S05.E01: The Fiery Cross

[Athena]

Quote

Governor Tryon reminds Jamie of his obligation to hunt down and kill Murtagh Fitzgibbons.

Reminder: The is the book talk thread. This can include spoilers for ALL the books. If you wish to remain unspoiled for any of the books, please leave now and head to the No Book Talk episode thread.

[LoveLeigh]

This is a beautiful episode. There is so much quiet care and attention to detail. I always thought this show never got the notice it deserved at awards times. 

I am glad it is back. The wedding is beautiful. 

[theschnauzers]

It’s quite evident that production found a way to cut down on the Gathering  as shown in the book. 

Virtually no complaints and all cheers to the episode itself. 

Looks as if we’re seeing more of Lord John this season and it does seem as if William Ransom has apparently been sent off to London fr his education.

Edited February 15, 2020 by theschnauzers

[Ziggy]

7 hours ago, theschnauzers said:

It’s quite evident that production found a way to cut down on the Gathering  as shown in the book.

I am beyond impressed with how smoothly they captured so much of the Gathering without having "The Gathering."  There were several times I thought, "Wow, they included that here, too!"

I'm so curious as to where Murtagh's story will go.  I'm not good at predicting shows, but that's ok.  It's nice to have some aspects of the story that remain a mystery to me.

[DietCokeJunkie]

Beautiful episode and glad to have it back. My only side eye was the extended sex montage set to Roger singing. It felt cheesy and out of place. 
 

ETA: Did anyone else cringe during the flashback to Jamie and Murtaugh in Scotland when Murtaugh promised to always guard Jamie’s back? My first thought was that was a really poor choice of words from the screenwriters. 

Edited February 16, 2020 by DietCokeJunkie
Another thought after rewatching.

[Ziggy]

3 hours ago, DietCokeJunkie said:

My only side eye was the extended sex montage set to Roger singing. It felt cheesy and out of place. 

I think it was meant to be out of place, because right now Roger feels very out of place.

[WatchrTina]

Just saw it!  I'm going to post some first impressions before I go back and watch it again.

To be clear . . . here be book spoilers.

Well I cried a bit when Jamie, wearing that kilt, called Roger the "son of my house," which is one of my favorite moments from the book.  And I loved, loved, LOVED that Jamie was prepared to coach Roger through the oath but didn't need to.  It's a great reminder that Roger is a Scot to his core (and a historian to boot).  Of COURSE he would know the oath.  

I was a bit confused, however, about the FIRST guy who took the oath.  I recollect seeing him around the place earlier in the ep and I *think* I know who it was.  I'm a reader and I recall that the guy with the tonsil problem (Beardsley, right?) becomes a key character later on in the story and has good reason to pledge his loyalty to Jamie.  But it didn't really work in the episode.  We weren't shown why he would choose to raise his hand and be the first one to pledge fealty to Jamie.  So that was a bit of a misstep in the episode for me.

Still, they had a LOT they had to accomplish in this ep.  I can well imagine that that long, long, LONG day in the book wold be well nigh impossible to convert to the screen as written.  So I'm just going to have to get over the fact that the whole Gathering was skipped.  And I'm going to have to hand-wave where all those settlers came from, since we never saw or heard about Duncan Innes traveling up and down the coast looking for Scots to come settle Frasers' Ridge (unless that happened on camera last season and I've forgotten it.)  In fact, have we EVER heard the name Duncan Innes on screen before?  I did wonder, last season, how they were going to handle TVMurtagh having  been given so much of the BOOKDuncan role.  I guess we're seeing the work-around now.  But I found it jarring to have a 18th century woman lying in bed with her lover and informing him that she plans to marry another man.  I know Jocasta is a force to be reckoned with and she operates by her own rules but . . . damn.  (Recall that in the book she marries Duncan because a high-ranking redcoat is aggressively pursuing her because he wants her property.  In the show, we haven't been given a motivation for Jocasta to marry at ALL -- much less to some guy who isn't Murtagh and who we don't know.)

The scene of Jamie shaving Roger was funny with its underlying tension but I was glad that  they gave us a few non-humorous reminders that all is not smooth between those two men.  Yeah we had the great slug-fest in the last episode of last season (which in the book serves to release a certain amount of tension) but I look forward to scenes of a begrudging respect growing between those two men over the course of the season. But it shouldn't happen too fast. 

I'm glad they raised the specter of Stephen Bonnet but what a shame that Brianna had to hear that on her wedding day.

That scene of Jamie releasing Murtagh from his vow broke my heart and as a reader, I'm VERY curious to see how that situation is going to play out (since that is totally off-book).  It fills me with dread that Jamie now has to "hunt" Murtagh with a pack of Redcoats looking over his shoulder.  My speculation (PURE speculation) is that Jamie is going to claim that since Murtagh wants vengeance on Stephen Bonnet (which is true) the best way to find Murtagh is to hunt Bonnet.  Then, after Bonnet meets his well-deserved fate (they can make that happen MUCH sooner in the TV version in my opinion), Jamie can say "Well darn, that didn't work.  I guess we'll have to start the hunt for Murtagh over."

Okay, I'm off to watch a second time.

 

Edited February 15, 2020 by WatchrTina

[GHScorpiosRule]

34 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

Just saw it!  I'm going to post some first impressions before I go back and watch it again.

To be clear . . . here be book spoilers.

