guiser

Oops! Here is me thinking I'd been super clever and that Ms Gabaldon chose 1743 as the year of Claire's trip because of the absence of the Black Watch, but google tells me the Black Watch is actually in the books. So from now on I'm not going to assume anything on the screen is Ms Gabaldon's fault or indeed to her credit! XD Now I am watching the next episode called "The Watch" and I really do not know what to make of it...

Yes, a bit of nuance is so much better than straightforward goodies versus baddies. However, it is also better in historical terms because I just don't buy a straightforward "evil English soldiery oppress the Highlands" narrative in the period before the '45. For a start the troops who normally did most of the active policing of the Highlands were Highlanders themselves - the loyal clans in the shape of the Black Watch, formerly the Independent Highland Companies ( for more detail on BW see here). So where was the Black Watch in 1743? On the way to Flanders to fight in the War of the Austrian Succession! Presumably Ms Gabaldon didn't just pick the year 1743 out of a hat! XD She picked it because with the Black Watch gone the situation in the Highlands would better serve a simple English v Scots narrative! Ok I take that back because after a bit of googling it seems to be the fault of the tv program which is simplifying the book. Apparently troops without local knowledge had proved ineffectual in monitoring the disaffected clans and catching cattle reivers etc. However, there was definitely a downside to setting "loyal" clans on rebellious ones because that was asking clans to police their traditional enemies! So it was not just the presence of English troops that could cause problems! The British government was warned by more than one person that this removal of the Black Watch would leave the Highlands under-policed. Indeed, even before they were withdrawn it could be argued that the Highlands was under-policed! In these circumstances I really do not think that the remaining non-Highland regiments would have been throwing their weight around. Any commander who let someone like "Black Jack" rampage around would have had to have been an idiot - influential connections or not! Indeed what on earth is "Black Jack" doing in the Highlands? It was a pretty unpopular place to be posted. All that rain and unfriendly natives! You'd think with his connections he could do better. Perhaps he has already been "reassigned" from somewhere warm due to his dubious behaviour! Boo! I must have missed the BJR nudity, or maybe it was cut for tv? :(

Aha, Scottish witch trials - a subject that I know quite lot about! :D Technically, under Scots law, consulting witches was illegal and could be punished but, in reality, it didn't happen (under English law it was not illegal to consult witches). Also, no one would have burnt a pregnant women. They would have let her go until she had given birth. There is a cool resource called the Survey of Scottish witchcraft database where you can look up all known Scottish witchcraft cases. Here is a real example, one Mary Morisone - let out of prison due to pregnancy. One women was even let out (to return for trial later) due to the fact that she was breastfeeding. In the mid-18th century Scotland the word "trews" was normally used to describe super tight hose made out of very fine material that went down to just below the knee. They were invariably made out of tartan and were accompanied by matching stockings. Earlier trews were sometimes down to the ankle (so no need of stockings) or footed. For examples of trews, see the guy with the shield who is wearing "trews" in the famous Culloden painting. See also the Jacobite Duke of Perth And from earlier - the 1720s John Campbell of Glenorchy and a Hanovarian supporter James Fraser of Castle Leathers. Alas, Jamie's trews are not as super tight as the ones in the portraits. :( Also, not eye poppingly bright enough for a man of his status! :D Oh well, maybe it is because he is incognito and doesn't want to draw attention to himself and his assets! XD The word trews seems to be a Scottish anglicisation of the Gaelic" trius". The similar Irish Gaelic word "triubhas" (close fitting shorts) seems to be the origin of the modern word trousers! Trews were used for riding and were generally the province of those who were rich enough to own a horse. Not many people rode in just a great kilt! Over time trews became more like modern (albeit very form fitting!) trousers. I am British and I have never heard the quote nor do I have any idea who Nathan Hale is. I asked my retired history teacher dad (born 1937) and neither has he. I gather from wikipedia that Mr Hale was an anti-British spy at the time of the American War of Independence. Perhaps a British person who has been heavily exposed to American media would be more likely to be aware of him and his "famous" quote. My dad (a young child during WW2) remembers watching newsreel footage of American politicians but I'm sure coverage of their speeches was nothing like as extensive as back home (he also remembers people booing Churchill! XD). It is certainly nothing that would be likely to be quoted by British politicians - far too OTT. The theory that Clare picked it up from GIs is a good one. But where did Gellis pick it up from? Perhaps she is actually American! There is something about her accent... I'm not too sure that even if Bonnie Prince Charlie had succeeded that he would really have been able to set up an absolutist state and abolish parliament! Even his supporters didn't want that. I have also heard it said that what mattered the most about the "Glorious Revolution" wasn't the Bill of Rights but the fact that parliament finally learned not to give the King perpetual revenue, that it learned to vote money but only for a limited time! I was rather amused that the episode made clear that the witch trial was illegal and thus got round the fact that the Witchcraft Act had been repealed. However, I was less amused when Ned Gowan said they were dispensing with “English law” given that they were also dispensing with traditional Scots law! Church courts were not supposed to try witches! This scenario just isn’t plausible even as an illegal trial. Kirk sessions could, at worst, fine or excommunicate people and, in any case, had to rely on the secular authorities to enforce their decisions. Also, the Presbyterian clergy were bastions of the state and the least likely people to want to undermine central authority in this way. Note that prior to the repeal of the Witchcraft Act it is Sheriff courts that are the focus of the suspicions of the legal authorities regarding potentially illegal witch trials. Whatever the venue, Father Bain would certainly not have been presenting himself openly as a Catholic priest because the authorities would have arrested him. :D Apparently, after the prospect of “proper” witch trials was removed, kirk sessions sometimes demanded that local secular authorities “banish” witches (presumably under a lesser charge) and pressured imprisoned suspects to accept this. So - a Kirk session investigation, a mob outside the door and a “unoffical” burning would have worked as a more plausible scenario. However, I have got to say that if you were going to pick a setting for a late and illegal witch trial the Mackenzie heartland north of Inverness is very plausible place. From the 1720s onwards it was only around Inverness and points north that there still seemed to be strong demand for witch-trials with the local authorities on board. The last witch burning in Scotland was supposedly in Dornoch (Sutherland) in 1727 (the date is disputed) after a Sheriff court trial of dubious legality (though I suspect that it was actually an illegal lynching -all records are lost). Indeed, this is the only evidence I know of for an illegal trial having taken place. Certainly, Kirk sessions were heavily involved in searching out witches, investigating accusations of witchcraft and interrogating suspects but they would then remit the evidence, with the backing of the local gentry, to the Lord Advocate to get permission for a trial. The Lord Advocate being the head of the legal establishment in Scotland (not England because this is Scots law). The Lord Advocate (after reviewing the evidence) could potentially issue a Commission of Justiciary to permit local bigwigs to try the witches in a special local court, could remit the case to the High Court of Judiciary in Edinburgh or insist that the case be tried by a circuit court judge instead of a local court. However, in reality, even if the Witchcraft Act had not been repealed, he would have done none of these things because the last legal execution was in 1697 (not 1706 as some book/websites say) and the last “authorised” trial (that we know of) was in 1710. Oddly, this doesn't seem to be because the powers that be in Scotland stopped believing in the reality of witches but because they stopped believing that they could identify them successfully.

