Appendix 7- On the very flawed invention of a Clan Gunn Chief in 2015
7. The modern invention of a Chief 2015
The individual chapters can be downloaded as pdfs from latrobe.academia.edu/AlastairGunn
‘... an elected Chief is alien to the whole principle of Celtic civilisation ...’
Lord Lyon Thomas Innes[1]
‘The question of who is the chief of the (Gunn) clan now, seems to me nothing better than an uninteresting logomachy.’
Rev. Dr Miller C.I.E.
Principal of Madras Theological College[2]
The invention of a Clan Gunn Chief in 2015 by the Lord Lyon of the time is to be regretted and is questionable for three main reasons.
Firstly, as I have made clear in this text, Gunns are not a clan; they are early non-related settlers of northern mainland Scotland with no founding father – no Chief, if you like. The idea that all Scottish familes are clans with Chiefs is untrue, although the idea is much loved by tourists. There is no evidence to support the idea that Gunns had a Chief of any sort until one was found for the Duchess of Sutherland in the early 1800s, see Appendix 3. By making a Chief for the Gunns, Gunn history has been reduced to a cartoon.
Secondly the decision to make a Gunn Chief was made following a Gunn ‘derbhfine’ (invited meeting) called by Lord Lyon. That meeting did not follow the stated procedure / guidance issued by the Court of the Lord Lyon at that time. I know it did not follow the procedure / guidance as I was there – and incidentally there was no agenda for the meeting, nor have minutes of the meeting ever been issued.
The Lyon Court’s stated procedure / guidance[3] for such a meeting was –
(1) Where a blood link to a past Chief or Head of Name is likely but is not conclusively proven and it is wished to propose a particular person in that situation to be recognised as Chief.
(2) Where the main line of descent from a past Chief has died out and it is wished to recognise the Representer of a cadet line as Chief.
(3) Where neither blood link to a past Chief nor Representer of a cadet line can be identified but it is wished to propose a particular person of the surname as Commander. It is generally desirable that such a Commander should live in Scotland.
In other words, the meeting should firstly discuss someone who was very probably the senior (or very near) direct descendant of the Chief but who could not quite legally prove it, and consider that person for Chief. If no-one was in that position then the meeting should look at someone who was directly decended from the Chief albeit from a less direct line, and consider that person for Chief. If no-one fulfilled that position then – and only then – should the meeting choose someone else to act as Commander of the Clan – not Chief, just Commander. There was nothing in the guidelines to consider appointing a Clan Commander to Chief.
Now the meeting paid no attention to these guidelines and just went straight to a motion saying the then Gunn Commander[4] should be nominated for Chief. I voted against the motion. I note Lord Lyon Blair’s view[5] ‘The derbhfine ... should not consider proposing a person for chief unless there is no real hope that a genealogically related descendant could ever be found.’ As said, this Gunn derbhfine made no attempt to discuss possible ‘genealogically related’ direct descendants from Gunn Coroner – the ‘Chief’ line.
Now, I am against the idea that Gunns should have a Chief but if one must convert Gunn history into the form beloved by tourists then this text clearly shows that the Gunn ‘Chief’ line has certainly not died out. I note Lord Lyon Sellar’s view[6] in 2012 was that ‘it has become evident that there is in all probability clear and proveable lines of descent senior to that of the present Commander'. Lord Lyon Sellar made this comment when rejecting a petition to hold an earlier Gunn derbfhine which had the proposed aim of making the Commander Chief of the Gunns. Note how Lord Lyon Sellar’s comment fits the Lord Lyon Court guidance for point 1 or 2 of what a derbfhine should do. So, Lord Lyon Sellar believed that ‘in all probability’ that ‘Chief’ lines senior to the Commander’s existed but this 2015 Gunn debfhine was not interested in the possibility.
So, in summary, the second reason why the ‘Gunn Chief’ decision is questionable it is that the Gunn debhfine did not follow the stated guidance / practice of the Court of the Lord Lyon.
