S01.E07: The Wedding

[Anothermi]

I still think that would have been Mrs. Fitzgibbon's bailiwick. She wouldn't even let Claire bathe herself FFS. After the wedding she would have been an even MORE important personage and far too high to deal with her own clothing (tee tee).  Well, not so much as that, but still...

[Beeyago]

13 hours ago, gingerella said:

Quite right, but I was meaning how did she schlep that big huge wedding dress and all the petticoats under it on her horse back to Leoch. She never has a very big saddlrbag on her horse but her wardrobe is, how shall I say, extensive!

Maybe she had it all shipped back.  Did they have UPS back then??😄

[gingerella]

28 minutes ago, Beeyago said:

13 hours ago, gingerella said:

Quite right, but I was meaning how did she schlep that big huge wedding dress and all the petticoats under it on her horse back to Leoch. She never has a very big saddlrbag on her horse but her wardrobe is, how shall I say, extensive!

Maybe she had it all shipped back.  Did they have UPS back then??😄

We solved the mystery off line...They had that big cart with them, to collect the oddly sized payments like pigs, goats and such, remember? It was probably packed up in the cart. Now I can sleep at night... ;)

[toolazy]

Did she take the wedding dress back to Leoch? I thought that they only, um, rented it. Because we never see it again even though we see bits and pieces of her other clothes showing up having been recycled into other garments. 

[LilJen]

On 4/21/2021 at 8:57 PM, Quilt Fairy said:

I am very late to the party here, I only started watching last year, first the early seasons on Netflix and then caught up on the later seasons when Starz had a free weekend.   Like several others, this is one of my favorite episodes and I've watched it several times.  In fact, I watched it twice right before I started this post.   And I believe there is a glaring continuity error regarding the wedding dress.   The dress that Claire is wearing in the bedroom (the one that Jamie unlaces for her) is not the same dress she was married in.  It's a beautiful dress, but it's a different dress.  The color is different, the shape and the embroidery on the corset is different, it does not have the divided skirt with the embroidered leaves on the underskirt.  At first I thought it was possible, although unlikely, that Claire changed after the wedding.  But the next morning when Claire picks the dress up off the floor it is the wedding dress.  This is not a show where one would expect this kind of gaff, but there it is, and it bugs the hell out of me every time I watch. 

What Claire is wearing then is her underwear, essentially. The shift is the first layer (what she removes when Jamie says “take off yours as well” ;) ). Over that you’d have your corset, then things like bum rolls or the skirt-supporting contraption we saw, then one or more petticoats. only THEN would you put on your outer garments.

i imagine that Mrs Fitzgibbons helped her out of the dress and left her in the room with her underclothes to . . .do whatever came next.

[gingerella]

9 hours ago, LilJen said:

What Claire is wearing then is her underwear, essentially. The shift is the first layer (what she removes when Jamie says “take off yours as well” ;) ). Over that you’d have your corset, then things like bum rolls or the skirt-supporting contraption we saw, then one or more petticoats. only THEN would you put on your outer garments.

i imagine that Mrs Fitzgibbons helped her out of the dress and left her in the room with her underclothes to . . .do whatever came next.

The above is a great summary of the many layers women wore at that time, and when you think of all the layers, the outer garments probably didn't get all that soiled because there were so many layers between the wearer and the outer garments.

However, there was no Mrs. Fitz to help with the dress because the wedding was not at Castle Leoch, it was in a village somewhere out on MacKenzie lands when they were out collecting rents.

Edited April 23, 2021 by gingerella

[LilJen]

4 hours ago, gingerella said:

The above is a great summary of the many layers women wore at that time, and when you think of all the layers, the outer garments probably didn't get all that soiled because there were so many layers between the wearer and the outer garments.

However, there was no Mrs. Fitz to help with the dress because the wedding was not at Castle Leoch, it was in a village somewhere out on MacKenzie lands when they were out collecting rents.

Oh yeah. Well, then, the innkeepers wife, or the madam of the whorehouse then. Someone other than Jamie helped her in and out of that dress.

[mythoughtis]

Frank may have loved Claire when they got married, before the war.I think he planned that impromptu wedding.  It might even have been Claire’s preference

  However, I do not think Frank and Claire loved each other after the war. Her voiceover in episode 1 said that they had only seen each other less than 10 days in 5 years - the war changed them both.  She has learned to depend upon herself and to speak her mind.  Not sure what he learned, but I think he probably was unfaithful. 
As for fertility, she lost 5 years of that during the war.  How would they know if it she was infertile or not? However,  she  is old enough now to make pregnancy more of an if rather than a when. 
As for the wedding night, she’s coming to terms with the fact that Frank isn’t born yet so she isn’t married to him  In addition, she’s probably realizing that wandering off the MacKenzie lands to go to the stones puts her in BJRs crosshairs. 

Edited August 8, 2022 by mythoughtis

[gingerella]

On 8/8/2022 at 3:45 PM, mythoughtis said:

As for the wedding night, she’s coming to terms with the fact that Frank isn’t born yet so she isn’t married to him  In addition, she’s probably realizing that wandering off the MacKenzie lands to go to the stones puts her in BJRs crosshairs. 

I think the bolded part is interesting and I don't think any of of has thought of that particular little nugget. I'm not sure she actually thought that, but I find it interesting to consider. Too bad it wasn't mentioned outright because it would indeed lend an interesting air to the whole situation.

As for the italicized part, let's see...carry on!