S03.E05: Freedom & Whisky

[Ziggy]

8 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

I think when Jamie was in Ardsmuir-Chapter 7?

We don't learn about that until

Spoiler

book 6 or 7 when Tom Christi arrives on the Ridge. 

It's first mentioned in Voyager when

Spoiler

Jamie and Claire meet with Jared to take one of his boats to the Colonies.

[Haleth]

Beautiful.  When Claire's and Jamie's eyes met it was magic.  (No pun intended.)  Truly a heart melting moment.  And then he fainted.  Heh.

Dark Shadows.  Manoman, as an 11yo in 1968 Dark Shadows was the highlight of my day.  I had the biggest crush on David Selby.  Some channel had been rerunning it not too long ago so I watched a bit.  It was terrible.  11yos have no taste.

I continue to love Roger/Rik.  Sophie is still the weakest link on the show.  Interesting how the show changed all of Claire's preparations for returning and having Roger come to Boston to be the catalyst.  I didn't so much mind the Sandy scene.  Since I sympathized with both Claire and Frank for being in a miserable situation with no good solution, I can also give a wee bit of sympathy to Sandy for not being able to be with the man she loved.  But then it was her choice to stay with a man who wouldn't (or couldn't, if she believed his lies) leave his wife.  All 3 of them wasted many years being unhappy.

During the skull scene I wondered what the non book readers would make of that.  It was obviously not going to be a random skull.  (I cracked up at one comment in the non book thread when someone wondered what would happen if Jamie had been happily remarried with children.  Ha!)

21 hours ago, Nidratime said:

And, funny enough, it's a cultural "item" and it's place "out of time" that ultimately leads Claire back to Jamie. The fact that bits of a Robert Burns poem ends up in a news pamphlet decades before the poem existed, is one of the final clues that they know Jamie is alive and where he might be. Now, does this mean -- years later -- Robert Burns heard those snippets and was inspired to write a poem. ;-)

Is this the clue to Jamie's whereabouts in the book too? It's been so long since I read it I don't remember.

14 hours ago, Glaze Crazy said:

I think the bones scene in the book also implied that Claire has some sort of 6th sense or empathetic ability when it comes to healing people. When Joe hands her the skull he says something along the lines of "I want to see if you can do it with just the bones." She then goes on to "sense" that the person was "surprised" (that she was killed, I guess) and that she didn't want to die. Joe goes on to mention to the man who brought the box of bones that Claire has this ability to just feel things about her patients. I'm also guessing this will also tie into her "blue light/aura" connection mentioned about several other characters over the series and novella(s) (At least the one novella so far, "The Space Between.")

Yep.  That was the point of the surgery scene where Claire had a feeling about having to look for a leaking vessel. 

[DittyDotDot]

3 hours ago, Grashka said:

Yes, I'm also a Catholic and it caught my attention when I was reading "Voyager" the first time. From what I remember from the books Jamie's attitude toward Freemasonery was purely pragmatic and he had no emotional or philosophical attachment to it, he was using it as a tool to keep the men from Ardsmuir together - someone correct me if I'm wrong! 

Yeah, that's how I remember it too.

Spoiler

Jamie became a Mason so he could make his own Lodge with the prisoners--both Catholic and Protestant--to counteract Tom Christie trying to exclude and bully the Catholic prisoners with his gang of Protestants. 

It's another example of Jamie's cunning and leadership in a difficult situation.

14 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

I always thought that the Ardsmuir Masonic lodge was one of the odder decisions by Diana.  I think she had an intention for Jamie's being a Mason to arise later on as a plot point.  It is mentioned in a fairly minor way in future books but it never comes into play to the degree I was expecting.  Maybe in book 9 . . .

Well, many key players to the American Revolution and Founding Fathers were Freemasons, so... .

Edited October 10, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[Haleth]

11 minutes ago, DittyDotDot said:

Well, many key players to the American Revolutions and founding fathers were Freemasons, so... .

Yeah, that's what I was thinking.  Jamie can bond with the FFs in future books.

