S03.E08: First Wife

[FnkyChkn34]

1 minute ago, MsProudSooner said:

Was anyone else worried that the later books were going to focus on other characters instead of J & C?

Yes, me.  Especially because I don't care for Brianna, and I'm indifferent toward Lord John.  One annoys me, and they both bore me.  Another contributing factor to why I am stuck on book 5.

[FnkyChkn34]

Is anyone else bothered by the fact that it's supposed to be early January in Scotland, yet when they get to Lallybroch, it looks like spring or summer? Jenny is working outside with her sleeves rolled up.  No one is wearing a heavy cloak but Claire. 

[Cloudberryjam]

17 minutes ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

Is anyone else bothered by the fact that it's supposed to be early January in Scotland, yet when they get to Lallybroch, it looks like spring or summer? Jenny is working outside with her sleeves rolled up.  No one is wearing a heavy cloak but Claire. 

Yes! Thank u! I thought when she got to Edinburgh there should b snow on the ground...

[WatchrTina]

I just posted a new except from Book 9 in that books folder.  In it, a 50-something Claire is rousted from a sound sleep due to a medical emergency.  I laughed when Claire narrates:

Quote

My mind was less clear about other things; I’d put my stays on backward. I yanked them off, flung them on the bed, and went to splash water on my face, thinking a lot of things I couldn’t say out loud, as I could hear children’s feet now pattering across the landing.

I didn't put that in a spoiler bar because it's such a tiny moment and I include it here because reading that brought MY Claire -- the one that lives in my head -- so vividly into view and because it reminded me of a scene in THIS episode.  Remember when they're talking to Ned and Claire snarks that "Richmond is lovely at this time of year" ?  She says that in response to the notion that Laoghaire could be convicted and transported due to her shooting Jamie.  As I watched the episode I found myself thinking "well that's a bit out of character".  But no, it wasn't.  Book Claire IS a bit grumpy.  She can be a bit snarky.  She's been known to curse.  (Not like that foul-mouthed wee besom Laoughaire did in THIS episode mind you, but yeah, she curses). Book Claire can be rough around the edge.  She quite HUMAN.  TV!Claire has fewer scenes where that side of Claire comes into view.  I think it's because we see less of TV!Claire (only 13 hours of air-time per season vs. hundreds of pages in the book) so one episode of snark on TV carries more weight that it does in the book where you have pages and pages of Claire being kind, thoughtful, helpful, brave, and generally awesome to offset her moments of grumpiness. You also have the benefit of being in Book!Claire's head. Lets face it, we are ALL a lot snarkier in our minds than we are in "real" life.  If I gave voice to every snarky thought I ever had I'd be unemployed.

That's it.  I don't have anything more to say.  I don't know if this post is a particularly good use of bandwidth. I just think it's interesting how TV!Clairea and Book!Claire are now living parallel but separate lives in my head and how I just caught myself reacting to TV!Claire as if she is a different person than the one I know and love from the books.

Edited November 11, 2017 by WatchrTina

[Nightshade]

 Yes, book Claire can be snarky and grumpy, it's one of the things I love about her.

[ferjy]

On 11/6/2017 at 7:22 AM, DittyDotDot said:

Yes on both counts. I'm not sure why they made wee Ian so light in comparison to the books, his dark coloring is something that's somewhat important later, but I guess they'll figure it out when they get there? But, yes, Jamie and Ian both strapped each other and wee Ian is dark haired like Jenny in the books.

I believe Jamie adopted Claire's pronunciation despite his initial rebuff of it. 

Thanks for the confirmation. I thought in the books he used his pronunciation. Later on especially, and that

Spoiler

Bree liked him calling her that. 

(I know this is Book Talk, but not sure if we’re allowed to give away info from books that are ahead of this one.)

[GHScorpiosRule]

5 minutes ago, ferjy said:

I know this is Book Talk, but not sure if we’re allowed to give away info from books that are ahead of this one.

