S01.E04: The Gathering

[SpiritSong]

Him?  Crusty old Dougal?  To each her own, haha.  

 

I agree that he backed off, and I don't know what his motivations were prior to her slapping him.  I just have some trouble with that scene (and having much use for Dougal as a character after it), because I don't think there's any reason for Dougal to think that Claire, specifically Claire in that situation, would welcome his sticking his hand under her skirt.  That's a pretty threatening, panic-inducing gesture for a man to make.

I didn't see it as a rape attempt at all. Dougal already stated plainly he didn't hold with rape. It's made clear he has his pick of women (and I certainly wouldn't kick him out of my bed) so with his being "very drunk" I think he took a shot at a hookup. When Claire made it plain his advances were unwelcome he backed off immediately.

And let's not forget that he saved her life the next day by shooting the boar about to attack her. If he wanted to harm her all he had to do was turn away. I absolutely loved the Geordie dying scene and the interaction between the two of them. The way he reached over and untied the tourniquet once Claire confirmed that the abdominal wound was fatal showed how caring and practical Dougal can be.

He's a complex character, which makes for great viewing. The scene in her surgery where he took the time to personally thank her for what she did for his friend was outstanding. I think Dougal finds Claire both intriguing and frustrating. Whoever said she was an enigma hit it right on the head. He's not a man who likes being kept in the dark, yet he can't help respecting her skills and strength.

[BizBuzz]

I didn't see it as a rape attempt at all. Dougal already stated plainly he didn't hold with rape. It's made clear he has his pick of women (and I certainly wouldn't kick him out of my bed) so with his being "very drunk" I think he took a shot at a hookup. When Claire made it plain his advances were unwelcome he backed off immediately.

And let's not forget that he saved her life the next day by shooting the boar about to attack her. If he wanted to harm her all he had to do was turn away. I absolutely loved the Geordie dying scene and the interaction between the two of them. The way he reached over and untied the tourniquet once Claire confirmed that the abdominal wound was fatal showed how caring and practical Dougal can be.

He's a complex character, which makes for great viewing. The scene in her surgery where he took the time to personally thank her for what she did for his friend was outstanding. I think Dougal finds Claire both intriguing and frustrating. Whoever said she was an enigma hit it right on the head. He's not a man who likes being kept in the dark, yet he can't help respecting her skills and strength.

 

Thank you SpiritSong ... I quoted you intending to just pick out the highlights, however, your whole post is a highlight.  In the last couple of days I have rewatched that whole scene about 4 times.  I wanted to get into the head of the director, what he was trying to get across with that scene.   

 

All of your points are valid.  When Dougal first appeared in the scene, you could tell he was very drunk.  Right after he called off the attackers, nothing happened between Claire and him, she just said thank you and was about to leave.  Dougal evidently had something to say and grabbed her.  In that grabbing it spoke volumes.  At first, to me, it seemed like Dougal was very drunk, but trying to get his wits about himself, and he leaned on her (in TV time, what seemed like forever).  Now I have heard that some feel that Dougal has a chance to sniff her neck.  HA!  I don't see that, but what I saw was a man that had to prove his position in the clan and make sure she understood the rules around there, and he was trying to get a handle on that in his head.

 

What I saw was almost primal, if i dare use that word. In his drunken mind, like you said SpiritSong, he couldn't figure her out, took a chance on his drunken instincts and Claire didn't welcome his advances by slapping him.  And he stopped.

 

With all that being said ... I am changing my mind about the scene.  I don't know in what direction Dougal is going in and whether or not I will regret my decision in the future, but for now, I am very comfortable switching my Jaime love (infatuation) to Dougal love (park his shoes under my bed anytime).

 

Oh yeah, another thing to add ... the whole clobbering thing was not about the kiss, it was assuredly about her escape package that Dougal was just about to pick up on.  The looks the two shared just before she clobbered him with the chair, well, they were kinda priceless.

 

Lastly, I have to say that at 52, I really thought I was past analyzing TV.  I can watch a program over and over no problem, but I don't think I ever in my life sat with a note pad in front of a show to write my thoughts out.  HA!

[annlaw78]

 

What I saw was almost primal, if i dare use that word. In his drunken mind, like you said SpiritSong, he couldn't figure her out, took a chance on his drunken instincts and Claire didn't welcome his advances by slapping him.  And he stopped.

My problem with Dougal is, then, if his "primal reaction" to Claire (a "guest"/employee under his protection) almost being gang-raped by his clan is to jam his had under her skirt... well, that tells me a lot about the sort of man he is, and that I have very little use for him as a character, and Claire should steer clear of him, to the extent possible.  

 

Does anyone think that Jamie's reaction, had he come across the scene of Claire in the hallway, would have reacted the way Dougal did?  I don't think it's a "manly" reaction to try to get to third-base with a woman in the aftermath of her being attacked, nor to talk about "payment" or "penalties."  Shove off, Dougal. 

