As is his way, Malcolm Gunn has once again done a great job in putting together the latest Gunn family newsletter. If you haven’t already received a copy by email, then you can download and read a copy from the Publications page of the website.
The newsletter reports on a range of events, including
- James MA Gunn asks Malcolm to be a signatory to a Petition to the Lord Lyon
Court to convene a Family Convention to appoint Iain A Gunn of Banniskirk Chief of the
Clan Gunn… - Doug and Mavis Gunn’s eulogy by Millie Gunn
- Death of Graham Gunn, brother of Jim Gunn
- Birth of Daisy Gunn and Joscelyn (Gunn) Lemke and
- A geneological update
Thanks Malcolm. Another great effort (ed).
This is from the North American Yahoo site. Many of us object to the proposed Convention.
Re: Concerning the divisive Family Convention idea, a new Gunn book and blog
Ian,
At no point did I argue (my) ‘family line has what it takes to be chief’. As
said in my message, I am aware that better female lines than mine exist, so I
would not proceed with a Lyon application because claimants not merely have to
prove their line to Lyon, the claimant has to disprove all other lines. My line
is (as I understand it) comfortably better than the current Commander’s line,
but as said both are pretty weak as we come through female lines.
You say ‘ but if no one with a male line comes forth after many calls for
same(read that to be all interested parties)’. This is one of the key issues.
What has happened is ‘society blindness’. The Clan Gunn Society has requested
people to come forward if they think they are Chief, but the Clan Gunn Society
and its news has been read by a tiny fraction of a percent of all possible
people with Gunn bloodlines. On my blog and in my book I have listed quite a few
male potential Chief bloodlines which need to be explored. They may have died
out, but I suspect not all of them. And I am sure more can be found. For
example, in half an hour’s searching on the internet the other day I found a
better female line than mine. The idea that all Gunn genealogy is the preserve
of the CGS is at the heart of the flawed idea of the Convention; the CGS needs
to get onto ‘ancestry.co’ and equivalent sites and start to positively explore
the millions of links on Gunn family trees. Currently the CGS
assumes that interested people will find them. It is wrong. A person may well
be the direct descendant of the Chief but not know it. That again shows the
error of the Convention idea. Why is there no Clan Gunn Society official family
tree on such sites? That way the real Chief will find the tree.
I argued that the Convention is breaking with tradition only in the sense that
the Chief line has not been proved to have died out so it is not needed; I am
aware that Convention is fair IF the Chief line is dead. Even then I think it’s
farcical in this democratic day and age to create a new, inherited line.
I am happy with the current situation of a new Commander being appointed every
now and then, as I think the Clan Gunn will become a laughing stock if we
appoint a Chief, and then the real Chief with proven bloodlines is found. We
then have the equivalent of the Countess of Sutherland’s rushed desire to
appoint an earlier Chief; that line was not accepted by all Gunns and this
Convention has the capacity to be just as disastrous.
There is not the slightest reason for the Family Convention to proceed as the
male Chief lines have not been proved to be extinct. And if they did then it
would be possible to argue the issue of female lines. The Convention idea is
premised on there being no valid Chief lines left at all, and that’s wrong. I’m
here, and I know of better lines than mine and I am sure with some effort much
better lines will be found. That’s why the Convention idea is poorly thought out
and should be withdrawn.
Your point about Lyon needs to be answered; Lyon is the final authority in one
way. But the Gunn family should be the real authority and should have been able
to discuss this issue in depth BEFORE an action was taken by a small group to
force an idea onto all Gunns which the Gunns would then have to live with for
the rest of time.
Yours sincerely,
Alastair Gunn
— In clangunnsociety@yahoogroups.com, isgnn@… wrote:
>
> It is always refreshing to see a different point of view presented on any
topic Alastair.However,I would like to point out a small flaw.You indicate that
the petition is breaking with tradition.I challenge that on the basis
that,according to the Lord Lyons own web site,a Family Convention is base on old
Irish law,there by making it art of a tradition.Granted,it is one that may not
be used often but it has been used over the centries and is therefore in my
mind,part of tradition.
> Second. This debate or challenges to discover a chief for our clan has ben on
going since the ’60’s of which your father,as I understand it,has been a
contender. As have many others.
> Your question as to should it be the female line vs male line is legitimate
but if no one with a male line comes forth after many calls for same(read that
to be all interested parties) then it is only logical to entertain the female
line. In either situation,it will be the Lyon who will decide which is to be the
determining factor. We are only asking for his guidance and advice.He may well
tell us this is a non starter or say yes,go ahead! He,not you,not me not any of
us are the final authority.Playing the what if game of the power of the internet
as you suggest I find rather interesting.Interesting as it appears that you wish
to be chief but seem powerless to make it happen other than by playing the wait
game.
> If you feel so strongly that your family line has what it takes to be
chief,then put your name forward to be considered in the eyes of the Lord Lyon
to become our chief! If you do not wish to,for what ever reason,then I recommend
humbly that you respect the decision of the petition for a Family Convention
that will be rendered by the Lord Lyon.
