Historic problems with the MacHamish GUNN myths
From a work in progress...
The traditional view of the MacHamish story is wrong; documents prove that more than one MacHamish could be alive at any one time and that some MacHamishes are missing, consequently the traditional MacHamish descent line is seriously flawed.
The traditional MacHamish descent line goes something[1] like
****
There are dates and events which hugely impact on the MacHamish myths. Consider -
There are problems for the myth believers caused by the above points.
ONE
The first problem is the birth year of the Alexander MacHamish (traditional MacHamish number 4) who married Barbara Mackay. Alexander’s supposed father[8] was William Cattach / Cattaig (traditional MacHamish number 3). This William was meant to have fought[9] in 1517 at Torran Dubh[10]. A William MacHamish certainly fought at Torran Dubh and was joint second in charge of a large number of Sutherlanders (with no mention of other Gunns[11]) at the battle. You would have to be at least thirty years old, or so, to hold such a position. Around thirty is also a reasonable age to have had your first child. So this gives Alexander (traditional MacHamish number 4) a provisional birth year for the myth believers of around 1517 - but his wife Barbara was born more than fifty years after him in circa 1570. An age gap so large would have been remembered, and be in the history texts and it isn’t. Traditionally[12] Alexander married again after Barbara’s suppose death so that’s presumably an even larger age gap with his second wife.
Life expectancy also needs to be considered – Kings of Scotland from 1000 CE to 1600 CE averaged fifty-one years of age at death; only five percent of Carmelite monks lived beyond forty-five years of age[13]. This suggests that wealth had a link with life expectancy. For the Gunns of Killernan who lived in the harsh lands of northern Scotland in the 1500s – and not in the first rank of society like the Earls of Caithness and Sutherland – it is reasonable to assume that death would occur before the age of fifty for the vast majority of them. Given this, Alexander marrying at age seventy (and being even older for his supposed second marriage) is so unlikely it has to be regarded as impossible.
This means the Alexander MacHamish who married Barbara Mackay cannot be the Alexander who was supposedly the son of William MacHamish Cattach / Cattigh (traditional MacHamish number 3).
TWO
The birth date for Barbara Mackay of circa 1570 causes more problems for myth believers. Alexander (traditional MacHamish number 4) and Barbara’s son was William Mhor (traditional MacHamish number 5). I have no problem with William Mhor being this son and that he inherited Killernan[14] perhaps on 19 February 1614 but more probably in 1624 as I discuss in the next section, but many events linked to William Mhor are impossible. For example, a William MacHamish led[15] ‘adventurers’ who helped in an attack on the Isle of Lewis in the Western Hebrides around the year 1600[16]; in Mark Rugg Gunn’s history[17] this person is William Mhor. A William MacHamish is also recorded in battle in 1601[18]. So mythic history means that William Mhor (traditional MacHamish number 5) has to be the same age as his mother if he was fighting in the Isle of Lewis and elsewhere in the 1600-1601 period; both would have to be aged around thirty. That’s obviously impossible.
This means the William MacHamish who fought on the Isle of Lewis cannot have been the son of Barbara and Alexander (traditional MacHamish number 4); more than one MacHamish must have been active at this time even though mythic history rejects this fact. Who this other William MacHamish was will be discussed in the next section.
THREE
Another mythic belief which fails is the strict succession of the supposed ‘title’ MacHamish. More than one MacHamish could be around at one time which was firstly shown by the preceding point and even more so with the huge problems attached to the William Mhor (traditional MacHamish number 5) – John (traditional MacHamish number 6) – Alexander (traditional MacHamish number 7 and father of Catherine)[19] direct succession.
As already pointed out John (traditional MacHamish number 6) and Alexander (traditional MacHamish number 7) were brothers in the 1624 document which identified them as nasty thieves in 1620. Both were called ‘MacHamish[20]’ in the complaint[21] so MacHamish is again clearly shown to be a ‘title’ held by more than one person at any one time. Note the year when these two were thieves and remember Barbara Mackay had to be born around 1570. It was obviously not possible for the eldest son William Mhor, born 1595ish, to have an adult child (John in Navidale, traditional MacHamish number 6) capable of thieving and mayhem in 1620, so John in Navidale (traditional MacHamish number 6) cannot be the son of William Mhor (traditional MacHamish number 5) even though that is what the Gunn mythic history demands.