I love Gellis' pixie coat! :D And Gellis is satisfyingly witchy! However, I do find the actress' odd accent rather off-putting and for me it detracts from her performance. In addition, I was taken aback when Gellis talked about Dougal's "slag of a wife, Maura"! That doesn't sound very Scottish and I thought Dougal's wife was meant to be homely! :D As far as Collum's behaviour towards Dougal is concerned, would Dougal really want to remove his support from Collum when push came to shove? And potentially threaten his own son's prospects as clan chief? Strong-arm Collum into supporting the Jacobites, yes, but that is a different thing. I read that Ms Gabaldon knew that the Witchcraft Act had been repealed - so poetic license there! I'm sure you are right that Claire shouldn't really have been arrested. Treating people with herbs would not have constituted witchcraft. Or were they going to arrest all apothecaries? Or anyone with a copy of Culpepper's Herbal? :D Alas, I don't think the 1715 is sufficiently well-known to interest most people. Pretty fascinating to read about though. I had no idea until recently that it was such a massive rebellion. Much bigger than the '45. It also exposes how different Scottish society was to English society. There seemed to have been a massive social gulf between pro-govt Whigs and Jacobitish Tories in England in a way that there wasn't in Scotland. So, after the 1715 the Scottish rebels (unlike the English rebels) were shielded from the worst consequences of their actions by the efforts of their pro-government Whig relatives. Something the government made sure didn't happen after the '45 :( And that reminds me. I was really tickled when Ned Gowan said that Jamie should ultimately aim to take his case to the President of the Court of Session - the top legal bod in Scotland. Which was at this time none other than Duncan Forbes of Culloden (not a coincidence) - top government man-on-the-spot in Scotland and instrumental in persuading a lot of the great and good not to come out for the Jacobites! He had a good reputation for probity though, so....XD

