S03.E04: Of Lost Things

[Athena]

Quote

While serving as groomsman at the aristocratic estate of Helwater, Jamie is reluctantly pulled into the intrigue of a noble British family. In 1968 Scotland, Claire, Brianna and Roger struggle to trace Jamie's whereabouts in history, leaving Claire to wonder if they will ever find him again.

Reminder: This is the No Book Talk topic. No discussion of the books is allowed including saying "in the books..." Book readers are discouraged from posting and liking in this thread. Posts may be removed without warning.

[ElectricBoogaloo]

Awww, little Willie!

Although I wasn't crazy about the plot contrivance that Geneva would seek out Jamie to deflower her before her wedding and then be dumb enough not to have sex with her new husband at least once as soon as she realized she was pregnant, I liked this episode. As much as I love Claire and Jamie together, I liked that his plot in this episode had almost nothing to do with Claire.

I also loved that John Grey will be raising little Willie. The John/Jamie friendship makes me so happy (although I do feel bad for Grey because unrequited love is always frustrating). I wish we had seen more of Isobel and John developing their relationship because although she got the man of her dreams, she is getting a husband who is "fond of her" (his words) but who will never desire her. I wonder if they'll even bother having sex since they already have Willie. Do John and Isobel need an heir of their own or is Willie enough for the Dansany family? Since Isobel is the only Dansany child left, would her parents be okay with Geneva's son inheriting everything?

I felt a little bad for Bree when Claire said it was time for them to go home. Yes, Claire is looking for the love of her life, but Brianna is also looking for her rather so it seems like she should have some say in this decision. While I understand that Claire doesn't want to spend the rest of her life chasing a ghost, at the same time it's okay to look for more than, like, a week. They were already in Scotland, so why not try a few more places before giving up and leaving the country?

I'm looking forward to seeing Claire's friendship with Joe in the future (especially since we got to see almost none of it while they were in med school).

[Autumn0516]

Jamie has a son? Not with Clare? Color me shocked! 

[nara]

Another really great episode that made me cry!

 

The modern story is less interesting, so I will start with that. 

• Clearly, Fiona does have a bit of a crush on Roger, but it was a little mean of Brianna to make fun of it.  (Especially since Fiona was kind enough to give Claire back the pearls that Jamie gave her.) But she’s rather young, so I guess we can excuse some immaturity. The awkward girlfriend discussion was cute and realistic.  
• I thought it made sense for the research team to have a frustrating time finding Jamie and even to give up once or twice.  @ElectricBoogaloo I don't think Briana is trying to find her father.  Frank is her father and she seems satisfied with that.  She is doing this entirely for Claire, so it's okay IMO that Claire decided when to stop.

The 18th century story was really good, but I kinda wish it had played out over 2 episodes.  The challenge with this season is that Jamie’s story appears to have more content than Claire’s.  I wish they had not tried to keep equal screen time.

• Jamie is very lucky to be working a relatively easy job.  Who knows what the other prisoners are up to?  Geneva is a little obnoxious and the family is clearly elitist, but they seem overall to be decent people.
• Not sure why Geneva always has such a sour expression.  I get that after being betrothed to an old man, she would be unhappy, but she was scowling from the very first scene.  No wonder none of the grooms wants to ride with her, despite the fact that she is quite beautiful.  It does appear that she truly enjoyed when Jamie stood up to her, so maybe she would have benefitted from a less indulgent upbringing.
• I don’t blame Geneva for wanting to have sex with someone attractive at least once, but she could have appealed to Jamie rather than blackmailing him.  After all, she is very beautiful.  But I guess her upbringing has taught her to demand rather than ask.  She only knows how to use weapons, not lures.  I wish we had known her for more than 1 episode, because it was hard to gain sympathy for her in the course of one episode.
• The sex scene: At first, I was annoyed that it played out as sexy as a Claire/Jamie scene, but then I decided it was well done.  It drew a clear line between lust and love.  At the same time, it was kind of Jamie to make it enjoyable for her, even though she did not necessarily deserve such kindness.  And it was perfectly natural for Jamie to enjoy the sex when it came down to it.  BTW, I wonder if they deliberately picked an actress with the same coloring as Claire.
• I get that birth control was not a thing back then, but couldn’t Jamie have at least tried to pull out???  And how stupid was Geneva not to have sex with her husband a couple of times?  If they didn’t consummate the marriage, Lord Ellsmere could have annulled the wedding and she would be pregnant without a husband.  
• On a side note, wasn't it strange that Geneva was allowed to go riding with a groom unchaperoned by a lady?  Riding side by side with a young man (even one not as handsome as Jamie) might eliminate some of the social class boundaries and lead to trouble (as it did in this case).  
• Does Lord Melton think that John and Jamie are lovers?  Or is he just annoyed that Red Jamie is on the loose?  I got the impression that it was both, but I’m curious as to what others think.
• Totally digging Isabel!  She seems very kind and thoughtful and will be a great mother figure to WIllie.  She deserves better than to be married to a man who cannot be attracted to her, though I imagine that John would do his best to be a great husband to her.   I liked that Jamie tried to warn her away from John.
• Willie:  This show does a great job of casting adorable young boys (Hamish, Roger, wee Jamie, Fergus, Willie).  The natural connection he had to his father was really a pleasure to see and well acted by the young boy.  However, they could have picked a child who looked more like Jamie if that was going to be an actual plot point…but maybe I’m nitpicking.
• I cried when Jamie had to make the choice to leave his son and when he said goodbye.  Knowing he is alive and has a solid future as a very wealthy earl is great, but it’s got to feel a little bit like he’s lost another child.  I wonder if we will see Willie again.
• “Stinking papist” – this was a good reminder that kids have to be taught prejudice.  Willie clearly did not even know what that meant was just repeating what he heard.
• I was shocked when Jamie offered himself to John in return for taking care of Willie.  What an insult to John, who should have earned his respect by now!  But then I realized that Jamie has had 2 non-consensual encounters—with BJR and Geneva.  He has had to trade his body twice for the safety of his family.  Maybe it’s natural that he has come to assume that was necessary.
• John seems to be very genuinely in love with Jamie.  I wonder if it will make him happy or sad to see Willie every day.

[leighdear]

6 hours ago, Autumn0516 said:

Jamie has a son? Not with Clare? Color me shocked! 

At least they didn't give Willie red hair, the way they did Brianna.   And I think John will be happy to have that part of Jamie, in raising Willie.  

[Glade]

How sad that Jaime was raped again (and yes it was rape, she threatened an employee/serf/servant and his family to coerce him into having sex with her) and this time it resulted in a child whom he can't fully claim as his own son. That was some serious bodice ripping action in the rape scene, and I could have done without it. I hope Jaimie and Willie will at least have a relationship again once he comes of age. Otherwise it's just misery all around.  At least Geneva, just like BJR, is dead.

Are we to take it that the dead brother of Isobel, 'Gordon' was in fact the lover that Lord John lost on the battlefield? But I thought he had a different name? Perhaps I'm just thinking that because on David Berry's other show A Place to Call Home he marries the sister of a man he was in love with ( which is a convention influenced by novels such as Maurice and Brideshead Revisited.) Either way, I'm very glad that Lord John scoffed at the idea of sexually using Jaime--I really hope he's never sexually harassed/raped or has to use survival/transactional sex again. But, I do hope Lord John is able to have some willing male lovers on the side of his marriage.