Edited October 10, 2017 by Haleth

[FnkyChkn34]

14 hours ago, taurusrose said:

Dark Shadows?!  Best daytime soap ever.  I can remember me and my gang all rushing home after school to watch it, then talking about it incessantly the next day.  LOL

The show was cancelled about a decade before I was born. ;-)  

[melody16]

The puddle transition was basically my favorite thing the show has done to date (until next week I am sure!).  I love the prologues to all of the Outlander books and this is one of my favorite ones. What a wonderful way to transition Claire's journey.  

[koboldin]

4 hours ago, Grashka said:

Yes, I'm also a Catholic and it caught my attention when I was reading "Voyager" the first time. From what I remember from the books Jamie's attitude toward Freemasonery was purely pragmatic and he had no emotional or philosophical attachment to it, he was using it as a tool to keep the men from Ardsmuir together - someone correct me if I'm wrong! Still, I'm curious if anyone has adressed DG regarding Jamie and Masonery on SM and what did she answer (if that was the case).

No, it was approached very practically in the book. I wish I knew her reasoning, because she represents Jamie as a devout Catholic, and being involved in Masonry was automatic excommunication. 

[thesparkinside]

To go off on a bit of a tangent, I remembered something from the episode that I really liked: Roger's story about his father. And am I remembering correctly that he was looking at a small toy airplane as well, or was that a different episode? In any case, it made me think of the novella with his father and what happens in book 8. We don't even learn how his parents died until much later, when he tells Bree, so it's cool to see a tiny hint of it early on.

[morgan]

7 minutes ago, thesparkinside said:

To go off on a bit of a tangent, I remembered something from the episode that I really liked: Roger's story about his father. And am I remembering correctly that he was looking at a small toy airplane as well, or was that a different episode? In any case, it made me think of the novella with his father and what happens in book 8. We don't even learn how his parents died until much later, when he tells Bree, so it's cool to see a tiny hint of it early on.

Yes!  I was watching that thinking the same thing and wishing we could see the novellas and all the side stories adapted as well.  Too much to ask for I know, but still would be nice.

[DittyDotDot]

20 minutes ago, morgan said:

Yes!  I was watching that thinking the same thing and wishing we could see the novellas and all the side stories adapted as well.  Too much to ask for I know, but still would be nice.

Most the Lord John novellas would be too far off tangent, IMO, but A Leaf in the Wind of All Hallows would be great to include since it tells Roger's parents' side of things from Written In My Own Heart's Blood. So I hope they include some of that POV if we make it that far with the show. It'd also be a good way to bring Tobias back for an episode... .

[morgan]

1 hour ago, DittyDotDot said:

Most the Lord John novellas would be too far off tangent, IMO, but A Leaf in the Wind of All Hallows would be great to include since it tells Roger's parents' side of things from Written In My Own Heart's Blood. So I hope they include some of that POV if we make it that far with the show. It'd also be a good way to bring Tobias back for an episode... .

I think Starz/Outlander should do a Christmas episode each year.  Just a one off type thing, maybe a 2 or 3 hour special that covers some Outlander side stories/novellas.  Not realistic I know, but wouldn’t  that be fun?

[DittyDotDot]

10 minutes ago, morgan said:

I think Starz/Outlander should do a Christmas episode each year.  Just a one off type thing, maybe a 2 or 3 hour special that covers some Outlander side stories/novellas.  Not realistic I know, but wouldn’t  that be fun?

That would be totally AWESOME!!

[Thalia]

"Is that penicillin in your pocket, or are you just glad to see me?"  

I've watched this episode three times now, not counting the last few minutes, which I've watched 3 times infinity (and beyond!).  I crack up each time I see Claire slam those vials of penicillin into the bat suit.  We don't see the (probable) scene of her carefully packing the vials in cotton batting or bubble wrap before going through the stones, and thus I can only imagine them breaking as she jumps through the gem-destroying, time-space continuum.  

I'm also reminded of Chekhov's Rule:  Hypodermic needles that appear in Act I must be poked into hot, naked ass in Act II. 

