Ask the Outlanders: Questions for the Bookreaders

[MsProudSooner]

On 10/17/2017 at 8:01 PM, auntlada said:

Regarding the treasure, it's explained in a short story by Diana Gabaldon and Steve Berry called "Past Prologue" in a collection of short stories called "Matchup." I can't remember the details just now, however.

I read "Matchup" recently.  I take it the old man Gellis is with in the short story is the same old man Jamie served as an interpreter for?

It's a good collection of stories by some excellent authors.

[MadameKillerB]

I read the 1st three books years ago and am catching up on the show. I've been reading these forums like a madwoman! Something I'm curious about:

Spoiler

Frank. He seems to stick around in some form or another, like flashbacks or letters he's written that are found later. What do I need to know about him, from the books, as we move forward on the show? 

Thanks!

Edited October 25, 2017 by Athena
added spoiler tag

[FnkyChkn34]

1 hour ago, MadameKillerB said:

I read the 1st three books years ago and am catching up on the show. I've been reading these forums like a madwoman! Something I'm curious about:

  Reveal hidden contents

Frank. He seems to stick around in some form or another, like flashbacks or letters he's written that are found later. What do I need to know about him, from the books, as we move forward on the show? 

Thanks!

Well, in my humble opinion...

Spoiler

BookFrank is a complete a-hole, and showFrank was softened.  So in my opinion, we need to remember that the show writers, for some reason known only to them, made him look like the victim and not the lying, cheater that he was in the books.  He and Claire never had an "agreement" to have an open marriage so he could date other women.  In the books, they tried to have a normal marriage as best they could, and he was suspected of sneaking around on the side with multiple women, not just Sandy.  And Claire offered to divorce him, and it was Frank who refused, not the other way around as Sandy said.  Frank researched Jamie and knew he was alive and never told Claire or Bree.  Yes, he loved Bree, but he lied to all of them by omission - he told Claire never to think about Jamie again, yet Frank researched him in depth.  (Hypocrite.)

Anyway, that's just my 2 cents.  As the series goes on, I'll keep in mind that bookFrank, aka realFrank, was not sympathetic and not at all how he was usually portrayed on the show.  

[DittyDotDot]

19 hours ago, MadameKillerB said:

I read the 1st three books years ago and am catching up on the show. I've been reading these forums like a madwoman! Something I'm curious about:

  Hide contents

Frank. He seems to stick around in some form or another, like flashbacks or letters he's written that are found later. What do I need to know about him, from the books, as we move forward on the show? 

Thanks!

I tend to keep the show and books separate, more or less. So, I don't think you need to know anything more than what the show has given you. Is there something specific you were curious about or wanted more of a book explanation about? 

[FnkyChkn34]

6 hours ago, DittyDotDot said:

I tend to keep the show and books separate, more or less. So, I don't think you need to know anything more than what the show has given you. Is there something specific you were curious about or wanted more of a book explanation about? 

I do try to do this as well, but when it comes to

Spoiler

an entire character assassination and giving him an entirely new personality

, it's a bit hard.  It's easier to do when it's just how scenes are written or events that take place, etc. ;-)

[FnkyChkn34]

Can someone please remind me how the

Spoiler

crocodile acid trip bonfire

happens in the books? 

Spoiler

Someone wears it's head, and Margaret does readings, then Jamie shows up out of the blue, Brianna talks to him, and... how does it end?  In the show, do we assume that Tremeraire (sp??) will help/save them because they freed him? 

Edited December 6, 2017 by FnkyChkn34
Added spoiler tags because I'm not sure how this forum works.

[auntlada]

Off the top of my head, I don't remember the ending very well, @FnkyChkn34,

Spoiler

but I don't think they were ever in any real danger. I think maybe they just left, and there was so much uproar no one really tried to stop them. Jamie did stop Claire from trying to take Margaret, though, I think, figuring she was better off there.