I was excited that we caught up to 1968 and things were going so well between Claire/Bri and Roger/Bri but then Claire went the wrong way!! Is she really going to live out the rest of her days not even trying to go through the stones and make a quick trip to Lallybroch to find out once and for all if Jaime's there? I know it's risky and dangerous, and she's dealing with a lot of trauma and mixed emotions, but still...at least try something! We are seeing the Claire from the first 3 episodes of this season, not the mournful, frozen Claire was from the S2 finale which was a very different performance. I guess she's more animated, changed since she's finally able to share/talk about Jaimie again? I guess if they saw the correct shipping records, Murtaugh would have been on them?

Edited October 2, 2017 by Glade

[cam3150]

Wow, we're just skipping through time (no pun intended) at breakneck speed aren't we?? 

I thought this was a great episode. Though I feel sorry for Jaime getting taken advantage of (sexually) yet again. I agree with whoever said they didn't like the overall sexiness of the scene. I hate seeing Jaime with someone who isn't Claire , especially when he seemed to be enjoying himself.  But I guess it led to the lust vs love conversation so I know Claire is still very much in his heart. RIP Geneva. Thankfully we hardly knew you. 

I also agree with whoever said they wished the actor playing Willie actually looked like Jaime. I don't think the actor looks like him at all.  

Jaime's face as he was leaving was so heartbreaking. I hope they reunite at some point. 

So glad they didn't go "there" with Jaime's offer to John Grey. The offer was bad enough without them going through with it. I really enjoy their friendship. Jaime needs someone in his corner, someone he can trust so I'm glad he's got John look after Willie. 

I guess we've seen the last of Frank and Tobias??  It's a shame because he's such a great actor. But I can't imagine them doing to many more Frank or BJR flashbacks. 

I am excited to see what leads Claire to finds Jaime's location and presumably go back to him. It seems like she's given up for now. 

[ganesh]

15 hours ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:

I liked that his plot in this episode had almost nothing to do with Claire.

I think this is why I actually liked this episode which was the first for me this season. And I like Frank and was looking forward to this season with more of him in it. 

15 hours ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:

The John/Jamie friendship makes me so happy (although I do feel bad for Grey because unrequited love is always frustrating).

I know they were playing it dramatic, but John's "dude SERIOUSLY?!" face cracked me up so much. I liked when Jamie shook his hand that he put his other hand over John's. I really liked the scene where Jamie shot the guy. That was super tense. And how literally everyone knew the kid was his. 

2 hours ago, Glade said:

Is she really going to live out the rest of her days not even trying to go through the stones and make a quick trip to Lallybroch to find out once and for all if Jaime's there?

I'm continually mystified by the "present day" scenes this season. Didn't Claire visit Lallybroch in the S2 finale? I thought at the time, that was her first trip back to Scotland. So she's here now, and doesn't at least go back or look for the stones? I have no idea what her motivation is. I also have zero investment in the daughter since she's been essentially a plot device. I just don't care that she was snogging that other guy. I assume that they both must have some impact on the plot, but since we know Claire goes back to Scotland in what seems like less than a year, I don't see that they have much impact in between. 

I like how Jamie looks exactly the same, while Claire, who is super attractive still, is all graying hair now. 

[ElectricBoogaloo]

I was cracking up at the Earl's death being attributed to misadventure. Talk about a euphemism!

I love Claire's 60s makeup. CB looks lovely in every time period.

I also loved that John was offended by Jamie's offer of sex in exchange for looking after Willie. He was practically clutching his pearls at the thought that Jamie would think he would consider such an offer.

[NorthstarATL]

3 hours ago, Glade said:

How sad that Jaime was raped again (and yes it was rape, she threatened an employee/serf/servant and his family to coerce him into having sex with her) and this time it resulted in a child whom he can't fully claim as his own son

She could not FORCE Jamie to maintain an erection no matter HOW much she threatened him, and, if she'd had any experience, she'd know that the threat might have the opposite of her desired intent. Were the genders reversed, the woman's lack of motivation would not change the outcome. Sorry, but, as a rape survivor I dislike intensely the watering down of the definition to include coercion.

16 hours ago, ElectricBoogaloo said:

Awww, little Willie!

In so many ways.

I liked the Claire bits for the costuming. I guess 1968 was a tad early, but I so wanted Claire's umbrage over all the men in the pub looking at her and Bree to be turned on its head by the reveal that it was a gay pub! As late as the 1970s I went to McSorleys in the Village and they still only had a men's room! The girls in our group wanted the guys to stand guard while they went. If they still have not added a women's room, I wonder whether they will NOW be seen as trendy for having unisex?

[Glade]

22 minutes ago, NorthstarATL said:

She could not FORCE Jamie to maintain an erection no matter HOW much she threatened him, and, if she'd had any experience, she'd know that the threat might have the opposite of her desired intent. Were the genders reversed, the woman's lack of motivation would not change the outcome. Sorry, but, as a rape survivor I dislike intensely the watering down of the definition to include coercion.

Sorry, as a male rape survivor I find it insulting that people attempt to exclude being FORCED to penetrate from the definition of rape; when yes, you can force someone to penetrate you, with pressure, with threats, with manipulation, and it absolutely is RAPE.  Men experience involuntary erections all the time; in fact it's a really big source of guilt and boys/men blaming themselves and experiencing body betrayal because it happened against their will.  Jaime said no, he did everything he could to get out of it and until this privileged person in a position of extreme power over him made enough threats to compel him to protect not only himself, but his family.  The threat continued when he was in the bedroom, because if she didn't like what he was doing--whether that be going limp or being too rough/disinterested, she could carry out her threats as a result or  just scream and say he had attacked her against her will and everyone would believe her.  Coercion absolutely is rape, and rape has no gender. 

Edited October 2, 2017 by Glade

[NorthstarATL]

11 minutes ago, Glade said:

Sorry, as a male rape survivor I find it insulting that people attempt to exclude being FORCED to penetrate from the definition of rape; when yes, you can force someone to penetrate you, with pressure, with threats, with manipulation, and it absolutely is RAPE.  Men experience involuntary erections all the time; in fact it's a really big source of guilt and boys/men blaming themselves and experiencing body betrayal because it happened against their will.  Jaime said no, he did everything he could to get out of it and until this privileged person in a position of extreme power over him made enough threats to compel him to protect not only himself, but his family.  The threat continued when he was in the bedroom, because if she didn't like what he was doing--whether that be going limp or being too rough/disinterested, she could carry out her threats as a result or  just scream and say he had attacked her against her will and everyone would believe her.  Coercion absolutely is rape, and rape has no gender. 

Sorry, but as a male rape survivor myself, as I posted, I respectfully disagree. Being forced is a wholly different experience from coercion. I sincerely hope that you never have to experience the difference, as I have.

 Jamie has so far experienced both, and his reactions to both have been different. Which is my assertion as well.

[Glade]

17 minutes ago, NorthstarATL said:

Sorry, but as a male rape survivor myself, as I posted, I respectfully disagree. Being forced is a wholly different experience from coercion. I sincerely hope that you never have to experience the difference, as I have.

 Jamie has so far experienced both, and his reactions to both have been different. Which is my assertion as well.

My varied experiences have led me to see all types of sexual assault for what they are and call them as such, not to claim that one is somehow worse or lesser or more powerful then another or give special status to it.  There's no comparing or rating trauma and there's no hierarchy of sexual abuse/assault.  That is where we disagree.  And that's fine.