Well I cried a bit when Jamie, wearing that kilt, called Roger the "son of my house," which is one of my favorite moments from the book.  And I loved, loved, LOVED that Jamie was prepared to coach Roger through the oath but didn't need to.  It's a great reminder that Roger is a Scot to his core (and a historian to boot).  Of COURSE he would know the oath.  

I was a bit confused, however, about the FIRST guy who took the oath.  I recollect seeing him around the place earlier in the ep and I *think* I know who it was.  I'm a reader and I recall that the guy with the tonsil problem (Beardsley, right?) becomes a key character later on in the story and has good reason to pledge his loyalty to Jamie.  But it didn't really work in the episode.  We weren't shown why he would choose to raise his hand and be the first one to pledge fealty to Jamie.  So that was a bit of a misstep in the episode for me.

Still, they had a LOT they had to accomplish in this ep.  I can well imagine that that long, long, LONG day in the book wold be well nigh impossible to convert to the screen as written.  So I'm just going to have to get over the fact that the whole Gathering was skipped.  And I'm going to have to hand-wave where all those settlers came from, since we never saw or heard about Duncan Innes traveling up and down the coast looking for Scots to come settle Frasers' Ridge (unless that happened on camera last season and I've forgotten it.)  In fact, have we EVER heard the name Duncan Innes on screen before?  I did wonder, last season, how they were going to handle TVMurtagh having  been given so much of the BOOKDuncan role.  I guess we're seeing the work-around now.  But I found it jarring to have a 18th century woman lying in bed with her lover and informing him that she plans to marry another man.  I know Jocasta is a force to be reckoned with and she operates by her own rules but . . . damn.  (Recall that in the book she marries Duncan because a high-ranking redcoat is aggressively pursuing her because he wants her property.  In the show, we haven't been given a motivation for Jocasta to marry at ALL -- much less some guy who isn't Murtagh and who we don't know.)

The scene of Jamie shaving Roger was funny with its underlying tension but I was glad that  they gave us a few non-humorous reminders that all is not smooth between those two men.  Yeah we had the great slug-fest in the last episode of last season (which in the book serves to release a certain amount of tension) but I look forward to scenes of a begrudging respect growing between those two men over the course of the season. But it shouldn't happen too fast. 

I'm glad they raised the specter of Stephen Bonnet but what a shame that Brianna had to hear that on her wedding day.

That scene of Jamie releasing Murtagh from his vow broke my heart and as a reader, I'm VERY curious to see how that situation is going to play out (since that is totally off-book).  It fills me with dread that Jamie now has to "hunt" Murtagh with a pack of Redcoats looking over his shoulder.  My speculation (PURE speculation) is that Jamie is going to claim that since Murtagh wants vengeance on Stephen Bonnet (which is true) the best way to find Murtagh is to hunt Bonnet.  Then, after Bonnet meets his well-deserved fate (they can make that happen MUCH sooner in the TV version in my opinion), Jamie can say "Well darn, that didn't work.  I guess we'll have to start the hunt for Murtagh over."

Okay, I'm off to watch a second time.

 

I’m tae lazy tae pick and choose which quotes to respond tae sae I quoted the whole thing!

Oh what a treat tae to see this on me new 55” TEEVEE! Still hate the new opening theme music.

Och! Wee Jamie looked like he could be Sam as wee!🥰🥰🥰

I LOVED how Jamie was also using his left hand to shave Roger—in me mind, it was Sam’s way of showing fans he knows Jamie is left-handed in the buiks!🥰🥰🥰

Oh my ❤️! My ❤️ At hearing the Scots brogue from Sam!

And I teared up as well when I heard that Gaelic song as Jamie opened his trunk and donned the Fraser Kilt! And seeing those bonny knees!

Wot?
 

Loved Everything about the lighting of the Fiery Cross and Jamie’s speech.

And the flashback to 😍😍🥰🥰”The Wedding”, 😍😍🥰🥰despite Sam’s horrid hairstyle.😆😆

Since I HATED THE LOOONG and ARDUOUS Gathering from the buik, I was fine with the way Matt cut it down to size.

I hate to end on a negative, but Sam’s wig is horrid and obvious.

Okay not a negative, Sam is still one of the best criers. *sniff*

[unlfan03]

 I loved the episode as a whole and felt it did a good job getting through the Gathering without doing an actual Gathering but I had the same questions that you did Tina.

Quote

I was a bit confused, however, about the FIRST guy who took the oath.  I recollect seeing him around the place earlier in the ep and I *think* I know who it was.  I'm a reader and I recall that the guy with the tonsil problem (Beardsley, right?) becomes a key character later on in the story and has good reason to pledge his loyalty to Jamie.  But it didn't really work in the episode.  We weren't shown why he would choose to raise his hand and be the first one to pledge fealty to Jamie.  So that was a bit of a misstep in the episode for me.

So I looked up who was who at imdb and the only one that stuck out at that age range was Isaiah Morton, I don't think it was the same actor who played Beardsley who was much younger. But Isaiah Morton wasn't that major of a character, there were other characters they could have chosen. And he wouldn't have been the first one I would have seen to pledge fealty to Jamie. But then the cast of characters on imdb also included the Bugs and they weren't introduced.

As much as I thought the Duncan Innes came from left field I was happy to see that our Murtagh wouldn't be put into the problematic issues that occurred with Innes and Jocasta prior the the Revolutionary War in the book. And I like the idea of using the search for Murtagh as a search for Bonnet. 

