The Aeneas Kennedy quote is quite interesting, and one that I've not seen before. I think it has an obvious "tongue in cheek" quality to it. The ludicrous image of someone appearing in a 1740's army camp bearing a Flodden breastplate, a Norse sword, an ancient talismanic brooch, and a pot of woad, is either for comedic effect - or the man was a bizarre eccentric. The pistol shot episode only adds to the farcical tone of the piece.

At any rate, the line about the brooch dating from the days of the Bruces does nothing to advance the argument re: penannulars being worn in the pre-Proscription Jacobite period. Brooches of the early 1300's were NOT of the penannular configuration either. Again, their use had died out by roughly 1000AD. Consider the Clan MacDougall's famous "Brooch of Lorn" which traditionally belonged to Robert the Bruce. It is clearly not a penannular:



But, one can "never say never" when it come to this sort of thing. Might there have been 700-year-old brooches being worn by late 17th/early 18th C. clansmen? Perhaps, but the number would be so miniscule as to be statiscally zero. The serious "living history" hobbyist strives to adhere to what was common, typical and prevalent in his/her portrayal so as not to mislead the public.

For example, their were a handful of oddball recruits (again,statiscally zero)who appeared at the American Civil War's outset wearing parts of Revolutionary War uniforms, bearing ancient flintlock muskets, and even sporting "bullet proof" armor plate! Should such items be incorporated into a depiction of the common or average Civil War soldier for "living history" or reenactment purposes?

However, FAR Be it from me to dictate what others should wear! Those wishing to perpetuate the "reenactorism" of wearing penannular brooches with their Jacobite impressions are welcome to do so. They are a fine complement to the double-bladed troll axes which also make an occasional appearance at such events....