S01.E11: The Devil's Mark

[Cali]

If Claire had never fallen through time Jamie would never had made it back to Leoch. ... Nope, Jamie was never fated to marry anyone other than Claire.

Yes! Excellent point. Absolutely.

It occurred to me today (not at all obsessed) that the reason Claire said "on your feet, soldier" when she got back to camp - which jarred with me a bit - is because she needed more reasons to stay other than Jamie, and she is going to try and help the Jacobite rebellion as well. This makes me a little sad - I want it to be all about Jamie - but I can live with it.

[Nidratime]

Yes! Excellent point. Absolutely.

It occurred to me today (not at all obsessed) that the reason Claire said "on your feet, soldier" when she got back to camp - which jarred with me a bit - is because she needed more reasons to stay other than Jamie, and she is going to try and help the Jacobite rebellion as well. This makes me a little sad - I want it to be all about Jamie - but I can live with it.

 

The reason Claire decided to stay was all about Jamie. "On your feet soldier" is a special "endearment" between them since it's one of the first things she said to him when they met, when she was caring for him and trying to get him on his feet.

Edited April 20, 2015 by Nidratime

[Bort]

My interpretation was that Geillis was worried that Claire was there to try to change history, and she was seeking reassurances that Claire did not, in fact, have any agenda, and that all she wanted to do was get home. That may have been Geillis's main issue with Claire to begin with, that she was suspicious Claire was on some kind of mission to screw up history which might result in a change to Geillis's own history.

That was exactly my interpretation as well. Also adding that being British might have furthered Geilis's suspicions that Claire was there to counter whatever her history-altering plans were.

[MaryMitch]

Did anyone else notice that when Geillis was beginning to reveal herself to Claire, her accent became less intense? (I'm not sure how to phrase it; less "Scottish", perhaps?) Normally I have to turn on close captions to understand her, and I understood every word she said. That's when I thought "she's definitely from the future."

[ganesh]

If Gellis was worried about Claire countering her own intentions, would that mean Gellis isn't acting alone. Someone sent her back and her traveling via stones wasn't accidental? I'm much more interested in this kind of story than just focusing on the romance. I mean, no way Randall isn't going to make another appearance either.

[Hybiscus]

I probably should have asked this in the "By the Prickling of My Thumbs" thread  (if so, mods, you can move it), but lets address the 800 pound gorilla in the room:  Why is Jamie suddenly wearing trousers?  I figured initially it was because they were quicker to put on when Murtaugh knocked on the door.  But he's continued to wear them.  After all the hullabaloo and press about the kilt, why change now?

 

I thought it might be answered in one of the podcasts for either 110 or 111, but so far I've found nothing.  Not that I'm complaining.  Sam, er, Jamie looks might fine in his "trews."  I just want to know why.  Has Terry Dresbach said anything?

[magdalene]

The good thing is after Jamie learns from Claire how Leery behaved towards Claire Jamie won't ever give her the time of day again. And a good thing too, I hate that character about as much as I do Black Jack. If somehow Geillis lives maybe she can use her poisoning skills on her. That would be awesome. 

[justmehere]

If Claire had never fallen through time Jamie would never had made it back to Leoch.  He would have died as a result of his dislocated shoulder.  The group was going to leave Jamie behind If Rupert couldn't put the joint back in the socket. He would have broken Jamie's arm in the attempt, leaving him unable to ride or fight.  The Redcoats were bearing down on them.  They would have had to leave him behind with a loaded pistol so that he could, as he put it "determine me own fate."  Nope, Jamie was never fated to marry anyone other than Claire.

 

I love that observation! Also, the British would have ambushed the rest of them on the way to Leoch, and without Claire's warning, more might have died.

[Keeta]

Why is Jamie suddenly wearing trousers?  

 

I can't remember if I made this up or it's from TPTB, but maybe so he could use his plaid to cover Claire after the witch trial?

[Crackers]

Why were the ladies of the village not punished for obtaining charms and potions from Gellis? L. said she went to Claire for a love potion that "obviously" Claire used for herself instead to steal Jamie. Pot. Kettle. Black.

[dustoffmom]

 

Why is Jamie suddenly wearing trousers?

I believe this was spoken of when the talk was about the Duke of Sandringham coming.  He or Murtage one said he needed trousers to cover his 'privates' from roaming hands.  :)

[Cali]

Why is Jamie suddenly wearing trousers?