The mythic idea that William Mhor (traditional MacHamish number 5) had John (traditional MacHamish number 6) who had Alexander (traditional MacHamish number 7) does not work[23]. The most logical option is that all three were brothers, two certainly were.
FOUR
The belief that William Mhor (traditional MacHamish number 5) fathered John (traditional MacHamish number 6) who fathered Alexander (traditional MacHamish number 7 and father of Catherine)[24] is not true for a further reason.
William Mhor (traditional MacHamish number 5) could not be born much before 1595 for reasons already discussed. If John of Navidale (traditional MacHamish number 6) was William Mhor’s son then John could not be born much before 1615 when William Mhor would have been twenty years of age. If Alexander (traditional MacHamish number 7) was John’s son then he could not be born much before 1635 when John (traditional MacHamish number 6) would have been twenty years of age.
The problem is that Catherine Gunn who was the daughter of Alexander Gunn (traditional MacHamish number 7) has to be born no later than 1640 because she married Lieutenant Colonel Angus Mackay of Melness with contract of marriage 1 May 1658[25]. So if one accepts the mythic descent of the MacHamishes Catherine Gunn has to be born at basically the same time as her father which is obviously impossible.
As I made clear in the preceding point - William Mhor, John in Navidale and Alexander Gunn were all MacHamishes at the same time, and were brothers.
FIVE
There is at least one missing MacHamish - John Gunn is not really mentioned in the mythic history. The National Records of Scotland[26] have John Gunn of Killernan[27], his sister Catherine and parents of both namely Alexander Gunn (traditional MacHamish number 7) and Dame Mary Mackay Lady Foulis (Fowlis) specifically mentioned in a document, with the parents dead. This John, for the myth believers, should be recorded as a MacHamish and ‘Chief’ as he was the eldest son of Alexander (traditional MacHamish number 7) and acted as Head of the Killernan Gunns as the record makes clear. By implication all children from Chief Alexander (traditional MacHamish number 7) were from this marriage[28] to Dame May Margaret Foulis / Fowlis as John was the eldest son.
There is a story[29] that this marriage was the second for Alexander; the National Record of Scotland document clearly shows that if such was the case no male child survived from that marriage as he would have been the head of the Killernan Gunns. The lack of documentary support for such a marriage makes it a questionable event.
SUMMARY
Overall the traditional MacHamish mythic history is badly flawed like so much 'Clan' Gunn history.
******
[1] There is an amazing amount of ‘Chief Gunn’ descent lines, the variety supports the idea that the line is not a Chiefly line; Clan Chiefs are known and remembered. not lost in confusion. The above line is mainly drawn from MR Gunn pages 166-167.
[2] Page106 The Book of Mackay by Angus Mackay 1860-1911, 1906, Edinburgh.
[3] Page106 The Book of Mackay by Angus Mackay 1860-1911, 1906, Edinburgh. and page 107 ’When Iye Du Mackay of Strathnaver died in 1572 his son Huistean Du was barely eleven years of age’. All dates seen accept a birth year of either 1561 or 1562.
[4] Page106 The Book of Mackay by Angus Mackay 1860-1911
[5] Pages 151-153 Thomas Sinclair The Gunns
[6] See National Records of Scotland GD84/1/27/7 for detail.
[7] See National Records of Scotland GD84/1/27/7 for detail.
[8] MR Gunn page 166 is but one of many examples.
[9] Perhaps fought; he seems old to be fighting in this battle. Coroner Gunn died in the mid 1450s, James Gunn, the Coroner’s son would then have to be born around 1420 which meant William would have to be born around the 1450s. William fighting in his sixties is possible but unlikely. Did William Cattach fight at Torran Dubh or was it another William MacHamish? I explore this issue in the next section
[10] Page 91 Robert Gordon.
[11] Another myth is that this was some sort of ‘Clan’ Gunn battle. There is no mention of ‘Clan’ Gunn in the earliest record.
[12] MR Gunn, page 167.
[13] http://www.sarahwoodbury.com/life-expectancy-in-the-middle-ages/ accessed 23 November 2017.
[14] Page 106 The Book of Mackay and elsewhere record a Dunrobin (Sutherland Estate) extract showing this ‘Blh MS’.
[15] Robert Gordon page 273 details the events on Lewis.
[16] Robert Gordon page 273 details the events on Lewis.
[17] Page 167 MRG
[18] Page 242 Gordon 1813 version
[19] Page 166-167 MRG, for example.