[FnkyChkn34]

5 minutes ago, auntlada said:

Off the top of my head, I don't remember the ending very well, @FnkyChkn34,

  Reveal hidden contents

but I don't think they were ever in any real danger. I think maybe they just left, and there was so much uproar no one really tried to stop them. Jamie did stop Claire from trying to take Margaret, though, I think, figuring she was better off there.

Thanks!  The whole thing was rather convoluted, that's for sure. :-) 

[toolazy]

That's one of the parts of this book that I skip over because by then, I'm just done with the bonkersness of the whole thing.

[jqdeco]

Does anyone know if

Spoiler

Gellis is Joe Abernathy's great, great,..... grandmother?  Same last name.   And I can't remember the comment that made me think this, but it seems Gellis is trying to get pregnant by one of the many boys that she has kidnapped? 

[FnkyChkn34]

38 minutes ago, jqdeco said:

Does anyone know if

  Reveal hidden contents

Gellis is Joe Abernathy's great, great,..... grandmother?  Same last name.   And I can't remember the comment that made me think this, but it seems Gellis is trying to get pregnant by one of the many boys that she has kidnapped? 

I always assumed that 

Spoiler

His ancestors were her slaves. Somehow being her slaves gave them her last name? 

[DittyDotDot]

8 minutes ago, jqdeco said:

Does anyone know if

  Hide contents

Gellis is Joe Abernathy's great, great,..... grandmother?  Same last name.   And I can't remember the comment that made me think this, but it seems Gellis is trying to get pregnant by one of the many boys that she has kidnapped? 

Not sure exactly how much you want to know here, so a quick answer to your question is:

Spoiler

No, as far as I know, Gellis isn't successful in her attempts to get pregnant again. However, Joe's ancestor is hinted at in the books, see below.

 

Separate spoiler tag just in case you didn't want to know too much:

Spoiler

In the book, I believe Ishmael--a slave they take prisoner after a pirate attack, then free in exchange for information and is the leader of the slave-revolting maroons--is hinted as Joe's ancestor.  It's not explicitly said one way or the other in the books, but many former slaves took on the last names of their former master once freed and, Ismael was one of the Abernathy slaves at one time. He cooked for Gellis and made the "zombie" poison for her. In a later book, Joe's son takes the name Ishmael to honor their ancestor and--although they don't specifically say who that ancestor is--and I believe I recall Joe mentioning his grandmother or great-grandmother was Jamaican and well-versed in island "medicine".

 

Taking other thoughts to the Show vs. Book thread...

[auntlada]

Spoiler

Also, on the ship while they are listening to Ishmael, Claire is dazed from her injury and half-dozes and hears Joe's voice and Ishmael's voice together.

[DittyDotDot]

10 minutes ago, auntlada said:

  Hide contents

Also, on the ship while they are listening to Ishmael, Claire is dazed from her injury and half-dozes and hears Joe's voice and Ishmael's voice together.

Oh, that's right. I had forgotten this other subtle hint!

[theschnauzers]

I, too, made the same assumption.

i am aware that in the US, at the time of emancipation during the Civil War and in its aftermath, freed slaves often took the last name of their former owners.

[ParadoxLost]

I have a very basic question for the book readers.  Does it get better?  Is this trip to Jamaica a less than stellar entry in a great book series.  Or is this book series one that had a much stronger opening than anything that came later?

I'm finding the melodrama of this sea voyage unbearable..

[morgan]

That’s probably a question that comes with a variety of answers based on the person.  I will say Voyager has some of my favorite, as well as least favorite, parts.  I am not a big fan of the wacky sea voyage and Jamaica stuff personally, although some of it is good and will mean more later. I love a lot of what is to come.  In a way I divide the books (in my mind) into two parts...the trilogy that is the first 3, and then the rest.  My favorite will probably always be Outlander, but there is so much good as the books go on too.

