And further on the Gunn MacHamish / Mackeamish line not being Chief
... to the said John Gunn for himself ... Alexander Gunn of Navidaill his father And to the said ... William Gunn his grandf(athe)r
There's another huge law case involving the Sutherland estate and the MacHamish Gunns. The above is from a large roll and there are further documents as well relating to the matter. And the phrasing is all like the above; no mention of 'Chief'. We are talking mid 1670s here.
Against John Gunn of Navidaill for himself... & Alexander Gunn his father and ... William Gunn his GrandFar (Grandfather) and Against Alexander Gunn of Killearnan ...lawfull son
As said, time and time again in various legal documents of the 1670s the phrasing is as above (or the words are very similar). The lack of mention of 'Chief' in these legal battles over many years - and in other legal battles such as the Gunn of Badenloch and later Wester Helmsdale which I have already discussed - is highly suggestive that the MacHamish line were not viewed as Chief at the time.
I might add the above provides clear proof of the MacHamish line being
And the obvious - these documents seem not to have been consulted by any previous Clan Gunn historians.
I might add the above provides clear proof of the MacHamish line being
- William
- Alexander Gunn of Navidaill
- John Gunn of Navidaill
- Alexander Gunn of Killearnan
And the obvious - these documents seem not to have been consulted by any previous Clan Gunn historians.