 

I'm fine with there being a contrast between Jamie and the other men in the clan, and there being "rougher" and "kinder" men, some that are more gallant, others that are boorish/violent.  I get that, maybe it's realistic.  But shows can't have characters engage in sexual violence (ahem, Game of Thrones), and then try to hand-wave away the scene by saying "oh, you took it out of context," or "oh, but he stopped," or "oh, but she ended up wanting it."  If a show is going to depict a main character reaching up under a woman's skirt and forcing her against the wall, talking about "paying penalties," and it shouldn't expect me to think the character doing that is some great, heroic, noble guy.  Obviously opinions vary, but at best, I see Dougal as an old lech. 

 

 

I wanted to get into the head of the director, what he was trying to get across with that scene.

For me, what's going on in the head of a director, doesn't determine for me what is actually shown, and how I react to it.  I don't know who the director is, or to paraphrase the great James Van Der Beek, I don't know his life.  But I can speak for my reactions to seeing what is on screen.  Going in for a kiss?  Okay, Dougal's a sad, drunk man who still sees himself as a "Jamie," despite his getting on in years.  But trying to get his hands under her skirt (recall, she's not wearing any modern underwear) is panic-inducing and threatening.  That he stopped when Claire slapped him, that he was going to "let her go" -- well, that's mighty big of him.  He doesn't get "credit" from me for "stopping" what a decent man would never have started.  And, if he's a "handsy" drunk, well then don't drink.  It's his choice to become intoxicated, and he's responsible for the bad choices he makes when intoxicated.  

Edited September 6, 2014 by annlaw78

[WatchrTina]

 

I am very comfortable switching my Jaime love (infatuation) to Dougal love (park his shoes under my bed anytime).

I know that the actors probably don't read these boards but I'd really love it if Graham stumbled across that quote above.  I think it's a sentiment shared by many of the viewers who, like BizBuzz and me, are of an age with Graham McTavish (though personally my TV-crush on Jamie is firmly intact).  I'm enjoying imagining Graham showing it to Sam and telling the "lad" that he's not the only heart-throb on the show.

 

I also find it interesting that there is a lot of discussion on these boards about whether we should "forgive" Dougal for trying to kiss and grope Claire and much less talk about him having Rupert give Jamie a vicious beat-down.  The first was a drunken impulse that he backed away from when she slapped him.  The second was a deliberate attack on our young hero -- one that upset even Rupert who had to deliver the beating.  THAT's the reason I'm wary of Dougal. I do not trust his intentions towards Jamie and I do not understand his motivation in bringing Jamie to Leoch at the time of the oath-taking (nor do I understand his taking Jamie on the rent collecting trip.)  Like Murtaugh said, he is UP to something.

Edited September 6, 2014 by WatchrTina

[annlaw78]

 

I also find it interesting that there is a lot of discussion on these boards about whether we should "forgive" Dougal for trying to kiss and grope Claire and much less talk about him having Rupert give Jamie a vicious beat-down.  The first was a drunken impulse that he backed away from when she slapped him.  The second was a deliberate attack on our young hero -- one that upset even Rupert who had to deliver the beating.  THAT's the reason I'm wary of Dougal. I do not trust his intentions towards Jamie and I do not understand his motivation in bringing Jamie to Leoch at the time of the oath-taking (nor do I understand his taking Jamie on the rent collecting trip.)  Like Murtaugh said, he is UP to something.

I don't like Dougal for that reason (among others, notably imprisoning Claire against her will), but that's not really germane to this episode thread.  I think there was also an understanding in the second ep, when the beating happened, that there was more going on than just Dougal/Colum wanting to beat Jamie up (something we/Claire didn't comprehend), and it makes a bit more sense now that we've seen more of the internecine Highlands clan politics (i.e., it was an opportunity for Dougal/Colum to diminish Jamie in front of the clan, and hopefully keep him out of the running for being "The Mackenzie;" maybe there's more to it still, I don't know).

 

There's not really a mystery as to why Dougal did what he did to Claire in the hallway, and there's no need to withhold judgment until more information is received.  For those who found it offensive, there's really not going to be a good excuse for it.  For those who think it's interesting character growth, there doesn't need to be an excuse for it, or the excuse is already there (he was drunk, it's a guy thing, etc.).  

Edited September 6, 2014 by annlaw78

[Pestilentia]

Eh, IMO it was a drunk guy making a move on Claire.

A clumsy move by a really drunk guy, but just a guy making a pass.

 

The Gathering was a huge celebration held once every decade or so, so I liken it to Mardi Gras type behavior. Lord knows there is lots of drunken pass making, inappropriate groping, peeing in the wrong places, and ill advised hookups.

 

Sort of "What happens at The Gathering stays at The Gathering."  :)

[SpiritSong]

Eh, IMO it was a drunk guy making a move on Claire.

A clumsy move by a really drunk guy, but just a guy making a pass.

 

The Gathering was a huge celebration held once every decade or so, so I liken it to Mardi Gras type behavior. Lord knows there is lots of drunken pass making, inappropriate groping, peeing in the wrong places, and ill advised hookups.

 

Sort of "What happens at The Gathering stays at The Gathering."  :)

Good analogy. Funny, too.