Edited December 11, 2017 by morgan

[Eureka]

27 minutes ago, ParadoxLost said:

I have a very basic question for the book readers.  Does it get better?  Is this trip to Jamaica a less than stellar entry in a great book series.  Or is this book series one that had a much stronger opening than anything that came later?

I'm finding the melodrama of this sea voyage unbearable..

Voyager is my least favorite book if that tells you anything. Below is what I like best about the later books/forthcoming seasons.

Spoiler

They stay in America and there are a lot of long war scenes leading up to the Revolutionary War that I always skim through, but they make a home and community for themselves in NC and I love reading that stuff. Claire practices medicine, Jamie is a real laird and family man.

[Glade]

Regarding the stones... 

Spoiler

Aside Craig Na Dune and the cave in Jaimaca, are there other places where bee-hearing folks can time travel from in the books? 

[FnkyChkn34]

9 minutes ago, Glade said:

Regarding the stones... 

  Reveal hidden contents

Aside Craig Na Dune and the cave in Jaimaca, are there other places where bee-hearing folks can time travel from in the books? 

Simple answer, yes. I won't give details to ruin too much. :)

[FnkyChkn34]

3 hours ago, ParadoxLost said:

I have a very basic question for the book readers.  Does it get better?  Is this trip to Jamaica a less than stellar entry in a great book series.  Or is this book series one that had a much stronger opening than anything that came later?

I'm finding the melodrama of this sea voyage unbearable..

Just for a different opinion, I liked Voyager, but got stuck on book 5. I got bored, so I guess you could say I thought it got worse. It's all just a personal preference. (But I'll keep watching the show, whether I finish the books or not.)

[Ziggy]

Book 5 has a 1st chapter that is super long!  I was listening to the audio book and at the end of the first disk thought, am I still in chapter 1?  I think it gets much, much better after "Part 1," but I can absolutely see why so many get stuck on it. 

Spoiler

I loved reading about Claire and Jamie's life on the Ridge.  So many new characters are introduced, and it's a fascinating way of life.

Edited December 11, 2017 by Athena
added spoiler tag

[WInterfalls]

I think outside of Outlander book 4 is my favorite. Books 5 and 6 I loved but I remember thinking nothing really happened in them. I could easily see making those books one season. Books 7 and 8 are great and I really can’t wait for the 9th book to come out. 

[DittyDotDot]

13 hours ago, ParadoxLost said:

I have a very basic question for the book readers.  Does it get better?  Is this trip to Jamaica a less than stellar entry in a great book series.  Or is this book series one that had a much stronger opening than anything that came later?

I'm finding the melodrama of this sea voyage unbearable..

Like @morgan, said, I think that comes down to personal preferences and for me too, Voyager has some of my favorite and least favorite parts of the whole series. As the series goes on, the over arching plots aren't really as engaging as the first couple books, IMO, but the character scenes get better and better. 

[MadameKillerB]

Not sure how to do spoiler tags...

Spoiler

I'm reading Fiery Cross and I'm so freakin' confused. What happened to Betty exactly? Who was responsible? 

Edited December 11, 2017 by Athena
Added spoiler tags

[toolazy]

2 hours ago, MadameKillerB said:

Not sure how to do spoiler tags...

Spoiler

I'm reading Fiery Cross and I'm so freakin' confused. What happened to Betty exactly? Who was responsible? 

 

Spoiler

Remind me who Betty is?

Edited December 11, 2017 by Athena
Added spoiler tags

[MadameKillerB]

Spoiler

Betty is Phaedra's mother. I finished the book and it turns out Lieutenant Wolff killed Betty. Such a tangled mess of a plot. I really don't follow it that well. 

I also missed how suddenly Fergus and Marsali were back on the Ridge...I need to reread.

[toolazy]

Spoiler

Wolff killed Betty accidentally.  He meant to kill Duncan Innes.

[DittyDotDot]

1 hour ago, MadameKillerB said:

  Hide contents

I also missed how suddenly Fergus and Marsali were back on the Ridge...I need to reread.

I'm not sure I'm clear on what you're asking... .

