the Coroner – Mary? - married Hugh McDonald of Slate (Sleat), Isle of Skye.
· There was a further daughter of the Coroner - Binie? Of Blaglaton?
Many other suggestions and orders for the children are known.
This text is about core Gunn issues, not about getting lost in the midst of myriad possibilities for Coroner Gunn’s children. I accept James as first son and Robert as second son but the rest have, in essence, faded from history. I certainly question whether a daughter married Hugh MacDonald of Sleat; see chapter 8.2.
8.5 The supposed Coroner Gunn castle(s)
Castle Gunn … Of historical records there are none.[59]
Lovely word castles; it evokes all sorts of splendour and glory however the supposed Gunn castles are not castles as, firstly, they are far too small; the Gunn ‘castles’ are, at best, fortified farm houses. But these supposed fortified houses are so small they do not appear in Nigel Tranter’s monumental five volume The Fortified House in Scotland; Volume 5 dealt with North and West Scotland, by implication the ‘castles’ lack significance.
Before discussing the two ‘castles’ normally wrongly linked with the Gunns it is sensible to dispose of two others which are occasionally linked with the Gunns. The first of these is Dirlot castle.[60] This castle is normally associated with the Cheynes; given that the Cheynes are known to be extremely wealthy landowners and the Gunns have no primary source material associated with them at this time, let alone with them having a castle, it is reasonable to ignore these occasional much later references to Gunns at Dirlot castle. In terms of Coroner Gunn a Dirlot castle would certainly be irrelevant as it was so far from the main Caithness area.
Donald Sage also makes reference[61] to a ruined ‘castle’ at Kinbrace known as ‘crown-laird.’ Canmore[62] – the ‘National Record of the Historic Environment’ of Scotland – says of the name where the ruin is that ‘it is said to mean ‘the old field’ or ‘the old cairns’. There is no support for Sage’s view that it was a ‘castle’ – as well it is too far from the main part of Caithness for it to have any relevance for Coroner Gunn who after all had a major job to do in Caithness, not inland Sutherland. Sage did not link this ‘castle’ to the Gunns.
One also has to remember that we have no idea who Coroner Gunn’s parents were; we would know of them if they had a Gunn castle. The reality is that Coroner Gunn had a castle provided due to his position so it was not really a ‘Gunn castle.’
*****
There are generally considered to be two ‘Gunn castles’, one at Bulnacraig and the other at Halberry.
Gunn’s castle (Bulnacraig)
This castle is described by the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland as ‘a small rectangular keep about 37 by 23ft with walls some 3ft thick on a peninsular rock isolate by a wall built on a rock shelf. Immediately outside the building at the NE angle is a circular depression some 9ft in diameter and 2 to 3ft deep, probably indicating a well ...1911 ... the alleged wall is probably a sink-hole caused by drainage through a rock fault. Date not ascertained.’[63]
So this Gunn ‘castle’ was a building of 37 feet by 23 feet (11.3 metres by 7 metres); we are not talking motte and bailey castles here, we are talking more a very large room. In some ways it’s sensible to view it as a defensive tower house or farm house. Even Mark Rugg Gunn finds that ‘it is hard to believe that this abode was used for any length of time or as a permanent residence.’[64] One surely needs it to be large enough for a permanent residence for it to qualify as a castle.
Halberry Castle / Cruner Gunn’s Castle
The ‘castle of Easter Clyth ... commonly called Cruner Gunn’s castle’[65] note the word ‘commonly’.
Descriptions of it are very similar from a range of sources, suggesting borrowed language and perhaps just one source, the first 1769 comment –
· A 1769 comment says ‘on a rock in the edge of the sea in Easter Clyth, there is an old building, called Cruner Gunn’s castle.’[66]
· ‘(On) a rock on the edge of the sea, in Easter Ayth, there is an old building called Cruner Gunn’s Castle’[67] is an 1802 description.