You are. 

[WatchrTina]

I'm re-watching this episode and it is just awash in tiny, brilliant acting moments.  The one I just noticed is that when Claire goes into doctor-mode after Jamie gets shot she pours him a whisky.  He drinks it, puts down the glass, and then picks up the bottle and drinks straight from it.  LOL.  His actions clearly say, "Yo, Claire, dinna be stingy with the alcohol right after announcing that you intend to 'dig the bird-shot' out of me."

[ferjy]

55 minutes ago, Nightshade said:

 Yes, book Claire can be snarky and grumpy, it's one of the things I love about her.

So did I but in the show it hasn’t translated well. She seems more petulant than strong and funny. Maybe it’s our own perceptions or maybe the actress doesn’t portray it well. She overacts it. I don’t like her “angry” face. Those pursed lips. lol

[GHScorpiosRule]

1 minute ago, WatchrTina said:

I'm re-watching this episode and it is just awash in tiny, brilliant acting moments.  The one I just noticed is that when Claire goes into doctor-mode after Jamie gets shot she pours him a whisky.  He drinks it, puts down the glass, and then picks up the bottle and drinks straight from it.  LOL.  His actions clearly say, "Yo, Claire, dinna be stingy with the alcohol right after announcing that you intend to 'dig the bird-shot' out of me."

Get outta me brain! That’s one of me favorite scenes! Hell, I think I loved every scene in this episode. I know I’ve rewatched it six times already! ??And will watch again tonight before the new episode!

[WatchrTina]

Aaaand I just notice something else.  When Claire first comes to check on Jamie (bandaged, bare-chested Jamie who is gently lit by fire-light, sigh) she is grumpy and all-business but Jamie (woozy, slightly drunk Jamie) is feeling something else.  That scene reminds me SO MUCH of that scene in season one where tipsy Claire checks his wound (down in Davy Beaton's candle-lit surgery) and they have eye-sex.  

Sigh.  

The writers -- they are playing me like a fiddle.

ETA:  It's also note-worthy that she manages to move the bandages and peek at his wounds without actually touching him (thus not noticing his fever.)  The lady, she is PISSED.

Edited November 11, 2017 by WatchrTina

[toolazy]

1 hour ago, ferjy said:

So did I but in the show it hasn’t translated well. She seems more petulant than strong and funny. 

That's because they kept her sharp tongue but lost the humor somehow.

[TaurusRose]

On 11/9/2017 at 3:48 PM, whoknowswho said:

I LOVE Outlander and Dragonfly in Amber--loved. But It became too rapey, and with the constant, constant ridiculous danger--I understand how some still go nuts over the books, I loved the first 2 and part of 3, but when they got on the ship, I was done.  I miught have read another, but unlike ASOIAF, I didn't want to commit to a series that went on for most of my life. lol. 

Mainly testing out a new keyboard, but I will say that if a series runs longer than three books I’m done. Generally, I lose interest in more than three books because it seems to me most authors can’t sustain the story or the quality for more than that. (Also, why should one author suck up all my time?) And if said series is turned into a movie or television show, it’s pretty much guaranteed that I’ll never start (a) reading it or (b) return to it. I’m not going to spend years reading anything. I quit ASOIAF while reading the third book because it was just too much.  IMO, DG should have wrapped up Claire and Jamie’s story years ago. Outlander is so poorly written (not the story itself, I’m talking about the actual mechanics of writing) there was no way in hell I was going to continue reading it.