Spoiler

You mean because in Drums of Autumn Marsali stays in Jamaica since she's pregnant and Fergus goes to fetch her? I believe they return to The Ridge between the end of Drums of Autumn and the start of The Fiery Cross. Fergus seems to be missing from the main storyline quite a bit so I mix up which book they're where quite a bit.

Edited December 12, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[MadameKillerB]

yeah, I think it's just because he's missing from most of the main plot/action. I tend to skim, I must admit ;) 

[Tyro49]

I know this isn't the book thread, but were the developments in this episode taken directly from the books, or was it "embroiderd"  by the show runners?

I know on GOT they ran out of the books, but I'm not sure that's the case here. Anybody know? (Without "spoilering" on this thread?)

[Athena]

7 minutes ago, Tyro49 said:

I know this isn't the book thread, but were the developments in this episode taken directly from the books, or was it "embroiderd"  by the show runners?

I know on GOT they ran out of the books, but I'm not sure that's the case here. Anybody know? (Without "spoilering" on this thread?)

Hello. I have moved your post from the 3x11: Uncharted No Book Talk thread to this one, Ask the Outlanders. This is the best place to ask book readers and spoiled posters about information from the books and the adaptation process. Thank you. 

[DittyDotDot]

1 hour ago, Tyro49 said:

I know this isn't the book thread, but were the developments in this episode taken directly from the books, or was it "embroiderd"  by the show runners?

I know on GOT they ran out of the books, but I'm not sure that's the case here. Anybody know? (Without "spoilering" on this thread?)

I'm woefully behind on the show, but from reading the comments posted it seems like

Spoiler

a bit of embroidery rather than straight out of the books. For the most part, the big plot points of the show are things that happen in the books, more or less, but the show takes a bit of creative license with the execution; and has since day one.

In the case of these last couple episodes of S3, there are other plot points in the book the show didn't do, so they had to adjust some storylines--like the Campbells and Willoughby--to fit the changing plot. In the book, Willoughby and Margaret never interact, as I recall, let alone become a couple. Lord John plays a slightly bigger role in the book and the prophecy is also a bit different. But, the main crust of the story--Geillis being a plantation-owning fruit cake, the kidnapper of Wee Ian and ending up dead in the West Indies; and the hurricane sweeping them to the Colonies--is all part of the book, just how they got there happened a little bit differently on the show.

Edited December 21, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[FnkyChkn34]

2 hours ago, Tyro49 said:

I know this isn't the book thread, but were the developments in this episode taken directly from the books, or was it "embroiderd"  by the show runners?

I know on GOT they ran out of the books, but I'm not sure that's the case here. Anybody know? (Without "spoilering" on this thread?)

Outlander has definitely not run out of books.  There are 8 already, and Gabaldon is writing the 9th.  Each season so far has been one complete book.

As for Episode 3.11, much is straight from the book.  The characters, such as Father Fogden, Mamacita, and even the coconut head are straight from the book.  The circumstance and timing of events was not quite the same; IIRC, the show sped up the timeline and left out some parts.  (For example, there's another character in the books that is introduced during this time frame that the show omitted.)  The show also added a few scenes, such as - I don't remember Mr. Willoughby killing the goat?  But maybe he did; it's been a few years since I read the third book.

[Coconuts]

On 12/21/2017 at 5:24 PM, FnkyChkn34 said:

Outlander has definitely not run out of books.  There are 8 already, and Gabaldon is writing the 9th.  Each season so far has been one complete book.

As for Episode 3.11, much is straight from the book.  The characters, such as Father Fogden, Mamacita, and even the coconut head are straight from the book.  The circumstance and timing of events was not quite the same; IIRC, the show sped up the timeline and left out some parts.  (For example, there's another character in the books that is introduced during this time frame that the show omitted.)  The show also added a few scenes, such as - I don't remember Mr. Willoughby killing the goat?  But maybe he did; it's been a few years since I read the third book.