I wondered that too, and like you the first time I thought they were easier to put on, and the second his kilt was covering Claire's back. But I love the notion that he's trying to make his arse less accessible to Simon Callow. I'm going to have to watch that bit with Murtagh again to catch it.

[terrymct]

Gellis seemed very troubled by Claire's statement that she came back by accident. Did Gellis rationalize her own time travel as being for a purpose, and then realize from Claire that there was no "mission" and just kind of give up at that point?

 

 

Yes, I think Gellis was using her time travel opportunity to try and change history, specifically to get a Stuart back on the throne and save Scotland's way of life.

[WatchrTina]

 

I love the notion that he's trying to make his arse less accessible to Simon Callow.

That would explain why he wears them when he first goes to visit the Duke (which he does) but it doesn't explain why he would wear them to ride to Dougal's house.  I just chalk it up to plot necessity.  He needs his kilt available to put over Claire's torn dress so I just accept that, having put on trews for the Duke, he just keeps wearing the same thing for several days and happens to be wearing them when he is told to leave.  (Though, isn't he back in a kilt for the duel?)

 

For the record, the first time we see Jamie in trousers (I thought they were called "breeks") is when Murtagh beats down the door at the beginning of episode 10.  In that case, I assumed he put them on because they were available and faster to put on than a kilt (which, as we saw at the beginning of episode 9, is something of a time-consuming production.)  So maybe Mrs. Fitz scrounged him up a pair as a wee wedding gift -- maybe they came into her possession when someone died and Jamie's one of the few men in the castle with the muckle size to wear them -- and that's how they made it into his wardrobe.

Edited April 21, 2015 by WatchrTina

[Bort]

For the record, the first time we see Jamie in trousers (I thought they were called "breeks")

I wasn't paying attention to Jamie's pants but breeks or breeches typically end just below the knee and trousers go all the way down to the ankle.

[maraleia]

Shouldn't all this pants talk be in the other episode thread?

[Meredith Quill]

Shouldn't all this pants talk be in the other episode thread?

 

Ideally, yes but Athena & I don't mind a little straying here & there. Thanks for your concern.

[Cali]

Shouldn't all this pants talk be in the other episode thread?

Please kindly point me in the direction of any thread where Jamie's trousers are discussed and I'll gladly head there ;-)

[WatchrTina]

I also think THIS is the episode that gave rise to the need for the breeks.  I can well imagine Terry (the costume designer) saying "Okay, Claire flees the witch trial with a dress ripped down the back and then has to go on a ride across the countryside for several days.  What is she going to wear?  Jamie won't have had time to pack clothes for her.  Well clearly Jamie is going to put his kilt over her.  So what then?  Is he going to ride about in naught but his shirt?  No.  Do I give him a spare kilt for no particular reason?  Hmmm.  I know! I'll give him some breeks like Dougal wears.  I'll have to introduce them a couple of episodes earlier so there is a credible reason for him to be wearing them when he rescues Claire. Right , we'll just assume Mrs. Fitz gifts him with a pair when they get back to Leoch.  Problem solved."

[ElsieH]

I wonder what she did to justify Claire's entire wardrobe then. When they were on the rent collecting tour, how many different things did she wear? And where did they keep them? I will say I love that white fur trimmed cloak and will miss seeing her wear that. I guess if she does, we can assume Murtagh brought them from the castle.

Edited April 21, 2015 by ElsieH

[peacefrog]

I need to find it but Terry mentioned one reason was 2nd half, different tone and they are to show/symbolize Jamie growing into who he is. Trousers were worn more by upper class or command, like Dougal.

[Hybiscus]

I need to find it but Terry mentioned one reason was 2nd half, different tone and they are to show/symbolize Jamie growing into who he is. Trousers were worn more by upper class or command, like Dougal.

Good to know.  I hadn't found anything from Terry, but i know she'd had a Q&A on twitter, but I am Twitter-challenged and couldn't find/follow it.

 

WatchrTina, you'd mentioned you thought they were "breeks.:  I think breeks are the knee pants that are worn with the stockings and buckled shoes.  "Trews" are the trousers that actually go to the ankle.  I do recall Ron and Terry mentioning them in a podcast, but since I listened to the podcasts in close succession, I couldn't tell you where I heard it.

 

(FYI, I did tell the mods they could move the convo to a more appropriate thread.)  I shall now shut up on this subject.  Except to reiterate, Sam looks mighty fine in the them.  :)

[Nidratime]

You know, I wonder how many people in Crainsmuir and its environs actually put a sick baby out in the woods overnight and then went back to find it perfectly healthy. I mean, somebody had to in order for it to be "something people do" or was any kind of evidence even necessary?