The other thing I was happy about was the lack of conversation about the cross that was set on fire. It was also good that they made it a Celtic cross rather than a Roman one. Hopefully without the conversation from the book no one will make a connection to the Klan that Roger did. 

 

 

[nodorothyparker]

You can really tell that our stars got producer credits, can't you?  Suddenly their sex scenes are all happening under sheets and are artfully shadowed.  But hey, at least Jamie got a new wig that's period correct and doesn't look like a badger died on top of his head.  

I liked the way this captured the essential parts of the Gathering without being the Gathering that never ever ever ends and how it moved up big plot points like the fiery cross to throw it into the mix with the Murtagh/Regulator story.  As a whole, it felt a fairly seamless and organic way to tie it all together as opposed to book Jamie periodically spending much of the next two books chasing around mostly interchangeable Regulator characters we don't know or care anything about over vaguely defined tax issues.  Not at all surprised that Jamie's been stalling and stalling and stalling the governor, even as I'm still left wondering just what exactly Murtagh has done that's so very terrible that Tryion is willing to skip at least the public appearance of justice for summary execution by colonial militia. Thank you, show by the way, for using a generic enough Celtic cross there instead of setting the outrage machines to whirring with echoes of Klan cross burnings that will come along later.  I'm a little fuzzy on the historical accuracy of it, but that's a point I'm more than willing to not quibble over to not have to read a million new thinkpieces again about how problematic the show is. 

The whole section beginning with the breaking out of the kilt to the non-clan call up was so well done it gave me the chills.  Between this and the addition of Murtagh as a disgruntled former indenture, I really love how the show is emphasizing that all of these people were dispossessed by the British and are still living with the consequences of the failed Rising that will eventually lead to revolution.  They should have some real feelings about that.  Sometimes that feels like it gets lost in this stretch of the books with the 57 simultaneous running domestic plots and Jamie always bending over backwards to be so magnanimous to everyone.  And we've already got an improvement over last season with Jamie and Murtagh furtively discussing their secret time traveler knowledge that this coming revolution will succeed if only Murtagh can cool his jets for the time being and wait for it.  Loved Murtagh's obvious frustration that none of the three time travelers can tell him anything about what happens to the Regulators, which would be a fairly minor historical footnote for anyone to know even if two of the three weren't British.

Jamie releasing Murtagh from his lifelong vow broke my heart too and makes me think they're setting up a season long plot of show Murtagh still somehow saving Jamie like his book counterpart in the end.  It also gives me a sinking feeling that Murtagh won't survive to see the revolution come to fruition, which sucks because I really like what his surviving has added to the story.

It was a blink and you'll miss it kind of thing, but Roger made an offhand comment about maybe doing a wedding in their own time differently.  So he's already thinking about trying to go back and the show apparently really is skipping the whole book worry that people can't safely go back and forth through the stones.

[NeenerNeener]

Hated the choral version of the theme song but loved the rest of the episode. I'll be muting the opening credits now, like I did through Firefly and Enterprise.

I'm glad they folded the long, tedious Gathering stuff from the book into the wedding and got it over with in a single episode. So Murtagh isn't going to replace the Duncan Innes character from the book after all....bummer.

And thank you, Starz, for releasing the episode a few days early!

 

[WatchrTina]

THE GOOD

The flashback to Scotland, Lallybroch, younger Murtagh, and very young Jamie broke my heart the second time I watched because by then I knew what was going to happen between Murtagh and Jamie at the end of the episode.  Great story structure to have that situation come full circle.

Aw.  I knew about the sixpence in your shoe tradition but most Americans don’t so I was glad to see that.  (I used to have a stash of sixpences that I got back in 1981 while visiting England because I knew of the tradition and heard the coin was being phased out.)

“Je suis Pret”.  Awww

And “Awww” again when they cut to all the couples having lovey-dovey eyes (or an actual wedding flashback in the case of Jamie & Claire) during the wedding vows.

I appreciate the effort the show-runners made to give us quick looks at all the characters we know from prior seasons, even those who didn’t have much (if anything) to do in this episode.  Initially I was not a fan of the tongue-twister competition but upon reflection I see that it was a good way for the writers to remind us who is who (after that very long Droughtlander.)

“Hair ticks.”  <snort!>

Ooooh did you catch the look on Brianna’s face when Roger talked about going back to the future?  Those two really need to have a talk.

That cabin where Jocasta and Murtagh hooked up?  The first American “Love Shack” (cue the B-52’s!)

I thought the montage with Roger serenading Brianna with a 1960’s tune was a bit cheesy but it did give us shirtless Jamie so I’m not complaining.  BTW did you spot Marsali telling Fergus she’s expecting again during that montage?

Oh and there was a good laugh during that montage when we see poor lonely-heart John Grey sitting by the fire and the drunk next to him (John Quincy Myers?) topples over.

Jamie in a full-dress kilt.  “Nuf said.

 

THE BAD

When someone is shaving your face with a cut-throat razor STOP TALKING.  I know why they had the actors deliver dialog in that moment but it still bugs me.

I have no clear sense of how much time has passed since the last episode of last season.  Is the big house brand new and are Brianna & Roger living in the first cabin Jamie built?  If so that’s a clue. During Claire’s voice-over she said “as the seasons came and went” and it gave me the feeling that years had passed, but that’s clearly not true given that Brianna’s baby is still a babe-in-arms.  Apparently enough time has passed that Governor Tryon has lost patience waiting for Jamie to take up the assignment that was delivered into his hands in the final scene of last season’s last ep.  So . . . six months?  If so, why did Brianna & Roger wait that long to have a wedding?  (We know why in the book – no available clergymen in the back-country so they have to wait for the Gathering  – but that reason is not made at all clear in the show.)