[FnkyChkn34]

23 hours ago, morgan said:

I think Starz/Outlander should do a Christmas episode each year.  Just a one off type thing, maybe a 2 or 3 hour special that covers some Outlander side stories/novellas.  Not realistic I know, but wouldn’t  that be fun?

I think a 3 hour special is called a "movie."  ;-)  

[Rilla-my-Rilla]

Since I was expecting this episode to end with the bell and see the faint in episode 6, I really did laugh watching it by myself around 1 am Sunday.

I got the whole Sandy thing, but I didn't like seeing it. This seems to be the start of people saying shitty things to Claire and she only fights back or defends herself sometimes. Like later in Voyager when Marsali keeps calling her a whore, I don't want Claire to freak out on a 15 year old or anything, but she could point out she's not a whore, don't call her that, and remind her she was married to Jamie first or something. I don't know it just bugs me. I like Marsali and all and she comes around later, but Claire just sits there and takes it. That's what the Sandy scene reminded me of. I know there are other examples too, but I've most recently re-read Voyager and Drums of Autumn so that's what I'm remembering now.

I think I had more to say about the episode, but now that I'm finally posting, it seems to have slipped away...

[toolazy]

3 hours ago, Rilla-my-Rilla said:

t Claire just sits there and takes it. 

My impression was that she thought it was funny. 

[DittyDotDot]

16 hours ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

I think a 3 hour special is called a "movie."  ;-)  

Or, a mini-series if it's broken into two or three installments. ;)

[MsProudSooner]

On 10/10/2017 at 4:19 PM, morgan said:

I think Starz/Outlander should do a Christmas episode each year.  Just a one off type thing, maybe a 2 or 3 hour special that covers some Outlander side stories/novellas.  Not realistic I know, but wouldn’t  that be fun?

They could make "The Scottish Prisoner" into a Christmas special. 

[unlfan03]

So listening to the podcast with Toni and Maril and they are trying to spin the Sandy/Claire confrontation as a poor Frank loving Claire and she couldn't love him and that he would have left Sandy for Claire if she had just tried to love him. Can I just say they totally missed the point of Frank and Claire. For the love of Christ Claire was mourning Jamie and Frank couldn't let her mourn fully. Then when she tried to reach out (like the lets go to the movies) he shot her down because Claire didn't mourn quickly enough for Frank. At least now we know why they left out the real confrontation that Claire had with the mistresses in the book where she said that she had told him to leave. It is behind the scenes things like this that makes me surprised that the final show is as good as we get. Also I'm glad they did ditch the idea of Bri going backpacking around Scotland to try to connect with Jamie.

[GHScorpiosRule]

5 minutes ago, unlfan03 said:

So listening to the podcast with Toni and Maril and they are trying to spin the Sandy/Claire confrontation as a poor Frank loving Claire and she couldn't love him and that he would have left Sandy for Claire if she had just tried to love him. Can I just say they totally missed the point of Frank and Claire. For the love of Christ Claire was mourning Jamie and Frank couldn't let her mourn fully. Then when she tried to reach out (like the lets go to the movies) he shot her down because Claire didn't mourn quickly enough for Frank. At least now we know why they left out the real confrontation that Claire had with the mistresses in the book where she said that she had told him to leave. It is behind the scenes things like this that makes me surprised that the final show is as good as we get. Also I'm glad they did ditch the idea of Bri going backpacking around Scotland to try to connect with Jamie.

It's why I refuse to listen to the podcasts and ?????when they try to justify or explain they did x and y to "redeem" a character so later events make sense. Like the reason why hosebeast returned in "The Fox's Lair" to redeem her because Jamie will marry her later. Why this need to redeem horrid characters is beyond my ken.???

Edited October 14, 2017 by GHScorpiosRule

[WatchrTina]

19 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Why this need to redeem horrid characters is beyond my ken

Weel, they did have an obligation to walk-back how awful Laoghaire is in the show because they made her WORSE than in the books -- at least with regard to Claire's nearly being burned as witch.  Book!Hosebeast delivers the letter than gets Claire to Gellis' place in time to be arrested but TV!Hosebeast actually testified against her.  You can fan-wank that somehow Book!Claire never told Jamie about Laoghaire's role (in delivering the letter) but TV!Jamie saw her at the trial (or at least walking with the crowd as Gellis is carried from the courtroom) so it is damn near impossible for me to believe that he doesn't know exactly what role she played. Having created that situation, the show-writers actually had to walk that situation back a bit with that "I"m supposed to thank ye though I dinna ken what for" scene between Laoghaire and Jamie.