· An 1809 identification says ‘on a rock in the edge of the sea in Easter Clyth, there is an old building, called Cruner Gunn’s castle.’[68]
But was it a castle[69] in any real way? The official ‘Royal Commission on Ancient and Historical Monuments’ description of it is ‘The foundation of a rectangular keep 44ft by 28ft (1911) ... Halberry Castle is the turf-covered footings of a tower 19.0 by 6.0 by 0.6m high, defended on the landward side by a deep ditch spanned by a causeway. The ditch appears to have been mutilated by quarrying at its NW end. From a point 4.0m NW of the tower, there is a low turf-covered wall running N across the promontory forming a second line of defence, the gap between the wall and the tower being the entrance. Between the tower and the ditch are the vague footings of a rectangular building 8.0 by 4.5m. which is probably contemporary with the tower. Date not verified. (1967)’[70]
So the 1967 measurement has a 20 metre by 6 metre tower (not castle) with possibly an attached rectangular building. Big enough for an extended family in times of trouble and even, perhaps, with a shed to hold cattle or horses; the promontory on which the tower is on suggests one would not leave one’s animals out to be taken by invaders. And why have such a small building there - it’s certainly not a castle to dominate the sea. It’s on the cliff edge to enable defence from land. It’s a defensive building, like many of the brochs of earlier years. A suggestion is that a farmer who rents from 100 to 150 acres requires a stable of 24 feet by 14 feet for six horses.[71] So Halberry has a possible stable suitable for someone running a farm of 100 to 150 acres; it’s not illogical to assume that the house matched the criteria for a farm.
The idea that Coroner Gunn ruled ‘in medieval splendour in his castle at Halberry’[72] as some believe but which is not in Gordon’s history, is impossible when one considers its size; the idea is only plausible when Coroner Gunn was living in a borrowed castle, probably Sinclair Girnigoe castle due to his job. See 8.3.
Other points against these Gunn ‘castles’
Neither castle was large enough to have been able to lock up criminals and store confiscated property which the Coroner had to do as part of his job as Coroner.
Neither Gunn ‘Castle’ appeared on the April 1642 map of Caithness[73] which featured, amongst much else, ‘Ackergill’ and ‘Girnigo or Castell Sincleer’; this lack of appearance suggests, at the very least, the unimportance or non existence of these ‘Gunn’ buildings.
Books such as Exploring Scotland’s Heritage: The Highlands[74] by Joanna Close-Brooks and published by The Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland make no mention of any Gunn ‘castles’.
Given the ‘Gunn castles / fortified farm houses’ do not feature in early histories of the county but appear as named buildings only many hundreds of years[75] after the Coroner’s death the use of the word ‘Gunn’ as part of the name of these ruins is highly questionable.
Overall
No sources give primary support for the name Gunn to be attached to these ‘castles.’ They are also not mentioned in the earliest history of the time.
Mark Rugg Gunn quotes the Rev. Alexander Gunn who suggested Snaekoll (see chapter 2.2) built Gunn’s castle and possibly Halberry castle[76] which is impossible. As already discussed, there is no proof Snaekoll made it out of Norway and much to suggest he died there. If Snakeoll had been alive and had inherited the lands of his grandparents and had returned in say 1240 a real castle (not a farm house) would have been built as he would have been wealthy but he would have built it in the Orkney Islands. And he would have been in the historic records; the return of a person who killed an Earl and was forced in disgrace to Norway but somehow managed to get back to the Orkney Islands would not have been ignored, especially with the lands he would have owned.
A Gunn myth[77] is attached to one of the castles and Snaekoll; ‘Gunn of Clyth (Snaekoll) while in Denmark gained the affection of a Danish Princess,’ and ‘in returning home with the lady and attendants, the vessel was wrecked upon a rock and every soul perished. A pot full of gold was found on this rock ... the body of the princess was thrown on the shore and buried at Ulbster ... Gunn is said to have returned before her, having repented of his marriage, and only caring of her wealth. When she arrived at night on a ship at the coast, he had put a light signal at the worst place for landing, and all were drowned as he intended. He never secured the gold that was on board, and when the clan discovered his treachery they drove him from his castle.’[78]
It's a ludicrous story. There is no proof that Snaekoll[79] returned to Scotland, let alone of him marrying twice (one would have thought Danish royal records would record marriage of a princess to a Scottish noble. Such records are not visible.)
The Clan Gunn USA website[80] even gives credence to a variation of this myth as it says that ‘Castle Gunn was destroyed by the King of Norway, whose daughter one of the Gunn chiefs (the only option is Snaekoll) had married, though he already had a wife at Castle Gunn. When the second wife sailed to Caithness to join her husband, the Gunn clan arranged for the beacon to be placed on a dangerous rock at Ulbster and so wrecked the ship and all aboard were drowned. The castle was destroyed in revenge and the Gunn chief and his retainers were slain.’ Now, it’s an interesting variation with all the ‘clan’ being responsible this time (the whole story leaves Gunns in an awkward moral place); but the problems increase. It’s too small to be a castle a princess would marry into, the Gunns were too minor, the ‘Gunn’ who would have been in Norway would be carrying too much political baggage (Earl-slayer) for a princess to marry and information about this attack – after all it involves the King of Norway - would be available from Norwegian and Scottish historical sources and it isn’t.
