Chief of the Clan Gunn discussion
Concerning the 'Chief' of the Clan Gunn by the Rev. Dr. Miller, C.I.E. Principal of Madras Theological College.
All this being so, the question of who is the chief of the clan now, seems to me nothing better than an uninteresting logomachy.
All this being so, the question of who is the chief of the clan now, seems to me nothing better than an uninteresting logomachy.
This letter comes from Thomas Sinclair’s Clan Gunn Sixth Supplement, 6. 1. 1903. I have put the complete supplement with the others on this site but I thought it appropriate to also place it in this section.
Madras 24th August 1891
DEAR SIR,-- I have been long of answering yours received in May. I have had no time to spare, and hope you will excuse me. You ask me (1) who is the best authority on the history of the clan Gunn; I answer that I have I have not either met or heard of any one now living, who knows so much about the matter as the Rev. Alex. Gunn of Watten. You ask me (2) what I think about the chieftainship of the clan. I don’t know the exact point of the last enquiry. Perhaps it refers to a controversy which I have seen occupying some space lately in the northern papers. If so, my answer is that this is a question in which I scarcely see how any one who really knows the history of the clan can take any interest. It is quite certain that after the murder of the Coroner in the 15th century, there were four branches of the clan. Of these, one was in Kildonan, one was in Braemore, and one on Bregaul or Strathmore. These three all took, or rather the chief and his immediate connections took, the name of Gunn when English surnames came into common use. The fourth branch took the name of Henderson. It is certain that, except temporarily in times of difficulty, these four branches never acted as one clan after the early years of the 16thcentury. The removal of the Coroner had effectively broken the clan and weakened it. It is also certain that the branch of the clan resident in Kildonan represented the Coroner’s eldest son, and had a certain priority conceded to it in consequence. But since the Coroner , there has been no hereditary succession to the chieftainship of the united clan. When the clan drew together from time tto time in the face of danger there was no doubt for the occasion of a real chief, and such a one would naturally be looked for first among the MacHamishes of Kildonan; and on at least one occasion one of the MacRobs of Braemore, and on another one of the MacIans of Bregaul, held the practical leadership of the whole clan. In times of danger the whole clan gathered round the strongest man of the family of the old chiefs, whatever branch he might happen to belong to. In doing so the Gunns did not act very differently from the other Highland clans. Among the clans the chieftainship was never regulated by strict principles of hereditary descent. The clan felt that its loyalty was due to the man who was its chief; but that chief might be, and often was, a man who had no right by feudal law to be regarded as head of the family. Much more did this hold good among the Gunns.
All this being so, the question of who is the chief of the clan now, seems to me nothing better than an uninteresting logomachy. Until the last of the MacHamishes fell in battle here in Southern India more than a century ago, the head of the Kildonan family might with a fair show of reason be called the chief of the clan. Since then it has simply absurd to bestow that title any one. But I doubt whether the clan ever acted as a whole after the latter half of the seventeenth century: and if that be the case, there has been no chief of the clan Gunn for two hundred years. Chiefs of its different branches no doubt there were till a later date. The heads of the Bregaul and of the Braemore branches are well known still. As for the Hendersons, the ideas of chieftainship passed away from their minds earlier, and I suppose that the indisputable fact of their being members of the clan Gunn is now practically forgotten among them.
