FANDOM


  • How is it that Geillis is so young in Season 2, and is planning an uprising.  When she time travelled before, she was already there when Claire time travelled.  Claire seen the Vaccine mark on Geillis.  Geillis was spared her life, did she come back earlier?

    I cannot understand how Claire can save Geillis, if it is 20 years later.  How can this be?  I'm very confused about there two.

      Loading editor
    • When Claire tracks down Geillis in 1968, Geillis has not yet gone back in time.

      Here is Geillis' personal timeline: she goes through the stones in 1968, maybe in her late twenties, and arrives in the 1730s, establishes herself there for several years, and in 1743 she hears about an Englishwoman named Claire Beauchamp living up at Castle Leoch.

      Claire's personal timeline: Claire goes through the stones in 1945, ends up in 1743 and gets taken to Castle Leoch, where she meets a woman in her thirties named Geillis Duncan. Claire escapes the witch trial but believes Geillis was burned at the stake after giving birth to her child. Claire returns to the 20th century, with knowledge (via Dougal) that Geillis went through the stones in 1968.

      In 1968, Claire thinks she should try to "save" Geillis by preventing her from going through the stones at all, because Claire knows she will eventually be tried and convicted of witchcraft in the 18th century. She thinks if she can stop her from ever going back, she won't be burned at the stake.

      Clear as mud?

        Loading editor
    • Actually, doesn't Geillis tell Claire the year...not that she was a time traveller but she told her 1968 then Claire seems the small pox vaccination and puts it together.  

        Loading editor
    • 67.170.52.138 wrote: Actually, doesn't Geillis tell Claire the year...not that she was a time traveller but she told her 1968 then Claire seems the small pox vaccination and puts it together.  

      Ah yes, that's how they did it in the show. It was different in the book, and I mixed them up. Sorry!

        Loading editor
    • Thank You, the time-line for those travelling was also helpful.  Still a bit confused.  How will Claire be able to travel back in time to the same time period?  Being Geillis went later (1968) and ended up in 1730, and Claire went in 1945 and ended up in 1743. 

        Loading editor
    • The exact mechanics of time travel are still pretty sketchy, even after 8 books. So far, the consensus seems to be that one is able to "steer" (i.e. choose the year to which one travels) by using gemstones. Focusing on a specific person in the year you want to arrive in also seems to be a thing. It remains to be seen how the show decides to handle this.

        Loading editor
    • But Claire didn't use gemstones or "steer" herself when she originally went back, so how was it determined when she arrived?

        Loading editor
    • That's the big question, isn't it? People have speculated that her connection to Frank is what caused her to run smack into Black Jack Randall just as he was passing through the area, even though it wasn't intentional. Others throw around words like "fate" and "destiny"...

        Loading editor
    • I thought I read somewhere ( perhaps here? ) that Claire's jeweled watch served as her time travel gem when she went thru the stones the first time.

        Loading editor
    • 69.3.135.203 wrote: I thought I read somewhere ( perhaps here? ) that Claire's jeweled watch served as her time travel gem when she went thru the stones the first time.

      They just mentioned that in the new episode. I had forgotten about the watch, because she didn't have that in the book.

        Loading editor
    • In Voyager, Geillis tells Claire that she only knew one other person who traveled through time. DG would not just through a thing like that out there... There is some one else, besides Gellis and Claire who traveled through time BEFORE Bree, Roger and kids, they came later. I did not read all the books yet, but who was this #3 time traveler? I so am very curries.

        Loading editor
    • 2601:14A:4600:3A80:E93E:D8CD:F571:70AD wrote: In Voyager, Geillis tells Claire that she only knew one other person who traveled through time. DG would not just through a thing like that out there... There is some one else, besides Gellis and Claire who traveled through time BEFORE Bree, Roger and kids, they came later. I did not read all the books yet, but who was this #3 time traveler? I so am very curries.

      This is answered (sort of) in The Space Between, a short story that takes place after An Echo in the Bone.