[FnkyChkn34]

10 hours ago, WatchrTina said:

I just posted a new except from Book 9 in that books folder.  In it, a 50-something Claire is rousted from a sound sleep due to a medical emergency.  I laughed when Claire narrates:

I didn't put that in a spoiler bar because it's such a tiny moment and I include it here because reading that brought MY Claire -- the one that lives in my head -- so vividly into view and because it reminded me of a scene in THIS episode.  Remember when they're talking to Ned and Claire snarks that "Richmond is lovely at this time of year" ?  She says that in response to the notion that Laoghaire could be convicted and transported due to her shooting Jamie.  As I watched the episode I found myself thinking "well that's a bit out of character".  But no, it wasn't.  Book Claire IS a bit grumpy.  She can be a bit snarky.  She's been known to curse.  (Not like that foul-mouthed wee besom Laoughaire did in THIS episode mind you, but yeah, she curses). Book Claire can be rough around the edge.  She quite HUMAN.  TV!Claire has fewer scenes where that side of Claire comes into view.  I think it's because we see less of TV!Claire (only 13 hours of air-time per season vs. hundreds of pages in the book) so one episode of snark on TV carries more weight that it does in the book where you have pages and pages of Claire being kind, thoughtful, helpful, brave, and generally awesome to offset her moments of grumpiness. You also have the benefit of being in Book!Claire's head. Lets face it, we are ALL a lot snarkier in our minds than we are in "real" life.  If I gave voice to every snarky thought I ever had I'd be unemployed.

That's it.  I don't have anything more to say.  I don't know if this post is a particularly good use of bandwidth. I just think it's interesting how TV!Clairea and Book!Claire are now living parallel but separate lives in my head and how I just caught myself reacting to TV!Claire as if she is a different person than the one I know and love from the books.

Ugh, yes!  She even uses the c-word, which I think is the worst word of them all.  I hate hearing that word.  I can't actually believe the writers made Leghair say it...

5 hours ago, taurusrose said:

Mainly testing out a new keyboard, but I will say that if a series runs longer than three books I’m done. Generally, I lose interest in more than three books because it seems to me most authors can’t sustain the story or the quality for more than that. (Also, why should one author suck up all my time?) And if said series is turned into a movie or television show, it’s pretty much guaranteed that I’ll never start (a) reading it or (b) return to it. I’m not going to spend years reading anything. I quit ASOIAF while reading the third book because it was just too much.  IMO, DG should have wrapped up Claire and Jamie’s story years ago. Outlander is so poorly written (not the story itself, I’m talking about the actual mechanics of writing) there was no way in hell I was going to continue reading it.

Amen.  Pretty much where I am as well.

[GHScorpiosRule]

5 minutes ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

Ugh, yes!  She even uses the c-word, which I think is the worst word of them all.  I hate hearing that word.  I can't actually believe the writers made Leghair say it...

What made it even worse was that she said it in front of her daughters. But especially wee Joanie.

[areca]

C*** is not really a swear word anywhere except America.  Not sure what the freakout is all about.  Also, the rape aspect seems pretty..meh to me.  Welcome to the 18th century when life was short and brutal.  I adore the Outlander books, all of them, and can't wait for Brianna and Roger's story to take the forefront.  Even though I think Sophie whatsherface is (currently) a terrible actor.  I have at least some hope for her.

Edited November 12, 2017 by areca

[FnkyChkn34]

40 minutes ago, areca said:

C*** is not really a swear word anywhere except America.  Not sure what the freakout is all about.  Also, the rape aspect seems pretty..meh to me.  Welcome to the 18th century when life was short and brutal.  I adore the Outlander books, all of them, and can't wait for Brianna and Roger's story to take the forefront.  Even though I think Sophie whatsherface is (currently) a terrible actor.  I have at least some hope for her.

So that's not an extreme insult to women in other English speaking countries?  Wow.  Considering some countries take offense at words we consider much less offensive, I'm very surprised to hear that.  It is a horrible word here in America.  (And I don't even like that you wrote it out, if I'm being honest.  I don't take personal offense to it, I just hate it that much.)

[millahnna]

7 hours ago, taurusrose said:

Outlander is so poorly written (not the story itself, I’m talking about the actual mechanics of writing) there was no way in hell I was going to continue reading it.