The question – which perhaps is in your mind – as to who is the nearest remaining blood relation of the MacHamishes of Kildonan is one that has no real significance. It may be interesting to the individuals concerned, but can be of no importance to any other member of the clan. If you refer to the attempt made more than half a century ago to secure some kind of recognition for Gunn of Rhives as chief, I can only say that I believe that it was never known that he was in any sense whatever the representative of the family of Kildonan. If he belonged to that family at all – a question on which I possess no trustworthy information – there would, however, be nothing absurd in his claiming some kind of chieftainship. He was undoubtedly the most prominent man of the name residing in Sutherlandshire at the time. But it was only on his position, not directly upon his descent, that any claim to the chieftainship could be wisely based. But the whole thing is out of date. The clan system has passed away. Among the Gunns it was always less perfectly developed, and accordingly began to pass away earlier than among more purely Gaelic tribes. But suppose the clan system were suddenly to rise again in full perfection now, the clan in gathering round a chief would never ask who happened to be nearest in blood to the last of the MacHamishes. It would pitch upon the man, whether in the Kildonan, Braemore, or Bregaul families who, happened at the time to be most powerful and most prudent, and would obey him as its chieftain. You may make use of my letter as you please – I am yours truly,
WILLIAM MILLER
Madras 24th August 1891
DEAR SIR,-- I have been long of answering yours received in May. I have had no time to spare, and hope you will excuse me. You ask me (1) who is the best authority on the history of the clan Gunn; I answer that I have I have not either met or heard of any one now living, who knows so much about the matter as the Rev. Alex. Gunn of Watten. You ask me (2) what I think about the chieftainship of the clan. I don’t know the exact point of the last enquiry. Perhaps it refers to a controversy which I have seen occupying some space lately in the northern papers. If so, my answer is that this is a question in which I scarcely see how any one who really knows the history of the clan can take any interest. It is quite certain that after the murder of the Coroner in the 15th century, there were four branches of the clan. Of these, one was in Kildonan, one was in Braemore, and one on Bregaul or Strathmore. These three all took, or rather the chief and his immediate connections took, the name of Gunn when English surnames came into common use. The fourth branch took the name of Henderson. It is certain that, except temporarily in times of difficulty, these four branches never acted as one clan after the early years of the 16thcentury. The removal of the Coroner had effectively broken the clan and weakened it. It is also certain that the branch of the clan resident in Kildonan represented the Coroner’s eldest son, and had a certain priority conceded to it in consequence. But since the Coroner , there has been no hereditary succession to the chieftainship of the united clan. When the clan drew together from time tto time in the face of danger there was no doubt for the occasion of a real chief, and such a one would naturally be looked for first among the MacHamishes of Kildonan; and on at least one occasion one of the MacRobs of Braemore, and on another one of the MacIans of Bregaul, held the practical leadership of the whole clan. In times of danger the whole clan gathered round the strongest man of the family of the old chiefs, whatever branch he might happen to belong to. In doing so the Gunns did not act very differently from the other Highland clans. Among the clans the chieftainship was never regulated by strict principles of hereditary descent. The clan felt that its loyalty was due to the man who was its chief; but that chief might be, and often was, a man who had no right by feudal law to be regarded as head of the family. Much more did this hold good among the Gunns.
All this being so, the question of who is the chief of the clan now, seems to me nothing better than an uninteresting logomachy. Until the last of the MacHamishes fell in battle here in Southern India more than a century ago, the head of the Kildonan family might with a fair show of reason be called the chief of the clan. Since then it has simply absurd to bestow that title any one. But I doubt whether the clan ever acted as a whole after the latter half of the seventeenth century: and if that be the case, there has been no chief of the clan Gunn for two hundred years. Chiefs of its different branches no doubt there were till a later date. The heads of the Bregaul and of the Braemore branches are well known still. As for the Hendersons, the ideas of chieftainship passed away from their minds earlier, and I suppose that the indisputable fact of their being members of the clan Gunn is now practically forgotten among them.
The question – which perhaps is in your mind – as to who is the nearest remaining blood relation of the MacHamishes of Kildonan is one that has no real significance. It may be interesting to the individuals concerned, but can be of no importance to any other member of the clan. If you refer to the attempt made more than half a century ago to secure some kind of recognition for Gunn of Rhives as chief, I can only say that I believe that it was never known that he was in any sense whatever the representative of the family of Kildonan. If he belonged to that family at all – a question on which I possess no trustworthy information – there would, however, be nothing absurd in his claiming some kind of chieftainship. He was undoubtedly the most prominent man of the name residing in Sutherlandshire at the time. But it was only on his position, not directly upon his descent, that any claim to the chieftainship could be wisely based. But the whole thing is out of date. The clan system has passed away. Among the Gunns it was always less perfectly developed, and accordingly began to pass away earlier than among more purely Gaelic tribes. But suppose the clan system were suddenly to rise again in full perfection now, the clan in gathering round a chief would never ask who happened to be nearest in blood to the last of the MacHamishes. It would pitch upon the man, whether in the Kildonan, Braemore, or Bregaul families who, happened at the time to be most powerful and most prudent, and would obey him as its chieftain. You may make use of my letter as you please – I am yours truly,
WILLIAM MILLER