Overall the Gunn ‘castles’ are not castles; they are far too small and are, at best, fortified farmhouses. Their Gunn links are not proved. Coroner Gunn probably lived in a castle but it was one associated with his job, not one which his family owned.
***
[1] Page 3 and page 39, R. A. Houston The Coroners of Northern Britain c. 1300 – 1700.
[2] Page 31, A. Jeffrey, The History and Antiquities of Roxburghshire and Adjacent Districts; From The Most Remote Period to the Present Time Vol. 2.
[3] Page 464, The Shorter Oxford Dictionary on Historical Principles, Volume 1. 3rd Edition.
[4] Page 43, Mark Rugg Gunn, Clan Gunn.
[5] ‘The Scottish Sherriff was, from the twelfth century, ‘the king’s judicial, financial, administrative officer’. Page 2, R. A. Houston The Coroners of Northern Britain c. 1300 – 1700.
[6] See http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/633/1/Grant_Franchises.pdf accessed 2 April 2019.
[7] Page 3, R. A. Houston The Coroners of Northern Britain c. 1300 – 1700.
[8] Summary justice? That means killing people.
[9] Page 38, R. A. Houston ibid.
[10] Page 55, R. A. Houston ibid.
[11] Page 44, R. A. Houston ibid.
[12] Page 147, A.H. William An Introduction to the History of Wales, Volume II, Part I 1063-1284.
[13] Page 46, R. A. Houston The Coroners of Northern Britain c. 1300 – 1700.
[14] Page 52, R. A. Houston ibid.
[15] Page 70, R. A. Houston ibid.
[16] Page 14, Thomas Sinclair, The Gunns.
[17] Was it anything more than ‘In wet weather, the plaid was thrown loose, and covered both shoulders and body; and when the use of both arms were required, it was fastened across the breast by a large silver bodkin, or circular brooch, often enriched with precious stones, or imitations of them, having mottos engraved, consisting of allegorical and figurative sentences. These were also employed to fix the plaid on the left shoulder.’ Pp. 77-78, Col. David Stewart Sketches of the Highlanders of Scotland, Vol.1. In other words; due to his job of arresting people, the coroner required both arms to be free and so always wore a brooch. As well, see page 14 Thomas Sinclair The Gunns where he quotes the ‘great brooch which he wore as the badge or cognizance of his office of coroner.’
[18] David II: Translation; 1358, 12 November, Scone, Parliament; Parliamentary Records; 18 November 1358; Letters: letters patent to the sheriff and bailies of Inverness and the coroner of Caithness to make public proclamation forbidding entrance to Orkney; 1358 / 11 / 2.
[19] Page 238 Alice Taylor, The Shape of Medieval Scotland.
[20] Page 235 Alice Taylor, ibid.
[21] ‘Coroners remained under the control of justiciars until at least the sixteenth century’. Page 55 R. A. Houston The Coroners of Northern Britain c. 1300 – 1700.
[22] Page 56 R. A. Houston. ibid.
[23] Page 35 Mark Rugg Gunn Clan Gunn and see http://clangunn.weebly.com/the-gunn-papers-the-northern-chronicle-1111911-and-821911.html accessed 29 May 2017 for the 1911 newspaper report.
[24] Page 35 Mark Rug Gunn, Clan Gunn.
[25] The position of coroner could be inherited, especially by those with estates and castles which Gunns did not have. The position seems more often to be a personal appointment than inherited. See Chapter 3 ‘Scottish Coroners; Origins and Development of the Office’ R. A. Houston The Coroners of Northern Britain c. 1300 – 1700.
[26] Tiends are ‘tithes’ for maintaining the clergy. Dale and Thurso being churches, or Church regions.
[27] Page 67 https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=36T5QWT70dYC&pg=PA67&lpg=PA67&dq=henry+crounar%27s+son&source=bl&ots=2oqocnSKDF&sig=ACfU3U3bHbzOh8xbmeXxhrMaCf0iOc1iBQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwibn-Tz5rbhAhW8TxUIHUeRB9cQ6AEwAHoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=henry%20crounar's%20son&f=false accessed 4 April 2019.
[28] Page 164, Iain Moncrieffe of that Ilk, The Highland Clans; the dynastic origins, chiefs, and background of the clans and of some other families connected with Highland history.
[29] Page 44, Mark Rugg Gunn, Clan Gunn.
[30] Page 93 Sir Robert Sinclair, A Genealogical History of the Earldom of Sutherland.