Thanks! :D That thesis looks interesting - I'll have to give it a read. I've got to say that having searchable pdfs of theses available on the internet is a great thing for amateur researchers. Particularly since some rather expensive books are almost word for word people's thesis! :D I also find google books handy! Yes, the Church of Scotland was effectively running courts for moral offenses. I really should have realised that but for some reason I find it difficult to get my head around that kind of set-up! I think you are quite right about Laoghaire. However, I wonder how much power kirk sessions had in areas where most people were Episcopalians or Catholics and thus not attendees of the official church? I'm not sure how the Outlander books portray the religious situation in Scotland (and the program is just confusing!) but apparently real Mackenzie tacksmen were pretty much Episcopalians though the chiefly family had a history of (inconsistent) Catholicism. Episcopalians were particularly common in the Highlands and the North East of Scotland (after the "Glorious Revolution" of 1689 installed "King Billy" who Presbyterianised the official Church of Scotland). Episcopalianism and Catholicism were strongly associated with Jacobitism (and actually most Jacobites were episcopalians). Of course, there were Presbyterian pro-government clans too. I am pretty sure that kirk sessions of some sort existed in most parts of Scotland by this period so Laoghaire could have been reported to one. Also, I suspect that the official church considered everyone to be a member whether they liked it or not! On the other hand, the church would have had to rely on the secular authorities to arrest accused parties and enforce sentences and what if the local authorities were not Presbyterians? I've had a look through the thesis and it does seem that in Stirlingshire, at least, kirk sessions had given up trying to discipline non-church members by the 1720s. So maybe Laoghaire would have had to be a Presbyterian to be hauled up before the church courts. One thing is for sure, no way would a proud clan chief have concerned himself with a young girl who was "misbehaving" in this way! So if the kirk session hadn't acted I'm pretty sure Laoghaire would have gone unpunished.

Nice to see that someone else is concerned to establish the historical truth! I love historical novels and enjoy watching costume dramas but I have long since learned that you can't really learn accurate history from them. I haven't come across the the criminal cases you mention but I have found some evidence online for kirk sessions punishing wife-beaters with fines or public penance. However, those sources are a bit too early and involve people further down the social scale. That said, I can now give more information from the book mentioned in the blog (Love, Intimacy and Power - Marriage and the Patriarchy in Scotland 1650-1850 by Katie Barclay) . According to the book, you can also find clear evidence of attitudes to marital violence towards elite women by looking at cases where said women sued for a legal separation on the grounds of cruelty. These cases show an increasing judicial intolerance towards marital violence from the early 18th century onwards. By the early 19th century even emotional violence could be used to justify a judicial separation. Also, many of the people for whom Jamie was "performing" the violence would seem to to be middle-class/gentry by Highland standards (British middle-class = above average income) so, in reality, would have shared the aforementioned attitudes. I am basing this on the possession of horses, swords, good clothing, no obvious occupation and plenty of free time. I think I read somewhere that Rupert is a tacksman and I'm kind of assuming that Murtaugh is as well. I must admit that I did look at other forums after I started watching Outlander but I think this is the best. Folks are analytical and critical without being too much of a downer. Also, it is easy to avoid spoilers. Yes, I'm late to the party but I don't mind! :D

However, back in the real 18th century, there was one offense that did allow the authorities to proceed without interference and that was treason and I'm pretty sure spying for the Jacobites would have constituted treason! Claire was a subject of the King and that was all that mattered as far as she was concerned. In so far as clan chiefs had legal powers they stemmed from that fact that some of them possessed heritable jurisdiction in the form of baronies or the more powerful regalities. Where they existed, these jurisdictions covered particular pieces of land and their inhabitants, not necessarily all clan lands. In the case of regalities the "lord of regality" was in charge of prosecuting all crime in the locality except for treason. Also, technically speaking, inhabitants of regalities accused of crimes elsewhere were not supposed to be tried in any of the royal courts but instead repledged to their regality for prosecution. The less powerful holder of a barony was in charge of prosecuting the more "evident" crimes (where people were caught red-handed) excluding treason and pleas of the crown ('secret' murder, violent robbery, rape and arson). So, if the Mackenzies had been trying to protect Claire from prosecution for something other than a charge of treason then there would have been some plausibility to the marriage scenario. In terms of Mackenzie protection for Jamie and given the offense that he was accused of committing, it would make sense that his offense was committed outwith a Mackenzie barony or regality and that the protection of the Mackenzies was purely practical rather than legal. This would explain his skulking around and concealing his true identity. Disregarding the more esoteric real-life legal aspects, I really like this as an in-story explanation and I'm going to adopt it as my head-canon! :D But Dougal will have to do without the priest because, in real life, he would definitely have been arrested! And there is a point past which I don't think that it is appropriate for fiction to distort reality! Definitely a memorable character! I'm sure that, in Scotland at this time, anyone prepared to be a Catholic priest would have been feisty. But, would he have been that easy to bribe? Also, if the Mackenzies were protecting him I'd have expected him to live up at the castle!