The third and most serious reason why the 2015 ‘Gunn Chief’ decision is highly questionable concerns whether Lord Lyon has the legal right to make judgement about Clan Chiefs. To explain - Lord Lyon’s Court is not the most senior Scottish Court – the Court of Sessions is Scotland’s supreme civil court. The Court of Sessions had stated / ruled long before the 2015 ‘Gunn Chief’ issue that –
· ‘The Lord Lyon can not ‘decide a disputed question of chiefship or chieftainship.’ [7]
· ‘… the Court excluded all questions relating to the chieftainship and the relative positions of the parties within the clan, holding that neither chiefship of a whole clan nor chieftainship of a branch of a clan was a legal status justiciable in a court of law, but had the character of a social dignity only, and, accordingly, that the Lord Lyon had no jurisdiction to decide the disputed question of who had right to the chieftainship either directly or incidentally…’ [8]
· And one of the Judges, Lord Wark, said in his view ‘I agree with your Lordships that Lyon has no jurisdiction to entertain a substantive declarator of chiefship of a Highland clan, or of chieftainship of a branch of a clan. ... The question of chiefship of a Highland clan, or chieftainship of a branch of a clan, is not in itself, in my opinion, a matter which involves any interest which the law can recognise… in my opinion, there is no practice or precedent which entitled Lyon to decide a question of disputed chiefship or chieftainship, either by itself or incidentally to a grant of arms…. ’[9]
So the supreme court of Scotland, the Court of Sessions, has made it quite clear that Lord Lyon does NOT have the power to determine who is the Chief of a Clan. Incidentally I believe a Lord Lyon can withdraw matriculation of a Chief.[10]
The ‘Clan Gunn Chief’ issue is therefore not resolved; it’s just been made a little more complex as work now needs to be done in the Court of Sessions…
***
[1] Page xxii from his Foreword to Frank Adams and Thomas Innes The Clans, Septs and Regiments of The Scottish Highlands 1934 edition.
[2] From a letter published as part of Thomas Sinclair’s Clan Gunn Sixth Supplement 6.1.1903 published in the ‘Northern Ensign’.
[3] http://www.lyon-court.com/lordlyon/656.html accessed 18 July 2015.
[4] I note the Gunn Commander had earlier applied to be Gunn ‘Chief’ due to his descent but it had been rejected by a previous Lord Lyon. I also note his family’s name in the past was not always Gunn.
[5] Lord Lyon Blair, 19 February 2002 http://www.clanmacaulay.org.uk/node/69 accesed 21 May 2015.
[6] http://www.lyon-court.com/lordlyon/files/Gunn%20Family%20Convention%20-%20Interlocutor%20refusing%20petition%20in%20hoc%20statu.pdf accessed 19 May 2015.
[7] Maclean of Ardgour v. Maclean, 1938 S.L.T. 49. From Introduction to the Law of Scotland by Gloag and Candlish Henderson, 9th edition, 1987, p. 25.
[8] Maclean of Ardgour v. Maclean 1941 S.C. 613.
[9] Lord Wark, in Maclean of Ardgour v. Maclean 1941 S.C. at p. 657.
[10] Page 23 MacPherson of Cluny, The Chiefs of Clan MacPherson.
The individual chapters can be downloaded as pdfs from latrobe.academia.edu/AlastairGunn
‘... an elected Chief is alien to the whole principle of Celtic civilisation ...’
Lord Lyon Thomas Innes[1]
‘The question of who is the chief of the (Gunn) clan now, seems to me nothing better than an uninteresting logomachy.’
Rev. Dr Miller C.I.E.
Principal of Madras Theological College[2]
The invention of a Clan Gunn Chief in 2015 by the Lord Lyon of the time is to be regretted and is questionable for three main reasons.
Firstly, as I have made clear in this text, Gunns are not a clan; they are early non-related settlers of northern mainland Scotland with no founding father – no Chief, if you like. The idea that all Scottish familes are clans with Chiefs is untrue, although the idea is much loved by tourists. There is no evidence to support the idea that Gunns had a Chief of any sort until one was found for the Duchess of Sutherland in the early 1800s, see Appendix 3. By making a Chief for the Gunns, Gunn history has been reduced to a cartoon.
Secondly the decision to make a Gunn Chief was made following a Gunn ‘derbhfine’ (invited meeting) called by Lord Lyon. That meeting did not follow the stated procedure / guidance issued by the Court of the Lord Lyon at that time. I know it did not follow the procedure / guidance as I was there – and incidentally there was no agenda for the meeting, nor have minutes of the meeting ever been issued.
The Lyon Court’s stated procedure / guidance[3] for such a meeting was –
(1) Where a blood link to a past Chief or Head of Name is likely but is not conclusively proven and it is wished to propose a particular person in that situation to be recognised as Chief.
(2) Where the main line of descent from a past Chief has died out and it is wished to recognise the Representer of a cadet line as Chief.
(3) Where neither blood link to a past Chief nor Representer of a cadet line can be identified but it is wished to propose a particular person of the surname as Commander. It is generally desirable that such a Commander should live in Scotland.
In other words, the meeting should firstly discuss someone who was very probably the senior (or very near) direct descendant of the Chief but who could not quite legally prove it, and consider that person for Chief. If no-one was in that position then the meeting should look at someone who was directly decended from the Chief albeit from a less direct line, and consider that person for Chief. If no-one fulfilled that position then – and only then – should the meeting choose someone else to act as Commander of the Clan – not Chief, just Commander. There was nothing in the guidelines to consider appointing a Clan Commander to Chief.