[AD55]

You know, I wonder how many people in Crainsmuir and its environs actually put a sick baby out in the woods overnight and then went back to find it perfectly healthy. I mean, somebody had to in order for it to be "something people do" or was any kind of evidence even necessary?

 

 

From what Jamie told Claire, I got the impression that the primary function of this custom is it allows the parents of a dying child a way to make peace with their loss. When the supposed changeling child inevitably dies, the parents can take comfort in knowing their own child is living the high life among the fairies. Ned reminds the mother of this in court, and the actress played the scene as though she accepted his suggestion she owes Claire a debt for ensuring that the magic didn't work.

 

[tennisgurl]

It took a week, but I finally got to see the episode. Loved it as always. Geillis being from the future was a great twist, one that makes perfect sense. I think she wants to change history, that's what I`m thinking right now. Nor do I think she is gone for good. 

 

I can get why Claire went with Jaime, but I do hope we hear more about her decision later. Its been her driving force this whole time to get home. Now what? Is this the end of Frank on the show? I hope now. I like Claire/Frank, but Jaime/Claire is my jam. It is a romance story, after all. 

 

I`m sorry, but I could not stop making Monty Python jokes the whole trail sequence. I`m amazed no one accused Claire of turning them into a Newt!

[attica]

I had the captioning on, and as they were hauling half-naked Geilis out to the pyre, one of the judges yelled that they couldn't burn her, being a pregnant woman. Should that give us hope that she and Claire can go Back to the Future together? Claire would like the swinging 60s in London, I bet....

[iMonrey]

 

I`m sorry, but I could not stop making Monty Python jokes the whole trail sequence. I`m amazed no one accused Claire of turning them into a Newt!

 

Yeah, you're not the only one. Which is why I had commented earlier that I found the mob mentality of the courtroom audience and the mob outside a little too Pyton-esque. None of these people even knew Geillis or Claire with the exception of the few witnesses who testified, it's hard to image what got them all stirred up like that.

[CatMack]

None of them knew Claire, since she mostly stayed up in the castle or was gone collecting rents and such, but I'm not sure why you'd assume no one knew Geillis.  She lived in town, was married to the fiscal, and it's been mentioned several times in different episodes that she has a pretty well known reputation.

[halkatla]

Wow this episode was totally one of the most intense tv experiences for me so far this year, which means that I loved it. When Jamie finally showed up at the court all like "no-one flogs my wife but me!!" I officially forgave him for that awful stuff in episode 9. He´s so gorgeous. If I was in Clare´s shoes, I´d try as hard as I could to keep a low profile, just enjoy living in castles and taking long walks through the beautiful countryside (without the finding dead babies stuff though).

Edited April 28, 2015 by halkatla

[lucindabelle]

It was made clear how Claire realized Geillis was from the future (and I'm pretty sure 'fucking barbecue' was not part of 1743 vernacular), but not how Geillis realized Claire might also have been from the future so Claire would understand her references. I thought I saw Geillis's ears prick up at Claire quoting Nathan Hale, "I regret I have but one life to give for my country," having been said in 1776, and maybe that's how she knew Claire was a fellow time traveler.

I don't understand the split season. When is the actual second season to begin?

GREATCATCH! Yes that's when Geilis figured it out, she looks very thoughtful before she says "nicely out."

Wnohrase is very very famous and someone interested in history would know it, since Geilis decided to time travel to change history, she'd definitely know it.

None of my vaccination scars are on my upper arm.

It wasn't just "barbecue," it was "fucking barbecue," the former being a word that Claire had to explain to Jamie two episodes ago because he'd never heard it before. So yeah, big clue that Claire missed. She apparently needed the smallpox scar before she was able to put it all together.

Trouble is "fuck" is a very very old Anglo Saxon word.., 15th century.

Barbecue nd fucking barbecue? Not so much.

I speculate Geilis hd been hanging out for 10 years or so. I LOVE that she's from 1968. Haven't read book but in the inside show afterwards they said its not told so clearly there. I love that it is here.

I forgot this show was coming back this year, discovered it tonight and BINGED.

I had issues with season one first over but this was fabulous!!!

ETA: as someone a lot older than 27 who never married I understood her choice. When you find a connection like that it's hard to walk awayg she's in excellent health so medicine per se isn't an issue as it would be if she were diabetic though I'm sure she'll be wishing for aspirin and antibiotics in time to come!