The saying is: “Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue (and a sixpence in your shoe)".  I’m pretty sure the writers (or possibly Sam) screwed up that scene because why would you “borrow” a flower?  The whiskey is new and the flower is blue.  The pearls are both old and borrowed.  I think that is what the writers intended and it got lost somewhere in translation.

That ruffle at the back of the waist on Brianna’s wedding dress is called a peplum and my sister had one on her going-away suit.  It looked great on my sister but less so on Brianna – it was too stiff and too big.  My inner seamstress was offended.

I found it jarring (as in not period-appropriate) that Ulysses sat next to Jocasta during the wedding. Jamie and Claire would be fine with that but I’ll bet not all of their tenants would be (nor Governor Tyron).  Furthermore Ulysses is portrayed as being quite savvy when in comes to navigating the dangerous waters of the 18th century and keeping his special relationship with Jocasta on the down-low. So it seemed out-of-character that he sat with her. 

At one point the closed captions said Brianna called Jamie “Dad” and I hope that is wrong and she actually called him “Da.”

 

THE UGLY

Eeek!  A flaming cross.  At least it was a Celtic cross and the writers were careful to have Jamie explain the tradition to the audience on the Ridge (some of whom may not have been familiar with it).  But who are we kidding – he was explaining it to us, the TV audience, who (alas) are aware of different modern meaning.

 

UNANSWERED QUESTIONS (or BOOK VS. SHOW)

Who the heck is “Morton”?  We learn his name during the tongue-twister scene and then HE (of all people) is the first person to pledge fealty to Jamie when he fiery cross is lit.  Why?  I found that whole scene confusing.  It looked like Jamie expected Roger to be the first to answer his call but when he didn’t Morton stepped forward to prevent awkwardness.  Then Jamie specifically calls Roger (and names him a Captain) and Roger returns the favor by reciting the oath without having to be coached.  Then Jamie calls Fergus and then people line up to pledge their fealty just like they did to Colum during the McKenzie Gathering in Season 1.  I think this confusing scene is a mash-up of two scenes in the book.  During the BookGathering, Jamie “calls” his people by name and the first person he calls is Roger, which flatters Roger and confers a certain status on him as a “son of my hearth.”  Then (if I’m recalling correctly) much LATER in the book, when Jamie makes plans to pursue the Regulators, Roger is surprised (and gratified) that Jamie expects him to ride with him.   (That scene, in turn, harkens back to a prior book when Jamie asks Ian Murray to ride to battle with him, despite his disability – after Jenny asks Jamie to do it – which gives Ian the dignity of choosing NOT to go.)  But I digress.  Who is Morton and why is he the first to answer Jamie’s call?

 

OTHER

This is just a reminder that when you watch the show on-demand you should continue watching through the credits because a behind-the-scenes, “Inside the Episode” commentary follows.

Edited February 16, 2020 by WatchrTina

[nodorothyparker]

Various press has said the character is Isaiah Morton.  In the book, he's the bigamist who married one woman and got the daughter of another house pregnant, putting Roger and Fergus in the position of keeping the Brown family from killing him when they were out trying to round up recruits for the militia.  He's not much of a standout character for me in the book, but they obvious have some plan for him if they went to the trouble of identifying him and letting him be first in line when everyone else was kind of hanging back like they weren't quite sure at first how to respond to Jamie's call.

The big house like the cabin last season looks like a European's idea of rustic on the American frontier, doesn't it, with all of its fancy wood and brick work?  It's obviously been some months with Brianna and Roger having moved into the cabin and them being pretty far along on construction of the big house, despite Jamie's protestations that the house isn't finished.

[Quickbeam]

Just a dissenting note....I loved the new opening. To me it was not so choir religious as a nod to the great acapella tradition of the Celts. Reminded me too of the late Jean Redpath who spent a lifetime promoting traditional Scots music.

but I am another who was “who is that?” To the first guy Jamie called out.  

[Sew Sumi]

I saw an older couple canoodling in the LOVE montage. I figured they were the Bugs when I saw them listed in the credits. Heads will roll though, since whatever lines they had were obviously cut 

[theschnauzers]

7 hours ago, Quickbeam said:

Just a dissenting note....I loved the new opening. To me it was not so choir religious as a nod to the great acapella tradition of the Celts. Reminded me too of the late Jean Redpath who spent a lifetime promoting traditional Scots music.

but I am another who was “who is that?” To the first guy Jamie called out.  

I’m also one who had no issue with this version of “The Skye Boat Song.” Given the gathering of the Ridge community at the wedding, and Jamie’s use of the Gathering’s customs from pre-1745 Highlands, an a capella choral rendition made sense narratively and fits the way Bear has rearranged the song over the seasons of half seasons. 

[AD55]

After two seasons of finding Outlander kind of a slog, I am encouraged by this episode. I watched it twice, something I haven't done since season 2, and loved it both times. Here are things that stood out for me:

--I liked Bree's dress, which was less fussy than Claire's wedding dress. Claire's was beautiful but not my taste. I kept focusing on how uncomfortable it must be and rolling my eyes at the explanation for why a dress like that had ended up at a whore house.

