Kindle Forum banner

21 - 33 of 33 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
106 Posts
imallbs said:
Does anyone else think that Roger is descended from Gillies and Duncan's kid. He said his name was MacKenzie and Dougal said that he placed the baby with someone in the clan.
I do think Roger is descended from someone in the story. Why else would Claire mention that she had researched his genealogy? It's weird to think that it is Gellie, though, because isn't she originally from the 1960's? So she would have been able to know Roger before she went back in time to conceive him. Argh! Time travel paradox hurts my head!

tlshaw "Padded Cell 511" said:
I saw Jamie's attitude to Fergus as a laird with his tenant. Since Fergus worked for Jamie, he was under Jamie's protection, and when Jamie took him on, he had told him that he would take care of Fergus for life, even if he was caught. Also, can you imagine Jamie allowing his son to take such chances?
I agree with this. It seems like Jamie treats Fergus the same way Jamie's father treated Ian.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26,676 Posts
Discussion Starter · #22 ·
Toby said:
***Forez - I was wondering if Diana, the author, did research on this. Is this fact or just made up? Getting more quesy sp?
No, it's not made up. It's called drawing and quartering and was the execution reserved for treason.
***Somehow, I was wondering why Claire didn't give more attention to Fegus. It seemed like Fergus was just there & Jamie giving most of his affection to him. Maybe, I'm reading more into it. This was even before she lost Faith. Maybe she just thinks of him as Jamie's responsibility.
Or Jamie's employee.

imallbs said:
No, no taxiderming the snake - otherwise known as Croque.
Through diligent research I was able to discover what happened. Croque didn't like Louie and couldn't wait to get away from him. He slithered out of the room into Louis' gardens where he lived happily ever after.
;D ;D ;D

tlshaw "Padded Cell 511" said:
I see your point. However, here is my thinking on it. When Claire broached the subject with Frank, she thought they could not have children. With Jamie, she knew she could, so there was no sense of not having options.
I agree. And I'm sure Claire had a sweet little baby in mind, not a half-grown French street rat.

I saw Jamie's attitude to Fergus as a laird with his tenant. Since Fergus worked for Jamie, he was under Jamie's protection, and when Jamie took him on, he had told him that he would take care of Fergus for life, even if he was caught. Also, can you imagine Jamie allowing his son to take such chances?
Good point.

zeferjen said:
I do think Roger is descended from someone in the story. Why else would Claire mention that she had researched his genealogy? It's weird to think that it is Gellie, though, because isn't she originally from the 1960's? So she would have been able to know Roger before she went back in time to conceive him. Argh! Time travel paradox hurts my head!
I agree with this. It seems like Jamie treats Fergus the same way Jamie's father treated Ian.
Geillie wouldn't have had any idea if she had any descendants before she went back in time, because she wasn't there yet to have any descendants. Once she was back there, she couldn't research it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,811 Posts
***Okay, that makes sense. Thinking of Fergus as a tenant. Also, times were different then.
***I think that Frank wanted his biological child, not just Claire's biological child. He wanted the family tree to keep growing. Claire comes back. Surprise! She's pregnant with another man's baby. What does he do. He tells Claire never to tell anyone that, including Bree. He loves Claire, so he gets Claire back. Claire wants a daddy for Bree, but now Frank is no longer the love of her life. Jamie will always be. It's more a marriage of companionship, friendship & yes, love.....I think. Well, at least Claire cares for Frank.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
202 Posts
Was Claire right not to want to see Jamie when she was at Fountainbleau?
I think so.....she was in so much pain and so hurt and so mad at Jamie.  I don't blame her....then she found out what happened to Fergus and she her feelings finally started to thaw.  I was shocked and heartbroken to read about Fergus's horrible experiences at the brothel.  I was in tears.  To think that happened to him (and happens even today) makes me sick.  The poor child was upset because he thought he hurt is "Lord". 

The reunion at Fountainbleau was so well done!  The author captured all the feelings of regret, sadness, guilt, love.... amazing.  I was a little upset at Jamie for not commiserating with Claire instead of blaming her for what happened with Louis (I know, he was most upset because she lied about it).  She was trying to spare him the pain of the knowledge of what she had to do. 
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
224 Posts
Since Alex entered the picture, I also have been of the "Frank is a descendent of Alex" mentality.  I think my dislike of Frank has been based somewhat on the thought that he might have a bit of Jack's personality in him.  I'd much prefer to think he's part Alex.