It was definitely the Artemis crew, but I don't think it was specifically Willoughby that was roasting the goat. 

[Nidratime]

I have only read up to book four and I read that so long ago, I can't remember the details. I will be reading ahead, but here's a question:

Spoiler

We've often witnessed Claire's thoughts and actions as the only 20th century person "in the room," in the 18th century, but if we have Claire, Jamie, Bree, and Roger in a room, even if they are in the past, then Jamie is the Sassenach. He is the only person in the room not born in the 20th century, who doesn't share their knowledge of technology, history, politics, culture. Do we see that situation often enough in the past? I want to know how and how often Jamie deals with the results of his futuristic relatives. Their thoughts, ideas, and actions which concern him, fascinate, and help him.

Edited January 11, 2018 by Athena
Added spoiler tag

[WatchrTina]

Responding to Nidratime. Here be major spoilers for book 4 (and some broad info about later books).

Spoiler

 

My recollection is that there are very few times when Claire's, Brianna's and Roger's fore-knowledge is something that has any impact on Jamie.  I think the reason for that is that Jamie and Claire learned the hard way how impossible it is to change the future.  All their efforts to prevent the Jacobite Uprising and then, once it happened, to try to win it were for naught.  As a result, Jamie and Claire don't spend much time thinking about the future and how Claire's knowledge of it should guide them.  That being said, they (along with Roger and Brianna) certainly discuss the American Revolution and strategize as to how to deal with that coming situation.  Deciding to "fight on the winning side" is not as easy as you might think.  After all the grant of of the land on The Ridge was made by a royal governor, loyal to the king. They walk a careful line for a good long while, trying not to alienate either side but, eventually, they commit to the revolution.

Foreknowledge of the future DOES have one huge impact on Jamie's life, however.  It's Brianna's discovery of danger in Jamie & Claire's future (something she learns from 20th century "history") that provokes her to travel into the past to warn them.  And then of course it's the discovery that Roger knew about the danger -- knew but didn't tell her -- that drives a wedge between Roger and Brianna only hours after they are reunited in the past.

Other than that the only instances I can think of are Claire telling Jamie about the eventual abolition of slavery and the disasters that await the Native American population, as well as her minor freak-out when she meets (in passing) Benedict Arnold.

 

Edited January 11, 2018 by WatchrTina

[Nidratime]

Sorry about the spoiler slip-up. This thread is the most challenging for me to "remember myself." I tend to stay out of it because of that. ;-)

[DittyDotDot]

12 hours ago, Nidratime said:

I have only read up to book four and I read that so long ago, I can't remember the details. I will be reading ahead, but here's a question:

  Reveal hidden contents

We've often witnessed Claire's thoughts and actions as the only 20th century person "in the room," in the 18th century, but if we have Claire, Jamie, Bree, and Roger in a room, even if they are in the past, then Jamie is the Sassenach. He is the only person in the room not born in the 20th century, who doesn't share their knowledge of technology, history, politics, culture. Do we see that situation often enough in the past? I want to know how and how often Jamie deals with the results of his futuristic relatives. Their thoughts, ideas, and actions which concern him, fascinate, and help him.

This is both a great question and a difficult one for me to answer, but I'll give it the old college try...

Spoiler

There isn't a lot of Claire, Brianna and Roger using their knowledge of the future other than what they know of the American Revolution simply because none of them really know a lot about that period of history outside of the American Revolution--and even then, the details are spotty and it's not like they can go look it up in a book for reference. Even Brianna's attempts to "invent" indoor plumbing or better firearms are problematic because her knowledge of those things are with modern parts and pieces that don't exist until after the industrial revolution.

There are quite a few times where Brianna and Roger have the same frame of reference that Jamie doesn't understand at all and Claire tries to explain it--I seem to recall a breakfast or dinner where Roger and Brianna couldn't stop giggling over something that Jamie couldn't make any sense of whatsoever. But what I mostly remember are more quiet personal moments between Jamie and one of them. Like when Brianna tells him about the moon landing and is explaining how the universe--as she understands it--works. Or when Jamie has a "future" dream that he tells Claire and she explains to him what he saw in the dream, like a telephone. 