God ain't it the truth.  I've been stalled out on book three for two years.  I'm pretty sure I'll never finish the series.  For the most part, I've found every change in the show to be a massive improvement.  But then I thought this episode was pretty boring for the most part so I'm apparently a bit of an odd duck when it comes to book readers who watch it.  Different strokes and all.

 

1 hour ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

So that's not an extreme insult to women in other English speaking countries? 

Oh it is.  Not sure where the idea that it's only really offensive in the US comes from but there's detailed etymology research available for the word. It's been regarded (outside of reclamation attempts ongoing since the 70s) as the second most vile insult just behind the N word and its equivalents.

Edited November 12, 2017 by millahnna

[areca]

It's used regularly in day to day conversation and is gender neutral in much of Europe and Australia (where in fact it's most often used by men addressing one another).  It's only Americans who really find it offensive.  It's considered very mild pretty much everywhere else.  But y'all go on believing whatever you like, I'm not here to evangelize.

Edited November 12, 2017 by areca

[TaurusRose]

It's used regularly in day to day conversation and is gender neutral in much of Europe and Australia (where in fact it's most often used by men addressing one another).  It's only Americans who really find it offensive.  It's considered very mild pretty much everywhere else.  But y'all go on believing whatever you like, I'm not here to evangelize.

From Wikipedia..."Reflecting different national usages, c*** is described as "an unpleasant or stupid person" in the Compact Oxford English Dictionary, whereas Merriam-Webster states that it is a "usually disparaging and obscene" term for a woman or an "offensive way to refer to a woman" in the United States."

And from the Urban Dictionary..."Top definition ... scottish guy 1: see that mad c*** over there ... C*** is a term used mainly in the UK by bo th men and women as a term for stupid or idiotic, often ..."

While I agree it is an unpleasant word to my American ears, I will concede that certain words have different connotations in other parts of the world.  However, calling someone the 'n' word is universally offensive and I would not typically use the "c" word in the U.S.

[FnkyChkn34]

This is an example of why we need to be respectful of everyone's cultural differences on an international website. You aren't going to convince most American women that it just means "idiot" but I guess it's nice to see that other countries aren't offended.  (Aside - Leghair didn't just mean to call Claire an idiot, though. I think those were American writers/producers influencing the harshness of her profanity.)

[FnkyChkn34]

One more nitpick about this episode...

"There are hundreds of islands, but only one where the silkies live."  So... where are the silkies?  They weren't there when Jamie swam out, nor were they there when Ian swam out.

[toolazy]

1 hour ago, FnkyChkn34 said:

One more nitpick about this episode...

"There are hundreds of islands, but only one where the silkies live."  So... where are the silkies?  They weren't there when Jamie swam out, nor were they there when Ian swam out.

I'm going to guess that this is a production thing.  It sounds to me like they blew their CGI budget on the ships - it's why we didn't have to see a particular animal be tormented by one of the characters in the most recent episode.

[Nidratime]

Quote

"There are hundreds of islands, but only one where the silkies live."  So... where are the silkies?  They weren't there when Jamie swam out, nor were they there when Ian swam out.

Migration? (I think it's selkies, by the way.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selkie

[FnkyChkn34]

2 hours ago, Nidratime said:

Migration? (I think it's selkies, by the way.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selkie

Interesting, because I think it's "silkie" in both the book and closed captioning.  Also, I thought they were talking about real seals, not mythological creatures.

"silkie (ˈsɪlkɪ) or selkie - n. - (Animals) a Scot word for seal"  https://www.thefreedictionary.com/silkies

[whoknowswho]

On 2017-11-15 at 1:56 PM, FnkyChkn34 said:

Interesting, because I think it's "silkie" in both the book and closed captioning.  Also, I thought they were talking about real seals, not mythological creatures.