Edited October 2, 2017 by Glade

[nara]

6 hours ago, ganesh said:

I know they were playing it dramatic, but John's "dude SERIOUSLY?!" face cracked me up so much. I liked when Jamie shook his hand that he put his other hand over John's. I really liked the scene where Jamie shot the guy. That was super tense. And how literally everyone knew the kid was his. 

I'm continually mystified by the "present day" scenes this season. Didn't Claire visit Lallybroch in the S2 finale? I thought at the time, that was her first trip back to Scotland. So she's here now, and doesn't at least go back or look for the stones? I have no idea what her motivation is. I also have zero investment in the daughter since she's been essentially a plot device. I just don't care that she was snogging that other guy. I assume that they both must have some impact on the plot, but since we know Claire goes back to Scotland in what seems like less than a year, I don't see that they have much impact in between. 

I like how Jamie looks exactly the same, while Claire, who is super attractive still, is all graying hair now. 

The scene in which Jamie shot the Earl of Ellsmere was awesome!  He was trying to find a peaceful resolution, but did not hesitate to kill when his child was at risk.  His quick thinking saved the day and I like how he held his child for the first time.  I don't think everyone knew he was the father.  Isabel did, but her mother did not. Mrs. Dunsany is the one who later mentioned that Willie is starting to look like Jamie to that other woman.  She would never have said that out loud if she knew.  It's not clear what Mr. Dunsany knew, but I think it's unlikely that either Geneva or Isabel told him.

Claire's visit to Lallybroch in S2 was her first trip back and the discussion with Roger and Brianna in this episode happened after that on the same trip.  I wish they had pursued Claire's story in chronological order.  I would be much more interested in her story if I hadn't already known that Frank would die or that Gellis was Gillian.  As it is, her story does feel like filler.

Caitriona Balfe has that timeless beauty that seems to work with all styles.  I would love for her to travel to Asia and wear a sari, kimono, etc.

[Daisy]

Poor Jaime.  He is forever losing people he cares about  and for the most part, other than Faith - it's always Jamie's choice - for the greater good of the situation, which in my opinion hurts worse, because if you lose someone suddenly because of death, illness - you can mourn, and you know - it was a suck situation, but you can't stop death, it doesn't make sense, but it's coming. 

To constantly have to come the decision that you leaving, and for the most part - will never see them again - it must be haunting. Because people change. people age. what if it's a John Grey situation  and you don't know who it is, until they say something that gives them away? You are always looking, and wondering is this "my person" is this the child I gave up? Is Claire still alive, is claire dead, how did she fare, what of the baby, so on and so on. it's sort of like... you are dead. your life with them stopped and will never change - but they keep going. 

I hope this makes sense. (it's early morning and I didn't have my cup of tea) it just seems so tragic. 
Geneva was stupid. at least get the guy drunk and wake up in the morning next to him and let him think he fathered the child. I really like John Grey and during Droughtlander, I can't wait to read about him and his subsequent books. (The Jaime offering him his body to his friend and John's "are you flipping insane?" look and reaction were gold. That is a great friendship). 

On the Claire side. I think the belief is - they don't want to send her back, if there's nothing to send her back to. Like Roger said that time is moving at the same pace. So if there is a Jamie in 1767 and Claire is in 1967 it makes sense to cross over. If Jamie is dead - then there's no point. She misses Scotland of the past as well (like the experiences she had had) but it's mostly because of Jamie. (Is Brianna gonna come over too? this doesn't make sense to me either)

[ganesh]

43 minutes ago, Daisy said:

. If Jamie is dead - then there's no point. She misses Scotland of the past as well (like the experiences she had had) but it's mostly because of Jamie

I take your point but I don't think Claire knew Jamie was alive in the S2 finale and she saw Gellis go through she was like "I can go back!" 

Unless they did know? I'm confused because I thought the finale was their first time back in Scotland. 

I'm also not clear on how they figured time is flowing at the same rate. I don't think that makes sense because Gellis went back in 1968, but was there before Claire arrived, not 1768.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

I watched this late last night after getting home from being out of town, but was too tired to post some thoughts, so off the top of my head this morning, here goes:  (Also, I haven't read any other comments yet, because I want to get mine down before I do I won't be influenced by what others have written - if that makes sense).

I thought the episode was beautifully shot, as usual.  And the costumes were great.  I liked Brianna in this episode, better than last year.  She was fun when she was allowed to be fun.  Roger was okay.  I really don't understand why so many people are gaga over him.  For me, he was just blah.  I feel sorry for Fiona, having an unrequited love for him - and being made fun of by the prettier and more educated Brianna.  But I also thought there were too many convenient plot contrivances that irked me.

First, I find it pretty amazing that Geneva zoned in on Jamie to take her maidenhood.  An estate of that size would have had many grooms, and I'm sure there would have been at least one other who was handsome - and closer to her age - on whom she would have developed a crush of some sorts.  And lets face it, Geneva was probably around 18-19 at that time and Jamie was in his 30's.  I remember when I was 18 that 30 was pretty old.  I would think it would have been the same for an 18 year old girl even back then.  But then, this is Perfect Jamie, I'm talking about right?  I mean, everyone who meets him falls in love with him - male and female.  So of course Geneva would also.  

I'm glad the show told us that Willie had Jamie's cock of his head and set of his shoulders, cause I sure didn't see the resemblance.  I realize it's hard to do with actors and especially child actors, but that was just odd exposition to me.  Don't get me wrong, I already understood that Little Willie (hee!) was Jamie's son.  Knew that as soon as Geneva was pregnant and the way Jamie was startled to see it.  (Although, I don't understand why he would have been startled to see that she was pregnant.  She was married by then.  It could well have been her husband's.  I guess it was in the look she gave him.)  I guess Little Willie (and Jamie) are lucky LW didn't have Jamie's signature red hair.  

I don't understand why the old Earl of Ellesmere waited until Geneva gave birth to raise a ruckus that she wasn't a virgin upon marriage.  Wouldn't he have done that as soon as he found out she was pregnant and he hadn't had sex with her yet?  Why didn't he unceremoniously dump her back on her parent's doorstep at that point?  And I don't understand the point of having Jamie shoot him.  I think it would have been better if Geneva's father had shot him - but then I guess Geneva's mother wouldn't have found out who Jamie really was and been able to make peace with him.  (and no doubt she fell in love with him also.)

So, conveniently, Lord Grey, who is in love with Jamie, is going to marry Isobel and raise Jamie's son.  Next best thing, I guess?  I feel sorry for Isobel also.  She was sweet - and smart.  And no doubt deserved a husband who really loved her.  

I'm glad Jamie's going home to Lallybroch finally.  

ETA: Jamie getting into Geneva's bedroom was all kinds of practically impossible.  From the squeaky door, to clomping all the way through the house in his boots without being seen or heard by any house servants?  Ridiculous.  The house staff alone would have been enormous.  

ETA2: Geneva's first time played out totally unrealistic to me.  And I was rather disappointed by that after how realistically Jamie's first time was shown.  (Wham bam done!)  Geneva had practically no pain and then completely enjoyed herself, even reaching orgasm?  Sure she did.  But then, this is Perfect Jamie who had sex with her, so of course she did! //snark.  

Edited October 2, 2017 by RulerofallIsurvey
Jamie ain't that stealthy but apparently he is a sex god.