        Loading editor
    • 12.200.47.125 wrote: But Claire didn't use gemstones or "steer" herself when she originally went back, so how was it determined when she arrived?

      In the first book, Outlander, the Reverend is talking about the fairy circles to Claire and Frank and tells her that "It's always 200 years in the Highland stories". She remembers this when she's hearing a tale at Collum's castle later in the book and then when Jamie rescues her from being burned as a witch she tells him the whole thing and he confirms that the tales of the fairy circles are always about someone falling asleep for 200 years

      So later in the series (I think in Voyager after they find Gillian Edgars' book) Claire is discussing it with Bree and Roger and they come to the conclusion that if left uncontrolled it's always about 200 years. But if you have gemstones and perhaps a person or a thing to focus on, you can control it somewhat and maybe guide yourself towards a more specific time. It explains why Gillian/Geillis was able to go back nearly 240 years - she was able to "boost" herself the extra 40 years both by use of the gemstones and by focusing on Bonnie Prince Charlie.

        Loading editor
    • 66.111.121.180 wrote: In Voyager, Geillis tells Claire that she only knew one other person who traveled through time. DG would not just through a thing like that out there... There is some one else, besides Gellis and Claire who traveled through time BEFORE Bree, Roger and kids, they came later. I did not read all the books yet, but who was this #3 time traveler? I so am very curries.

      In Written in My Own Hearts Blood, Roger meets Hector McEwan who is a healer who lives in Crainsmuir and knows Geillis. They each know the other is a traveller.

        Loading editor
    • I found it interesting that Claire forgot that Gellis great grandson was someone she knew in her present time lol..obviously Gellis didn't burn at the stake if Dougal's great grandson is alive. haha Still thinking she was going to burn when she was like we got to save your great grandma in the beginning of season 3..was like..think yo.

        Loading editor
    • 2601:645:C100:9007:9C91:9C2E:4FB4:D1A3 wrote:
      I found it interesting that Claire forgot that Gellis great grandson was someone she knew in her present time lol..obviously Gellis didn't burn at the stake if Dougal's great grandson is alive. haha Still thinking she was going to burn when she was like we got to save your great grandma in the beginning of season 3..was like..think yo.

      She didn't forget. She knew that Geillis would be kept alive until the baby was born. She thought Geillis was executed after the birth. 

        Loading editor
    • this is ifantastick  i love outlader jamie  and claire the tv serie has begin now in december 2018 and avery friday as a holliday best regards kristina b

        Loading editor
    • I Believe there was another time traveler in Drums of Autumn.  He went back to warn the Indians people of their demise but they killed him.

        Loading editor
    • Master Raymond in Paris gave lots of hints he was from a different time and if course healed Claire after the birth of Faith.

        Loading editor
    • Yep, I believe the Diana confirmed Master Raymond, and both Gillis and Claire are two distant descendents of his. They call him something like a prehistoric traveler though the wiki page says he was born 400 bc so if that's true not quite prehistoric but the impression is he's been around to alot of different times. They call him a frog because of how he looks but he almost sounds more Neanderthal or prehistoric man with the description "very short, just over four feet tall, barrel-chested and bandy-legged, with a high wide forehead, slightly bulbous friendly black eyes, no teeth, and long thick silver-gray hair. Hands are broad and almost square with fingers all of a length and unusually long and supple thumbs"

        Loading editor
    • What confuses me, given that I read the books years ago, and have forgotten some of the book details, is how Claire tried to get through the stones before she was captured by the Redcoats, yet she was nowhere near the stones when she went from the Christabel, to being back in the Twentieth Century at the stones, When she reunited with Frank, almost three years had passed, then when she was stepping off the plane, her hand went out to Jamie, back on the Christabel. Phew! No gemstones involved there. My question, and one I haven’t been able to find discussion on, yet alone any other questions, is how her absence in France, and up to Culloden, is accounted for? Was she living concurrent lives at that time? After her first absence, Frank was understandably upset and confused, yet there was no hint of anything amiss about their life in Boston, and it was only when she went back, just before Culloden, that she did her medical training. Any answers or theories, because I found this very perplexing. 