But anybody who's camped or lived rurally knows you get used to most things very quickly if company is good, you have enough to eat, you're not physically uncomfortable.incouldnt do it now but for true love at that age, I could have. (Well or not, I have RA so it would mean crippling and early death ut you know what I mean)

Edited May 29, 2015 by lucindabelle

[Hybiscus]

Re: Nathan Hale quote:

Wnohrase is very very famous and someone interested in history would know it, since Geilis decided to time travel to change history, she'd definitely know it.

None of my vaccination scars are on my upper arm.

I forgot this show was coming back this year, discovered it tonight and BINGED.
I had issues with season one first over but this was fabulous!!!

ETA: as someone a lot older than 27 who never married I understood her choice. When you find a connection like that it's hard to walk awayg she's in excellent health so medicine per se isn't an issue as it would be if she were diabetic though I'm sure she'll be wishing for aspirin and antibiotics in time to come!

But anybody who's camped or lived rurally knows you get used to most things very quickly if company is good, you have enough to eat, you're not physically uncomfortable.incouldnt do it now but for true love at that age, I could have. (Well or not, I have RA so it would mean crippling and early death ut you know what I mean)

Glad you found the show.  It's always great to binge watch.  I didn't find Outlander until this past December, so I didn't have to wait a week for a new episode.  I miss those days.

 

Regarding the Nathan Hale quote.  There was quite a bit of discussion up thread about whether anyone British would know it.The Brits on the forum said no.  In fact, they spend very little time on the American Revolution in their education curriculum.  .  (Don't even call it the American Revolution.)  I suppose a Brit interested in American history might know the quote, but I think it's far fetched.

 

My vaccination scar is on my upper arm.  I've had two in my life, once as a child and again when I went into the U.S.  Navy.  I was super surprised to find out it's not longer needed.  (!!)

 

I'm the same as you, older and never married.  Initially I thought I'd never stay in the 18th century.  But perhaps I would if I'd found my soul mate there.  Love is a powerful thing and everything is better in the presence of good company!

[bearcatfan]

My vaccination scar is also on my upper arm. The left one. I'm not sure when they stopped giving the vaccine but we looked for the scar on my daughter's arm because I was sure she had it, but she doesn't have one. She's 29. Small pox has been eradicated globally so the vaccination is no longer necessary. Unfortunately due to the anti-vaccination movement I doubt we will get to the point soon where we can eliminate any other diseases.

I thought the theory was that Claire had heard the phrase during WWII while caring for American soldiers. I imagine that in combat they send the wounded to whatever medical facility was closest. That doesn't explain why Geillis would recognize the phrase, but maybe why Claire would.

[Clarkmh]

In the US, they stopped giving routine smallpox vaccinations to babies around 1971-1972.

[lucindabelle]

Ah! Yes I was born in late 60s so I do have it. But it's on my left thigh as is my mothers, born in 30s! Mine is nearly impossible to see as I am very fair. When I cross my legs the red spot from pressure of my leg is way more noticeable as are freckles.

ETA: Geilis would know it because obviously she was a big student of history and of revolutions, yes? Since she apparently deliberately went back in time to support one. That's my theory and I'm sticking with it.

I spent a blissful summer t Phillips academy when I was 15 and lived in Nathan Hale house.

Nathan Hale was the grandson of the Rev, John Hale, a minister in Salem trials. In "The Crucible" he's the one who says "I denounce these proceedings. I quit this court."

(I was hoping to discover that the Hales were Scottish descent or something but if they are I couldn't find it out)

Edited June 2, 2015 by lucindabelle

[Archery]

Born in 1967, I have a smallpox vaccine scar on my left upper arm, right below the shoulder. For some reason, I think it was, like, a multipronged syringe, which was what made it so large and distinctive.

I always thought the Nathan Hale quote came from the American soldiers, as did taking Roosevelt's name in vain.

[morgan]

Same! I assumed that the Nathan Hale quote was picked up from American soldiers. I could easily see them wryly joking about it while recovering.

[rhiamon]

Did I miss something Geillis said to indicate she had purposely gone back in time to support the Jacobite cause? I got that she had dedicated herself to it once back in the 1700's but didn't catch anything about it being planned from her 1968 life.