[20] As said, MacHamish is the anglicised version; they were called M’Keymes and M’Hamish in the document. See Sinclair pages 151-152.
[21] Thomas Sinclair pages 151-152.
22) John was ‘in’ Navidale in the 1624 document which showed that he did not own the property otherwise he would be ‘of’ Navidale, or more likely ‘of’ Killernan once his brother died. By implication William Mhor was still alive in 1620-1624 and had control of Killernan and the family money. Did William Mhor even marry? John was ‘owner’ of Killernan / Navidale after William Mhor, so suggesting he was the next eldest but it is probable that John of Navidale also did not have male children (or any children?) as Killernan is linked to descendants of Alexander (traditional MacHamish number 7) see National Records of Scotland GD8/1/27/7.
[23] Page 166-167 MRG, for example.
[24] Page 166-167 MRG, for example.
[25] See National Records of Scotland GD84/1/27/7 for detail.
[26] See National Records of Scotland GD84 /1/27/7 for detail.
[27] See National Records of Scotland GD84/1/27/7 for detail.
[28] Page 166 MR Gunn is wrong on this point as the National Records of Scotland document makes clear.
[29] Page 166 and 168, MR Gunn, for example.
The traditional view of the MacHamish story is wrong; documents prove that more than one MacHamish could be alive at any one time and that some MacHamishes are missing, consequently the traditional MacHamish descent line is seriously flawed.
The traditional MacHamish descent line goes something[1] like
- Coroner Gunn
- James
- William Cattach / Cattaig
- Alexander
- William Mhor
- John
- Alexander
- Donald Crotach
- Alexander
- William
- Morrison
****
There are dates and events which hugely impact on the MacHamish myths. Consider -
- Alexander Gunn (traditional MacHamish number 4) married Barbara Mackay, daughter of Iye Du Mackay, Chief of the Clan Mackay[2]. The eldest child of Iye Du Mackay’s second marriage was Huistean Du Mackay, born in 1561[3]. Barbara is listed as the fifth child[4] of this second marriage so a birth year for Barbara of about 1570 is reasonable.
- Thomas Sinclair provides a 1624 document[5] which recorded that John MacHamish (traditional MacHamish number 6) in Navidale and his brother Alexander MacHamish (traditional MacHamish number 7) were nasty thieves on 31 January 1620.
- Catherine Gunn married Lieutenant Colonel Angus Mackay of Melness with contract of marriage 1 or 8 May 1658[6]. She was the daughter of Alexander Gunn (traditional MacHamish number 7).
- John Gunn of Killernan[7], his sister Catherine and their parents Alexander Gunn (traditional MacHamish number 7) and Dame Mary Mackay Lady Foulis (Fowlis) are mentioned in a National Records of Scotland document.
There are problems for the myth believers caused by the above points.
ONE
The first problem is the birth year of the Alexander MacHamish (traditional MacHamish number 4) who married Barbara Mackay. Alexander’s supposed father[8] was William Cattach / Cattaig (traditional MacHamish number 3). This William was meant to have fought[9] in 1517 at Torran Dubh[10]. A William MacHamish certainly fought at Torran Dubh and was joint second in charge of a large number of Sutherlanders (with no mention of other Gunns[11]) at the battle. You would have to be at least thirty years old, or so, to hold such a position. Around thirty is also a reasonable age to have had your first child. So this gives Alexander (traditional MacHamish number 4) a provisional birth year for the myth believers of around 1517 - but his wife Barbara was born more than fifty years after him in circa 1570. An age gap so large would have been remembered, and be in the history texts and it isn’t. Traditionally[12] Alexander married again after Barbara’s suppose death so that’s presumably an even larger age gap with his second wife.
Life expectancy also needs to be considered – Kings of Scotland from 1000 CE to 1600 CE averaged fifty-one years of age at death; only five percent of Carmelite monks lived beyond forty-five years of age[13]. This suggests that wealth had a link with life expectancy. For the Gunns of Killernan who lived in the harsh lands of northern Scotland in the 1500s – and not in the first rank of society like the Earls of Caithness and Sutherland – it is reasonable to assume that death would occur before the age of fifty for the vast majority of them. Given this, Alexander marrying at age seventy (and being even older for his supposed second marriage) is so unlikely it has to be regarded as impossible.