ETA:  This is the episode thread and I have gone wildly off topic above so . . . let's talk about the difference between Book!Jamie's reaction to seeing Claire and TV!Jamie's reaction to hearing Claire in the big reunion moment.  I have to say I was surprised at what they did.  Remember how in 302 Jamie had a vision of Claire when he brought the deer in?  I thought they were laying the groundwork to make it plausible that TV!Jamie would not be startled to see Claire -- to signal to us that Jamie routinely has visions of Claire and that he'd just think Real!Claire was another vision (as he does book -- until she touches him.) They didn't do that.  Jamie recognizer her voice -- you can tell by his body language -- and yet the look on his face when he first turns around is one of deep suspicion bordering on anger.  He thinks he's being tricked at first.  I actually think that's a much more plausible reaction so I approve that change, but I suspect that decision was not made until after 302 was filmed.

Edited October 14, 2017 by WatchrTina

[DittyDotDot]

10 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

Weel, they did have an obligation to walk-back how awful Laoghaiare is in the show because they made her WORSE than in the books -- at least with regard to Claire's nearly being burned as witch.  Book!Hosebeast delivers the letter than gets Claire to Gellis' place in time to be arrested but TV!Hosebeast actually testified against her.  You can fan-wank that somehow Book!Claire never told Jamie about Laoghaire's role (in delivering the letter) but TV!Jamie saw her at the trial (or at least walking with the crowd as Gellis is carried from the courtroom) so it is damn near impossible for me to believe that he doesn't know exactly what role she played. Having created that situation, the show-writers actually had to walk that situation back a bit with that "I"m supposed to thank ye though I dinna ken what for" scene between Laoghaire and Jamie.

Taken to Show vs Books thread...

[Lady Iris]

On ‎10‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 3:21 PM, thesparkinside said:

To go off on a bit of a tangent, I remembered something from the episode that I really liked: Roger's story about his father. And am I remembering correctly that he was looking at a small toy airplane as well, or was that a different episode?

 I was sadly reminded of the Lost episode where Kate was bonkers over her toy airplane. Bad flashback *facepalm*

 

I've collected the first four eps and watched them over this past week. I'm so glad I did. I'd have gone mad waiting for this next week's episode if I watched week by week.

[GHScorpiosRule]

At least Poldark aired last night, so I wasn't totally bereft! But I also rewatched all the episodes again. Well almost all. I just fast forward to the last two minutes of this episode. Just because.

[GingerMarie]

Claire is still wearing her wedding ring that Frank gave her as well as Jamie's ring.  I really felt she would have put Frank's ring away when she went back to Jamie.  We have talked that Frank was never able to let Claire go it seems to me that Claire is still not ready to let Frank go. 

[Nidratime]

This is me just talking off the top of my head, but I would think that Claire didn't take Frank's ring off because she still has some guilt -- whether deserved or not -- over falling in love with someone else and coming back pregnant to a man (Frank) who stood by her initially. Yes, he had affairs afterward, but I'm sure she feels responsibility for how their relationship evolved. Plus, there is her daughter, who still has enormous love for and is mourning the father who raised her. The ring is almost like a bit of mourning for a man she once loved romantically and still loved as a human being. Instead of the traditional black, Claire's wearing the ring.

[Scarlett45]

54 minutes ago, Nidratime said:

This is me just talking off the top of my head, but I would think that Claire didn't take Frank's ring off because she still has some guilt -- whether deserved or not -- over falling in love with someone else and coming back pregnant to a man (Frank) who stood by her initially. Yes, he had affairs afterward, but I'm sure she feels responsibility for how their relationship evolved. Plus, there is her daughter, who still has enormous love for and is mourning the father who raised her. The ring is almost like a bit of mourning for a man she once loved romantically and still loved as a human being. Instead of the traditional black, Claire's wearing the ring.