"silkie (ˈsɪlkɪ) or selkie - n. - (Animals) a Scot word for seal"  https://www.thefreedictionary.com/silkies

Unless they are talking about the chickens I raise, which are Silkies, but I can't imagine an island full of fluffy chickens.;)

Edited November 17, 2017 by whoknowswho
Fix spelling

[AheadofStraight]

I was curious so I checked the kindle. The book uses silkie. The first reference is with Lord John and a soldier who see a real seal and they discuss  that there are stories of them coming ashore and leaving the skin, with a beautiful woman inside. If a man finds the skin and hides it, she can't go back.

[DittyDotDot]

6 minutes ago, AheadofStraight said:

I was curious so I checked the kindle. The book uses silkie. The first reference is with Lord John and a soldier who see a real seal and they discuss  that there are stories of them coming ashore and leaving the skin, with a beautiful woman inside. If a man finds the skin and hides it, she can't go back.

I remember when I was first reading Voyager thinking shouldn't it be "selkie" when they were talking about the more mythical lore, but then I looked it up and found that it was a Scots word for seal. So, I think you could read it either way depending on the conversation that was being had.

Wasn't there also some talk about people thinking of Brian Fraser as being a "selkie" with his black hair...and wasn't there something else about him that seemed mystical in some way? 

[FnkyChkn34]

I think I remember looking it up when I read the books, because it was spelled "silkie" and I didn't know what it was.  I never got the impression that it was something mythical when it was used as the comparison to Brian Fraser's hair - I just took it to mean he had slicked back black hair, like a seal.

[AheadofStraight]

I love having all of the kindle books on my phone for easy searching!  First mention in Book 1 about Ellen: "She had noticed him only because he was so handsome, tall and sturdy, she said, with hair like a black silkie's and eyes like a cat."  There was then talk about town that Ellen was taken to the sea to live with the seals and that's why she was gone. Column didn't believe his sister had run off with a seal and set about finding out who it was. Dougal found them at a cottage.

[DittyDotDot]

2 minutes ago, AheadofStraight said:

I love having all of the kindle books on my phone for easy searching!  First mention in Book 1 about Ellen: "She had noticed him only because he was so handsome, tall and sturdy, she said, with hair like a black silkie's and eyes like a cat."  There was then talk about town that Ellen was taken to the sea to live with the seals and that's why she was gone. Column didn't believe his sister had run off with a seal and set about finding out who it was. Dougal found them at a cottage.

Thanks! I knew there was something, but I couldn't quite remember it.

[FnkyChkn34]

42 minutes ago, AheadofStraight said:

I love having all of the kindle books on my phone for easy searching!  First mention in Book 1 about Ellen: "She had noticed him only because he was so handsome, tall and sturdy, she said, with hair like a black silkie's and eyes like a cat."  There was then talk about town that Ellen was taken to the sea to live with the seals and that's why she was gone. Column didn't believe his sister had run off with a seal and set about finding out who it was. Dougal found them at a cottage.

Thanks!  Though hair like the fluffy chicken would be good too... ;-)

And I guess that brings me back to my original question though - where were all the seals, any time that they swam out there?  I guess we'll have to go with migration.  (And ignore the fact that Scotland has lots of seals that definitely live on more than just one island.)  :-)  

[whoknowswho]

18 hours ago, AheadofStraight said:

I was curious so I checked the kindle. The book uses silkie. The first reference is with Lord John and a soldier who see a real seal and they discuss  that there are stories of them coming ashore and leaving the skin, with a beautiful woman inside. If a man finds the skin and hides it, she can't go back.

I am probably misremembering, because I thought the actual books used the word Selkie, too. But honestly it's been years. I vaguely remember looking it up in the dictionary, though if I thought it meant the Silkie chicken, I would have known. I also was under the impression it was a mythological creature, but I read the books back before the internet was a thing.

Has nothing to do with anything, but Silkie chickens have "hair", the feathers are made in such a way that it appears to be hair and not feathers.  THe more you know! ?