--Jamie's skepticism about Roger and Claire's defense of him were well done. This and other scenes gave us a sense of Jamie and Claire as an older married couple.

--I was thrilled they worked in Roger's ritual acknowledgment of Jemmy as his son. It's one of my favorite scenes in the book, and I was sorry the writers couldn't fit it in last season. Related to this, I liked that the hair tick scene showed Roger has an easy way with children and doesn't need to be related to them by blood to love them.

--I've been critical of Sophie's acting, but I think she was very good in this episode, especially in the scenes where she hears Bonnet's name and its aftermath. I also got the feeling she genuinely loves Roger, which for me hasn't come across in the earlier episodes.

--Like others, I began to cringe a bit when Roger started singing, but ultimately I think it was an important choice by the writers. The song and the glimpse of Roger and Bree dancing were sweet, providing the necessary contrast to Bree's reliving the trauma of the rape. The wedding night wouldn't have worked for me if they had just jumped into bed after Bree's PTSD was triggered. I think Sophie conveyed relief as well as affection when Roger picked up his guitar.

--Like most everyone, I got distracted thinking "who is that guy?" at the gathering, but I loved that scene overall, especially the shots of Claire, Bree, and Marsali looking grieved and worried. And I thought Sam and Richard were fantastic, showing that their relationship may move from reluctant tolerance to respect and friendship.

--Shout out to the writers for giving us a scene between John and Jamie and John's resigned loneliness.  It's not going to happen, but I wish the writers could find it in themselves to tinker with John's story line. I have never found his decades of unrequited love for Jamie convincing. It might take a few years, but most of us move on when we realize our love isn't returned.

--Unpopular opinion: I don't like book or series Jocasta. I'm probably projecting, but she doesn't seem like someone Murtagh would be involved with. That aside, I did like her baiting Roger into anger, because it led to his blood of my blood moment with Jemmy.

--I hate the relationship between Jocasta and Ulysses. The writers had to make some tough choices about what to include. I really wish that ahistorical travesty hadn't made the cut.

Two questions:

1. Does Roger push Bree to return to the future in the books?

2. Did anyone else find Jamie's insistence that everyone pledge themselves to him a little off? Even though he throws in a line about his not being their laird, declaring their fealty felt compulsory to me.

Edited February 16, 2020 by AD55

[WatchrTina]

55 minutes ago, AD55 said:

Two questions:

1. Does Roger push Bree to return to the future in the books?

2. Did anyone else find Jamie's insistence that everyone pledge themselves to him a little off? Even though he throws in a line about his not being their laird, declaring their fealty felt compulsory to me.

1. That's a difficult question to answer.  I'd say that events and medical necessity push Bree to return to the future, not Roger.  But I think that line by Roger in this episode (and Bree's reaction) are there to remind us that the two of them are in different places when it comes to their life on the Ridge.  Roger loves Bree and loves his son but there is still bad blood between him and Jamie. And -- as was pointed out in the episode -- he lacks nearly all the skills an 18th century back-country settler is expected to have.  He is not nearly as content in his current situation as his engineering-savvy / sharp-shooting wife.
2. Jamie is walking a dangerous path.  He knows he's going to have to present himself as loyal to the Crown in the short-run -- even taking up arms against the regulators on the King's behalf in the near future.  But he also knows that there will come a time in the future when he will have to change sides and join the American Revolution against King George.  He wants to be sure that when he does change sides the people of the Ridge will follow him in that decision.  Otherwise there will be chaos and enmity among his own people. So asking for their pledge to him personally (which echos a tradition that they all grew up in) makes sense under those circumstances.

[AD55]

27 minutes ago, WatchrTina said:

1. That's a difficult question to answer.  I'd say that events and medical necessity push Bree to return to the future, not Roger.  But I think that line by Roger in this episode (and Bree's reaction) are there to remind us that the two of them are in different places when it comes to their life on the Ridge.  Roger loves Bree and loves his son but there is still bad blood between him and Jamie. And -- as was pointed out in the episode -- he lacks nearly all the skills an 18th century back-country settler is expected to have.  He is not nearly as content in his current situation as his engineering-savvy / sharp-shooting wife.
2. Jamie is walking a dangerous path.  He knows he's going to have to present himself as loyal to the Crown in the short-run -- even taking up arms against the regulators on the King's behalf in the near future.  But he also knows that there will come a time in the future when he will have to change sides and join the American Revolution against King George.  He wants to be sure that when he does change sides the people of the Ridge will follow him in that decision.  Otherwise there will be chaos and enmity among his own people. So asking for their pledge to him personally (which echos a tradition that they all grew up in) makes sense under those circumstances.

Thank you. This all makes sense. I have a friend (a non-book reader), who loathes Roger because of his slut shaming and his not immediately running to Bree's side. Those are both hard to take, but I always thought that the latter had more to do with knowing that he was committing not only to Bree and Jemmy but to staying in the C18th, but that's undercut by this episode, where he seems to think it's a done deal that he, Bree, and Jemmy will go back to the future. Roger doesn't typically make impulsive decisions, his jumping through the stones being a notable exception, because once he embarks on a course, he knows he won't turn back. Richard did a good job of conveying first Roger's doubt and then his resolve at the gathering, as well as that WTF are you thinking making me a captain moment. Hearing he'll be safe if he sticks close to Jamie (some captain that'll make him) can't be good for his ego or sense of belonging.

What you wrote about Jamie's reasons for asking for loyalty makes me think of his there be dragons moment with Colum in season 1.