[31] Page 93 Sir Robert Sinclair, ibid.
[32] See http://www.caithness.org/caithness/castles/sinclairgirnigoe/ accessed 28 May 2017 and http://her.highland.gov.uk/SingleResult.aspx?uid=%27MHG417%27 accessed 29 June 2017.
[33] Page 397 Donald J. MacDonald of Castleton, Clan Donald.
[34] Page 49, Mark Rugg Gunn, Clan Gunn.
[35] Page 49, Mark Rugg Gunn ibid.
[36] Page 197, W.P.L. Thompson, The New History of the Orkneys.
[37] Page 451 https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TYnfhTq2M7EC&pg=PA415&dq=John+MacDOnald+1434+1503&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj0js6vy7bhAhUCsXEKHQCaBmwQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=John%20MacDOnald%201434%201503&f=false accessed 4 April 2019.
[38] Page 49, Mark Rugg Gunn Clan Gunn.
[39] Page 197, W.P.L. Thompson, The New History of the Orkneys.
[40] Page 197, W.P.L. Thompson, ibid.
[41] See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_of_Sleat for one example.
[42] Page 87, Alexander Mackenzie, History of the MacDonalds and Lords of the Isles.
[43] Page 65, Donald Sage, Memorabilia Domestica. Other families / clans have similar unverifiable horror stories set in the past; the supposed suffocation of followers of Clanranald of Eigg on Canna in the late 1500s is but one example. See page 39-40, J. L. Campbell, Canna The Sory of a Hebridean Island. It is as if the story tellers of old knew that a horror story was required to be added to a ‘history’…
[44] This version is also used in The Feuds of the Clans, by Rev. Alexander MacGregor.
[45] Page 92, Sir Robert Gordon A Genealogical History of the Earldom of Sutherland.
[46] One view is that the spelling should be ‘Chapel of Teer’; ‘Teer being a Caithness form of Deer … the abbot of Deer (Aberdeenshire) had lands and and tenants in Caithness’. See http://docplayer.net/96111001-Page-1-of-66-j-woodside-together-in-christ-following-the-northern-saints-p-3-2.html accessed 5 March 2019.
[47] Building on some ideas raised at http://ramscraigs.com/?cat=13.
[48] Page 92-93, Sir Robert Gordon A Genealogical History of the Earldom of Sutherland.
[49] RCAHMS being the Royal Commission for the Anient and Historic Monuments of Scotland, https://canmore.org.uk/site/9146/shorelands-sttears-chapel accessed 7 June 2017.
[50] Bishop Forbes 1762, see http://www.scottishchurches.org.uk/sites/site/id/307/name/St+Tears+Chapel%2C+Wick+Wick+Highland accessed 28 June 2017.
[51] http://www.scottishchurches.org.uk/sites/site/id/307/name/St+Tears+Chapel%2C+Wick+Wick+Highland accessed 28 June 2017.
[52] Many of the reports of this battle suffer from wish fulfilment; an example is ‘The Crowner was doubtless keen to come to terms with the Keiths ... and to preserve his own status and save his people ... For this purpose he agreed to meet the Keiths...’ Page 49, Mark Rugg Gunn, History of the Clan Gunn. We do not have any primary source justification for the Coroner / Crowner’s thought process.
[53] The ‘treachery’ part of the Gunn / Keith fiction is the same as in so many other clan myths – I recommend the tale of Lochiel Chief of Clan Cameron and Atholl head of the Roberstons (Clan Donnachaidh) who had fought each other for many years but finally supposedly decided to try and talk it out by themselves, but guess what, they both cheat and have hidden supporters ready for battle and one has more than twice as many as the others… Page 84, Stuart MacHardy The Well of the Heads And Other Tales of Scottish Clans. Sound familiar? What about two men on each horse? It’s in the Orkneyinga Saga – there is a battle between Sigurd the Mighty Earl of Orkney and Mael Brigte a Pictish nobleman, perhaps a Mormaer of Moray. And Sigurd supposedly brought two men on each horse for the forty-horse a side battle and easily won. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A1el_Brigte_of_Moray for a simple summary. Or pages 83-4 James Hunter Last of the Free; A History of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. In James Hunter’s view about this battle between Sigurd and Mael Brigte ‘Such …tales ought not to be taken literally.’ I worry when one side loses due to treachery by the other side; it sounds like a fictional excuse for incompetence. I am far more confident with history when a fair fight has happened and one side just loses.
[54] See pages 267-268, Rory Stewart The Marches.