        Loading editor
    • 101.176.38.180 wrote: My question, and one I haven’t been able to find discussion on, yet alone any other questions, is how her absence in France, and up to Culloden, is accounted for? Was she living concurrent lives at that time? After her first absence, Frank was understandably upset and confused, yet there was no hint of anything amiss about their life in Boston, and it was only when she went back, just before Culloden, that she did her medical training. Any answers or theories, because I found this very perplexing. 

      Claire travels through time exactly three times: accidentally, from 1945 to 1743; on purpose, right before the battle of Culloden, from 1746 to 1948; and on purpose again, from 1968 to 1766. The events are shown out of order (in both the books and the show, though in different ways). In episode 201 when Claire appears at the stones and is reunited with Frank at the hospital - that happens after all the events from the rest of the season, from Claire disembarking from the ship in the middle of 201 through to when she leaves Jamie just before Culloden. By showing Claire returning to 1948 at the beginning, the intention is that the audience is supposed to wonder what on earth happened that they got to that point, and the rest of the season answers that question.

        Loading editor
    • if the stones send you back 200 years how come when she touched them the second time she didn’t go back to the 1540’s?

        Loading editor
    • 2601:549:4400:1440:913C:F698:6234:9123 wrote: if the stones send you back 200 years how come when she touched them the second time she didn’t go back to the 1540’s?

      In a scientific experiment, when new data contradicts your hypothesis, you reassess and often must develop a new hypothesis... I.e., plainly the hypothesis that it is only possible to travel backwards in time is incorrect, given the evidence of Claire going forward.

        Loading editor
    • La Dame Blanche wrote:

      101.176.38.180 wrote: My question, and one I haven’t been able to find discussion on, yet alone any other questions, is how her absence in France, and up to Culloden, is accounted for? Was she living concurrent lives at that time? After her first absence, Frank was understandably upset and confused, yet there was no hint of anything amiss about their life in Boston, and it was only when she went back, just before Culloden, that she did her medical training. Any answers or theories, because I found this very perplexing. 

      Claire travels through time exactly three times: accidentally, from 1945 to 1743; on purpose, right before the battle of Culloden, from 1746 to 1948; and on purpose again, from 1968 to 1766. The events are shown out of order (in both the books and the show, though in different ways). In episode 201 when Claire appears at the stones and is reunited with Frank at the hospital - that happens after all the events from the rest of the season, from Claire disembarking from the ship in the middle of 201 through to when she leaves Jamie just before Culloden. By showing Claire returning to 1948 at the beginning, the intention is that the audience is supposed to wonder what on earth happened that they got to that point, and the rest of the season answers that question.

      Is this shown in the show i only remember the 2 times? 

        Loading editor
    • Tara OUT wrote:

      La Dame Blanche wrote: Claire travels through time exactly three times...

      Is this shown in the show i only remember the 2 times? 

      Episode 101: First time

      Episode 213: Second time

      Episode 305: Third time (off screen; the shot transitions from stepping in a puddle in 1968 Boston to stepping in a puddle in 1766 Edinburgh)

        Loading editor
    • In reading the book snow and ash the character Donner states he misses drinking a beer and watching baseball.  Hence he came from the US to North Carolina..

      He wanted to return..The stones Roger and Bree and the kids go through in North Carolina take them where??  Next time we hear about them they are in the present in Lallybrook and the baby had her operation...So were they  going to Boston first?  To Scotland??

      If they could go to Scotland from North Carolina why did Brianna and Roger  not  end up in North Carolina instead of having to take boat passage to Wilmington.. from Scotland?

      Can anyone clarify?

        Loading editor
    • 2601:19D:301:9B4C:AC98:336E:2716:CAB4 wrote: In reading the book snow and ash the character Donner states he misses drinking a beer and watching baseball.  Hence he came from the US to North Carolina..