ETA: I actually expect this to happen more in the next book simply due to Brianna and Roger returning from the future with the kids. Both Gem and Mandy will have a very different frame of reference than Jamie does now and kids being kids... .

Edited January 11, 2018 by DittyDotDot

[satrunrose]

On 1/10/2018 at 10:21 PM, Nidratime said:

I have only read up to book four and I read that so long ago, I can't remember the details. I will be reading ahead, but here's a question:

  Hide contents

We've often witnessed Claire's thoughts and actions as the only 20th century person "in the room," in the 18th century, but if we have Claire, Jamie, Bree, and Roger in a room, even if they are in the past, then Jamie is the Sassenach. He is the only person in the room not born in the 20th century, who doesn't share their knowledge of technology, history, politics, culture. Do we see that situation often enough in the past? I want to know how and how often Jamie deals with the results of his futuristic relatives. Their thoughts, ideas, and actions which concern him, fascinate, and help him.

Spoiler

There is an ongoing joke/sweet moment between Jamie and the family about "Michael Mouse" in books 7 and 8.

[Glaze Crazy]

On 1/10/2018 at 6:21 PM, Nidratime said:

I have only read up to book four and I read that so long ago, I can't remember the details. I will be reading ahead, but here's a question:

  Reveal hidden contents

We've often witnessed Claire's thoughts and actions as the only 20th century person "in the room," in the 18th century, but if we have Claire, Jamie, Bree, and Roger in a room, even if they are in the past, then Jamie is the Sassenach. He is the only person in the room not born in the 20th century, who doesn't share their knowledge of technology, history, politics, culture. Do we see that situation often enough in the past? I want to know how and how often Jamie deals with the results of his futuristic relatives. Their thoughts, ideas, and actions which concern him, fascinate, and help him.

There is one thing mentioned that always intrigued me:

Spoiler

Jamie is musing to himself about some of the fantastical future things he's heard from Claire, Brianna and Roger and concludes that most of it doesn't really affect him in his time. But as he's trying to prepare and anticipate the upcoming revolution he does consult Roger (the historian) occasionally. He muses how chilled it makes him because Roger has an historian's blunt perspective on it and it's less easy to dismiss as the more fantastical or technology stuff, probably since Jamie already accepts that changing the future isn't likely to happen, even when he knows what it will be.

[Athena]

Pinning this thread again. If you have questions about the books or the show and all their many details, please ask it here. 

[taanja]

23 hours ago, Athena said:

Pinning this thread again. If you have questions about the books or the show and all their many details, please ask it here. 

Thanks! I just found this!

[Red99]

Hi,

Some questions about season 1/book 1:

1. Jamie mentions at one point that Lallybroch's lands have been in the family for generations (though the house itself was built by Jamie's father). How was it possible for Jamie's father to inherit anything from his family? Jamie's father was a "bastard", plus he was disinherited for marrying against his father's wishes; and even if he had been legitimate and not disinherited, he STILL could not have inherited any Fraser lands because his own father (Lord Lovatt) hasn't died yet. Does anyone know how he got the land and became laird?

 

2. Why does Dougal decide to capture Claire when he first sees her? Apart from being in her underclothes, what seems suspicious about her that makes him think she's a spy? And if he thinks that, why on earth would he take her on the rent trip and let her see Jacobite activities? 

 

3. Why do the British troops capture Claire when she runs back to the stones after marrying Jamie? Isn't her marriage to a Scot supposed to make her off-limits? (only on clan land maybe, but if they were on clan land during their trip, did she really walk far enough to leave clan land?) Does Randall have his troops out looking for her, or is it just a coincidence that they see her and find her suspicious?