Dougal doesn't need to force women to be with him, though he's certainly not as gallant as Jamie. He's the second most powerful man in the clan, and will likely become Laird soon, given Colum's fragile health. And while many on this board might find him old and unattractive, that is certainly not a unanimous opinion or one that would be shared by the vast majority of the females at Castle Leoch.

I think we can't help but look at what happens on this show with our 21st century eyes, because that's who we are, and the show is shown from Claire's 1940s perspective. But the characters are living in 1743 and like it or not, approve of it or not, but things were different. Think of how people 300 years from now will look back and judge us for our ways. There is still lots of cruelty and injustice in this world and our morality will seem primitive to people of the future. Rightly so, IMO, when a person can still be KILLED just because they were born homosexual, to cite just one example.

[Elsinore]

I spent most the first thirty minutes thinking that Claire should really shut up about escaping. No, really shut up. Now.

 

It was a long half an hour until Jamie showed up.

 

"It's a sedative"

"Is that Spanish?"

 

Wins for line of the night. I liked the sassing better then the escape plotting voice overs.

 

This was totally Dougals episode, in any case. Props to the actor because he did an amazing job.

 

Loved the cinematography of the woods. So pretty.

 

And the death scene, I literally held my breath during it.

 

The 40's music bothered me. It just didn't work.

[Nidratime]

Just rewatching the last episode on Starz before the new one premieres, and it occurs to me that when Claire looks for help in the stables to find a horse for the boar hunt (and maybe for her escape) she asks for Mr. Mactavish to help her. She's already leaning on Jamie even before confessing to him and him knowing exactly who she is.

[AuxArx]

Just watched last week's episode so I'd be caught up for tonight's.  I think my favorite part was the very beginning when Claire had fallen on the ground and got a look up the guy's kilt (don't remember his name) and he said, "Anything catch your eye?"  She looked a wee bit grossed out, I thought!

[Petunia846]

I'm rewatching right now too. I think my favorite part is when Claire trips over Jamie in the hay and says, "Jesus H. Roosevelt Christ!" and Jamie grins and says, "No, Sassenach, just me." Heee! Jamie is adorable.

[annlaw78]

Dougal doesn't need to force women to be with him, though he's certainly not as gallant as Jamie. He's the second most powerful man in the clan, and will likely become Laird soon, given Colum's fragile health. And while many on this board might find him old and unattractive, that is certainly not a unanimous opinion or one that would be shared by the vast majority of the females at Castle Leoch.

I think we can't help but look at what happens on this show with our 21st century eyes, because that's who we are, and the show is shown from Claire's 1940s perspective. But the characters are living in 1743 and like it or not, approve of it or not, but things were different. Think of how people 300 years from now will look back and judge us for our ways. There is still lots of cruelty and injustice in this world and our morality will seem primitive to people of the future. Rightly so, IMO, when a person can still be KILLED just because they were born homosexual, to cite just one example.

Things aren't that different today; how many times, in defense of a pro athlete/celebrity accused of rape, have we heard his defenders say "hey, this is X, every woman wants him, he has a hot wife," etc. Rape isn't a problem of ugly, unpopular, weak men forcing themselves on women out of desperation. It's about, quite often, men like "Dougal" thinking they have the power and right to do whatever they want.

If Dougal is the stud of Clan Mackenzie, good for him. He should put his hands on the women who want him to, not the one who does not.

Edited September 8, 2014 by annlaw78

[taanja]

 

It's about, quite often, men like "Dougal" thinking they have the power and right to do whatever they want.

 

Well...like it or not ---whether it be fair or not ---Dougal DOES have the power (in this world) to do what he pleases. It just is what it is.

 

 

 

[annlaw78]

Well...like it or not ---whether it be fair or not ---Dougal DOES have the power (in this world) to do what he pleases. It just is what it is.

And so does Jack Randall. Two peas in a gross pod. I'm not sure why the show wanted to draw a parallel, but it's there now. At least for me.

I just have to say that for all of the "women just got raped a lot" back then explanation for the behavior of the various clansmen in this ep, I'm not really buying that. This isn't cavemen days, nor the Dark Ages. It's the 1740s (smack dab in the Age of Enlightenment, in which Scotland played a vital part). Scotland has a rich history of ancient universities and being on the forefront of science and philosophy and theology. The idea that Scots assaulted women as a sort of party game just isn't a fair assessment of the time. And to have assorted clansmen (including Dougal) pawing at Claire at every opportunity just seemed contrived and problematic for me.

Edited September 8, 2014 by annlaw78

[taanja]

I haven't seen enough of Jack Randall to know whether I like the character or not? that tiny glimpse we got in the very first ep  just showed a man ---who yes---is used to taking what he wants. But there was a pugnacious quality that comes through quite clearly. IMO

 

Dougal ---obviously a man used to getting/taking what he wants doesn't come across ---to me--- as overly belligerent and or contentious.

 

Plus I am thinking the actor who plays Dougal has a lot to do with my love of the character. it obviously colors my opinions. He would have to do something quite heinous for my affections to be lessened.

