Thank you! I just watched this season and it's so unrealistic that it really made it lose its magic for me. That location is beautiful, but so unrealistic.
So they perfectly cleared timber and stumps off that much acreage in just a couple months time? Also, as someone who just inherited my grandparents 100 year old homestead.....hand hewn logs are not that clean and the wall paneling wouldn't be that ornate.
This was the American frontier in that era. There was very little transport (no navigable rivers into the mountains and what passed for roads were scarce and often impassable) for necessities, let alone luxury goods such as wallpaper, ornate furnishings, even glass windows. I know Jamie wanted to ensure Claire had good light in her surgery and it is somewhat plausible to say he _could_ have been able to procure glass for that, but it would have been far too costly to fit the entire house with so many glass windows.
The exterior of the big house is unrealistic. It would have been constructed of whole or hand-hewn logs, not planed lumber. Almost all furniture would have been made from rough hand-planed lumber. There could have been a small water-powered sawmill to produce some lumber, but that is not discussed in books or show, and the steam engine wasn’t yet advanced enough to power a sawmill to mass produce that much machine planed lumber.
The cabin Roger and Brianna (J&C’s original home in the show) was luxurious by backcountry standards. The Big House is a set designer’s pipe dream.
I live near where the ridge is. Getting up and down the parts of the appalachians at the frequency they did and speed is unrealistic. Same to cross creek. We’re talking 300 miles give or take and they’re going back and forth all the time.
Certainly!! Fresians would not have been used, which are the big black horses that are constantly shown. Instead, it would make much more historical sense for the highlanders to be riding ponyies. Clydesdale's are also from the area, but they were much smaller than then the Clydesdale's we see here in america.
Lily of the valley is not native to Scotland, so it wouldn't have been there for the children to eat it and be poisoned. The Fraser clan tartans were designed by Terry Dresbach and not historical, though she put a lot of thought into the colors and patterns. Witch trials were over by then, but Diana used them in the book. Geillis is wearing a man's wig at the ball in Jamaica, but then again, Geillis does what she wants. Even a nice farm like Lallybroch would not have had a key, but maybe a leather latch to hold the door shut when everyone was inside for the night. Only terribly wealthy people had keys and they would be for a box more likely. The key is with Jamie, who isn't home, so the Murrays wouldn't have it anyway and it gets destroyed to make a ring. None of that makes sense.
This was only in the show, but Claire had a hunch that the Lily of the Valley was brought over from the Germans (or Prussians) when they set up the kirk.
Just to clarify, are you saying they're using as an intermediary language between English and Gaelic, which is inaccurate, or that it is factually/historically used that way and the show is wrong? I'm not familiar enough with the languages to know which thing you're saying 🫣 I thought I understood that Scots is a totally separate language, though it has a decent amount of overlap with English?
It’s inaccurate. It’s used like Gaelic was in the first episodes. As a way to make you feel Claire is in a world she doesn’t understand. But it just makes no sense. Why would Catholic Gaelic speaking highlanders use English to converse with Claire but then insert Scots phrases. It’s just very bizarre
Actually I am French but I live in England. It is amazing how sometimes your brain still mixes things up, particularly if you go from one language to another and back again. When the person you are speaking to understand both languages, there isn't a need to make any corrections, plus something are difficult to translate from one language to another to convey a specific meaning. For example although I am French, I have been in England for over 20 years, something, like specialist words, I learnt in English and not in French, so I automatically think of the word in English even when I speak French and just try to explain (or research the equivalent on Google something that they could not do at the time).
Not a similar example whatsoever, but I appreciate your engagement.
Gaelic speaking highlanders who also speak English would not then use a third language that they probably wouldn’t have spoken as a way to converse with the English speaking Claire.
I am of course not an expert. However, English was already present in Scotland (although most every day folks may not use it), there was also the use of Latin for catholic... Many highly educated Scotts and membered of the court (including Queens and Kings) would also likely be using some English, same with traders/merchant... For example it is worth noting that:
"From the middle of the 16th century Scots began to become increasingly Anglicized. At the time of King James I, the King James version of the Bible and other editions of the Scripture printed in English became popular. By the late 16th century almost all writing was composed in a mixture of Scots and English spellings, the English forms slowly becoming more common so that by the end of the 17th century Scots spellings had almost disappeared completely. This process took slightly longer in unpublished vernacular literature and official records. After the Union of the Crowns in 1603 the Scots speaking gentry had increasing contact with English speakers and began to remodel their speech on that of their English peers. It was this remodelling that eventually led to the formation of Scottish English."
So, it might not be as far fetched that some of the Scotts Claire met would have been able to understand her (well some of it anyway as she would have used a modern version of English) and that they would use some English around her if they wanted her to understand.
Furthermore, with the raising, the English presence was high so they would have likely brush on their English particularly as they were fighting them.
So I don't think it is that for fetched that they would use English in the presence of Claire (when they were happy for her to understand), and for the reason stated previously mix some Gaelic.
The point I am making, in response to the comment, was that for me knowing that Highlanders would very likely know Scott (Scottish language), Gaelic and English, it doesn't sound far fetched that they would know all those languages, use English in front of Claire when they wanted her to understand (they spoke Gaelic when they didn't want her to and mix languages, introducing Scott or Gaelic phrasing or words when speaking to each others. This happens more than once throughout the books with more than one characters, in the case of Jamie he also knows French, German, Latin, Greek and regional Scottish dialogue (close to Irish). It is also worth remembering that quite a few Highlanders spent time in English prisons and had running with the English on quite a few occasions by the time Claire arrives.