[Adira]

19 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

I don't understand why the old Earl of Ellesmere waited until Geneva gave birth to raise a ruckus that she wasn't a virgin upon marriage.  Wouldn't he have done that as soon as he found out she was pregnant and he hadn't had sex with her yet?  Why didn't he unceremoniously dump her back on her parent's doorstep at that point?  And I don't understand the point of having Jamie shoot him.  I think it would have been better if Geneva's father had shot him - but then I guess Geneva's mother wouldn't have found out who Jamie really was and been able to make peace with him.  (and no doubt she fell in love with him also.)

THIS!  If Geneva never had sex with the old Earl, why the F didn't have raise a ruckus as soon as she turned up pregnant??  He would've thrown her out on her ass in two seconds flat.  This made ZERO sense that he waited until after he gave birth to flip out.  And how much of an idiot is Geneva that she didn't have sex with her husband at least ONCE (especially once she realized she was pregnant) to at least convince HIM that he was the father??  Terrible planning on her part.

Also, why do Claire & company think that time is moving at the same speed in the past as it is in the present?  And even if it is, why do they think that when Claire goes through the stones again, she'll arrive 20 years after she left (assuming 20 years have passed)?  They just witnessed Geillis go through the stones in 1968 and they know she ended up further in the past than when Claire originally arrived after going through the stones in 1945!  What makes them think Claire won't also end up further in the past, just like Geillis?

[RulerofallIsurvey]

On 10/1/2017 at 7:58 AM, ElectricBoogaloo said:

I felt a little bad for Bree when Claire said it was time for them to go home. Yes, Claire is looking for the love of her life, but Brianna is also looking for her rather so it seems like she should have some say in this decision. While I understand that Claire doesn't want to spend the rest of her life chasing a ghost, at the same time it's okay to look for more than, like, a week. They were already in Scotland, so why not try a few more places before giving up and leaving the country?

I'm looking forward to seeing Claire's friendship with Joe in the future (especially since we got to see almost none of it while they were in med school).

Have Claire and Brianna only been in Scotland (in 1968) a week?  I've lost track of time with all the time jumping around.  And I just figured they'd been there longer as I figured it would take a while to do all the research they already had.  

I do hope we see more of Joe, but I would really have liked to have seen more of Joe in the 50's and early 60's.  

On 10/1/2017 at 9:47 AM, nara said:

• Does Lord Melton think that John and Jamie are lovers?  Or is he just annoyed that Red Jamie is on the loose?  I got the impression that it was both, but I’m curious as to what others think.

I got the impression that he was just surprised to see Jamie on the loose.  Maybe he thought he would have been sent to the colonies with the other prisoners.  

12 hours ago, Glade said:

I was excited that we caught up to 1968 and things were going so well between Claire/Bri and Roger/Bri but then Claire went the wrong way!! Is she really going to live out the rest of her days not even trying to go through the stones and make a quick trip to Lallybroch to find out once and for all if Jaime's there? I know it's risky and dangerous, and she's dealing with a lot of trauma and mixed emotions, but still...at least try something! We are seeing the Claire from the first 3 episodes of this season, not the mournful, frozen Claire was from the S2 finale which was a very different performance. I guess she's more animated, changed since she's finally able to share/talk about Jaimie again? I guess if they saw the correct shipping records, Murtaugh would have been on them?

I don't know how Claire could take a 'quick trip' to the stones.  Even Roger noted that there was no guarantee that she could get back to the present once she'd gone back to the past again.  If I were Claire and contemplating this, I'd be scared out of my mind at the prospect of a one way trip!  Especially not knowing for sure that Jamie was alive and then never being able to get back to my daughter.  

Good point about Murtaugh.  That would have been nice for Claire to see his name.  

9 hours ago, NorthstarATL said:

I liked the Claire bits for the costuming. I guess 1968 was a tad early, but I so wanted Claire's umbrage over all the men in the pub looking at her and Bree to be turned on its head by the reveal that it was a gay pub! 

Oh, the pub scene.  I found it ridiculous that Claire was all up in arms about the men staring at them at the pub because they dared sit at the bar, when she'd experienced much worse sexism in the 1700s!!  And there she is, looking into going back into an even more patriarchal period of time.

6 minutes ago, Adira said:

THIS!  If Geneva never had sex with the old Earl, why the F didn't have raise a ruckus as soon as she turned up pregnant??  He would've thrown her out on her ass in two seconds flat.  This made ZERO sense that he waited until after he gave birth to flip out.  And how much of an idiot is Geneva that she didn't have sex with her husband at least ONCE (especially once she realized she was pregnant) to at least convince HIM that he was the father??  Terrible planning on her part.

Also, why do Claire & company think that time is moving at the same speed in the past as it is in the present?  And even if it is, why do they think that when Claire goes through the stones again, she'll arrive 20 years after she left (assuming 20 years have passed)?  They just witnessed Geillis go through the stones in 1968 and they know she ended up further in the past than when Claire originally arrived after going through the stones in 1945!  What makes them think Claire won't also end up further in the past, just like Geillis?

1. On the Geneva not having sex with the Earl - to turn that around, I think it's completely ridiculous that the Earl never exercised his 'marriage rights' on his wedding night at least, especially since he seemed to be so looking forward to it upon their betrothal.  Geneva only slept with Jamie three days before the wedding.  She wouldn't have even known she was pregnant then and neither would the Earl, so that wouldn't have prevented him from going to her bed.  And let's be honest, in England in those days, a wife did not have the right to say no to her husband.  

2. Roger explained why he thought time was moving at the same rate, but I don't remember the explanation.  It was a pretty good one though.

The Gellis thing doesn't make sense, but I guess they'll explain that next episode.  Maybe.  Unless they've forgotten that plot point.  I think it will come back up though.  

[Adira]

52 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

1. On the Geneva not having sex with the Earl - to turn that around, I think it's completely ridiculous that the Earl never exercised his 'marriage rights' on his wedding night at least, especially since he seemed to be so looking forward to it upon their betrothal.  Geneva only slept with Jamie three days before the wedding.  She wouldn't have even known she was pregnant then and neither would the Earl, so that wouldn't have prevented him from going to her bed.  And let's be honest, in England in those days, a wife did not have the right to say no to her husband.  

Totally agree with this.  Not only did it not make sense that the Earl wouldn't had a fit as soon as his "virgin" bride showed up pregnant, but there's no way he wouldn't have slept with her at least a few times!  He didn't really seem like the kind of guy who would allow his marriage to go unconsummated. 

[ganesh]

1 hour ago, Adira said:

Also, why do Claire & company think that time is moving at the same speed in the past as it is in the present?  And even if it is, why do they think that when Claire goes through the stones again, she'll arrive 20 years after she left (assuming 20 years have passed)?  They just witnessed Geillis go through the stones in 1968 and they know she ended up further in the past than when Claire originally arrived after going through the stones in 1945!  What makes them think Claire won't also end up further in the past, just like Geillis?

In the "show-present" I didn't get the impression that Claire witnessed Gellis going back yet. Did she tell the daughter that Jamie was her father yet? I thought this was still before. But I said the same thing. Roger is like "time is moving at the same rate." You think so, Doctor? There's zero evidence either way. It's not like Jamie wrote a letter and left it with Western Union to deliver to Claire at an appointed time. 

However, Claire knows Gellis is from the "present". One would think that she would have tried to look her up while she was there. I doubt there's a lot of "Gellis"s around. The daughter actually just stumbled onto Gellis while she was wandering around the university in the S2 finale. 