The one thing I was uncomfortable with was not being sure if Claire actually chose to stay or if she tried going back and the stones didn't send her through (because no special day or no druid dancing recently or perhaps not the right time of day - don't think we know much of any rules for when the stones allow someone to pierce the bell of time). I'm not sure why she would assume she can go back at any time by touching the stone rather than at Samhain only, or perhaps around a solstice or eclipse or some such event?

Oh well, Jamie certainly seems to have seen it as her choice judging from his reaction!

[Which Tyler]

A Brit perspective here.

 

When did a Brit say that the Nathan Hale quote wasn't known here? If so, they're kidding you - it's an extremely famous quote, though we probably don't know who said it, or why. Anyone fresh from the rhetoric of the 2nd world war would certainly know it, treating American GIs or not. Most of us in this day and age would probably mis-attribute it to Churchill or somesuch.

 

As for scars - I can't comment of smallpox scars, as they'd stopped it here before I was born (76) - but the BCG scar is certainly upper left arm - and Geillis would be the right age at the right time to have had that as well.

[lucindabelle]

That is so fascinating Which Tyler, thank you! I had a feeling it wasn't that unusual. After all we here know quote a few patriotic British quotes.

 

Hmm, I guess I'm one of the few whose little scar is on her thigh. Odd that.

[cypfan]

lucindabelle posted: "Hmm, I guess I'm one of the few whose little scar is on her thigh. Odd that."

 

I was told by my mother that my vaccination was on my left upper thigh because it was common in the south

(Florida) to do so.  It seems that consideration was given to no scar on the arm since sundresses etc. were common garb.

[Geillis]

My vaccination scar is on the back of my shoulder near the crease of my armpit. My pediatricians gave it there because the vaccination was itchy as it healed and this was a place that small children could not reach to scratch.  I do recall some of my friends having their scars on their upper thighs and I remember one of my aunts having a large scar on her upper arm.. I think scratching it caused it to be more noticeable . I think it was given sometime initially in the toddler age and I remember getting a booster in the mid sixties when I was 12.  Whatever the single smallpox vaccination scar would look like, it was a small price to pay for not having smallpox which if it didn't kill you, left you with many disfiguring scars.

I think Geillis recognized or suspected Claire as coming through the stones due the condition of her skin,  (remember Mrs. Fitz remarking on how nice Claire's skin is, how it is not marked by illness, etc.)  and also her speech patterns, and phrases that would be out of place for the usual 18th century woman. Not to mention that she just showed up without a real credible history or explanation.  Geillis must have had to make up stories very similar to explain her sudden existence.

[Rose1950]

If Giellis Duncan came from 1968, how could she be there already when Claire came from 1945?

[WatchrTina]

That question can't be answered in a "no book talk" thread. 

[John Potts]

OK, I have a number of problems with this episode. OK, I guess they wanted a witchcraft trial even though it wasn't on the statute books any more - so it's more of a legalised lynching really, only most lynchings aren't usually concerned with formalised proceedings. Could she not have got caught up in something illegal (presumably beyond the bounds of Colum's authority) if they wanted an 18th Century Law & Order (with boobs!)?

Secondly, WTF was Geillis trying to achieve? She seemed to want the 1745 Uprising to succeed - which I have to say, I wouldn't. I may be a Catholic, but the Stuarts were all about Absolutism and while there would be less anti-Catholic legislation, it would presumably mean a reversal of all the progressive reforms since James II was deposed (notably, the 1689 Bill of Rights) -  so Civil Rights would be set back half a century and now you wouldn't be able to vote.* Secondly, she seemed to think that she could change things with a few thousand pounds. I would have thought bringing textbooks describing the Hannoverian troop movements would be more useful (obviously, she'd have to copy it into some more contemporary materials). Or assassinating a few prominent Hannoverian politicians/generals, if she doesn't mind being more proactive (and is probably resigned to ultimately being executed).

On ‎19‎/‎04‎/‎2015 at 2:10 PM, ElectricBoogaloo said:

I'm all for true love, I really am (and I can be a total sap about romance) but dude! In her brief time in 1743, she has been almost raped twice in one day, physically assaulted more than once, kidnapped, arrested for witchcraft, whipped in public, forced into marriage to avoid a different arrest, etc. And that's before you factor in her role as a woman two hundred years in the past with almost no rights.

To say nothing of the poor sewerage and wider prevalence of disease leading to shorter lifespans, even if you're not (say) burnt as a witch or killed in the Highland Clearances.