[Kim0820]

On 11/5/2017 at 9:34 AM, ihartcoffee said:

The casting for this show us so good,  the kids look like offspring of the main characters.  

They are good at finding doppelgängers.  The one for BJR's brother Alex and the one for Geneva who looked just like Claire.  Led me to believe he could sleep with her without criticism as she looked so much like Claire.  They didn't need the narrative that she sexually assaulted him.  Someone said that of Mary McNabb also - so they have to at least look like Claire.  

On 11/6/2017 at 3:43 PM, ferjy said:

That's exactly how it came across. Very contradictory. They tried to meld Diana Gabaldon's viewpoint with their own and it just didn't work. If they were going to change Claire’s feeling to be more like real life where you would be doubtful whether you made the right choice then they should have also changed future Claire to have come to terms with living without Jamie and happily moving on (then having her life turned upside down with the news that he never died leaving her with a big struggle of whether to go back). Diana's vision was completely different. They seem to have missed that point entirely. Diana's was less realistic, but the fantasy is part of the appeal. Claire never felt settled back in the future and felt more at home and content arriving and living in the past again. Her link to Jamie made any of the inconveniences in the past trivial and the modern conveniences of the future relatively unimportant. In real life that wouldn't happen which is what the show is trying to portray. But it's not what Diana Gabaldon wrote and the two don't mesh. So it ends up looking more like "the grass is greener".

These are the first times Claire ever has a complaint with the 18th century.  The comments on the board about how they would never stay in the 18th century due to inferior science - maybe, but Claire had no problem with it.  

I think she is more concerned being a doctor.  Being a nurse who could try anything without a license was Claire on her first time trip.  Now she has Dr. oath and ethics and seems to worry more - that she can't fix some people though she knows she could with a 1960s "proper hospital."  So it's given her some guilt and self doubt rather than making her feel more confident.  

 

On 11/9/2017 at 8:35 AM, Ziggy said:

Claire did talk about how she had a life and a job and everything, so it does almost sound like she's complaining about 18th century life.  But she's really just looking back with rose-colored glasses.  She's completing second guessing everything based solely on Jamie's marriage to Laoghaire.  She feels betrayed because of WHO he married, the fact that he didn't tell her and the fact that Jenny (the person she thought of as a sister) betrayed her as well.

She took a risk that he was married and perhaps even happy!   Finding out about an unhappy marriage to Leoghaire is a lot less bad than it could have been.  

On 11/11/2017 at 8:42 PM, GHScorpiosRule said:

What made it even worse was that she said it in front of her daughters. But especially wee Joanie.

I was appalled by the things she said in front of her two young daughters - not just that word but the entirety of the things she said.  She should have sent them out of the room.  

[Ziggy]

38 minutes ago, Kim0820 said:

She took a risk that he was married and perhaps even happy!   Finding out about an unhappy marriage to Leoghaire is a lot less bad than it could have been.

Whether he was happy or not was irrelevant.  He married Laoghaire.  Claire's thought process ended there.

[Kim0820]

8 hours ago, Ziggy said:

Whether he was happy or not was irrelevant.  He married Laoghaire.  Claire's thought process ended there.

She'd be justified in going back to the 20th century if he had a wife and kids he loved and the 20 years had been enough for him to get over her (which would have been the most realistic, but this is romantic fantasy).  Or even if he'd been conflicted and couldn't just leave a wife with young kids even if he didn't get over Claire.   So having no kids of his own, but stepchildre,n and not really liking Leery, and clearly preferring Claire is a lot luckier for her having made the trip across 200 years to see if she could be back with him. 

[Ziggy]

8 hours ago, Kim0820 said:

She'd be justified in going back to the 20th century if he had a wife and kids he loved and the 20 years had been enough for him to get over her (which would have been the most realistic, but this is romantic fantasy).  Or even if he'd been conflicted and couldn't just leave a wife with young kids even if he didn't get over Claire.   So having no kids of his own, but stepchildre,n and not really liking Leery, and clearly preferring Claire is a lot luckier for her having made the trip across 200 years to see if she could be back with him. 