[Pallas]

10 hours ago, ganesh said:

Didn't Claire visit Lallybroch in the S2 finale? I thought at the time, that was her first trip back to Scotland. So she's here now, and doesn't at least go back or look for the stones?

It's all one trip: Claire and Brianna arrived in 1968 Scotland, at the end of season 2, and are now leaving 1968 Scotland in ep 4 of Season 3. 

 

2 hours ago, ganesh said:

I'm also not clear on how they figured time is flowing at the same rate. I don't think that makes sense because Gellis went back in 1968, but was there before Claire arrived, not 1768.

Especially since time hasn't moved at the same rate in the two narratives this season!  But Roger's argument was,  when three years passed for Claire in the 18th century, three years had passed in the 20th century to which she returned. I'm guessing Gellis has come and gone from each timeline more than once. 

 

1 hour ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

I don't understand why the old Earl of Ellesmere waited until Geneva gave birth to raise a ruckus that she wasn't a virgin upon marriage.

He may have been chronically impotent -- too little circulation and/or too much inebriation -- and relieved to have Geneva provide him with an heir and public cover, perfectly timed to their wedding night. Relieved and at the same time ambivalent, perhaps in denial. The shock of Geneva's death, along with the sight and even scent of this newborn not his own, may have tilted him off the plank of delusion. Mostly, though, I'm guessing the showrunners wanted there to be no doubt at all that the child was Jamie's. 

A weird continuity glitch: Jamie is riding one black pony and leading another, along with a second mounted groom, when he approaches Isobel pushing the carriage. One cut later, he is dismounted and handing the reins of pony #2 to the other groomsman.  Who was pony #2 to have been for, and did pony #1 pass through the stones? 

[GHScorpiosRule]

16 minutes ago, ganesh said:

In the "show-present" I didn't get the impression that Claire witnessed Gellis going back yet. Did she tell the daughter that Jamie was her father yet?

Just to clarify--yes, Claire, Brianna and Roger witnessed Geillis going back at the end of last season. It was after that, that Brianna told Claire she believed her about going to the past and Jamie; and yes, she did tell Brianna that Jamie was her father. I believe all of this happened in the season finale last season.

[Adira]

30 minutes ago, ganesh said:

In the "show-present" I didn't get the impression that Claire witnessed Gellis going back yet. Did she tell the daughter that Jamie was her father yet? I thought this was still before. But I said the same thing. Roger is like "time is moving at the same rate." You think so, Doctor? There's zero evidence either way. It's not like Jamie wrote a letter and left it with Western Union to deliver to Claire at an appointed time. 

However, Claire knows Gellis is from the "present". One would think that she would have tried to look her up while she was there. I doubt there's a lot of "Gellis"s around. The daughter actually just stumbled onto Gellis while she was wandering around the university in the S2 finale. 

In the season 2 finale, Claire, Brianna, and Roger witness Geillis go through the stones, and Claire knows that Geillis arrived before she did, despite leaving after her.  My only guess as to why they think time is moving at the same rate is because Claire spent 3 years in the past and arrived "home" 3 years after she left.  But that doesn't mean that the stones drop you off in a linear fashion (which we already know they don't).  Also, side note, Geillis changed her name upon arrive in the past.  In the "present" her name is Gillian.

22 minutes ago, Pallas said:

Especially since time hasn't moved at the same rate in the two narratives this season!  But Roger's argument was,  when three years passed for Claire in the 18th century, three years had passed in the 20th century to which she returned. I'm guessing Gellis has come and gone from each timeline more than once. 

I don't think this is true - Geillis looks to be in her 20s when she passes through the stones in 1968 - there's no way she passed through the stones in the 1940s (or earlier) to explain her presence in 1745.  She would've been a child.  Plus Claire found her notebook in 1968 where she was researching the stones and how to travel through them.  She thought a sacrifice was required, which is why she murdered her husband before traveling into the past.  I think it's safe to assume she only made one trip - 1968 to sometime before 1745.

[ganesh]

29 minutes ago, Pallas said:

I'm guessing Gellis has come and gone from each timeline more than once. 

That's a huge leap though. 

24 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Just to clarify--yes, Claire, Brianna and Roger witnessed Geillis going back at the end of last season. It was after that, that Brianna told Claire she believed her about going to the past and Jamie; and yes, she did tell Brianna that Jamie was her father. I believe all of this happened in the season finale last season.

I know what happened at the end of last season. I was saying I thought this episode took place before the S2 finale. I thought we were leading up to that point this season. I thought the time stamp said 1967 for some reason. I was also drinking. So there's that. 

That makes even less sense then for Roger to say time is moving at the same rate. Claire should have said, "We just saw Gellis go back, and she had been there a while for I got there." Because no one mentioned that when Roger was opining, I assumed they didn't witness her go through the stones yet. He should have said, it seems like time is moving *forward* at the same rate. There's no guarantee as to when Claire would reappear. 

I think it would be cool if in "Jamie's present" that Claire had been going back and forth all along and landing in different points in the past to try to locate him. Where his "present" is actually a future point in time > 1968 for Claire that we haven't seen yet in "Claire's present." So she goes back to 17xx, wanders around for a couple of hours, finds out what year it is, returns to 1968 the same time span later, goes back to 17yy, etc., repeat. When they mentioned "the white lady" in the prior episode where Jamie escaped, I thought that's what they were foreshadowing. But I don't think that's the case because they would have hinted at it more. Then again, we could have an alternative time line with 2 Claires repeating over again. 

It's all timey-whimey, wibbly wobbly. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

1 minute ago, ganesh said:

I was saying I thought this episode took place before the S2 finale. I thought we were leading up to that point this season. I thought the time stamp said 1967 for some reason. I was also drinking. So there's that. 

No. It was continuing from Season 2 finale. Yeah, you can blame your confusion on the drinking!

[Juliegirlj]

If the Earl was so intent on having a " virgin bride", then it's doubtful he would not have consummated his marriage-in fact, in those times, consummating the union was required for it to be a legitimate marriage. ( remember Jamie and Claire's wedding night when all were gathered round the downstairs pub to make sure they did the deed?!)

Jumping the shark with language again-- when the woman commented to her friend that Willy resembled Mackenzie, her friend answered " funny", which was probably not even a word that was used then. 

Speaking of Willy -he did not resemble Jamie at all. Cute kid but poor casting. 

Pacing is waaaay off. 

[ganesh]

I'm amazed that they didn't mention the *murder* at all then. Wouldn't they be suspects? Since the person who actually killed her husband disappeared. I wasn't that drunk, but it didn't even occur to me at all that this was post-Gellis. Maybe Claire is used to death from the war, but the daughter and Roger are quite blase about it too. 

[sacrebleu]

Quote

specially since time hasn't moved at the same rate in the two narratives this season!  But Roger's argument was,  when three years passed for Claire in the 18th century, three years had passed in the 20th century to which she returned. I'm guessing Gellis has come and gone from each timeline more than once. 