On ‎19‎/‎04‎/‎2015 at 10:15 PM, Latverian Diplomat said:

Is Nathan Hale someone a British person of the '40s would quote? I had no idea he was that well known to Brits

To address that: as a contemporary Brit, I know the quote, but wouldn't know who said it. I knew it was somebody executed by the British government, but I wasn't sure he was an American or Irish Revolutionary.

On ‎23‎/‎04‎/‎2015 at 7:44 PM, tennisgurl said:

I`m sorry, but I could not stop making Monty Python jokes the whole trail sequence.

Ned should have insisted he weighed them against wood!

On ‎29‎/‎05‎/‎2015 at 7:10 AM, lucindabelle said:

None of my vaccination scars are on my upper arm.

Although I don't have a smallpox vaccination (born in the 70s - I was unlikely to encounter it), my BCG vaccination (anti-tetanus) was on the arm. It's pretty much invisible now, 30 years later.

* Obviously the Butterfly effects would be almost incalculable two centuries later, but let's that all the reformist legislation passed between 1688 and 1745 was repealed and all social progress was delayed by about half a century - young(er) women didn't get the vote until 1928

[guiser]

On 19/04/2015 at 3:56 PM, nara said:

Regarding the trial...

• I’m a little surprised that Laoghaire was able to come and give evidence.... would there be any repercussion for her admitting to asking a witch for a love potion?  That is, do the customers of witches get any punishment or just the practitioners? 

• I did wonder if Geillis mentioning she was pregnant would have any impact on her punishment once she was found guilty.  If she hadn’t said it was Satan’s child but had just said it was her husband’s child, would they have not thrown her into the hole (I mean literally—they threw her down the hole rather than letting her climb down), would they have fed her better, and would they have delayed the trial/sentence?  Or would they kill her and the unborn child regardless?

 

On 20/04/2015 at 0:00 AM, CatMack said:

One of the judge dudes yells "Stop, she's with child" as they're carting her off, so at least one person in the scene seems to be aware of the whole "don't burn babies" thing.  

Aha, Scottish witch trials - a subject that I know quite lot about! :D

Technically, under Scots law, consulting witches was illegal and could be punished but, in reality, it didn't happen (under English law it was not illegal to consult witches). 

Also, no one would have burnt a pregnant women. They would have let her go until she had given birth. There is a cool resource called the Survey of Scottish witchcraft database where you can look up all known Scottish witchcraft cases. Here is a real example, one  Mary Morisone - let out of prison due to pregnancy.  One women was even let out (to return for trial later) due to the fact that she was breastfeeding.
 

On 21/04/2015 at 0:18 AM, Hybiscus said:

Why is Jamie suddenly wearing trousers?

 

On 21/04/2015 at 10:43 PM, Hybiscus said:

WatchrTina, you'd mentioned you thought they were "breeks.:  I think breeks are the knee pants that are worn with the stockings and buckled shoes.  "Trews" are the trousers that actually go to the ankle.  I do recall Ron and Terry mentioning them in a podcast, but since I listened to the podcasts in close succession, I couldn't tell you where I heard it.

In the mid-18th century Scotland the word "trews" was normally used to describe super tight hose made out of very fine material that went down to just below the knee. They were invariably made out of tartan and were accompanied by matching stockings. Earlier trews were sometimes down to the ankle (so no need of stockings) or footed. For examples of trews,  see the guy with the shield who is wearing "trews" in the famous Culloden painting. See also the Jacobite Duke of Perth And from earlier - the 1720s John Campbell of Glenorchy and a Hanovarian supporter James Fraser of Castle Leathers. Alas, Jamie's trews are not as super tight as the ones in the portraits.  :(  Also, not eye poppingly bright enough for a man of his status! :D Oh well, maybe it is because he is incognito and doesn't want to draw attention to himself and his assets! XD

The word trews seems to be a Scottish anglicisation of the  Gaelic" trius". The similar Irish Gaelic word "triubhas" (close fitting shorts) seems to be the origin of the modern word trousers! Trews were used for riding and were generally the province of those who were rich enough to own a horse. Not many people rode in just a great kilt! Over time trews became more like modern (albeit very form fitting!) trousers.

On 29/05/2015 at 6:16 PM, Hybiscus said:

Regarding the Nathan Hale quote.  There was quite a bit of discussion up thread about whether anyone British would know it.The Brits on the forum said no.  In fact, they spend very little time on the American Revolution in their education curriculum.  .  (Don't even call it the American Revolution.)  I suppose a Brit interested in American history might know the quote, but I think it's far fetched.