I could most certainly see that. Jaime might me the love of her life but Frank was her partner and co-parent for many many years, it would be kind of like a remembrance to him. 

 

Im thinking of how Rebecca on "This is Us" wears the necklace Jack gave her although he's been dead almost 20yrs (unrelated show I know). 

[GingerMarie]

Very well put Nidratime.  I like the comparison of being in mourning to wearing black but instead wears his ring and as you said Scarlett45 they do have a lot of history.  I am probably putting too much in to Frank's ring but I do wonder if she will ever let that part of her past go?

[WatchrTina]

5 hours ago, GingerMarie said:

Claire is still wearing her wedding ring that Frank gave her as well as Jamie's ring.  I really felt she would have put Frank's ring away when she went back to Jamie. 

She took it off for her wedding (in the show, not in the book) but she put it back on afterward and Jamie never minded that she continued to wear it.  She remembered Frank, but she chose to stay with Jamie.  When she comes back to Jamie after their 20-year separation, Frank is dead, really most sincerely dead, not just "not alive" like he was the first time.  So her wearing it would not trouble Jamie at all.  And, as she confessed to Frank's corpse, she really did love him once.  He helped her raise Brianna and Brianna loved him dearly.  It seems perfectly natural that she would continue to wear her two rings -- just as she has done for over 23 years.

Edited October 17, 2017 by WatchrTina

[GingerMarie]

I do remember her taking off her ring when being married to Jamie and the next morning when the ring rolled on the floor and the look on Claire's face when she saw it.  Like she had betrayed Frank and everything that ring stood for.  You are correct in that Jamie did not mind her wearing his ring.  But maybe Sandy had a point when she told Claire she should have let Frank go.  I just feel sometimes that Claire wants it all and generally she gets it all.  

[theschnauzers]

31 minutes ago, GingerMarie said:

I do remember her taking off her ring when being married to Jamie and the next morning when the ring rolled on the floor and the look on Claire's face when she saw it.  Like she had betrayed Frank and everything that ring stood for.  You are correct in that Jamie did not mind her wearing his ring.  But maybe Sandy had a point when she told Claire she should have let Frank go.  I just feel sometimes that Claire wants it all and generally she gets it all.  

I think it is important to remember that Claire sought counsel from the Abbot in both book and tv while Jamie was treated and convalesced after his escape from Wentworth concerning her being married to Jamie and Frank. As both were not alive at the same time, it was not bigamy, and I took that to mean that Claire would live with Frank in the 20th Century and with Jamie in the 18th Century and both Jamie and Frank were ultimately aware of it. Frank agreed just as much to the arrangement when Claire returned, as Jamie had long before Claire went through the stone just prior to Culloden.  Sandy didn't have all the facts, I strongly suspect, and was speaking out of her ignorance of the truth. And how would Frank or Claire been able to explain it to her? Claire saying nothing and walking away was the best course of action, and Claire had certainly earned the right to think of Jamie while back in the 20th Century, and likewise with Frank, now that she has returned to the 18th Century.

[DittyDotDot]

10 hours ago, GingerMarie said:

I do remember her taking off her ring when being married to Jamie and the next morning when the ring rolled on the floor and the look on Claire's face when she saw it.  Like she had betrayed Frank and everything that ring stood for.  You are correct in that Jamie did not mind her wearing his ring.  But maybe Sandy had a point when she told Claire she should have let Frank go.  I just feel sometimes that Claire wants it all and generally she gets it all.  

IMO, Claire did love Frank, she just didn't love him enough for Frank or herself. I think Claire carries around a lot of guilt with regards to Frank. Not only for falling in love with another man, but also for dragging him into a marriage where she knew she could never give him what he wanted or needed. Granted, Frank got himself in the marriage too, but I think part of the reason Claire wears his ring is that, even though it was messy, they did share a life together and she feels it's not fair to Frank to forget that or ignore it. 

