Others here have made many of the points I was going to make in following up on my earlier statements. Modern mythology surrounding tartans is a bad mixture of pre-proscription tradition and Victorian romanticism, which has somehow been morphed into a sense of "entitlement".

The truth is that when clans mattered, there was no such thing as a "clan tartan". People wore whatever tartan pattern they fancied (and often several at a time). And after clans lost their power is when the idea of "clan tartans" began.

Clans were never homogeneous groups of family, all bearing the same surname. There were many documented sept families too. Plus tenant families that lived on clan lands and enjoyed some protection of a clan, but never made it into the official sept category. There were the so-called "broken men" which may have allied with a particular clan too, but did not bear a relevant surname. And none of them wore a clan tartan.

Yes, the modern idea of a clan and its tartan is different today, but it need not be exclusive to those with a recognized patrilineal surname. Any family connection is sufficient.

I also take issue with the idea that being associated with a particular clan or wearing their tartan has anything to do with pledging allegiance/fealty to a chief. Simply having a family connection, whether I bear a particular name or not, is enough to warrant being "part of the family"... which is to say it's a very loose connection of people with something in common, even if it's a distant connection.

But I think this thread exemplifies what I'm talking about. Some people will always insist that only having a proper surname entitles you to be good enough to wear 'their' tartan. You'll find them everywhere, thanks to the revisionist mythology about tartans.