[Red99]

Questions about season 3/Voyager:

 

Spoiler

1. Where does the treasure chest on Silkie island actually come from? If it was Jacobite treasure put there by Dougal, why wasn't it used during the rebellion when they badly needed supplies?

2. How did Geilis know about the treasure and its specific contents?

3. In "All Debts Paid", when the dying man talked about the white lady, did he really mean Geilis and not Claire? I didn't understand anything he said or what the significance was. What was supposed to be the takeaway?

4. Why did Jamie give Lord John the sapphire? In the tv version at least, it was supposed to be some kind of proof; but why would he need proof? He doesn't need to prove that he wasn't trying to escape - he proved that by coming back and by giving Lord John a chance to kill him.

[auntlada]

It's been a while since I read, but I'll try to remember.

Spoiler

 

1. I don't know who actually put the treasure on Silkie Island, and I don't know if Dougal knew about it. I always thought Dougal was not involved. I think Dougal was too hot-headed to plan that far out. He would have kept it with him. Actually, now that I think about it, I do know, but it's not in this book. See separate spoiler below if you want to know.

2. Geillis knew because it was her treasure.

3. In the book, Jamie said he thought the man meant Claire, but that was the story he was telling Lord John. He might not have really believed that. It was his stated reason for escaping. It seems likely, however, since the treasure had belonged to (and I always supposed was gathered by) Geillis that the man meant Geillis.

4. The sapphire was proof that he had found a treasure. I'm not sure why now, but it made sense to me at the time. Possibly it was to keep the soldiers from continuing to look for the treasure since Jamie left it there even though he told Lord John he threw it into the ocean.

 

I don't know how any of this ties into what was on the show, however, as I haven't watched.

This bit below is not in Voyager. I don't remember where I read it, but it was something from Diana Gabaldon.

Spoiler

I can't remember now the title of what I was reading. It may have been a short story or it may have been something on Diana Gabaldon's Facebook page. Whatever it was, short story or excerpt, it told how Geillis hid the treasure on the island with the help of a local man (who she then killed, I believe).

[auntlada]

7 hours ago, Red99 said:

Hi,

Some questions about season 1/book 1:

1. Jamie mentions at one point that Lallybroch's lands have been in the family for generations (though the house itself was built by Jamie's father). How was it possible for Jamie's father to inherit anything from his family? Jamie's father was a "bastard", plus he was disinherited for marrying against his father's wishes; and even if he had been legitimate and not disinherited, he STILL could not have inherited any Fraser lands because his own father (Lord Lovatt) hasn't died yet. Does anyone know how he got the land and became laird?

 

2. Why does Dougal decide to capture Claire when he first sees her? Apart from being in her underclothes, what seems suspicious about her that makes him think she's a spy? And if he thinks that, why on earth would he take her on the rent trip and let her see Jacobite activities? 

 

3. Why do the British troops capture Claire when she runs back to the stones after marrying Jamie? Isn't her marriage to a Scot supposed to make her off-limits? (only on clan land maybe, but if they were on clan land during their trip, did she really walk far enough to leave clan land?) Does Randall have his troops out looking for her, or is it just a coincidence that they see her and find her suspicious?

1. I'm not sure which family (Frasier or Mackenzie) the land was held by originally. Brian (Jamie's dad) didn't inherit the land, per se. He and Ellen hid out there (or somewhere, but I've always assumed it was there) until she was pregnant. They got the land through a deal the Frasiers and Mackenzies made.

2. Claire is English. That's probably enough, but even if it weren't, once Murtaugh took her to where the Mackenzies were hiding out, she could have told the English soldiers about them, where they'd been hiding and possibly who they were and where they were headed. She said she didn't understand Gaelic, but maybe she was lying. It's possible that sending Claire on the rent trip was Colum's idea, and he didn't know about Dougal's Jacobite fundraising. Dougal by that time believed Claire didn't understand Gaelic and thought she didn't know what was going on. In one conversation, he says something to her about raising money for the king, and she says something like, "No matter which king it is?" He replies, "I thought you didn't have any Gaelic." She says she doesn't, but it doesn't take much to know that "Bragh Stuart" isn't a toast to King George's health (or something like that).