Edited October 17, 2017 by DittyDotDot

[GHScorpiosRule]

Stupid quote function isn't working, so...

Originally quoted by @GingerMarie:

  But maybe Sandy had a point when she told Claire she should have let Frank go.

 

No, I don't think she had any point. Claire wanted a divorce, or offered to let Frank out of the marriage. He was the one who nixed that. He was the one who wanted to stay because Brianna was his only chance at having a child of his own. Sandy has no standing and no room to judge. But then Frank ends up wanting a divorce in the end, along with taking Bree away for non-altruistic reasons that once again, the show failed to give the audience, making him look even more sympathetic.

Edited October 17, 2017 by GHScorpiosRule
Manually jiggering to reference person I am actually quoting!

[Bort]

43 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

No, I don't think she had any point. Claire wanted a divorce, or offered to let Frank out of the marriage. He was the one who nixed that. He was the one who wanted to stay because Brianna was his only chance at having a child of his own. Sandy has no standing and no room to judge. But then Frank ends up wanting a divorce in the end, along with taking Bree away for non-altruistic reasons that once again, the show failed to give the audience, making him look even more sympathetic.

See, and I don't agree with that last point. Obviously, Frank isn't going to tell Sandy the whole truth because it sounds crazy, but he clearly didn't tell her the real gist: "I won't leave Claire because I'll end up losing my child." Instead, he told her something that makes himself look good and Claire look bad: "Claire won't give me a divorce." I think the show was very clear there. And his reasons for wanting to take Bree to England were pretty obvious: because he can, because Bree would go, because Claire can't say no, because it would hurt Claire.

[theschnauzers]

1 hour ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

No, I don't think she had any point. Claire wanted a divorce, or offered to let Frank out of the marriage. He was the one who nixed that. He was the one who wanted to stay because Brianna was his only chance at having a child of his own. Sandy has no standing and no room to judge. But then Frank ends up wanting a divorce in the end, along with taking Bree away for non-altruistic reasons that once again, the show failed to give the audience, making him look even more sympathetic.

You attributed the quote in your post to me, and it isn’t. I was quoting Gingermarie to respond to that passage. Just to set the record straight. 

Edited October 17, 2017 by theschnauzers

[GHScorpiosRule]

Just now, theschnauzers said:

You attributed the quote in your post to me, and it isn’t. I was quoting Gingermarie. Just to set the record straight. 

I didn't! It's the stupid site that did it! I clearly went to the original poster's comment. Let me see if I can go fix it! So sorry!

[GingerMarie]

Another observation I made is when Claire went back to Jamie and while was walking to his shop did anyone else notice that (CB) Claire's left foot has a significant intoeing or what has been called pigeon toed.  I am not being critical or mean or any other adjective that one would  use to suggest I am picking on someone.  I just did not notice this in any other episode or even when she walks the red copy or when was a modal.  It was very pronounced in this episode.  

[ElsieH]

I have noticed it in many other episodes. Oddly enough, I didn't notice it in this one. But even going back to the wedding episode when she is standing in her bare feet I thought they were turned in a bit.

[toolazy]

Oh yeah, she is definitely pigeon-toed.  I love it because it's cute and it means she isn't perfect.  

[Thalia]

I forgot to mention another thing I think of every time I watch Claire ask the little urchin for the location of Jamie's shop.  I know it was in the book, but for some reason it reminds me of the scene in YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN, where Victor calls out "Pardon me boy.  Is that the Transylvania Choo Choo?"

[MsProudSooner]

Regarding Sandy's soliloquy:  The fact of the matter is that Frank chose Bree over Sandy.  Frank made Claire out to be the 'bad guy' to Sandy.  I'm sure I would have been tacky enough to tell her so, but Claire was secure enough that she didn't feel the need to do that. 

[Mabel]

maybe it has already been discussed - but how come Jamie didn't really age a bit? and Claire in the past looked decidedly younger than in the present. perhaps, it's the hair. I don't remember the first season - but is Claire supposed to be older than Jamie or about the same age? the actress definitely looks older.

[Nidratime]

Claire is supposed to be about four years older.