You don't think Claire has a right to be upset just by the fact that it was Laoghaire?

[Kim0820]

5 hours ago, Ziggy said:

You don't think Claire has a right to be upset just by the fact that it was Laoghaire?

Upset, but not to go back through the stones. I guess I was more focused on, Leery or anyone else, she lucked out that he was "available" to her.  He could have been involved with someone else.  

And in the end, she made peace with it and didn't appear to want to go back again, except for a short doubt on the cliffs, which didn't seem to involve Leery.  

It's been 23 years since the ill wish too and we aren't sure how much Jamie knows about her involvement in the trial.  Jamie's life has so many traumas that the trial may not register much by 1766, at least as to details.  He just blew in and saved Claire from it (or took her when Geillis confessed).

[Ziggy]

On 5/9/2020 at 6:03 PM, Kim0820 said:

It's been 23 years since the ill wish too and we aren't sure how much Jamie knows about her involvement in the trial.  Jamie's life has so many traumas that the trial may not register much by 1766, at least as to details.  He just blew in and saved Claire from it (or took her when Geillis confessed).

I think you might be confusing what happened in the book with what happened in the show.  In the book, he wasn't there for the trial.

In the show, Jamie was there when Laoghaire testified at the trial.  He absolutely knew what she did to Claire.  In fact, most of the book readers were completely shocked that they chose to do that, as at least in the book Jamie could claim he never would have married her if he had known what she had done to Claire.  In the show they tried to get around it by having Claire tell Jamie to thank Laoghaire for helping them get his grandfather to send his men to help fight with Prince Charles.  In this episode Claire even said something along the lines of, "I told you to thank her not marry her."

[Kim0820]

3 hours ago, Ziggy said:

I think you might be confusing what happened in the book with what happened in the show.  In the book, he wasn't there for the trial.

In the show, Jamie was there when Laoghaire testified at the trial.  He absolutely knew what she did to Claire.  In fact, most of the book readers were completely shocked that they chose to do that, as at least in the book Jamie could claim he never would have married her if he had known what she had done to Claire.  In the show they tried to get around it by having Claire tell Jamie to thank Laoghaire for helping them get his grandfather to send his men to help fight with Prince Charles.  In this episode Claire even said something along the lines of, "I told you to thank her not marry her."

So do you think she should have gone back and not stayed with him in 1766 over the fact he married Leery?  Even though he still loved her and didn't want to stay with Leery?

[Ziggy]

9 hours ago, Kim0820 said:

So do you think she should have gone back and not stayed with him in 1766 over the fact he married Leery?  Even though he still loved her and didn't want to stay with Leery?

Not at all.  I'm just saying, Claire was really, really po'd that Jamie married Laoghaire.  She felt deeply betrayed.  I don't think she would have been thrilled if he had married someone else, but she really had trouble coming to terms with the fact that he married someone who tried to have her killed.

[Kim0820]

IMO the author wanted to make Jamie not look like a jerk.  It is easier to accept Jamie leaving his wife if the wife is a total jerk, the marriage is unhappy and they are separated, the children aren't his, and it's Leery, who we already hate.  We are on board for his leaving her due to that. 

Reminds me of Poldark, where Drake was going to marry Rosina, he was up front with her that he'd always love Morwenna, and when Morwenna's husband suddenly died right before Drake and Rosina's wedding, Rosina was all for his going to her and gave up on him right there.  Thus the author propped Drake and kept him from looking like a jerk.  Not as well, though, as I at least do feel bad for Rosina.  

Here, nobody feels bad for Leery.  So using her as the spouse props Jamie up and leaves him looking still OK and the good guy though he leaves her.