Outlander Series discussion

Airs in the US on 1/6/2019

Intense episode. Let them have it Bree! & weren't Jocasta and Murtagh cute togther hmmmh. Roger No!

I thought it was great when Bree yelled at Jamie, “you don’t get to be angrier than me”. I don’t think that was in the book but it sure portrayed the correct sentiment!

I agree this was an intense episode. At least Lizzie having caused all Roger's trouble by misinterpreting what she saw has been straightened out.

Ann wrote: "I thought it was great when Bree yelled at Jamie, “you don’t get to be angrier than me”. I don’t think that was in the book but it sure portrayed the correct sentiment!"

I don't remember Jamie getting so upset accusing Bree of "wanton lust" in the book. It surprised me but I like the way she handled it.
I got goosebumps with Jocasta's reaction to Murtagh and Bree.

I just finished reading Drums of Autumn for the first time a week after season 4 started. I don’t remember the words used but I do remember both Jamie and young Ian saying some very harsh things to Bree about willingly having sex with Roger.

Its been a while since I have read the book but I do remember that this was one of the few story arcs that I thought Jamie acted like an ass and was impulsive with out thinking responsibly.

it was his time period. but also he was trying to bait her so she would see that she couldnt have prevented that nasty man to climb all over her. (though he can come over here to visit me!)

Jamie baiting Bree is not what I was referring to though, it was more the beating and getting rid of Roger with out any communication with Claire or anyone. Sure it was his time period but not in Jamie's character. He has always been not the typical man of the times and much more rational. That is why he and Claire get along so well.

I understand what he was trying to do with Bree and it echoed what Clair did with Jamie in the monastery after the BJR incident.

As for Bonnet visiting you I don't think you would want that by force no matter how good he looks. It amazes me how men through out history have believed they can take what they want by force and it would just be ok afterward.

And the Big Guilty is Bonnet. Not Jamie, not Bree, Ian, Claire, nor Lizzy. In a crisis, people easily accuse each other unjustified.

In the book, Bree had not told Jamie about the handfasting and when Jamie saw Roger, Jamie asked Roger if he had bed Brianna and he said yes.... all without Jamie realizing the handfasting. I think it was a bit more confusing in the show when Jamie just started beating on Roger without that. But I also think Jamie was being protective of Brianna and also thinking about what he would want based on his past with Black Jack.

In the show (view spoiler)[ Jamie thought Roger was the rapist because of Lizzie.(view spoiler)[ That's why he tried to kill him. (hide spoiler)] (hide spoiler)]

What consists of a spoiler in this thread? Everyone is talking about everything, and yet I got a notice that I had broken the rules by mentioning something that had happened in the show or the book.

Hanne wrote: "And the Big Guilty is Bonnet.

Stephen Bonnet will continue to be a thorn in the Fraser family side for a long time. He is a great villain.

I did not like the outfit chosen for Roger. I think he deserved a man's outfit.

Patsy wrote: "What consists of a spoiler in this thread? Everyone is talking about everything, and yet I got a notice that I had broken the rules by mentioning something that had happened in the show or the book."

A spoiler would be anything that has not happened yet in the show through the episode that the specific thread is titled. Many members have not read the book series so only know the show. If you want to speculate about or comment on something you know will happen but has not yet then you may use the spoiler tag. That way people may choose to view it or not.

Sharon wrote: "I agree - it just looks silly and there is no one dressed even remotely similar so it is odd he would have chosen that outfit for himself - at least make them long pants."

Is that what he was wearing when he went through the stones? If so maybe that was the best he could do to dress for the period on short notice before he left. I didn't notice his clothes so much but not that I think of it I agree.

I did a little research on the internet (because we know that’s reliable-ha!) but I couldn’t find anything about breeches that described or pictured anything that was loose around the knees the way Roger’s were. So I don’t know where the costume designers came up with that look.

