The absolute impossibility is at once obvious of George of Kildun - who only married his first wife in 1661 - having had a son, John Mackenzie of Gruinard, in a position to have obtained a charter in his favour of the lands of Little Gruinard, etc., in 1669 - within eight years of his reputed father's marriage to his first wife - and who was himself designated in that charter as of "Meikle Gruinard," while it is proved by undoubted official documents that John of Gruinard's "wife" had lands disponed to her as his wife in 1655; that is, six years before the marriage of George of Kildun, John's alleged father. And further, how could John of Gruinard's second son, Kenneth, have married, as be is known to have done, the widow of Kenneth Og, fourth Earl of Seaforth, who died in 1701, if John, his father, had been the son by a second marriage of George of Kildun, who married his first wife in 1661? The thing is absolutely impossible. Kenneth Mor, third Earl of Seaforth, who, according to the Gruinard Genealogy, was John of Gruinard's uncle, was born at Brahan Castle in 1635. In 1651 he is described as "a child" by a contemporary writer, who says that the Kintail people declined to rise with him in that year during his father's absence on the Continent, because "he was but a "child," and his father, their master, was in life." Colin, first Earl of Seaforth, died in 1633, and the author of the Ancient MS. says that "Earl George, being then the Laird of Kildun, married before his brother's death, the Lord Forbes's daughter." Thus, George of Kildun could not have been born before 1636 or 1637 at the very earliest; and the date of his first marriage, twenty-four years later, strongly corroborates this. How then could he have had a married son, John Mackenzie of Gruinard, whose wife undoubtedly obtained lands in 1655; that is, when Kildun himself was only 18 years of age, and when John, already designated of Gruinard, was, in 1656, old enough to be cautioner for Kenneth, Earl of Seaforth? Proof of the same conclusive character could be adduced to any extent, but in face of the documents already quoted, it is obviously superfluous to do so. John Mackenzie, I. of Gruinard, could not in the nature of things have been a son of the second George Mackenzie of Kildun. He was, on the other hand, undoubtedly, the "natural" son of the first George, who succeeded his brother Colin as second Earl of Seaforth, and it necessarily follows that his representatives can have no claim whatever to the Chiefship of the Clan, or to the ancient honours of the family of Kintail and Seaforth. We shall now proceed to show that these distinctions belong to and are at present possessed by the male representative of THE MACKENZIES OF ALLANGRANGE.