      He wanted to return..The stones Roger and Bree and the kids go through in North Carolina take them where??  Next time we hear about them they are in the present in Lallybrook and the baby had her operation...So were they  going to Boston first?  To Scotland??

      If they could go to Scotland from North Carolina why did Brianna and Roger  not  end up in North Carolina instead of having to take boat passage to Wilmington.. from Scotland?

      Can anyone clarify?

      Bree, Roger and the kids go through the stones on Ocracoke, NC. We don't see it directly, but it's summarized that they called Joe Abernathy and stayed with him in Boston while Mandy had her surgery. Once that was all over, presumably they flew to Scotland.

      There has been no evidence so far that the stones transport travelers spatially, only temporally. Just because the author doesn't explicitly say they took a plane to Scotland, doesn't mean we should assume the rules about time travel have changed.

        Loading editor
    • There is one thing I don't get, Geillis traveled from 1968 the first time and managed to survive burning at the stake, she ends up in Jamaica trying to solve some profecy. In the mean time Claire who is already back sees her going through the stones in 1968. But it cannot be the Geillis Claire met back in 1943 because that Geillis is in Jamaica. So can this mean there are two Geillis's at some point in time? One in Jamaica, and a newly arrived one in Scotland attenpting the whole thing all over again? Could she pop up again at some point trying to kill Bree?

        Loading editor
    • 177.231.22.242 wrote: There is one thing I don't get, Geillis traveled from 1968 the first time and managed to survive burning at the stake, she ends up in Jamaica trying to solve some profecy. In the mean time Claire who is already back sees her going through the stones in 1968. But it cannot be the Geillis Claire met back in 1943 because that Geillis is in Jamaica. So can this mean there are two Geillis's at some point in time? One in Jamaica, and a newly arrived one in Scotland attenpting the whole thing all over again? Could she pop up again at some point trying to kill Bree?

      Geillis's story: Travels through time from 1968 to some point in the 1730s; was vaguely aware of someone calling to her at the stones as she went through. Meets Claire in 1743; may or may not realize Claire is the woman who called her name in 1968. Never time travels again, and dies in 1767 in Jamaica after reuniting with Claire.

      Claire's story: Travels through time from 1945 to 1743, meets Geillis for the first time. Returns to 1948 and lives her 20th century life. Searches for Geillis in 1968; doesn't find her until just before Geillis is going through the stones; calls out her name but it's too late. Eventually goes back in time again to 1766, encounters Geillis in Jamaica in 1767.

      In summary: Claire's first encounter with Geillis (1743) is Geillis's second encounter with Claire (1968, then 1743). Geillis's first encounter with Claire (1968) is Claire's second encounter with Geillis (1743, then 1968). There are never two of Geillis existing simultaneously. They just cross each other's paths at different points in their respective lives.

      To answer the question about Geillis "popping up" to kill Brianna, it seems pretty clear to me that that won't happen. In 1767 in Jamaica, Geillis seemed pretty dumbfounded by Claire's revelation that she had time traveled not once, but a total of three times, which almost certainly means Geillis never attempted, let alone succeeded in time traveling more than once.

        Loading editor
    • Hi there, just finished S1E11 and havent read the books so the shows are my only reference for things. What does Geillis mean at the end of the trial when she says to Claire "The question you had before, i think it is possible...." ?? (and then we get the whole 1968 reveal...) Help Please !!

        Loading editor
    • Msimrit wrote: Hi there, just finished S1E11 and havent read the books so the shows are my only reference for things. What does Geillis mean at the end of the trial when she says to Claire "The question you had before, i think it is possible...." ?? (and then we get the whole 1968 reveal...) Help Please !!

      In the previous scene Claire said, "I just want to go home. I don't even know if that's possible." That's what Geillis was responding to.