What I want to know is, in the mid 1700s, would a woman EVER wear pants? Both Claire and Bri have been shown in pants (breeches) and I don't think it would have even been considered a possibility unless a woman was disguised as a man.

Well, there were what were called slops, or petticoat breeches. They look like modern gaucho pants or coulottes. They were worn mostly by sailors, but also by farmers, to protect their clothing.

As for women wearing breeches? No. Just...no. Unless, as Patsy says, they were disguised as a man.

Parker wrote: "Well, there were what were called slops, or petticoat breeches. They look like modern gaucho pants or coulottes. They were worn mostly by sailors, but also by farmers, to protect their clothing.

A..."Thanks for your response, Parker. They're taking liberties with the dress style of the day on Outlander. Fortunately, the chances of my going back to the 1700s and wearing breeches because I thought it was acceptable are slim.

Well, the typical woman living in the 1700’s wouldn’t wear breeches....but a woman who traveled back in time from the 20th century? For sure! I’d be trying to hasten the invention of indoor plumbing.

My pleasure, Patsy. Happy to answer any questions about this period, as it's the period I do most of my Living History in.

Claire does a number of things an 18th Century woman wouldn't do.

Indoor plumbing existed a long time before it became common in the 20th Century. The Romans had it.

Thanks, Parker. Then I would be insisting that Jamie & young Ian include it in the new house!

I think maybe the inconsistencies in costume may be due to Terry Dresbach not being the costume designer this season. She was meticulous in her research and authenticity.

Patsy wrote: "What I want to know is, in the mid 1700s, would a woman EVER wear pants? Both Claire and Bri have been shown in pants (breeches) and I don't think it would have even been considered a possibility u..."

Patsy'
I searched and could find no reference to women being allowed breeches even for riding in the 16th to 19th century Colonial America. Clothing guidelines were very strict. Brianna showing up in Wilmington dressed like that would never have been accepted.

Blame Diana. Claire wearing pants when they first go to their homestead is in the book.

I totally agree! (view spoiler)[ In the books, Claire was ridiculed and gossiped about for refusing to wear a mobcap, so breeches would have had her burned at the stake (again) (view spoiler)[. (hide spoiler)] (hide spoiler)]

Silverblades wrote: "Blame Diana. Claire wearing pants when they first go to their homestead is in the book."

I remember that and I wondered about it when I read it. I think she explained to Jamie that she'd wear them privately but it's been awhile since I read it.

Women may not have worn breeches in the 1700's but neither Claire nor Bree are from that time, so it makes sense that there should be some crossover from their other life, especially on their own property.

Claire wore breeches when they rescued Jamie from Wentworth and before that when she and Murtaugh were searching for him.

And Anne Bonny and Mary Reade (pirates) wore breeches when fighting. Mary probably wore them all the time, as she masqueraded as a boy and man all her life.

Andrea wrote: "Women may not have worn breeches in the 1700's but neither Claire nor Bree are from that time, so it makes sense that there should be some crossover from their other life, especially on their own p..."
Yes, that makes sense that Claire and Bree would insist on wearing breeches when it was necessary.

Patsy wrote: "Silverblades wrote: "Blame Diana. Claire wearing pants when they first go to their homestead is in the book."

I remember that and I wondered about it when I read it. I think she explained to Jamie..."

I looked back and found it in the book. It's quite funny really. A slightly scandalized Jamie remarks that "I can see the whole shape of your buttocks!" and Claire's reply is that "I can see yours too. I've been looking at your backside in breeks every day for months, but only occasionally does the sight move me to make indecent advances on your person." And in the books, after her initial journey to find her parents, Brianna is less inclined to wear breeches than Claire ever was. It makes sense. Claire's approach to style is rather stuck on practical WWII era garb, whereas Brianna's experience is of the generally much more feminine styles of the fifties and sixties.

I remember that scene in the book now. Thanks for finding it! And for your opinion about why each woman chose to wear or not wear breeks.