2

Yeah-- the fact that Gellis went through the stones in '68 but had been in the 18th century for a significant period of time-- and as a non-book reader--- I can't say if she hopped around-- but presumably-- Bree & Roger can't really assume that Claire and Jamie's timelines are moving at the same pace-- unless we are going with a Duncan/Penny "the Constant" type theory (apologies to non "Lost" watchers)

[toolazy]

2 minutes ago, sacrebleu said:

Yeah-- the fact that Gellis went through the stones in '68 but had been in the 18th century for a significant period of time-- and as a non-book reader--- I can't say if she hopped around-- but presumably-- Bree & Roger can't really assume that Claire and Jamie's timelines are moving at the same pace-- unless we are going with a Duncan/Penny "the Constant" type theory (apologies to non "Lost" watchers)

The amount of time you travel when you go through the stones is a separate issue from whether or not time flows at the same rate in the different timelines.  

[RulerofallIsurvey]

57 minutes ago, Adira said:

In the season 2 finale, Claire, Brianna, and Roger witness Geillis go through the stones, and Claire knows that Geillis arrived before she did, despite leaving after her.  My only guess as to why they think time is moving at the same rate is because Claire spent 3 years in the past and arrived "home" 3 years after she left.  But that doesn't mean that the stones drop you off in a linear fashion (which we already know they don't).  Also, side note, Geillis changed her name upon arrive in the past.  In the "present" her name is Gillian.

I think that is the reasoning they used to say that time was passing at the same rate.  I misunderstood your comment earlier.  Have no idea how Claire and Co. are explaining Gellis/Gillian, but they didn't even mention her this episode, so now that @ganesh has mentioned it, I'm not sure whether or not the 1968 parts of this ep took place before or after they witnessed Gellis/Gillian go back through the stones.  I hope they clarify that next episode.  

1 hour ago, Pallas said:

He may have been chronically impotent -- too little circulation and/or too much inebriation -- and relieved to have Geneva provide him with an heir and public cover, perfectly timed to their wedding night. Relieved and at the same time ambivalent, perhaps in denial.

But then, he wouldn't have been so insistent on a "virgin bride" as @Juliegirlj pointed out.  

34 minutes ago, Juliegirlj said:

If the Earl was so intent on having a " virgin bride", then it's doubtful he would not have consummated his marriage-in fact, in those times, consummating the union was required for it to be a legitimate marriage. ( remember Jamie and Claire's wedding night when all were gathered round the downstairs pub to make sure they did the deed?!)

Exactly this!^  

[ganesh]

It means the backward flow is a different rate than the forward flow. Also in the first season, when Claire was at her first big gathering at the lord's house, they sang a song about someone who went through the stones in their time and returned some years later, but there was no follow up on that. Of course, that person may not have known exactly when they went to. I'm surprised Claire isn't looking for evidence of other stone travel as well as searching for records of Jamie. 

8 minutes ago, sacrebleu said:

Yeah-- the fact that Gellis went through the stones in '68 but had been in the 18th century for a significant period of time-- and as a non-book reader--- I can't say if she hopped around-- but presumably-- Bree & Roger can't really assume that Claire and Jamie's timelines are moving at the same pace-- unless we are going with a Duncan/Penny "the Constant" type theory (apologies to non "Lost" watchers)

I know it's not a scifi show, but Roger was technically incorrect and provided all of them with evidence of that. I don't think Gellis hopped around. When she was first introduced it seemed that she was well known so presumably wasn't hopping around. That doesn't mean she couldn't have done that too, but she told Claire she was from the future, so it stands to reason she might have said that too. 

[nara]

1 minute ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

I think that is the reasoning they used to say that time was passing at the same rate.  I misunderstood your comment earlier.  Have no idea how Claire and Co. are explaining Gellis/Gillian, but they didn't even mention her this episode, so now that @ganesh has mentioned it, I'm not sure whether or not the 1968 parts of this ep took place before or after they witnessed Gellis/Gillian go back through the stones.  I hope they clarify that next episode.  

But then, he wouldn't have been so insistent on a "virgin bride" as @Juliegirlj pointed out.  

Exactly this!^  

Here’s how I interpreted it. He, like all men of his position, expected a virgin bride. However, he (for whatever reason) could not have sex. When she was revealed to be pregnant, he was willing to pretend in order to have an heir. I think that not having an heir may have been worse for his ego than pretending a bastard was his. In fact, if she had not been pregnant, he might have eventually found someone discreet to impregnate her. However, when the bastard “killed his wife”, whom he liked and was attracted to, the idea of raising it without the benefit of having a young and beautiful wife was unbearable. 

[ganesh]

I thought Brianna and Roger were more of an item in the S2 finale. Here, in this episode it looked like their first kiss. 

[RulerofallIsurvey]

12 minutes ago, nara said:

Here’s how I interpreted it. He, like all men of his position, expected a virgin bride. However, he (for whatever reason) could not have sex. When she was revealed to be pregnant, he was willing to pretend in order to have an heir. I think that not having an heir may have been worse for his ego than pretending a bastard was his. In fact, if she had not been pregnant, he might have eventually found someone discreet to impregnate her. However, when the bastard “killed his wife”, whom he liked and was attracted to, the idea of raising it without the benefit of having a young and beautiful wife was unbearable. 

Usually, as I understand it, men of his time and position wanted a virgin bride to ensure that any heirs produced were actually their own.  There is something I read quite some time ago about how inheritance worked in England in those days which especially made this make sense, but I can't remember what that was now or where I read it.  Anyway, given this I seriously doubt Ellesmere would have been relieved to learn that Geneva was pregnant by another man and then throw a fit later on - he still would have had an heir if that mattered to him.  Since Ellesmere did not immediately call attention to his wife's infidelity, once the child was born, legally it was the heir; just like Hamish was Collum's son and Gellis' child was legally her husbands, not Dougal's.  The Earl of Ellesmere would have had quite the scandal for killing his own heir (in front of his inlaws no less!) had he not been killed himself.  Again, I doubt a man of his position would have been willing to expose himself to that kind of scandal, even if he was actually grieving the death of his young, beautiful (unfaithful!) wife.  Also, we were neither shown nor told that Ellesmere could not have sex.  Only that they didn't.  If it was because he couldn't perform, I think that should have been clear. ymmv.  

[nara]

2 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

Usually, as I understand it, men of his time and position wanted a virgin bride to ensure that any heirs produced were actually their own.  There is something I read quite some time ago about how inheritance worked in England in those days which especially made this make sense, but I can't remember what that was now or where I read it.  Anyway, given this I seriously doubt Ellesmere would have been relieved to learn that Geneva was pregnant by another man and then throw a fit later on - he still would have had an heir if that mattered to him.  Since Ellesmere did not immediately call attention to his wife's infidelity, once the child was born, legally it was the heir; just like Hamish was Collum's son and Gellis' child was legally her husbands, not Dougal's.  The Earl of Ellesmere would have had quite the scandal for killing his own heir (in front of his inlaws no less!) had he not been killed himself.  Again, I doubt a man of his position would have been willing to expose himself to that kind of scandal, even if he was actually grieving the death of his young, beautiful (unfaithful!) wife.  Also, we were neither shown nor told that Ellesmere could not have sex.  Only that they didn't.  If it was because he couldn't perform, I think that should have been clear. ymmv.  

Where there are plot holes, I allow my imagination to fill them in. ?

[RulerofallIsurvey]

4 minutes ago, nara said:

Where there are plot holes, I allow my imagination to fill them in. ?