[SpiritSong]

Things aren't that different today; how many times, in defense of a pro athlete/celebrity accused of rape, have we heard his defenders say "hey, this is X, every woman wants him, he has a hot wife," etc. Rape isn't a problem of ugly, unpopular, weak men forcing themselves on women out of desperation. It's about, quite often, men like "Dougal" thinking they have the power and right to do whatever they want.

If Dougal is the stud of Clan Mackenzie, good for him. He should put his hands on the women who want him to, not the one who does not.

Except Dougal's NOT a rapist. He made a drunken pass at a woman he's attracted to, she slapped him while making her displeasure known and he immediately backed off. Rape is a horrible crime and never acceptable but all the people on here equating a drunken kiss and grope as rape are just way overstating what actually happened.

Lord knows Dougal has plenty of faults without people exaggerating or outright inventing even more. And one of the strengths of this series so far is that the characters are complex and each of them have flaws. Who wants to watch a show where the villains are 100% evil and the heroes are perfect and as pure as the driven snow?

[Pestilentia]

Except Dougal's NOT a rapist. He made a drunken pass at a woman he's attracted to, she slapped him while making her displeasure known and he immediately backed off. Rape is a horrible crime and never acceptable but all the people on here equating a drunken kiss and grope as rape are just way overstating what actually happened.

 

For some reason the board won't let me "Like" this post so I am chiming in with "I agree."

[annlaw78]

 

 

Except Dougal's NOT a rapist. He made a drunken pass at a woman he's attracted to, she slapped him while making her displeasure known and he immediately backed off. Rape is a horrible crime and never acceptable but all the people on here equating a drunken kiss and grope as rape are just way overstating what actually happened.

Lord knows Dougal has plenty of faults without people exaggerating or outright inventing even more. And one of the strengths of this series so far is that the characters are complex and each of them have flaws. Who wants to watch a show where the villains are 100% evil and the heroes are perfect and as pure as the driven snow?

I think we have disparate views on how threatening and violent a man's reaching his hand up a woman's skirt is.  To me, it's assaultive.  To others, it may just be making a pass.  I'm looking at it not only from a modern view, but also the standpoint of Claire, pressed up against the wall, with nothing but her skirt and his kilt protecting her.  The parallel that scene set up with the one between BJR and Claire (a menacing comment -- "I'll take the whore," "there's a penalty to be paid" -- and pulling up her skirt) is eerie and, to me, unsettling.  

Perhaps the reason that the show presented that parallel is so that Claire's decision at the start of Ep 6 will be less straightforward/obvious.

 

But I'll shut up about it now!

Edited September 9, 2014 by annlaw78

[ElectricBoogaloo]

Awwww, I loved that Angus had his slightly dressier yoga ponytail for the big important ceremony! I also thought it was adorable when Claire said she was leaving and he begged her to stay until he hooked up with someone. I wouldn't say they're BFFs but there has definitely been a change in their relationship.

[HalcyonDays]

Watched this yesterday - nice slow episode but a good one. Jamie just cannot win, the poor guy. He's literally stuck in a rock and a hard place and has little options for what he can do. He has to stay at Castle Leoch because he is a wanted man, yet he is a threat to those very people who run the Castle (Dougal namely). He has to tread so carefully and it's interesting that he always seems so playful and more laid back about stuff. He's smart - fully understands the politics of the situation and knows how to play the game, but doesn't let it take away his natural humour and love of life.

 

Claire gave up a bit easily on her escape in my opinion - Yes, she tripped over Jamie and he know what she was doing, but she pretty much gave up after telling him her plan. And WHY did she tell him the plan. Strange. She vacillates too much, I think.

 

Rupert and Angus - they remind me so much of Merry and Pippin from Lord of the Rings - pure comedic goofballs. They are hilarious.

As I'm learning names, I finally know who Murtagh is and love this guy too - loved seeing him translate for Claire. Considering she is suspected of being a spy and is English, the Scots treat her pretty good overall.

 

As others have said - Dougal is a very complex and interesting person. The actor who plays him is amazing. Again, good casting.

[jordanpond]

Even if we were to take Dougal at his word from Episode 1 and assume that he would not have actually raped Claire, what he did do was done by force. He said that she'd have to pay a penalty, pushed her to a wall, then simultaneously kissed her while lifting her skirt. This isn't someone who thought Claire might have been romantically/sexually interested in him, so slowly leaned in for a kiss to find out. What he did was completely against her will, and I find that pretty abhorrent, no matter the century.

Edited September 20, 2014 by jordanpond

[methodwriter85]

I've bingewatched this weekend and I thought the death scene was wonderful. It really was- I believe everything about Claire and who she is and what she went through as a field nurse in that moment.

[mizkat]

I've bingewatched this weekend and I thought the death scene was wonderful. It really was- I believe everything about Claire and who she is and what she went through as a field nurse in that moment.

 

I'm rewatching too, although this is one of the episodes I missed and finally saw last night. This was a wonderful scene. There were a lot of good ones in this episode. It also had the most annoying and insufferable voiceovers, IMO. They totally weren't needed, either.  

 

If I didn't love Graham McTavish before (and I did), I do now. He totally brought it during that death scene. 