 

 

On 24/06/2015 at 7:34 AM, Which Tyler said:

A Brit perspective here.

 

When did a Brit say that the Nathan Hale quote wasn't known here? If so, they're kidding you - it's an extremely famous quote, though we probably don't know who said it, or why. Anyone fresh from the rhetoric of the 2nd world war would certainly know it, treating American GIs or not. Most of us in this day and age would probably mis-attribute it to Churchill or somesuch.

 I am British and I have never heard the quote nor do I have any idea who Nathan Hale is. I asked my retired history teacher dad (born 1937) and neither has he. I gather from wikipedia that Mr Hale was an anti-British spy at the time of the American War of Independence. Perhaps a British person who has been heavily exposed to American media would be more likely to be aware of him and his "famous" quote.

My dad (a young child during WW2) remembers watching newsreel footage of American politicians but I'm sure coverage of their speeches was nothing like as extensive as back home (he also remembers people booing Churchill! XD). It is certainly nothing that would be likely to be quoted by British politicians - far too OTT. 

The theory that Clare picked it up from GIs is a good one. But where did Gellis pick  it up from? Perhaps she is actually American! There is something about her accent...

On 16/09/2017 at 8:28 PM, John Potts said:

OK, I have a number of problems with this episode. OK, I guess they wanted a witchcraft trial even though it wasn't on the statute books any more - so it's more of a legalised lynching really, only most lynchings aren't usually concerned with formalised proceedings. Could she not have got caught up in something illegal (presumably beyond the bounds of Colum's authority) if they wanted an 18th Century Law & Order (with boobs!)?

Secondly, WTF was Geillis trying to achieve? She seemed to want the 1745 Uprising to succeed - which I have to say, I wouldn't. I may be a Catholic, but the Stuarts were all about Absolutism and while there would be less anti-Catholic legislation, it would presumably mean a reversal of all the progressive reforms since James II was deposed (notably, the 1689 Bill of Rights) -  so Civil Rights would be set back half a century and now you wouldn't be able to vote.* 

To say nothing of the poor sewerage and wider prevalence of disease leading to shorter lifespans, even if you're not (say) burnt as a witch or killed in the Highland Clearances.

* Obviously the Butterfly effects would be almost incalculable two centuries later, but let's that all the reformist legislation passed between 1688 and 1745 was repealed and all social progress was delayed by about half a century - young(er) women didn't get the vote until 1928

 

I'm not too sure that even if Bonnie Prince Charlie had succeeded that he would really have been able to set up an absolutist state and abolish parliament! Even his supporters didn't want that. I have also heard it said that what mattered the most about the "Glorious Revolution" wasn't the Bill of Rights but the fact that parliament finally learned not to give the King perpetual revenue, that it learned to vote money but only for a limited time!

I was rather amused that the episode made clear that the witch trial was illegal and thus got round the fact that the Witchcraft Act had been repealed. However, I was less amused when Ned Gowan said they were dispensing with “English law” given that they were also dispensing with traditional Scots law! Church courts were not supposed to try witches! This scenario just isn’t plausible even as an illegal trial. Kirk sessions could, at worst, fine or excommunicate people and, in any case, had to rely on the secular authorities to enforce their decisions. Also, the Presbyterian clergy were bastions of the state and the least likely people to want to undermine central authority in this way. Note that prior to the repeal of the Witchcraft Act it is Sheriff courts that are the focus of the suspicions of the legal authorities regarding potentially illegal witch trials. Whatever the venue, Father Bain would certainly not have been presenting himself openly as a Catholic priest because the authorities would have arrested him. :D

Apparently, after the prospect of “proper” witch trials was removed, kirk sessions sometimes demanded that local secular authorities “banish” witches (presumably under a lesser charge) and pressured imprisoned suspects to accept this. So - a Kirk session investigation, a mob outside the door and a “unoffical” burning would have worked as a more plausible scenario. 

However, I have got to say that if you were going to pick a setting for a late and illegal witch trial the Mackenzie heartland north of Inverness is  very plausible place. From the 1720s onwards it was only around Inverness and points north that there still seemed to be strong demand for witch-trials with the local authorities on board.  The last witch burning in Scotland was supposedly in Dornoch (Sutherland) in 1727 (the date is disputed) after a Sheriff court trial of dubious legality (though I suspect that it was actually an illegal lynching -all records are lost). Indeed, this is the only evidence I know of for an illegal trial having taken place.