This means the Alexander MacHamish who married Barbara Mackay cannot be the Alexander who was supposedly the son of William MacHamish Cattach / Cattigh (traditional MacHamish number 3).
TWO
The birth date for Barbara Mackay of circa 1570 causes more problems for myth believers. Alexander (traditional MacHamish number 4) and Barbara’s son was William Mhor (traditional MacHamish number 5). I have no problem with William Mhor being this son and that he inherited Killernan[14] perhaps on 19 February 1614 but more probably in 1624 as I discuss in the next section, but many events linked to William Mhor are impossible. For example, a William MacHamish led[15] ‘adventurers’ who helped in an attack on the Isle of Lewis in the Western Hebrides around the year 1600[16]; in Mark Rugg Gunn’s history[17] this person is William Mhor. A William MacHamish is also recorded in battle in 1601[18]. So mythic history means that William Mhor (traditional MacHamish number 5) has to be the same age as his mother if he was fighting in the Isle of Lewis and elsewhere in the 1600-1601 period; both would have to be aged around thirty. That’s obviously impossible.
This means the William MacHamish who fought on the Isle of Lewis cannot have been the son of Barbara and Alexander (traditional MacHamish number 4); more than one MacHamish must have been active at this time even though mythic history rejects this fact. Who this other William MacHamish was will be discussed in the next section.
THREE
Another mythic belief which fails is the strict succession of the supposed ‘title’ MacHamish. More than one MacHamish could be around at one time which was firstly shown by the preceding point and even more so with the huge problems attached to the William Mhor (traditional MacHamish number 5) – John (traditional MacHamish number 6) – Alexander (traditional MacHamish number 7 and father of Catherine)[19] direct succession.
As already pointed out John (traditional MacHamish number 6) and Alexander (traditional MacHamish number 7) were brothers in the 1624 document which identified them as nasty thieves in 1620. Both were called ‘MacHamish[20]’ in the complaint[21] so MacHamish is again clearly shown to be a ‘title’ held by more than one person at any one time. Note the year when these two were thieves and remember Barbara Mackay had to be born around 1570. It was obviously not possible for the eldest son William Mhor, born 1595ish, to have an adult child (John in Navidale, traditional MacHamish number 6) capable of thieving and mayhem in 1620, so John in Navidale (traditional MacHamish number 6) cannot be the son of William Mhor (traditional MacHamish number 5) even though that is what the Gunn mythic history demands.
The mythic idea that William Mhor (traditional MacHamish number 5) had John (traditional MacHamish number 6) who had Alexander (traditional MacHamish number 7) does not work[23]. The most logical option is that all three were brothers, two certainly were.
FOUR
The belief that William Mhor (traditional MacHamish number 5) fathered John (traditional MacHamish number 6) who fathered Alexander (traditional MacHamish number 7 and father of Catherine)[24] is not true for a further reason.
William Mhor (traditional MacHamish number 5) could not be born much before 1595 for reasons already discussed. If John of Navidale (traditional MacHamish number 6) was William Mhor’s son then John could not be born much before 1615 when William Mhor would have been twenty years of age. If Alexander (traditional MacHamish number 7) was John’s son then he could not be born much before 1635 when John (traditional MacHamish number 6) would have been twenty years of age.
The problem is that Catherine Gunn who was the daughter of Alexander Gunn (traditional MacHamish number 7) has to be born no later than 1640 because she married Lieutenant Colonel Angus Mackay of Melness with contract of marriage 1 May 1658[25]. So if one accepts the mythic descent of the MacHamishes Catherine Gunn has to be born at basically the same time as her father which is obviously impossible.
As I made clear in the preceding point - William Mhor, John in Navidale and Alexander Gunn were all MacHamishes at the same time, and were brothers.
FIVE
There is at least one missing MacHamish - John Gunn is not really mentioned in the mythic history. The National Records of Scotland[26] have John Gunn of Killernan[27], his sister Catherine and parents of both namely Alexander Gunn (traditional MacHamish number 7) and Dame Mary Mackay Lady Foulis (Fowlis) specifically mentioned in a document, with the parents dead. This John, for the myth believers, should be recorded as a MacHamish and ‘Chief’ as he was the eldest son of Alexander (traditional MacHamish number 7) and acted as Head of the Killernan Gunns as the record makes clear. By implication all children from Chief Alexander (traditional MacHamish number 7) were from this marriage[28] to Dame May Margaret Foulis / Fowlis as John was the eldest son.