I usually try also - but even my imagination likes logical explanations.  :)

[terrymct]

4 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

First, I find it pretty amazing that Geneva zoned in on Jamie to take her maidenhood.  An estate of that size would have had many grooms, and I'm sure there would have been at least one other who was handsome - and closer to her age - on whom she would have developed a crush of some sorts.  And lets face it, Geneva was probably around 18-19 at that time and Jamie was in his 30's.  I remember when I was 18 that 30 was pretty old.  I would think it would have been the same for an 18 year old girl even back then.  But then, this is Perfect Jamie, I'm talking about right?  I mean, everyone who meets him falls in love with him - male and female.  So of course Geneva would also.  

I'm glad the show told us that Willie had Jamie's cock of his head and set of his shoulders, cause I sure didn't see the resemblance.  I realize it's hard to do with actors and especially child actors, but that was just odd exposition to me.  Don't get me wrong, I already understood that Little Willie (hee!) was Jamie's son.  Knew that as soon as Geneva was pregnant and the way Jamie was startled to see it.  (Although, I don't understand why he would have been startled to see that she was pregnant.  She was married by then.  It could well have been her husband's.  I guess it was in the look she gave him.)  I guess Little Willie (and Jamie) are lucky LW didn't have Jamie's signature red hair.  

I don't understand why the old Earl of Ellesmere waited until Geneva gave birth to raise a ruckus that she wasn't a virgin upon marriage.  Wouldn't he have done that as soon as he found out she was pregnant and he hadn't had sex with her yet?  Why didn't he unceremoniously dump her back on her parent's doorstep at that point?  And I don't understand the point of having Jamie shoot him.  I think it would have been better if Geneva's father had shot him - but then I guess Geneva's mother wouldn't have found out who Jamie really was and been able to make peace with him.  (and no doubt she fell in love with him also.)

So, conveniently, Lord Grey, who is in love with Jamie, is going to marry Isobel and raise Jamie's son.  Next best thing, I guess?  I feel sorry for Isobel also.  She was sweet - and smart.  And no doubt deserved a husband who really loved her.  

I'm glad Jamie's going home to Lallybroch finally.  

ETA: Jamie getting into Geneva's bedroom was all kinds of practically impossible.  From the squeaky door, to clomping all the way through the house in his boots without being seen or heard by any house servants?  Ridiculous.  The house staff alone would have been enormous.  

ETA2: Geneva's first time played out totally unrealistic to me.  And I was rather disappointed by that after how realistically Jamie's first time was shown.  (Wham bam done!)  Geneva had practically no pain and then completely enjoyed herself, even reaching orgasm?  Sure she did.  But then, this is Perfect Jamie who had sex with her, so of course she did! //snark.  

I agree.  Having Geneva force Jamie into having sex with her was way too much of a romance novel standard plot line and unrealistic in many ways.  This show is way too casual with the whole spectrum of sexual assault and coercion, especially related to Claire and Jamie.   This was stupid bodice ripper.

Lord Grey for me is like Colum and Dougal MacKenzie, a secondary character who is actually more interesting and with more potential than the primaries (Claire and Jamie).   I'd love to see more about him and have it been independent of Jamie.

I was kind of disappointed to see Bree become so supportive of her mother so quickly.  Having a bit of tension between the characters would be more interesting.  I have to say, though, that the actress who plays Bree is terrible especially since she's acting along side people who are significantly more skilled than she is.   I still have trouble believing that Bree (and Frank) would have believed the whole time travel story with such relative ease.   Imagine your spouse disappeared for two years, showed up pregnant, and told you she'd traveled through time.  Yeah, right.  You'd think she was lying to cover up having been shacked up.  What if you emotionally distant mother told you that story?  You'd think she was crazy.    I'm sort of holding out a hope that Roger and Bree accompany Claire to the stone circle, they have a massive and tearful goodbye, then Claire walk up to the central stone expecting to pass through but instead smacks her forehead on the stone in full view of Roger and Bree.    Yeah, I know that isn't going to happen, especially since Claire and Bree returned to Boston, but it would be viscerally satisfying.

[Daisy]

5 hours ago, ganesh said:

I take your point but I don't think Claire knew Jamie was alive in the S2 finale and she saw Gellis go through she was like "I can go back!" 

Unless they did know? I'm confused because I thought the finale was their first time back in Scotland. 

I'm also not clear on how they figured time is flowing at the same rate. I don't think that makes sense because Gellis went back in 1968, but was there before Claire arrived, not 1768.

 

I think she just caught up in the whole "holy hell, Jamie is alive I CAN GO BACK" (because they realised he officially did not die in Culladan"  but then didn't realise that he 'vanished' too.  the time thing i think was just "Claire was gone for 3 years  time went on here for 3 years. unlike other places where you go back in time and you're gone for like 50 and you come back and it's like a Day (like Narnia). 

[toolazy]

1 hour ago, ganesh said:

 

I know it's not a scifi show, but Roger was technically incorrect and provided all of them with evidence of that. 

Now I'm confused.  What was Roger technically incorrect about?

[nara]

25 minutes ago, terrymct said:

 

Lord Grey for me is like Colum and Dougal MacKenzie, a secondary character who is actually more interesting and with more potential than the primaries (Claire and Jamie).   I'd love to see more about him and have it been independent of Jamie.

I was kind of disappointed to see Bree become so supportive of her mother so quickly.  Having a bit of tension between the characters would be more interesting.  I have to say, though, that the actress who plays Bree is terrible especially since she's acting along side people who are significantly more skilled than she is.   I still have trouble believing that Bree (and Frank) would have believed the whole time travel story with such relative ease.   Imagine your spouse disappeared for two years, showed up pregnant, and told you she'd traveled through time.  Yeah, right.  You'd think she was lying to cover up having been shacked up.  What if you emotionally distant mother told you that story?  You'd think she was crazy.    I'm sort of holding out a hope that Roger and Bree accompany Claire to the stone circle, they have a massive and tearful goodbye, then Claire walk up to the central stone expecting to pass through but instead smacks her forehead on the stone in full view of Roger and Bree.    Yeah, I know that isn't going to happen, especially since Claire and Bree returned to Boston, but it would be viscerally satisfying.

I agree on the more interesting secondary characters. The challenge with Jamie and Claire is that there is so much emphasis on their love story that it prevents other character development.

 

I am totally down to create a parody version of that scene. Willing to play any character! See you in Scotland!

[taanja]

3 hours ago, Pallas said:

He may have been chronically impotent -- too little circulation and/or too much inebriation -- and relieved to have Geneva provide him with an heir and public cover, perfectly timed to their wedding night. Relieved and at the same time ambivalent, perhaps in denial. The shock of Geneva's death, along with the sight and even scent of this newborn not his own, may have tilted him off the plank of delusion. Mostly, though, I'm guessing the showrunners wanted there to be no doubt at all that the child was Jamie's. 

 

That is some convoluted reasoning on the part of the showrunners then. Did they say that on the show? Old geeze was impotent? because the minute he found out little wifey was preggers -- whey didn't he kick her out then? Why wait until the baby was born? That was weird. 

 

6 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

  ETA: Jamie getting into Geneva's bedroom was all kinds of practically impossible.  From the squeaky door, to clomping all the way through the house in his boots without being seen or heard by any house servants?  Ridiculous.  The house staff alone would have been enormous.  

ETA2: Geneva's first time played out totally unrealistic to me.  And I was rather disappointed by that after how realistically Jamie's first time was shown.  (Wham bam done!)  Geneva had practically no pain and then completely enjoyed herself, even reaching orgasm?  Sure she did.  But then, this is Perfect Jamie who had sex with her, so of course she did! //snark.  