[John Potts]

OK, I'm all for Claire wanting to escape, but she might have said, "At least the clan will get the horse back once I'm gone". Horses aren't cheap! Also, not so sure it's a good idea to admit you can make (presumably illegal & potentially executable) love potions to your romantic rival. She could have just given him some "milk of the poppy", which would at least stop him from leaving. I was also wondering where an English lady would have seen wounded soldiers in 1744 (it's possible, I'm just not sure there were any wars Britain might have been involved in at that time).

On ‎31‎/‎08‎/‎2014 at 6:41 AM, ganesh said:

When you're having the kids say "you lost your ribbon," and Claire is looking all shifty at the guards, it's pretty clear that she's hatching a plot to escape, as you, show, also showed me the ribbons directly after Claire looked at the guards.

 Particularly when she could scarcely have been more obvious about where she left them. I get that it's partly for the audience's benefit, but it didn't seem like the voiceover was necessary as well.

On ‎31‎/‎08‎/‎2014 at 11:32 AM, Pestilentia said:

they are using flintlock muskets at this stage? Any firearms experts willing to chime in on some details?

They certainly existed (they were used in the English Civil War - roughly a century earlier). Whether the clansmen would have them is more debatable - one of the reasons the Jacobites lost at Culloden (1746) was because they were using predominantly claymores (swords) against a foe equipped with bayonet tipped muskets.

On ‎31‎/‎08‎/‎2014 at 3:22 AM, Petunia846 said:

"Such a nice dress, I remember you wore it so well to the last gathering." Heh.

Some burns don't change!

On ‎02‎/‎09‎/‎2014 at 3:25 PM, GHScorpiosRule said:

I'm wondering why there needs to be an entourage to collect rent from the tenants.

Well, tenants aren't always keen to give landlords money. And the fact that they HAVE money makes them a tempting target for bandits.

On ‎04‎/‎09‎/‎2014 at 1:32 PM, annlaw78 said:

I didn't get why Claire was so antagonistic about the hunting, other than just being put out in general to be pressed into service.  It's not like they were out clubbing baby seals -- they were hunting feral pigs (which can be pest animals) for FOOD.

Yes! It's not as if Claire's a vegetarian (she'd be starving if she was). And having lived through the war, she might well have seen animals butchered for food. She certainly wouldn't have the modern sensibility that meat grows in plastic trays on supermarket shelves.

On ‎04‎/‎09‎/‎2014 at 5:17 PM, absnow54 said:

I'd say they were just enforcing the sort of victim blaming standards that aren't too uncommon from today's society. On a dark night, it's better for a woman to stay in and not travel about alone, than for a man to simply not feel inclined to rape/attack them. I'm not saying this mentality is right. I think quite the opposite.

I wonder if Claire's near rapes aren't thanks to her status, which is decidedly vague. She acts like a noble, but talks like a commoner. She's a Sassenach, but not friendly with the English. Now while the law didn't specify that "assaults on nobles are more serious than assaults on commoners", you can bet it would be treated as such (Gaellis, for example, is wife to the local judge, so pretty high status). If one of the castle servants were raped, particularly by drunken clansmen, I expect it'd be brushed off as "Boys will be boys" (or some 18th Century equivalent).
[Hope that doesn't sound to "mansplain-y"]

[Nidratime]

Quote

I wonder if Claire's near rapes aren't thanks to her status, which is decidedly vague. She acts like a noble, but talks like a commoner. She's a Sassenach, but not friendly with the English. Now while the law didn't specify that "assaults on nobles are more serious than assaults on commoners", you can bet it would be treated as such (Gaellis, for example, is wife to the local judge, so pretty high status). If one of the castle servants were raped, particularly by drunken clansmen, I expect it'd be brushed off as "Boys will be boys" (or some 18th Century equivalent).

I like it and had not seen that interpretation anywhere else.

[Camera One]

Claire's escape attempt wasn't as bad as I thought it would be.  It was predictable she wouldn't get away, though.  I did like that she did meticulous planning and we got to see some of that.  The Gathering and the politics of it was interesting.  I'm glad there's going to be a change of place in the next episode, though, to get a little bit of a break from the castle.

[gingerella]

This episode really expands the world of Castle Leoch and the Clan, I enjoyed seeing that side of the revealed more. Loved the opening with ‘Seen something you like?’ Again, levity is so appreciated.

The stable scene stuck me because yet again we have another person who is protecting Jaime, warning that he shouldn’t be looked for during the Gathering. He has people watching out for him, but I want to know more about them and why they are so protective of him. ETA: I'm guessing he is higher born that we think he is? Or I'm not yet understanding the hierarchy of the Scottish Clan Laird line.

Its odd how put out Geillis was about being cut off from in her her back story, and when we se per her in Claire’s surgery she doesn’t say a word about that conversation. The continued innuendos are there though and she definitely is on to Claire though I  believe she’s sure about Claire escaping, but there is definite suspicion. She creeps me out.