[toolazy]

Claire looks younger in the past because her hair isn't lacquered to death and her face is clean.  Gone are the pancake makeup, eyeliner and false eyelashes.  She just looks better with a clean face and that translates into making her look younger.  I know that it's counter-intuitive but there it is.  And I'm sorry, but they Jamie does look older.  Maybe not entirely his age, but definitely older than he looked in, say, The Wedding.  

[FnkyChkn34]

I just had another thought about this episode...  Why was Bree so stoic when Claire was getting in the taxi to leave?  Did either of them even cry?  If I was only 20 and my mom was leaving me forever, I'd be bawling like a baby.  And if I was only 45 or 47, or whatever, and leaving my daughter forever, I'd also be bawling like a baby.

[toolazy]

2 hours ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

I just had another thought about this episode...  Why was Bree so stoic when Claire was getting in the taxi to leave?  Did either of them even cry?  If I was only 20 and my mom was leaving me forever, I'd be bawling like a baby.  And if I was only 45 or 47, or whatever, and leaving my daughter forever, I'd also be bawling like a baby.

I seem to recall her sobbing on Roger's shoulder for a while.  

[Nidratime]

I think Bree was trying to hold it together for her mother.

[Kim0820]

On 10/8/2017 at 9:52 PM, Ziggy said:

Right, but that's the way it has to be.  If Claire lives the rest of her natural life with Jamie, she is going to die before she is born.  No way around that.  I don't understand why you are saying it's impossible.  We know for a fact that this is true of Geillis Duncan.  She was born in the 20th Century and died in the 18th Century.  Her bones were found in the 20th Century, but they were still on the earth during all of the 20th Century, including the period in which she was born and grew up and before she went through the stones.  So she was dead and alive at the same time in the same time.

I know in the books they say you can't be alive at the same time as another version of yourself, but you have to be able to be alive at the same time that your bones are resting in the ground.

I had thought that being burned at the stake, Geillus could at least know that she would be born in the future. 

Then the conclusion that time passes in the past and the future at the same rate was questioned, since Geillus traveled back before Claire from a much later year.  So the 60s were continuing during Geillus' 1740s sojourn.  Geillus existed in the 1960s so when she died in 1744, it could not be that she would never be born.    

So maybe it is parallel universes, which could be infinite in number and you have infinite sets of bones for dying every different year you died. The stones took Geillis back over 220 years, Claire 202 years.   If Claire stays with Jamie for life and dies of old age in 1780s or 90s if she would not be born in 1918, she would not exist, but yet she did exist from 1918-1968 and knows that era and remembers it while in the 18th century.

On 10/9/2017 at 6:04 PM, Glaze Crazy said:

I think the bones scene in the book also implied that Claire has some sort of 6th sense or empathetic ability when it comes to healing people. When Joe hands her the skull he says something along the lines of "I want to see if you can do it with just the bones." She then goes on to "sense" that the person was "surprised" (that she was killed, I guess) and that she didn't want to die. Joe goes on to mention to the man who brought the box of bones that Claire has this ability to just feel things about her patients.

Claire didn't show any signs of an inkling she had lived in the 18th century while she was in the 1940s.  In 1968, she is aware she spent time in the 18th century, and she is considering going back at that point.  So she knows she will live through later years in the 18th century if she does that (though she could have some doubt the stones will take her there as opposed to some other century) so maybe that kicks the 6th sense into being.

On 10/16/2017 at 8:23 PM, Nidratime said:

This is me just talking off the top of my head, but I would think that Claire didn't take Frank's ring off because she still has some guilt -- whether deserved or not -- over falling in love with someone else and coming back pregnant to a man (Frank) who stood by her initially. Yes, he had affairs afterward, but I'm sure she feels responsibility for how their relationship evolved. Plus, there is her daughter, who still has enormous love for and is mourning the father who raised her. The ring is almost like a bit of mourning for a man she once loved romantically and still loved as a human being. Instead of the traditional black, Claire's wearing the ring.

It was noticeable that neither husband objects to the other's ring.  She wears them both from the wedding night in 1743 on.