Certainly,  Kirk sessions were heavily involved in searching out witches, investigating accusations of witchcraft and interrogating suspects but they would then remit the evidence, with the backing of the local gentry, to the Lord Advocate to get permission for a trial. The Lord Advocate being the head of the legal establishment in Scotland (not England because this is Scots law).

The Lord Advocate (after reviewing the evidence) could potentially issue a Commission of Justiciary to permit local bigwigs to try the witches in a special local court, could remit the case to the High Court of Judiciary in Edinburgh or insist that the case be tried by a circuit court judge instead of a local court. However, in reality, even if the Witchcraft Act had not been repealed, he would have done none of these things because the last legal execution was in 1697 (not 1706 as some book/websites say) and the last “authorised” trial (that we know of) was in 1710. Oddly, this doesn't seem to be because the powers that be in Scotland stopped believing in the reality of witches but because they stopped believing that they could identify them successfully.

Edited September 24, 2017 by guiser
Mistyped date!

[RulerofallIsurvey]

On 9/23/2017 at 1:36 AM, guiser said:

Aha, Scottish witch trials - a subject that I know quite lot about! :D

Yes you do!  Thanks for all the wonderful information!

[Camera One]

This was one of the best episodes so far, and I'm surprised so much happened.  The trial was unfair, and I didn't understand how the witnesses knew to come, but only Ned came in their defence and then finally Jaime barged in.  I was disappointed that Gaillus's maid was such a turncoat.  It made me angry at the justice system at the time, though it was nice to be able to cheer on Ned at work.  If Jaime heard about the trial, wouldn't Dougal have known as well?  Was the priest trying to get Claire killed or trying to save her?  He looked pretty evil at the end, so I'm guessing the former.

I'm going to miss the comraderie between Claire and Gaillus.  It seemed convenient that there was a fellow time-traveller and she dies, so Claire (and the viewers) get no more information.  It does sound like Gaillus came back in time to help the Jacobite cause, to change history.  She was probably from Iverness and was part of the group that the hotel owner was involved in.  

The introduction of another time traveller and Claire telling Jamie that she was from the future (and him believing it) made the show a lot more interesting for me again.  The show was beginning to lose me, but this one rekindled my interest.  I would have liked to see Claire telling Jaime more, bit by bit.  Heck, I'd have liked to have listen in to her whole conversation with him, and the questions he may have had (and the a-ha moment regarding Claire being such a strong female).  It was very sweet of him to take her to the stones to go home.  The chemistry between the actors is very powerful, though part of me did want the story to end here and Claire goes back home, or takes Jaime with her. 

I think overall, the story could have worked better without Frank at all.  If Claire lived a pretty solitary existence, or she just had a divorce, or her husband died in the war, then it would make more sense for her to stay in the 1700s and the situation would be a lot less messy.

Edited February 28, 2018 by Camera One

[Iju]

whoever plays geillis is so breathtakingly beautiful. i usually hate long hair - and her's is especially very long - but she is absolutely beautiful in it. she fits it perfectly, showing her cheekbones and fragile face, the way she flings her hair out of her face...omg i'm a lesbian lol! anyway she will be missed. rip.

i don't understand why claire didn't go to jack, but then again i kind of do? surely she knew jack longer than jaimie. but maybe she would have a sort of fear or guiltiness or even shame in going back to him. but i really don't think that would be enough for her to leave her entire world. surely she has family and friends in london , not just her hub. and she owes it to everyone to show that she's still alive. she doesn't need to say sje time traveld but still.

lastly i know that claire is a strong personality but she really needs to stop being ao disrespectful of olden culture. the way she kept brushing gei away "I'm sMarT yOu'rE DuMb" really got on my nerves.

Edited May 17, 2018 by Iju

[ganesh]

I think you mean Frank. Claire ain't doing jack with Jack. 

[Cdh20]

I am so surprised that so many people would have returned to Frank & 1945. Maybe I too am a hopeless romantic, but I didn't question that she would choose Jamie. Since she was last at the stones & wanting to get home this happened: he's saved her life twice, at the risk of his own, he made that pledge , which she knows he doesn't take lightly, he believes she is from the future, & although she might not be sure how in love with him she is yet, she knows he's head over heels, & has just offered her her old life back, despite that! And there is the sex. 

 

The one time in the show where Claire's POV voiceover was needed was at those stones! 

Edited November 21, 2018 by Cdh20
spelling mistake