The fealty pledging was such a rich scene, yet there is a wildness about it, Wild West Highlander style. I was thinking Claire better be careful and then she runs into the drunk he hallways and damn, she seems to maintain her cool under panic conditions. I was surprised that Dougal tried to force himself upon her, but now I can’t decide if he’s sweet on her too. I don’t think Dougal would know love it if it bit him in the face. He seems like the sort of man who puts his manliness and duty above all else. No, maybe he’s just drunk.

So Jaime has his own motto, Je Suis Prest, interesting, it must be from his fathers side? And since it’s French, it begs the question of where he really comes from, I want to know more about his father, I hope that’s coming. So he pledges his word to Colum so long as he stands on Clan soil, thus saying he will not stake a claim to becoming a future Laird himself? I don’t understand how a nephew would supersede Colums own son though, and why Dougal would even be eligible to succeed him. It’s confusing and dovetails into my above comment about not understanding the lines of succession at this period in time. I normally don't investigate such things as I like to be as unspoiled as possible and allow A Show to guide me...but all of this is interesting from a historical perspective.

ETA: Another piece of the fealty scenes was WHY TweedleDee and TweedleDum (Angus and the other one, I cannot tell them apart face wise, yet) would essentially force Jaime to come to the Hall and pledge fealty to his uncle? Surely they know his back story and why that would cause problems? I wouldn't think they'd be kept in the dark about that because they seem to be part of Dougal's A team, always going with him on excursions away from Leoch, and they might speak out of turn about who he really is out in the real world. But then again, is it possible they don't really know that he isn't a MacTavish, and is a MacKenzie/Fraser? I just cannot tease out why they'd force him into such a potentially awkward position if they know who he is and what that means.

After Claire helped ease the suffering of the dying clansman, I thought Dougal was going to let her go, but naw, she’s coming on a road trip, fun. At least Jaime is there so its not all bad. 

This episode leaves me with more questions than answers: Who is Jaime really and where does he come from? Is he actually higher up than Colum and Dougal? Where are they going and will they be the vicinity of the Stones ( I’m guessing no)? Why does Jaime have so many guardian angels watching over him?

Edited March 11, 2021 by gingerella

[Anothermi]

18 hours ago, gingerella said:

Its odd how put out Geillis was about being cut off from in her her back story, and when we se per her in Claire’s surgery she doesn’t say a word about that conversation. The continued innuendos are there though and she definitely is on to Claire though I  believe she’s sure about Claire escaping, but there is definite suspicion. She creeps me out.

While I want to like Geillis—as a co-outsider—she really does seem more of an antagonist than supporter. And I have to add Laoghaire (AKA Leery) as another potential enemy for Claire—if only due to jealousy. 

Still, Geillis offered this advice to Claire when she was trying to suss out what Claire was planning: The Highlands are no place for a woman to be alone. You'd do well to remember that.

18 hours ago, gingerella said:

The stable scene stuck me because yet again we have another person who is protecting Jaime, warning that he shouldn’t be looked for during the Gathering. He has people watching out for him, but I want to know more about them and why they are so protective of him.

Yes to this. Jamie seems to have quite a "crew" for such an apparent loner.  Claire, on the other hand, really can't trust anyone—except for Jamie—so far. 

Claire's well organized—but not so well thought out—escape plan was done and dusted early in this episode. And we got another instance of Jamie taking "command" of her actions to protect her—the first being when he threatened to hoist her over his shoulder to take her with them after they routed the ambushers.  Frank may love that Claire is stubborn and can't be deterred once her mind is made up, but Jamie only loves it to a point! 😉  He's even reminded her that the Scots do not take kindly to Sassenachs—don't find them so pretty was how he put it. 

18 hours ago, gingerella said:

So Jaime has his own motto, Je Suis Prest, interesting, it must be from his fathers side? And since it’s French, it begs the question of where he really comes from, I want to know more about his father, I hope that’s coming.

Quote

Who is Jaime really and where does he come from? Is he actually higher up than Colum and Dougal? 

Claire actually translated that for us. Jamie said "je suis prêt" = "I am ready" in response to Claire bemoaning that she'd gotten him into trouble (again I might add). He smiled confidently at her when he said that, so he seemed to be looking forward to what we thought might be a dangerous situation for him.  I was surprised to realize that he knew French but on first viewing I didn't take it to mean anything but that it was his personal motto—like 'be prepared'. Only by going back to that scene did I note that he had prefaced that phrase by asking her if she knew what his/ his clan's motto was. So good catch Ging. 

 When Claire had described his use of Mactavish as a "nom de guerre" and he replied "something like that", I took it to mean he assumed she understood the reason, not that HE understood the French. Duh.  There would certainly be Scots who spoke French in that time. There was trade—and once Henry VIII created the Church of England—there was politics. The Scots relied on French Catholic support to maintain sovereignty over their lands and religion. But, it would likely have been higher status folks who would have learned it. Given that Jamie said he learned Latin and Greek and "the like", it's not difficult to accept that he learned French as well. So, to echo @gingerella—Would that make his father—and him— higher status than the Laird of Leoch? 