[nodorothyparker]

57 minutes ago, AD55 said:

I have a friend (a non-book reader), who loathes Roger because of his slut shaming and his not immediately running to Bree's side. Those are both hard to take, but I always thought that the latter had more to do with knowing that he was committing not only to Bree and Jemmy but to staying in the C18th, but that's undercut by this episode,

Yeah, that was a WTF moment for me too.  All the stupidity surrounding the Great Misunderstanding aside, I'm one who generally gives Roger a fair bit of leeway early on because of the huge implications of choosing to stay in the past with Bree and Jemmy.  When Jaime asked him in last season's finale if he could commit RIGHT NOW to staying, the show at least had Claire acknowledge what a huge ask that was, to give up everything familiar and his entire life in his own time to stay in a distant past where he's been sold and mistreated and now would be expected to have these people as his in-laws and only family going forward. Because at that point in the story, all they really know is that going through the stones is horrible and dangerous and they don't believe it would be safe with a small child.

On some level, I get it.  Roger went through the stones thinking it would be a short trip and then he'd be back.  It would be hard to let go of that as the reality of 18th century life really set in.  But that he's already casually thinking that's a quick jaunt they could make whenever undercuts all the agonizing he supposedly did at the stones offscreen in the previous episode. It makes him look like maybe he was just dicking around on a woman he possibly sees as soiled goods.

[Clawdette]

Just finished watching.  I loved the new vocal opening and hope it will grow on folks.  And, I consider Sam’s wig such a vast improvement on last year’s that I’ve edged it into acceptable territory.

i wouldn’t have had a clue of how to adapt the Gathering novella for the screen but I think the writers did a great job. Not only did they have to give it a mammogram, they had to set up the rest of the season.  Nice callbacks, too.

Quite by accident, I stumble upon the STARZ marathon Friday during season One Episode 3.  It’s been running constantly in the background since then with me homing in on favorite parts. I’ll watch the new episode again tonight!

[iMonrey]

Quote

I'm glad they folded the long, tedious Gathering stuff from the book into the wedding and got it over with in a single episode. 

What is this Gathering in the books everyone keeps mentioning? Can someone give me a synopsis? 

Was the first guy who pledged fealty/loyalty to Jamie the same guy who had to have his tonsils out? Or was that someone different?

Was Jamie in open defiance of the Red Coats during his closing speech or weren't they there? Or were they there but didn't understand what was going on? I'm not sure I understand what was going on there.

[lianau]

1 hour ago, iMonrey said:

What is this Gathering in the books everyone keeps mentioning? Can someone give me a synopsis? 

 

There is no synopsis needed . It's what felt like 1000 pages of everyday life of 18th century people with very little plot relevance . And when people read it the first time they usually found that part extremly tedious  because they just wanted the story to progress and not having to read about Claire wondering if 18th century women  have fewer yeast infections due to no synthetic  underwear . 

 

I still can't deal with Murtagh being alive and I don't think I ever will . 

[Sew Sumi]

It was like Burning Man for Scots. They didn't meet on Fraser land, and there were hundreds of them. 

[nodorothyparker]

The Gathering is a single day of Scottish meetups and various goings on that goes on for something like a hundred plus pages.  It's the point in the book series that breaks a lot of ... less determined readers.  All the same basic stuff happened, but there's whole stretches about dirty diapers and nursing and just endless minutia. 

Isaiah Morton was the first guy to swear allegiance to Jamie.  The tonsil guy is one of the Beardsley twins.  They're both settlers whose names will likely come up again.

The governor was demanding that Jamie and all the assorted Scots under him put in some service to pay for the enormous land grant they're all sitting on or GTFO.  As most of these people are direct or indirect survivors of the Rising or the related Highland purges that came after, a lot of them aren't going to be all that keen about going to work for the Redcoats against fellow settlers.  Jamie put on a military recruitment show that evoked their common clan heritage with the convenient bonus of them swearing fealty to Jamie.  That's going to come in handy when the Regulation mess eventually evolves into the American Revolution and Jamie switches sides so he doesn't get caught on the wrong side of history again.  That's what he was going for:  They'll be loyal to him and follow him when the time comes.

[Clawdette]

I'm so glad I decided to watch this afternoon because Starz has frozen up 50 miles from Fraser's Mountain and halfway through the episode.  I knew I caved for a reason.

[morgan]

Loved it!  Probably one of my favorite episodes since they got to America.  The actress playing Bree has improved so much that goes a long way to my liking it.  Roger sang!  Jamie wears his kilt!  Claire sets up shop!  Love that it took place in Fraser’s Ridge.  Love that the cross was a Celtic one (was it in the book?  I can’t remember).  
 

So many lovely, touching moments.  Hate the parting with Murtaugh but no other choice.  Love that we got the scene with Roger claiming Jem.  
 

Wish the Bonnet storyline would go away, but of course it won’t.  
 

Gorgeous production.  Beautiful costuming and lovely wedding.   Loved the drunken revelries.  Would have loved to have seen some shinty playing along with the dancing.  

[Nidratime]

I enjoyed this so much. A lot of very touching moments. Glad they condensed some of the gatherings less meaningful moments. It surprises me every day that Diana killed off Murtagh (or Alec) whoever would be the equivalent in the book because his relationship with the regulators is ultimate drama for Jamie as opposed to no one of consequence being on the other side.