However, in 1743 the real McKenzie clan chief had an English mother and an English grandmother! Or so Wikipedia informs me. XD Also, by this time, the clan chief (=landlord) was decided by primogeniture. It seems that the Highland nobility (and the Mckenzies chiefs were definitely that) had a lot more ties to the English nobility than Outlander might suggest. Yes, I know Outlander is fiction but, as a bit of a history nerd, I am pretty much constitutionally incapable of resisting pointing out this kind of thing! It looks like you are both right about attitudes to violence towards women. The latest research seems to show that it was not acceptable for Scottish gentry to behave in that way. Indeed, if anything, Scottish marriage seems to have been more equal than the English equivalent. Women were not expected to be quiet and submissive and just go along meekly with whatever their husband wanted. And, yes, the Scottish religious set-up (more social control) definitely affected behaviour. However, much of the research on the family and marriage in Scotland is pretty recent , so it wouldn't have been available at the time the Outlander books were being written. There is an interesting post at this link http://outlandercastblog.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/spanking-vs-beating-honest-historical.html that talks about Outlander in light of this recent research. I can only hope that by posting this kind of thing I'm not duplicating too much stuff on the book threads!

Gah! The handfasting link doesn't seem to work. You can get the article if you just go to the main website medievalscotland.org , click on the "search the website" link and type handfasting in the search box.

There is a great article on the subject of handfasting at this link http://medievalscotland.org/history/handfasting.shtml . The article discusses the reality of historical handfasting and gives a really good overview of legal marriage under Scots law generally. I've not been able to find anything that more clearly explains Scottish marriage law. It appears that handfasting is likely anachronistic for this period. That said, handfasting seems to have been a form of betrothal that involved shaking hands on the bargain (there is no evidence in Scotland for a tradition of hand binding that anyone can find). So if a couple were handfasted but the couple wandered off and never saw each other again then they were not married. However, under Scots law, if they subsequently had sex then they were married. Because, in this context, sex = consent to be married! On the other hand, if you exchanged vows and declared that you were married in the here and now then you were married. It didn't matter if you had sex or not! Technically you didn't even need a priest/minister or witnesses. However, when thinking about marriage in Scotland, it seems that you need to make a clear distinction between a marriage that was legal in Scots law and a marriage that was acceptable in the sight of the particular church to which you belonged. And it appears that, if you were a Catholic, you were only married in the sight of the church if you had a priest and all the trimmings. All of this does make me wonder if Jamie and Claire would have actually been able to get an religious annulment due to all the corner-cutting in their catholic marriage but, despite that, still have been married under Scots law! XD But was it even legal to be a Catholic priest in Scotland at this time? I really don't know, but I think it would be pretty risky for a priest to present himself to the authorities and declare that he had married a couple by Catholic rites! A bit of googling suggests that it was illegal to say mass, which is the main job of catholic priests, but the internet refuses to disgorge details of the actual anti-Catholic legislation that undoubtedly existed in Scotland at this time! :D I'm not going to assume that the laws were the same as in England because often they weren't. I know that priests were protected in some areas by the local aristocracy/gentry (including clan chiefs), aided by the fact that some of the aristocracy had heritable jurisdiction but...

Alas, there doesn't seem to be a Scottish equivalent to Dickens novels where you can pick up accurate details of Scots law! I haven't read "Bleak House" but am aware of debtors prisons and Chancery due to "Little Dorrit", for instance. I do know that older "British" history books will talk gaily about English legislation as if it was universal or just mention that a particular act did not apply to Scotland but say nothing more. Grrr! Indeed, researching Scottish history you drift surprisingly quickly into territory where you could do with access to electronic journals - which I do not have :( For instance, there is an interesting looking article in the Innes Review entitled "Catholic marriage in 18th century Scotland" but I'm not prepared to pay £20 for it! XD http://www.euppublishing.com/doi/pdfplus/10.3366/inr.1983.34.1.9

I've been watching Outlander on More4 and enjoyed reading your historical information but.... Ned Gowan would give you a dirty look for saying that! XD Don't forget that Scotland had a whole different legal system than England. In Scotland, since Reformation times (late 16th century) divorce had been legally and financially within the reach of middle class Protestants. Indeed, even people further down the social scale could sometimes manage it. Apparently, in the 19th century, there were cases of people being helped by the Poor Law authorities ! Also, unlike England, both spouses could sue for divorce based on adultery or desertion. Divorce didn't happen much, though. There was a social stigma, for one thing . Also, cases were heard in Edinburgh so while legal representation was actually very cheap by English standards there were other practical problems to be faced. All this is totally irrelevant to the situation of Catholics but I think it is interesting, nonetheless! I actually swotted up on this while doing some family history research. Ancestors of mine got divorced in in the 1890s. The occupation of the husband was "cab proprietor".