There is a story[29] that this marriage was the second for Alexander; the National Record of Scotland document clearly shows that if such was the case no male child survived from that marriage as he would have been the head of the Killernan Gunns. The lack of documentary support for such a marriage makes it a questionable event.
SUMMARY
- The Alexander (traditional MacHamish 4) who married Barbara Mackay was not the son of William Cattach (traditional MacHamish 3); MacHamish generation(s) are missing.
- When William Mhor (traditional MacHamish 5) was alive there was another older, battle hardened William MacHamish also alive; more than one MacHamish was around at the one time.
- William Mhor (traditional MacHamish 5) had brothers John (traditional MacHamish 6) and Alexander (traditional MacHamish 7). Both William and John died without issue but again more than one MacHamish was alive at the one time.
- The John who was son of Alexander (traditional MacHamish number 7) should be better noted as a ‘MacHamish’ Gunn, he was more significant than William (traditional MacHamish number 10) and Morrison (traditional MacHamish number 11) both of whom died overseas.
Overall the traditional MacHamish mythic history is badly flawed like so much 'Clan' Gunn history.
******
[1] There is an amazing amount of ‘Chief Gunn’ descent lines, the variety supports the idea that the line is not a Chiefly line; Clan Chiefs are known and remembered. not lost in confusion. The above line is mainly drawn from MR Gunn pages 166-167.
[2] Page106 The Book of Mackay by Angus Mackay 1860-1911, 1906, Edinburgh.
[3] Page106 The Book of Mackay by Angus Mackay 1860-1911, 1906, Edinburgh. and page 107 ’When Iye Du Mackay of Strathnaver died in 1572 his son Huistean Du was barely eleven years of age’. All dates seen accept a birth year of either 1561 or 1562.
[4] Page106 The Book of Mackay by Angus Mackay 1860-1911
[5] Pages 151-153 Thomas Sinclair The Gunns
[6] See National Records of Scotland GD84/1/27/7 for detail.
[7] See National Records of Scotland GD84/1/27/7 for detail.
[8] MR Gunn page 166 is but one of many examples.
[9] Perhaps fought; he seems old to be fighting in this battle. Coroner Gunn died in the mid 1450s, James Gunn, the Coroner’s son would then have to be born around 1420 which meant William would have to be born around the 1450s. William fighting in his sixties is possible but unlikely. Did William Cattach fight at Torran Dubh or was it another William MacHamish? I explore this issue in the next section
[10] Page 91 Robert Gordon.
[11] Another myth is that this was some sort of ‘Clan’ Gunn battle. There is no mention of ‘Clan’ Gunn in the earliest record.
[12] MR Gunn, page 167.
[13] http://www.sarahwoodbury.com/life-expectancy-in-the-middle-ages/ accessed 23 November 2017.
[14] Page 106 The Book of Mackay and elsewhere record a Dunrobin (Sutherland Estate) extract showing this ‘Blh MS’.
[15] Robert Gordon page 273 details the events on Lewis.
[16] Robert Gordon page 273 details the events on Lewis.
[17] Page 167 MRG
[18] Page 242 Gordon 1813 version
[19] Page 166-167 MRG, for example.
[20] As said, MacHamish is the anglicised version; they were called M’Keymes and M’Hamish in the document. See Sinclair pages 151-152.
[21] Thomas Sinclair pages 151-152.
22) John was ‘in’ Navidale in the 1624 document which showed that he did not own the property otherwise he would be ‘of’ Navidale, or more likely ‘of’ Killernan once his brother died. By implication William Mhor was still alive in 1620-1624 and had control of Killernan and the family money. Did William Mhor even marry? John was ‘owner’ of Killernan / Navidale after William Mhor, so suggesting he was the next eldest but it is probable that John of Navidale also did not have male children (or any children?) as Killernan is linked to descendants of Alexander (traditional MacHamish number 7) see National Records of Scotland GD8/1/27/7.
[23] Page 166-167 MRG, for example.
[24] Page 166-167 MRG, for example.
[25] See National Records of Scotland GD84/1/27/7 for detail.
[26] See National Records of Scotland GD84 /1/27/7 for detail.
[27] See National Records of Scotland GD84/1/27/7 for detail.
[28] Page 166 MR Gunn is wrong on this point as the National Records of Scotland document makes clear.
[29] Page 166 and 168, MR Gunn, for example.