        Loading editor
    • When Gillian Edgars goes through in 1968, she has thoroughly researched and journaled about possible times others went through, including Claire's original disappearance in 1945.  Claire's return in 1948 was widely documented in the media.  How is it that Gillian missed this and is somehow supposed to be ignorant of whether a person can return?  She would probably have tracked Claire down and asked her "did you travel through time and back" if she actually did the research shown in her journal including documenting Claire's original disappearance. Do we just assume she did shoddy research and missed the massive coverage of Claire's being found 3 years later?  Or that she knew of Claire's return and did not bother to record it or follow it up?  And then lied to Claire when she said "I do not know if it is possible?"  A very annoying plot problem.

        Loading editor
    • What I'm having a hard time figuring out that I haven't found an answer to in this thread is;

      Roger establishes that time passes the same. (3 years in the past is 3 years in the present)

      So if that's the case then how does this work;

      Geillis goes through the first time in 1968, ends up in 1730's.

      Claire goes through the second time in 1968 (shortly after Geillis) and ends up in 1766.

      They leave the same year but end up about 30 years apart in the past. Though when they meet in Jamaica in 1767 the same amount of time has passed for them since meeting and Culloden.

      But according to the dates Claire has been back for about a year and Geillis has been there for 30 some years already. But they both left in 1968. So technically Geillis lived 30 years in the time Claire lived one since passing through in 1968.

      Help. 

        Loading editor
    • Damibasiamille92 wrote: Roger establishes that time passes the same. (3 years in the past is 3 years in the present)

      So if that's the case then how does this work;

      The thing is, the idea that "time passes the same" is a hypothesis that Roger et al. came up with in Voyager, when they were still trying to figure all this out. Since then, we (they) have learned that it may be possible to choose what time you go to, whether through gemstones, or gold/silver, or focusing on a person... We've also seen that it's possible to go to a year you didn't even think you meant to go to (e.g. Roger in Written in My Own Heart's Blood).

      So the "time passes the same" premise is a fallacy. Knowing now that it is possible for a time traveler to control the exact point in time they go to (though the extent of that control remains mysterious), it no longer makes sense to think in terms of parallel timelines. Instead, let's look at few bits of evidence:

      1. Claire travels the same number of years each time, about 202 years, back-forward-back.
      2. Geillis travels once – back 130 years.
      3. Roger travels back 202 years, forward 202 years, then back 141 years.

      Now, let's look at Roger for a second. He and Jamie meet in 1769 when Roger is about 30 years old, and Jamie is 48. When Roger (and family) leave from 1776 to 1978, Roger is about 37 and Jamie is 55. When Roger goes from 1980 to 1739, however, Roger is about 39 and Jamie is... 18. He's in Paris, but he exists in the world and is a teenager, whereas Roger is nearly middle-aged, and the last time he saw Jamie, the man was physically almost two decades older than him. The whole "time passes the same" thing definitely doesn't fit anymore here.

      OK. If you (the collective you; i.e. anyone reading this) are still with me, let's talk Geillis and Claire. The key here is looking at the point at which Claire and Geillis met in 1743. We don't know exactly what year Geillis (a.k.a. Gillian) was born, but for illustrative purposes let's say she was born in 1940. In 1968, that means Claire was 50, and Geillis was 28. But Claire was about 27 when she went through to 1743, at which time Geillis was about 33.

      All right, I made up a wee diagram, because the more I try to type this out to explain it, the more confusing it sounds:

      Claire-Geillis-timeline

      (Not to scale, obviously; that is, I didn't try to equate one dash mark to a number of years. This is just meant to help visualize the characters' ages at various points in time.)

      See? Geillis going back from 1968 to 1738 was her first time traveling, and she had never met Claire. But Claire going from 1968 to 1766 was her third time, after having already met Geillis in the past. In this scenario, it is definitely not helpful to think in terms of "time passing the same" – that will just tie your brain in knots, and offer no insight whatsoever. Instead, think of each time traveler individually, not relative to one another.

      I don't know if any of that helps... I'll just reiterate something I wrote in a previous post upthread: Claire's first encounter with Geillis (1743) is Geillis's second encounter with Claire (1968, then 1743). Geillis's first encounter with Claire (1968) is Claire's second encounter with Geillis (1743, then 1968). . .They cross each other's paths at different points in their respective lives.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.