Now the meeting paid no attention to these guidelines and just went straight to a motion saying the then Gunn Commander[4] should be nominated for Chief. I voted against the motion. I note Lord Lyon Blair’s view[5] ‘The derbhfine ... should not consider proposing a person for chief unless there is no real hope that a genealogically related descendant could ever be found.’ As said, this Gunn derbhfine made no attempt to discuss possible ‘genealogically related’ direct descendants from Gunn Coroner – the ‘Chief’ line.
Now, I am against the idea that Gunns should have a Chief but if one must convert Gunn history into the form beloved by tourists then this text clearly shows that the Gunn ‘Chief’ line has certainly not died out. I note Lord Lyon Sellar’s view[6] in 2012 was that ‘it has become evident that there is in all probability clear and proveable lines of descent senior to that of the present Commander'. Lord Lyon Sellar made this comment when rejecting a petition to hold an earlier Gunn derbfhine which had the proposed aim of making the Commander Chief of the Gunns. Note how Lord Lyon Sellar’s comment fits the Lord Lyon Court guidance for point 1 or 2 of what a derbfhine should do. So, Lord Lyon Sellar believed that ‘in all probability’ that ‘Chief’ lines senior to the Commander’s existed but this 2015 Gunn debfhine was not interested in the possibility.
So, in summary, the second reason why the ‘Gunn Chief’ decision is questionable it is that the Gunn debhfine did not follow the stated guidance / practice of the Court of the Lord Lyon.
The third and most serious reason why the 2015 ‘Gunn Chief’ decision is highly questionable concerns whether Lord Lyon has the legal right to make judgement about Clan Chiefs. To explain - Lord Lyon’s Court is not the most senior Scottish Court – the Court of Sessions is Scotland’s supreme civil court. The Court of Sessions had stated / ruled long before the 2015 ‘Gunn Chief’ issue that –
· ‘The Lord Lyon can not ‘decide a disputed question of chiefship or chieftainship.’ [7]
· ‘… the Court excluded all questions relating to the chieftainship and the relative positions of the parties within the clan, holding that neither chiefship of a whole clan nor chieftainship of a branch of a clan was a legal status justiciable in a court of law, but had the character of a social dignity only, and, accordingly, that the Lord Lyon had no jurisdiction to decide the disputed question of who had right to the chieftainship either directly or incidentally…’ [8]
· And one of the Judges, Lord Wark, said in his view ‘I agree with your Lordships that Lyon has no jurisdiction to entertain a substantive declarator of chiefship of a Highland clan, or of chieftainship of a branch of a clan. ... The question of chiefship of a Highland clan, or chieftainship of a branch of a clan, is not in itself, in my opinion, a matter which involves any interest which the law can recognise… in my opinion, there is no practice or precedent which entitled Lyon to decide a question of disputed chiefship or chieftainship, either by itself or incidentally to a grant of arms…. ’[9]
So the supreme court of Scotland, the Court of Sessions, has made it quite clear that Lord Lyon does NOT have the power to determine who is the Chief of a Clan. Incidentally I believe a Lord Lyon can withdraw matriculation of a Chief.[10]
The ‘Clan Gunn Chief’ issue is therefore not resolved; it’s just been made a little more complex as work now needs to be done in the Court of Sessions…
***
[1] Page xxii from his Foreword to Frank Adams and Thomas Innes The Clans, Septs and Regiments of The Scottish Highlands 1934 edition.
[2] From a letter published as part of Thomas Sinclair’s Clan Gunn Sixth Supplement 6.1.1903 published in the ‘Northern Ensign’.
[3] http://www.lyon-court.com/lordlyon/656.html accessed 18 July 2015.
[4] I note the Gunn Commander had earlier applied to be Gunn ‘Chief’ due to his descent but it had been rejected by a previous Lord Lyon. I also note his family’s name in the past was not always Gunn.
[5] Lord Lyon Blair, 19 February 2002 http://www.clanmacaulay.org.uk/node/69 accesed 21 May 2015.
[6] http://www.lyon-court.com/lordlyon/files/Gunn%20Family%20Convention%20-%20Interlocutor%20refusing%20petition%20in%20hoc%20statu.pdf accessed 19 May 2015.
[7] Maclean of Ardgour v. Maclean, 1938 S.L.T. 49. From Introduction to the Law of Scotland by Gloag and Candlish Henderson, 9th edition, 1987, p. 25.
[8] Maclean of Ardgour v. Maclean 1941 S.C. 613.
[9] Lord Wark, in Maclean of Ardgour v. Maclean 1941 S.C. at p. 657.
[10] Page 23 MacPherson of Cluny, The Chiefs of Clan MacPherson.