18 hours ago, gingerella said:

The fealty pledging was such a rich scene, yet there is a wildness about it, Wild West Highlander style

It was definitely stirring—which I'm sure it was meant to be. Especially in dangerous times when you needed to know who was on your side. 

It's the predicament that Jamie was put in regarding the oath that intrigues me. If HE swears fealty he somehow becomes "in line" to succeed as Laird!?  We'd only recently heard young Hamish Mackenzie call himself son and heir of the current Liard. (and THAT scene I'll get back to later). Murtagh (the wonderful) explains to Claire that the Scottish clans  "are tanist".  (I had to look that up in Wikipedia. It's a form of modified election.)

On top of that bombshell, Murtagh explains that Dougal wants to be Laird after his brother and would have to kill Jamie to get rid of the competition—so Jamie has his supporters.  However, if Jamie doesn't swear fealty, he's  effectively declaring himself an enemy and death also the outcome of that. Rock and a hard place much?  But our silver tongued Jamie is ready! He finds that middle path that satisfies everyone.  That's some complex politicking for one so young. Just sayin' . 

I loved the scene of Claire and Dougal caring for the dying man. Good to see that part of Claire's war experience coming through because all we'd seen so far is her surgical skills, not the compassionate part of her. And of course it humanized Dougal as well. Put them both on a level field together. He cared as much for his "men" as she did for a human being. 

ETA Back to the scene in previous episode when Claire assumes Hamish is the son of Dougal and can't seem to get out of her drunken faux pas.  There was quite an uncomfortable moment as the head table cast looks about but said nothing. I'm now wondering—especially after the boar gored man got Dougal to confess that he slept with the man's sister and seemed to forgive Dougal because he could "always charm the lasses".  Did he also charm Letitia? Colum's wife?

 

Edited March 12, 2021 by Anothermi

[gingerella]

27 minutes ago, Anothermi said:

So, to echo @gingerella—Would that make his father—and him— higher status than the Laird of Leoch? 

13 hours ago, gingerella said:

The fealty pledging was such a rich scene, yet there is a wildness about it, Wild West Highlander style

It's the predicament that Jamie was put in regarding the oath that intrigues me. If HE swears fealty he somehow becomes "in line" to succeed as Laird!?  We'd only recently heard young Hamish Mackenzie call himself son and heir of the current Liard. (and THAT scene I'll get back to later). Murtagh (the wonderful) explains to Claire that the Scottish clans  "are tanist".  (I had to look that up in Wikipedia. It's a form of modified election.)

So to the first point above, I wonder if the issue at hand is that Jaime's father was indeed higher born than the MacKenzies and that is what makes Jaime the technical 'next in line' in succession to Lairdship?

The second bit above...maybe because Jaime is the legitimate son/heir of his mother and father, and young Hamish is possibly not (because of the very awkward comment Claire makes about Hamish being Dougal's son at the first dinner she attends in the Hall, anvils much Show?!?), that is what makes Jaime next in line rather than Hamish. If I understand the Tanistry/Agnate thing - and I don't really, I only took a cursory stroll through Wikiland and it's mighty complex! - the clans were patrilineal but it seems like it's not always direct from father to son with no other deviations, but rather there is room for other 'direct' descendants to be in line as well, so maybe it's that? One bit that caught my eye in the Wiki explanation of this was this line:

Quote

"The king or chief held office for life and was required by custom to be of full age, in possession of all his faculties, and without any remarkable blemish of mind or body. At the same time, and subject to the same conditions, a tanist or next heir to the Monarchy was elected, who if the king died or became disqualified, at once became king.[6] Typically a former king's son became tanist (sometimes the son of the king simultaneously elected, however perhaps more often a son of a rival branch of the dynasty), but not because the system of primogeniture was in any way recognised; indeed, the only principle adopted was that the dignity of chieftainship should descend to the eldest and most worthy agnate of the last ruler.[7] (Note this still disqualified many in the clan, since most clansmen were clients, not related to the ruling line, patrilineally or otherwise.)[8]"

What caught my eye was first the bit about no bodily blemishes because Jaime's back is one giant 'blemish', though it seems like few have actually seen his back scars though from his conversation with Claire about this.

In the second bit bolded, we learn that actually a 'rival' branches son could ascend to becoming Laird if he was eldest (Jaime is certainly older than Hamish) and 'most worthy' (Jaime comes across already as someone whom others in the clan might find more worthy than, say, Dougal, because Jaime is a more friendly/kind/noble sort, hence Dougal's annoyance when Jaime took Leery's punishment for her. It just makes him look like the Bestest Scot in Scotland, doesn't it?

Edited March 11, 2021 by gingerella

[Anothermi]

11 minutes ago, gingerella said:

What caught my eye was first the bit about no bodily blemishes because Jaime's back is one giant 'blemish'

I wondered about Colum as well, but I expect his disease did not manifest until well after he became Liard.  And the office is for life. 

I hadn't thought about Jamie's body blemishes, but it does explain why Jaime doesn't want anyone to see them. (Except Claire and he sure assumes she's on his side no matter what!  At least as much as he's on her side. Although I don't think she's fully bought into this... pact?)

