Quote Originally Posted by MacMillan of Rathdown View Post
The clan is a heritable object and when the Lyon Court recognizes the chief of a clan it invests him (on behalf of the sovereign) with the whole of the clan as well as the "heirships moveable"; that is to say it invests him with the undifferenced arms of the chief, as well as the name, style and patronymic of the chief of "Clan X", etc. That the tartan is one of those "heirships moveable" goes without saying as the court of the Lord Lyon has always allowed chiefs who wish to do so to register their clan tartan(s) in the same way that they might register a badge or standard, something the court could not do if the tartan was not the property of the chief in the first instance.

In other words a clan tartan has the same legal status as the strap and buckle badge worn by a clansman. A chief would be within his rights to object to someone using it and, if necessary, could take such steps as my be necessary to restrict or prevent its use.

Those of a haughty disposition may choose to dispute the rights of a chief to limit or restrict the cognizances of clan membership if they so choose, but it does nothing to alter the fact that those cognizances are the exclusive property of the chief even when allowed to be used without the chief's specific permission or objection.
This is news to me. Everything I've read, especially by Lord Lyon, suggests that the clan chief's ability to determine the official tartan for his clan is a power that has no enforcement aspect. In other words, while a clan chief can determine his clan's official tartan, he cannot force anyone to wear it or prevent anyone from wearing it.

Do you have a source that you could point me to which says he does have enforcement powers over tartans?