Quote Originally Posted by ThistleDown View Post
What you said originally was "If you aren't a member of that family, there is no way to join that clan." That is not correct. In earlier days clans were made up of the main family, certainly, but all others who resided within the clan territory were "of" the clan whether of the main family, or not. So we all know about the Macdonalds of Glencoe; members of that territorial clan included folk with names like Rankin and Henderson as well as Macdonald.

Today all of the main name are members of the clan -- whether the chief likes it or not! Others, not of the name but descended from those who resided in the territory in former years, are also members of the clan. That is fact today.

The "approval by the chief" aspect only comes to play today when someone without any blood connection to the territory seeks clan membership. Not clan association membership, clan membership. Sounds strange in these times, but I do know of one occasion when that happened, so I suppose there are others, as well. In this one, shortly after the Second War, a farmer tenant on a Highland estate asked the laird/chief for permission to change his name to that of the chief, thereby becoming a clan member by both name and residency. This is an example of the chief acknowledging clan membership outwith the family.

My point was that not all of a "name" may actually be of the clan bearing that name today. I used as an example the Macgillivrays of Mull who were of the Macleans. Today, if you know you are descended from the Mull lot, then you are a member of clan Maclean. If you don't know then you gravitate to the Macgillivrays of Strathdearn because they are the Macgillivrays of all the popular clan books. In this way you are acknowledging the Macgillivray chief (whomever he may be) as your chief, even though you are not descended from his family or from any other family in his territory.
Does this include variant spellings of the clan name? Hunt, variant of Hunter for instance.