[55] Do not forget that spelling is not fixed at this time; Keith and Caith sound the same and might have been written the same way.
[56] Page 39 and page 44 R. A. Houston The Coroners of Northern Britain c. 1300 – 1700.
[57] https://www.scotclans.com/what-is-a-clan-by-dr-bruce-durie/ accessed 6 April 2019.
[58] See section 9.1 for discussion of this tree.
[59] Page 159, Ed. D. Omand, The New Caithness Book.
[60] See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clan_Gunn#Castles accessed 5 February 2013.
[61] Page 61, Thomas Sage, Memorabilia Domestica.
[62] https://canmore.org.uk/site/6653/kinbrace accessed 23 September 2018.
[63] See http://canmore.rcahms.gov.uk/en/site/8944/details/gunn+s+castle+bulnacraig/ accessed 5 February 2013.
[64] Page 34, Mark Rugg Gunn, Clan Gunn.
[65] Page 236, The Topographical, Statistical and Historical Gazeteer of Scotland Volume First A-H.
[66] Page 354, A Thomas Pennant, A Tour in Scotland, Volume 1.
[67] Page 81, George Alexander Cooke (editor of the Universal System of Geography), A General Description of Scotland to which is prefixed a Complete Travelling Guide.
[68] Page 154, John Pinkerton, A General Collection of the Best and Most interesting Voyages and Travels in all Parts of the World, Vol. 3.
[69] Page 313, Donald Sage, Memorabilia Domestica records ‘Castle Gunn, or the fortalice of the ‘Great Gunn of Ulbster’ the old Norse lord of the district, situated on an almost entirely insulated rock jutting out to sea.’ A fortalice is not a castle but a small fort, there was never a Gunn of Ulbster and there is not the slightest evidence to support any Gunn Norse origin so Sage’s view lacks credence and reflects the Victorian myths of his time. Especially as he then goes on to discuss the Danish princess who supposedly drowned there –Norwegian records have no such knowledge of a lost princess to a Gunn of Ulbster.
[70] https://canmore.org.uk/site/8945/halberry-castle accessed 15 August 2019.
[71] Page 27, Captain John Henderson, General View of the Agriculture of the County of Caithness with Observations on the Means of its Improvement.
[72] http://www.caithness.org/caithness/castles/gunn/historicfamiliesgunnhalberrycastles.htm accessed 6 February 2013.
[73] http://maps.nls.uk/view/00000277 National Library of Scotland (NLS), accessed 29 June 2017.
[74] HMSO, Edinburgh 1986. Nigel Tranter in Volume 5 of his The Fortified House in Scotland; North and West Scotland, also makes no mention of these Gunn ‘castles / houses’. W. Mackay Mackenzie in The Mediaeval Castle in Scotland also has no mention of any Gunn castle. Nor are they are not mentioned in Foden’s Wick of the North when he discusses the castles of the area. See his page 13.
[75] For example, in ‘The Celtic Magazine Volume 6’ Published in 1881. See https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=E5QEAAAAQAAJ&q=gunns+castle&dq=gunns+castle&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjZw97osePUAhVjJMAKHbgeCR0Q6AEITTAI accessed 29 June 2017. There are other Scandinavian Princess Scottish fictional stories – Fitzroy Maclean provides a fine example in his West Highland Tales. Such stories might have evolved from the history of Margaret Maid of Norway who died aged seven but who was recognised as Queen of Scotland. She died in Orkney on her way to Scotland.
[76] Page 3,3 Mark Rugg Gunn, Clan Gunn.
[77] Recorded in chapter 16 ‘Tales and Legends’ of ed. D. Ormand, The New Caithness Book. The chapter title says it all – it’s not history. See, as well, chapter 2 of this text.
[78] Page 28-29, Thomas Sinclair, The Gunns.
[79] There is no logical reason for this person to be anyone other than Snaekoll or (his never existed son) Ottar. Actually, there is no proved Gunn before Coroner Gunn, but when has myth got anything to do with provable history?
[80] http://www.clangunn.us/gunn.htm accessed 6 February 2013. I note its mention that the Gunns ‘appeared to possess virtually the whole of Caithness’ in the 12th and 13rh centuries; this, I am sure, would be a surprise to the Earls of Caithness, the Cheyne family (see page 36 Mark Rugg Gunn, Clan Gunn; ‘Reginald Cheyne had a third of the County’), Johanna of Strathnaver’s family and others with documented records of their ownership. Now the fact that Gunns lived throughout Caithness at this time is a different matter from ‘possession’.