3. The English troops don't know that she married a Scot. They don't know who she is (I think). They've just come across a random woman running around on her own and take her to their fort. She is technically protected from English law by marrying a Scot and therefore becoming a Scot, but that doesn't mean the English army won't take her. I don't think Randall had his troops looking for her. I don't think he cared all that much about her at the time. The English army didn't necessarily care about what the law was and may not have cared about whose land they were on. The clan holdings were probably pretty big, so she was protected most at Castle Leoch.

[Ziggy]

8 hours ago, Red99 said:

1. Jamie mentions at one point that Lallybroch's lands have been in the family for generations (though the house itself was built by Jamie's father). How was it possible for Jamie's father to inherit anything from his family? Jamie's father was a "bastard", plus he was disinherited for marrying against his father's wishes; and even if he had been legitimate and not disinherited, he STILL could not have inherited any Fraser lands because his own father (Lord Lovatt) hasn't died yet. Does anyone know how he got the land and became laird?

The land was given to Brian and Ellen Fraser when they married.  Colum & Dougal made an arrangement with Lord Lovat. From reading the Wiki Page, it sounds like it was Lord Lovat's land, because it also says that if Brian and Ellen had not had children together, the land would have gone back to Lord Lovat.  Jamie inherited the land when Brian died.

I can't quite remember the details, but when Dougal tells Claire that Jamie is in Wentworth, Dougal says he'll marry her if Jamie dies ... because he wants the land (and because he wants her, desperately).

 

9 hours ago, Red99 said:

2. Why does Dougal decide to capture Claire when he first sees her? Apart from being in her underclothes, what seems suspicious about her that makes him think she's a spy? And if he thinks that, why on earth would he take her on the rent trip and let her see Jacobite activities?

 

1 hour ago, auntlada said:

2. Claire is English. That's probably enough, but even if it weren't, once Murtaugh took her to where the Mackenzies were hiding out, she could have told the English soldiers about them, where they'd been hiding and possibly who they were and where they were headed. She said she didn't understand Gaelic, but maybe she was lying. It's possible that sending Claire on the rent trip was Colum's idea, and he didn't know about Dougal's Jacobite fundraising. Dougal by that time believed Claire didn't understand Gaelic and thought she didn't know what was going on. In one conversation, he says something to her about raising money for the king, and she says something like, "No matter which king it is?" He replies, "I thought you didn't have any Gaelic." She says she doesn't, but it doesn't take much to know that "Bragh Stuart" isn't a toast to King George's health (or something like that).

The only thing I will add here is that in the book, Dougal brings Claire on the trip because he plans to take her to Fort William (to find out whether or not she is a spy? I can't remember).  Also, "Bragh" means "eternity" or "forever."  So he was saying "Stuarts forever."  (I recognized the word from "Erin go Bragh," which means "Ireland Forever.")

 

9 hours ago, Red99 said:

3. Why do the British troops capture Claire when she runs back to the stones after marrying Jamie? Isn't her marriage to a Scot supposed to make her off-limits? (only on clan land maybe, but if they were on clan land during their trip, did she really walk far enough to leave clan land?) Does Randall have his troops out looking for her, or is it just a coincidence that they see her and find her suspicious?

I seem to remember thinking they knew exactly who she was and knew that Black Jack wanted her back.  I do not believe they were aware of the fact that she was married, though, as Auntlada mentioned, Black Jack and his men don't seem to feel the need to actually follow the law.

[zoey1996]

I don't mind being spoiled if anyone knows 

Spoiler

did Bonnet survive the blast at the gaol?

[morgan]

40 minutes ago, zoey1996 said:

I don't mind being spoiled if anyone knows 

  Hide contents

did Bonnet survive the blast at the gaol?

Spoiler

In the book he does