> I,as one of the signatures,am more than willing to accept the decision of the
Lord Lyon,one way or the other and will follow the advice given when he presents
it.
> Respectfully yours,
> Ian S. Gunn
> Clan Gunn Nova Scotia.
>
> PS- just to clarify,I have never had the pleasure of meeting our commander but
did meet contender Michael Gunn and his lovely wife some years ago.
>
>
> — In clangunnsociety@yahoogroups.com, “alastairja” wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I think the `Family Convention’ idea to make a new Gunn Chief, out of
basically thin air, is a very poor and divisive idea.
> >
> > Why? My name is Alastair Gunn, son of Jack Gunn of Australia who has been
(on and off) a contender for the Chief of the Clan since the 1960s. Now, my
genealogy is proved; it’s in `Burke’s Peerage’. My line is better than the
current Commander’s. His genealogy from the Chief (as I understand it) is twice
through females, mine is but once. But neither line has real merit as descent
from the female is only valid if all male lines are disproved. The male lines
have not been disproved and so it must be assumed that it is possible to have
living, direct, male Chief descendants. I add that I am aware of better `female’
lines than mine. Knowing (`knowing’ is correct as will become obvious further
down) that all male chief lines have not been disproved is but one of the
reasons why I think the `Family Convention’ idea is massively flawed.
> >
> > Consider the `Family Convention’ idea as if it applied to American
politics; imagine a handful of people deciding the current system was a bit
bothersome, so they decide to appoint the President to be President for life and
his children to be President for life, till the end of eternity. No American
would agree with the concept! But that’s the equivalent of the current proposal
for the Gunns.
> >
> > The Family Convention idea is also poor history; if there is merit to a
Chief it is the direct link to the past, not a new line with weak links to old
Chief lines. I have no problem if someone can prove direct descent from the old
Chief line but I find any idea of appointing a new, inheritable Chief to be
ridiculous. After all the Queen of the United Kingdom no longer appoints
inheritable titles so why should the Clan Gunn do so? Surely in this democratic
age we should quite happily accept a Commander being appointed every now and
then for honourable service, and that’s all we need.
> >
> > Do we really want an inheritable class structure (which is what making a
Chief actually creates) forced into the modern Clan Gunn? Isn’t this sort of
attitude symptomatic of that which encouraged our ancestors to leave the United
Kingdom?
> >
> > The `Family Convention’ idea also seems to be based on a very poor
understanding of the increasing power of internet genealogy. What happens if
the current Commander is made Chief and a direct descendant of the old Chiefs is
found, which is quite possible given the increasing power of the internet?
(There are millions of Gunn records held on `ancestry’ family trees on the
internet, for example, which I am sure will enable such a person to be found.)
The Clan Gunn would then be such a laughing stock.
> >
> > I have a Clan Gunn blog site at http://clangunn1.blogspot.co.uk/ as I have
for many years been profoundly interested in Gunn history and genealogy. It’s a
`revisionist’ site as I am most interested in the Gunn people—the historic and
social experiences of the daily life of working Gunns over the centuries, if you
prefer. And I’m interested in how such Gunns adapted to new societies, in `new’
countries. On the site the new Gunn family history book I have co-authored is
advertised. It’s called `Scotland and Beyond; the Families of Donald Gunn
(Tormsdale) and John Gunn (Dalnaha, Strathmore and Braehour)’ and is 485 US
letter size pages long and it is about `my’ family. It has a lot of primary
sources (such as letters describing the journey to Canada and settling in Canada
at Owens Sound and Sydenham in the 1840s, and Australia in the 1850s. It also
links the Hon. Donald Gunn of Manitoba family tree with Australian Gunns…).
The site also has my detailed objections to the Family Convention idea at
> >
> > http://clangunn1.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/clan-gunn-chief-needed.html
> >
> > including a detailed family tree showing where some male Gunn Chiefs could
still come from (there are Canadian possibilities). And there is obviously even
more family-tree material in the book.
> >
> > Anyway, the reason I have placed this information here is I have a core
belief in open discussion, open information and open decisions. Issues that
impact on all Gunns (especially for the rest of time) should be explored where
all can participate and not left in committees or decided by a small group of
people. If you have any opinion on the Family Convention idea you need to tell
the Clan Gunn Society hierarchy and tell Lord Lyon at
> >
> > lyonoffice@
> >
> > You can see the actual proposal at
> >
> > http://www.lyon-court.com/lordlyon/736.html
> >
> > I hope you object to the Convention like I do, but even if you agree do
inform people, especially Lord Lyon. At the moment a handful of people speak for
all Gunns around the world. On this issue a democratic decision should be made,
so make your opinion known. Silence will be assumed to be consent by the Lord
Lyon.
> >
> > It is better to wait for the real Chief to be found, rather than to act in
haste.
> >
> > Best wishes to all,
> > Alastair Gunn
> >
> > (I have used the term ‘current Commander’ as he is the second Commander.
We’ve already had two, so there would be no problem to appoint more. Please note
that nothing I have written is to be taken as a criticism of the current
Commander; he has worked well for the Clan Gunn but that is why he is the
Commander.)
> >
>