Right! I agree on all points.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

55 minutes ago, terrymct said:

I was kind of disappointed to see Bree become so supportive of her mother so quickly.  Having a bit of tension between the characters would be more interesting.  I have to say, though, that the actress who plays Bree is terrible especially since she's acting along side people who are significantly more skilled than she is.   I still have trouble believing that Bree (and Frank) would have believed the whole time travel story with such relative ease.   Imagine your spouse disappeared for two years, showed up pregnant, and told you she'd traveled through time.  Yeah, right.  You'd think she was lying to cover up having been shacked up.  What if you emotionally distant mother told you that story?  You'd think she was crazy.    I'm sort of holding out a hope that Roger and Bree accompany Claire to the stone circle, they have a massive and tearful goodbye, then Claire walk up to the central stone expecting to pass through but instead smacks her forehead on the stone in full view of Roger and Bree.    Yeah, I know that isn't going to happen, especially since Claire and Bree returned to Boston, but it would be viscerally satisfying.

Now I have to go back and rewatch the S2 finale again to be sure, but didn't Brianna and Roger (and Claire) see Gellis/Gillian disappear through the stones?  If that was when Brianna finally believed Claire's story about her father being an 18th century Highland warrior, I can buy that.  

I would love, love, LOVE to see the 'Claire smacks her forehead on the stones' scene!  Lol!  Too bad we won't get it.  

[ganesh]

I don't think they said anything on the show about him being impotent. 

I know they're constrained by the source material, but it would have been more effective if they did consummate the marriage, so the timing of the pregnancy was close enough, but when the baby was born, he had flaming red hair, so everyone knew that it wasn't his kid. Although the baby would still be the heir, you could at least say that the guy would be 'dishonored' that everyone would know it's not his, so he'd just rather kill the baby and find a new wife and start over. 

[terrymct]

One other thing occurred to me after Wee Willie's appearance.  Given the potency of Dougal and now Jamie, families all over Scotland and part of England are likely to have a MacKenzie in the woodpile in this version of the world.   The show has gone into genealogy at several points.  Maybe the next book can feature Bree and Roger's daughter (and you totally know they're destined to be together) using DNA techniques and finding out that a high percentage of the population is linked back to Castle Leoch and in some cases via multiple branches of family trees.  Roger is related to Dougal, isn't he?  That means Bree's uncle is Roger's g-g-g-(don't know how many greats)-grandfather.   If they have a child, the kid's family tree would literally curl around like a wreath.

[nara]

6 hours ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

ETA2: Geneva's first time played out totally unrealistic to me.  And I was rather disappointed by that after how realistically Jamie's first time was shown.  (Wham bam done!)  Geneva had practically no pain and then completely enjoyed herself, even reaching orgasm?  Sure she did.  But then, this is Perfect Jamie who had sex with her, so of course she did! //snark.  

Is it possible that all that riding broken her hymen and that made it hurt less? I have read about that but not sure if that is just an old wives’ tale.

24 minutes ago, ganesh said:

I don't think they said anything on the show about him being impotent. 

I know they're constrained by the source material, but it would have been more effective if they did consummate the marriage, so the timing of the pregnancy was close enough, but when the baby was born, he had flaming red hair, so everyone knew that it wasn't his kid. Although the baby would still be the heir, you could at least say that the guy would be 'dishonored' that everyone would know it's not his, so he'd just rather kill the baby and find a new wife and start over. 

They definitely didn’t say anything about impotence. That is pure speculation on our parts. However, a very wealthy man old enough to be a grandfather and still no kids? Something is up...or not up.

[Pallas]

I think this episode's 1968 Scottish scenes followed all those we saw in season 2. As GHScorpiosrule said,

4 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Just to clarify--yes, Claire, Brianna and Roger witnessed Geillis going back at the end of last season. It was after that, that Brianna told Claire she believed her about going to the past and Jamie; and yes, she did tell Brianna that Jamie was her father. I believe all of this happened in the season finale last season.

Throughout this episode, 1968 Brianna is firmly convinced of her own origin story, and helping Claire to locate Jamie. 

Meanwhile, 

3 hours ago, Adira said:

I don't think this is true - Geillis looks to be in her 20s when she passes through the stones in 1968 - there's no way she passed through the stones in the 1940s (or earlier) to explain her presence in 1745.  She would've been a child.  Plus Claire found her notebook in 1968 where she was researching the stones and how to travel through them.  She thought a sacrifice was required, which is why she murdered her husband before traveling into the past.  I think it's safe to assume she only made one trip - 1968 to sometime before 1745.

Good points all; likely you're right and I'm wrong. I wonder if a sacrifice is necessary in order to select a specific time to arrive, as Gellis intended by traveling back before the Jacobite rebellion. A sacrifice and/or some significant totem, such as Jamie's family pearls.

[RulerofallIsurvey]

8 minutes ago, nara said:

Is it possible that all that riding broken her hymen and that made it hurt less? I have read about that but not sure if that is just an old wives’ tale.

I've heard that too, so I looked it up.  The answers vary, even according to what I consider reputable sources, but according to https://youngwomenshealth.org/2013/07/31/hymen_break/ horseback riding does not break the hymen.  

Even if it did (or stretch it out) the hymen tearing is not the only factor that could contribute to a painful first experience.  Different women have different levels of pain the first time.  Okay.   But she looked like a damn pro - and then there's the fantastic orgasm on top of it all.  It just seemed like unnecessary pimping of Jamie's sexual prowess to me.  

[sas616]

2 hours ago, Daisy said:

 

I think she just caught up in the whole "holy hell, Jamie is alive I CAN GO BACK" (because they realised he officially did not die in Culladan"  but then didn't realise that he 'vanished' too.  the time thing i think was just "Claire was gone for 3 years  time went on here for 3 years. unlike other places where you go back in time and you're gone for like 50 and you come back and it's like a Day (like Narnia). 

In the Season 2 finale, Claire tells Bree that she went through the stones and that Jamie is her real father.  Bree doesn't believe her, until they saw Gellis go through the stones.  Roger also tells Claire that he found evidence that Jamie did not die at Culloden.  Claire says, "I can go back."  Season 3, Ep. 4 picks up from that point, trying to find out what exactly happened to Jamie after the battle.   I believe during the phone call with Joe, it was mentioned the Claire and Bree had been in Scotland for 4 weeks.

[Daisy]

56 minutes ago, RulerofallIsurvey said:

I've heard that too, so I looked it up.  The answers vary, even according to what I consider reputable sources, but according to https://youngwomenshealth.org/2013/07/31/hymen_break/ horseback riding does not break the hymen.  

Even if it did (or stretch it out) the hymen tearing is not the only factor that could contribute to a painful first experience.  Different women have different levels of pain the first time.  Okay.   But she looked like a damn pro - and then there's the fantastic orgasm on top of it all.  It just seemed like unnecessary pimping of Jamie's sexual prowess to me.  

she did say it hurt. 
I dont know, I don't think it was pimping anything. but then i guess i'm just used to harlequin romances and it's generally just like that. good sex. bad sex is usually in people who have zero clue what they are doing, not "attractive" or actual physical violence/taken against their will. like for example say if John and Jaime were to be together, i would expect that to be akin to this, because John likes/loves Jaime, Jaime regards John as a friend and they are coming at it willingly for the most part. would i expect some canoodling. probably not, but would i think nothing of it if it was  shown to be somewhat romantic, nope.