Did anyone else, when reading this for the first time, mistakenly think that Claire's baby in these chapters was going to be Bree?  I kept thinking as the birth date got closer and closer that Claire would be going back to the future soon and that the book would continue in the 20th century. It really threw me when the baby died.  I probably missed something - not at all unusual ::)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26,676 Posts
Discussion Starter · #27 ·
ConnieK said:
Since Alex entered the picture, I also have been of the "Frank is a descendent of Alex" mentality. I think my dislike of Frank has been based somewhat on the thought that he might have a bit of Jack's personality in him. I'd much prefer to think he's part Alex.
Oh, happy thought!!! :)

Did anyone else, when reading this for the first time, mistakenly think that Claire's baby in these chapters was going to be Bree? I kept thinking as the birth date got closer and closer that Claire would be going back to the future soon and that the book would continue in the 20th century. It really threw me when the baby died. I probably missed something - not at all unusual ::)
Definitely had the same thought. DG does like to string us along, doesn't she.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,746 Posts
Another thought I had about Claire not getting close to Fergus was that maybe she didn't think of him as anything more than Jamie's "employee" because she knew that she and Jamie wouldn't be staying in France for very long.  I don't think she considered the fact that Fergus might be leaving France with them.  He had his pick-pocketing skill which Jamie very much needed to intercept letters, so he was very helpful to their "mission" in France.  But, I don't think that Claire saw Fergus as having much of a personal relationship with them.... it was more of a "business" relationship that benefited Jamie and Fergus both.  I also think that since Claire had believed for so long that she was not able to get pregnant, she was so totally focused on her pregnancy that all of her maternal thoughts/feelings were for her baby.  Had she not been pregnant, then she might have had more maternal feelings for Fergus.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,047 Posts
Only have read this far - will finish questions as I finish chapters ;)

Ch. 22 "The Royal Stud"

1. Should they trust Sandringham's offer of a pardon in exchange for Jamie abandoning Charles Stuart? What decision do you think they should have made?
I'm not sure I trust this guy, and isn't he also behind the scenes helping Stuart? or is he trying to find out exactly where Jamie stands?

2. What did you think of the scene with Monsieur Forez's salve?
Yuck!

Ch. 23 "The Best-laid Plans of Mice and Men..."

1. What was the point of Monsieur Forez's graphic demonstration of a traitor's death to Jamie?
Again probably reaching to see where Jamie stands, but this guy loves his work so much he probably does it whenever he possibly has a social situation - probably why not many
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,734 Posts
PraiseGod13 said:
Another thought I had about Claire not getting close to Fergus was that maybe she didn't think of him as anything more than Jamie's "employee" because she knew that she and Jamie wouldn't be staying in France for very long. I don't think she considered the fact that Fergus might be leaving France with them. He had his pick-pocketing skill which Jamie very much needed to intercept letters, so he was very helpful to their "mission" in France. But, I don't think that Claire saw Fergus as having much of a personal relationship with them.... it was more of a "business" relationship that benefited Jamie and Fergus both. I also think that since Claire had believed for so long that she was not able to get pregnant, she was so totally focused on her pregnancy that all of her maternal thoughts/feelings were for her baby. Had she not been pregnant, then she might have had more maternal feelings for Fergus.
I hadn't thought of that but it makes sense. I saw Fergus as a kid without a family and Jamie and Claire as a family for him. I still think Jamie treated him differently than Rabbie (more like his nephew) and attributed that to Rabbie still having some family.

I was shocked and heartbroken to read about Fergus's horrible experiences at the brothel. I was in tears. To think that happened to him (and happens even today) makes me sick. The poor child was upset because he thought he hurt is "Lord".
This kid has had such a hard life. I think that knowing that this happens all over the world today makes it hit home all the more
The reunion at Fountainbleau was so well done! The author captured all the feelings of regret, sadness, guilt, love.... amazing.
One of the best scenes I have read in any book.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
106 Posts
ConnieK said:
Did anyone else, when reading this for the first time, mistakenly think that Claire's baby in these chapters was going to be Bree? I kept thinking as the birth date got closer and closer that Claire would be going back to the future soon and that the book would continue in the 20th century. It really threw me when the baby died. I probably missed something - not at all unusual ::)
Connie - I was thinking the same thing! But the timing didn't really line up b/c it was supposed to be two years that they had to stop the slaughter at the final battle and it seems like she leaves right after that. Then again, the timing for her to be 21 was also wrong (someone mentioned on the earlier thread that DG made a math error).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26,676 Posts
Discussion Starter · #33 ·
zeferjen said:
Connie - I was thinking the same thing! But the timing didn't really line up b/c it was supposed to be two years that they had to stop the slaughter at the final battle and it seems like she leaves right after that. Then again, the timing for her to be 21 was also wrong (someone mentioned on the earlier thread that DG made a math error).
I know it's confusing, but there is a timeline difference between the U.S. version of Outlander and the U.K. version (Cross Stitch). DiA follows the timeline (mostly) from Cross Stitch. The best way to avoid a headache over this is just to ignore the timing and accept it as written.
 
21 - 33 of 33 Posts
Top