Edited February 17, 2020 by Nidratime

[Ziggy]

On 2/15/2020 at 6:26 PM, Sew Sumi said:

I saw an older couple canoodling in the LOVE montage. I figured they were the Bugs when I saw them listed in the credits. Heads will roll though, since whatever lines they had were obviously cut 

I think that was Jocasta and Murtagh.

[Sew Sumi]

No, those two were off in the hut. This couple was at the wedding reception.

[sas616]

Someone suggested that old couple could be the Buggs.

[Scarlett45]

On 2/16/2020 at 11:16 AM, AD55 said:

I have a friend (a non-book reader), who loathes Roger because of his slut shaming and his not immediately running to Bree's side. Those are both hard to take, but I always thought that the latter had more to do with knowing that he was committing not only to Bree and Jemmy but to staying in the C18th, but that's undercut by this episode, where he seems to think it's a done deal that he, Bree, and Jemmy will go back to the future. Roger doesn't typically make impulsive decisions, his jumping through the stones being a notable exception, because once he embarks on a course, he knows he won't turn back. Richard did a good job of conveying first Roger's doubt and then his resolve at the gathering, as well as that WTF are you thinking making me a captain moment. Hearing he'll be safe if he sticks close to Jamie (some captain that'll make him) can't be good for his ego or sense of belonging.

What you wrote about Jamie's reasons for asking for loyalty makes me think of his there be dragons moment with Colum in season 1.

I’m of the same mind as your friend- I couldn’t STAND Roger and his slut shaming foolishness in Season 3, but throughout season 4 I absolutely believed he loved Brianna, and his hesitance to come back to her wasnt because she was “tainted” from the rape or some such foolishness, or even that the baby might not be his, but that they couldn’t go back HOME. (I still think Roger can be a prick but he has stepped up for Brianna and followed her back to the 18th century and they weren’t even together during this time). Had this same situation happened to them in the 1970s I wouldn’t see Rodger hesitating try to comfort Brianna and proclaiming she was still his fiancé. 

 

21 hours ago, morgan said:

Gorgeous production.  Beautiful costuming and lovely wedding.   Loved the drunken revelries.  Would have loved to have seen some shinty playing along with the dancing.  

Yes I did too!

 

 

I took Ulysses sitting with Jocasta as “allowed“ socially because of her limited vision. She “needs” Ulysses next to her to be her eyes. The same reason why slave nursemaids were allowed to sit white spaces if their charges were there, and why black nannies could sit in the whites only section during segregation to tend to their charges. I could be wrong but that was just how I saw it. 
 

Yes Marsali told Fergus that she was pregnant again. 

[Sew Sumi]

56 minutes ago, sas616 said:

Someone suggested that old couple could be the Buggs.

That was me. 😀

[Ziggy]

1 hour ago, Sew Sumi said:

No, those two were off in the hut. This couple was at the wedding reception.

When you said "canoodling," I thought you meant sex.

[Sew Sumi]

1 hour ago, Ziggy said:

When you said "canoodling," I thought you meant sex.

Nah, I didn't mean sex, just obviously in love. They were shown at the reception during the LOVE song. Not everyone was off screwing. 😂

Edited February 17, 2020 by Sew Sumi

[Ziggy]

46 minutes ago, Sew Sumi said:

Nah, I didn't mean sex, just obviously in !ove. They were shown at the reception during the LOVE song. Not everyone was off screwing. 😂

I'm with you now 🙂

[HurricaneVal]

The scene I was most looking forward to from the gathering was Claire and the barber/bloodletter circling around and competing for their potential patient all while barking out diagnostic questions and snarking at each other as the captive patient squirms and grows increasingly uncomfortable with being the focus of the crowd gathered to watch the drama.  I thought that would translate so very, very, well to the show--humor, action, dialogue, Claire being all "modern doctor hampered by social mores of the deep past" frustrated...perfect!  But alas.....

[Haleth]

12 hours ago, iMonrey said:

What is this Gathering in the books everyone keeps mentioning?

Imagine 3 or 4 more episodes that continue the wedding party, with everyone just walking around and talking.  It was tough to slog through this in the book.

When Jamie put on his kilt and full Scots regalia?  Youza.  When he released Murtagh from his vow, then gasped/broke down briefly after doing so?  Heartbreaking.

My jaw dropped when Roger told Jocasta where to stuff her money.  (And yes, of course Ulysses was at her side during the wedding because he's her guide and her eyes.  Besides whatever else.)  Oh, and Duncan Innes gets a mention!  Guess that rules out Murtagh = Innes. 

I don't remember Morton from the book, but I do remember the Beardsley twins <snort> and the Buggs.  

[GHScorpiosRule]

12 hours ago, Scarlett45 said:

23 hours ago, AD55 said:

I couldn’t STAND Rodger

It’s Roger. No “d” in his name.😉

I did find it amusing that the baby kept interrupting Jamie and Claire’s loving time.😆

And I’m glad that Graphia is no longer in the after the episode snippets. It would be nice to see Sam or Catrioma, since both are producers now.

[Thalia]

On 2/15/2020 at 10:57 AM, WatchrTina said:

I'm glad they raised the specter of Stephen Bonnet but what a shame that Brianna had to hear that on her wedding day.

I loved the snippets they showed of the LA premiere before the show aired last night.  But I laughed at my own outrage when I gasped, "Marsali is talking/laughing with Stephen Bonnett!!"  Or in other words, actor Ed Speleers is actually a nice fella, and Lauren Lyle knows this.  LOL. 