[Anothermi]

17 minutes ago, gingerella said:

The second bit above...maybe because Jaime is the legitimate son/heir of his mother and father, and young Hamish is possibly not (because of the very awkward comment Claire makes about Hamish being Dougal's son at the first dinner she attends in the Hall, anvils much Show?!?)

That was what I was getting back to later, but forgot to do when I hit the submit button. I've added it as an ETA now.  Great minds think alike.

But I believe the lovely Murtagh mentioned Hamish's age as a problem as well. Claire knows, and I think all the clan expects, that Colum won't be Laird much longer—due to his condition. 

[Cdh20]

1 hour ago, gingerella said:

 

In the second bit bolded, we learn that actually a 'rival' branches son could ascend to becoming Laird if he was eldest (Jaime is certainly older than Hamish) and 'most worthy' (Jaime comes across already as someone whom others in the clan might find more worthy than, say, Dougal, because Jaime is a more friendly/kind/noble sort, hence Dougal's annoyance when Jaime took Leery's punishment for her. It just makes him look like the Bestest Scot in Scotland, doesn't it?

Of course Jamie is the Bestest  Scot in Scotland- that didn’t take you long! Haha

Edited March 11, 2021 by Cdh20

[gingerella]

1 hour ago, Cdh20 said:

Of course Jamie is the Bestest  Scot in Scotland- that didn’t take you long! Haha

Aye lass, he's bonny on the eyes and I ken a hottie when I sees 'un! Now pass some of that Rhienish wine so I can quench my thirst!

 

Edited March 12, 2021 by gingerella

[Pallas]

Tanistry isn't primogeniture; it's electoral. Here's another entry that states that the clan chieftain was elected by "family heads in full assembly," and defines Dougal's role as the Tanist: the chief's elected successor and second-in-command. Why was the Gathering under extra security? It seems it's not only because all the clan's leaders and warriors were in one place, as Jamie said; also, the business done at the Gathering itself was now illegal. More than 140 years earlier, James VI of Scotland had banned tanistry in favor of primogeniture, shortly prior to becoming James I of  England in 1703.

So by the laws of the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1743, Hamish is Colum's heir. Yet it seems understood within clan MacKenzie that Dougal is considered heir by right of Tanistry. That's why kinsman Jamie can be considered a rightful challenger to either Colum's rule as Laird (if he doesn't swear fealty), or to Dougal's role as Tanist and successor (if he does). As another citation states, 

Quote

"So the concepts of Tanist Succession and Patrilinear Succession bumped into each other and wreaked havoc for centuries until Tanistry was abolished by James I (James VI of Scotland). The system lingered in a diminished form in Ireland until the mid-19th century."

In Ireland and, I'm guessing, Scotland, at least for a time. 

[Anothermi]

5 hours ago, Pallas said:

Tanistry isn't primogeniture; it's electoral. Here's another entry that states that the clan chieftain was elected by "family heads in full assembly," and defines Dougal's role as the Tanist: the chief's elected successor and second-in-command. Why was the Gathering under extra security? It seems it's not only because all the clan's leaders and warriors were in one place, as Jamie said; also, the business done at the Gathering itself was now illegal. More than 140 years earlier, James VI of Scotland had banned tanistry in favor of primogeniture, shortly prior to becoming James I of  England in 1703.

So by the laws of the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1743, Hamish is Colum's heir. Yet it seems understood within clan MacKenzie that Dougal is considered heir by right of Tanistry. That's why kinsman Jamie can be considered a rightful challenger to either Colum's rule as Laird (if he doesn't swear fealty), or to Dougal's role as Tanist and successor (if he does). As another citation states, 

In Ireland and, I'm guessing, Scotland, at least for a time. 

Thanks for that, Pallas. The fact that Tanistry had been outlawed at that time had escaped my speed-reading capabilities. Probably Claire's too, as she got the Murtagh's Notes version of what was happening.   I do remember reading that the Tanist tradition tended to devolve into Clan Warz, so I can see why King James wanted to get rid of it. Good for Clans (perhaps) but not for countries.

Your Britannia link adds the bit I remembered above and is presented in easier-to-understand language. The Wikipedia Link I supplied was harder reading. (although— thanks to Dictionary.com—I did know what "agnate" meant.)

Edited March 12, 2021 by Anothermi
follow up

[mythoughtis]

I am very late to this series,not here are my thoughts. 
 

Jamie has left the castle before. He was of course with the group when they found Claire a couple days ride from the castle.  The flogging abs subsequent murder  charge was 4 years earlier.  There is no reason why he couldn’t go on the Laird’s land to collect rents. 

Jamie was sent to the barn by Dougal both to keep him from the rest of the clan and so he would   not get caught up in the fealty issue. I do think Dougal cares about Jamie and wouldn’t want to see him die. 
 

In regards to the life expectancy discussion- Covid has caused the life expectancy in the US to drop by over 18 months. This in no way means people aren’t living to a very old age.  It just means we’ve lost a lot of people in a short amount of time.   So a high infant mortality such as in the 1740s would  definitely have affected life expectancy averages