[Cdh20]

On 2/15/2020 at 1:40 PM, WatchrTina said:

THE GOOD

The flashback to Scotland, Lallybroch, younger Murtagh, and very young Jamie broke my heart the second time I watched because by then I knew what was going to happen between Murtagh and Jamie at the end of the episode.  Great story structure to have that situation come full circle.

Aw.  I knew about the sixpence in your shoe tradition but most Americans don’t so I was glad to see that.  (I used to have a stash of sixpences that I got back in 1981 while visiting England because I knew of the tradition and heard the coin was being phased out.)

“Je suis Pret”.  Awww

And “Awww” again when they cut to all the couples having lovey-dovey eyes (or an actual wedding flashback in the case of Jamie & Claire) during the wedding vows.

I appreciate the effort the show-runners made to give us quick looks at all the characters we know from prior seasons, even those who didn’t have much (if anything) to do in this episode.  Initially I was not a fan of the tongue-twister competition but upon reflection I see that it was a good way for the writers to remind us who is who (after that very long Droughtlander.)

“Hair ticks.”  <snort!>

Ooooh did you catch the look on Brianna’s face when Roger talked about going back to the future?  Those two really need to have a talk.

That cabin where Jocasta and Murtagh hooked up?  The first American “Love Shack” (cue the B-52’s!)

I thought the montage with Roger serenading Brianna with a 1960’s tune was a bit cheesy but it did give us shirtless Jamie so I’m not complaining.  BTW did you spot Marsali telling Fergus she’s expecting again during that montage?

Oh and there was a good laugh during that montage when we see poor lonely-heart John Grey sitting by the fire and the drunk next to him (John Quincy Myers?) topples over.

Jamie in a full-dress kilt.  “Nuf said.

 

 

 

 

 

This!

[SandyToes]

Was there any mention of Frank at all at the wedding? Yes, Jamie is Brianna's father, but for 18, 19 or so years, if she thought about getting married, it was probably Frank she pictured walking her down the aisle. Of course, I was at a large watch party and no closed-captioning, so it might have been there.  Just struck me as kind of sad.

[aemom]

42 minutes ago, SandyToes said:

Was there any mention of Frank at all at the wedding? Yes, Jamie is Brianna's father, but for 18, 19 or so years, if she thought about getting married, it was probably Frank she pictured walking her down the aisle. Of course, I was at a large watch party and no closed-captioning, so it might have been there.  Just struck me as kind of sad.

Bree and Claire had a conversation where she wished they had invented cameras.  They talked about how no matter in what time she had gotten married, Frank would not be there.  It was a short conversation, but it was there.

[SandyToes]

Thanks!

[Cdh20]

1 hour ago, SandyToes said:

Was there any mention of Frank at all at the wedding? Yes, Jamie is Brianna's father, but for 18, 19 or so years, if she thought about getting married, it was probably Frank she pictured walking her down the aisle. Of course, I was at a large watch party and no closed-captioning, so it might have been there.  Just struck me as kind of sad.

I had a premiere party too, so for sure missed a lot, must watch again, but Claire & Bree did have that convo. Should have read ahead as someone answered for you!

Edited February 18, 2020 by Cdh20
Adding a thought

[cardigirl]

2 hours ago, aemom said:

Bree and Claire had a conversation where she wished they had invented cameras.  They talked about how no matter in what time she had gotten married, Frank would not be there.  It was a short conversation, but it was there.

They mentioned that Frank would have been so proud of her, and happy that she was marrying an Oxford man.  That he had been concerned about her growing up in Boston and ending up with a Chad or (something else).  I live in Boston and have never met a Chad, LOL.

[mammaM]

On 2/15/2020 at 6:35 PM, Quickbeam said:

Just a dissenting note....I loved the new opening. To me it was not so choir religious as a nod to the great acapella tradition of the Celts. Reminded me too of the late Jean Redpath who spent a lifetime promoting traditional Scots music.

but I am another who was “who is that?” To the first guy Jamie called out.  

Count me as one who also loved the new opening and thought of Celtic acappella 

Also: just because SH's wig is a LOT better than last season doesn't mean it's good wig.😂😂

[GHScorpiosRule]

2 minutes ago, mammaM said:

Also: just because SH's wig is a LOT better than last season doesn't mean it's good wig.😂😂

EXACTLY. It's still HORRID.

[iMonrey]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the whole reason Brianna came back last season was because of the obituary which said Jamie and Claire died in a fire in their cabin, sometime in the 1770s. But now they're living in a much larger house that cannot rightly be called a cabin. So does that mean they've already altered their own history? Is this something that's just going to be a dropped plot point? Because if they don't die in that fire then the obituary never exists for Frank to find it or for Brianna to find it and  . . .

{time travel headache}

[Ziggy]

36 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the whole reason Brianna came back last season was because of the obituary which said Jamie and Claire died in a fire in their cabin, sometime in the 1770s. But now they're living in a much larger house that cannot rightly be called a cabin. So does that mean they've already altered their own history? Is this something that's just going to be a dropped plot point? Because if they don't die in that fire then the obituary never exists for Frank to find it or for Brianna to find it and  . . .

{time travel headache}

I don't remember the obituary that well.  Did it say "cabin?"

I do remember that in a future book,

Spoiler

they all decide to sleep in Bree & Roger's cabin the night that the fire is reported to have taken place, and Bree freaks out because she says, "What if it's the cabin and not the big house that catches fire?"