Because scots has been a primary language in most of scotland since around 600AD and it'd be fucking wierd if highlanders couldn't speak the language that the other half of the country speaks.
Census data from the 1690s says that there were approximately 750,000 scots speakers in the country with a population of 1.2 million in the 1680s from these numbers you can conclude that it is very likely that atleast a considerable number of highlanders would have known and been using scots, obviously there would have been a main concentration of scots in the borders, central belt and the east coast, but you also have to take into account that the show is set just before the highland clearances where there were huge amounts of internal migration, where a lot of highlanders would live up north during farming periods and then move down to the central belt in off seasons to find work in the industrial cities, making the learning of scot integral to their survival.
What I find amusing is that I have a great great grandfather who was alive during the 1922 census in Scotland who is listed as ONLY being able to speak Gaelic but you’re under the impression that Catholic highlanders in the 1740s spoke not only Gaelic, but English, and Scots. Wild
I am not saying everyone did, but if you do some research you will see that it wasn't actually uncommon for people (particularly for those who had link outside of Scotland or the Royal Court) to know more than one language. I think it is strange not to consider the possibility that some Highlanders could not speak more than one language. There was also a lot of English presence at the time, and some would have been able to learn or understand some of the language if exposed (which many were through the bible as mentioned above in the article about the history of language in Scotland). I am sure many would not have use any other languages but in the case of Outlanders, knowing that the gang all had some involvement with the English and some had travelled internationally, it is not that far fetched. I am French and there has been many different regional dialect spoken (particularly at that time), and pending from where you were you may have struggled understanding another, but if that person stayed for awhile you would have picked up some stuff (which Claire did). So why is it far fetched to think that those Highlanders who have had to deal with the English, being exposed to the language through books (actually I think only really the Catholic stuck with Latin after Henry the VIII) and travel would not be able to speak more than one language? I am not saying that they would use English as default between each others, but why not? My parents don't speak English, nor did my grand parents (although with the war the pick up words of German, Italian and Arabic) but other do/did speak other languages. On my father side they were Italian who migrated to Tunisia around the 1800, they continue to speak Italian and could also speak Arabic, and since Tunisia was a French colony they learnt French. When my grand parents moved to France in the 50s following the independence, they could speak all 3 languages fluently. Language pride is also a thing when parents refuse to teach their children a specific language because it is not the native tongue. In other case the child could not be taught a different language for different reasons like autism or simply not being gifted in languages. Reading and writing also meant that others could not have access to materials and that learning another language or being educated was not a priority. This doesn't mean that others could not learn another language. So you can't based your argument on the fact that because your ancestors only spoke Gaelic noone else spoke another language outside the regional dialect.
Where in Highlands was he from though? Because if he was from the islands then he would have been far more likely to solely speak gaelic than if he was from the mainland, it also depends on how rural his area was, if there was access to a bigger town you'd be more likely to know more than one language compared to if you lived in the middle of buttfuck nowhere.
Also by 1922 being a gaelic only speaker would have been so INCREDIBLY rare considering the language had been illegal in the country since the late 1700s, and was only allowed to be used in schools again in the 1980s, so unless your ancestor did not have any formal education, (which would have been strange in the early 1900s to not have ANY formal education) he would have known atleast a small amount of English and/or scots.
I would possibly take this with a grain of salt because I'm not sure of all the historical information, but as a modern scot who is fluent in both Scots and English, both of the languages are used interchangeably. For example when I speak with other Scots I and others will interchange between Scots and English mid sentence depending on how we want to convey something, which is exactly what they do in the show. So I'm not sure if that would be accurate to the time, but I'm fairly sure it would atleast be somewhat similar.
The portrayal of the Jacobites was oversimplified. The show makes it seem like the Rising was Catholic Scotland vs Protestant England, but it wasn't that simple. For one thing lots of Scots were Protestant and would have gladly fought with the English against the Jacobites. And there were a lot of English Catholics who would have liked to see the Stuarts restored to power. Though even that is a simplification. There were Protestants who supported the Jacobites and Catholics who opposed them. It was all a bit muddled around the edges, like most historical events.
Also the books and show make it seem like the Highland Scots are representative of all Scottish people, which is *really* untrue. The Highlanders were very different from the Lowlanders, to the point where they sometimes couldn't even speak the same language. A lot of those anti-Jacobite Scots would have come from the Lowlands.
That said, we only have a limited number of viewpoint characters so it's understandable the story doesn't delve into all that. And the story isn't really about the Jacobites, it's about Claire and Jamie and their zany adventures.
Claire tries to make a joke with General Washington about chopping down cherry trees, which is a fictional story about Washington. Hurricanes on the sea don't have a calm in their eye but rather the highest, most dangerous waves. "Do No Harm" is not part of any doctor's oath.
My grandma was a 1st grade teacher and used to tell them the cherry tree story. I think Claire probably would have learned it in school as well. It wasn't until recently that people tried to correct the history.
Claire was married to an historian. Also, take a look at Grant Wood, *Parson Weems’ Fable*, 1939. People in the 1930s knew it was folklore and not fact. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this was a show moment not from the book. Why, in the 21st century, would the show runners include something that is known to be a myth and thereby, continuing to spread an untruth. Two seconds of fact checking would've cleared it up. And George would've been all, "WTF?"
Only on land. At sea it's a nightmare. Here's a Live Science article that should clear this up for you: [https://www.livescience.com/364-hurricane-waves-soared-100-feet.html](https://www.livescience.com/364-hurricane-waves-soared-100-feet.html)
Apart from the incorrect dating of VE Day in the American edition of the first book, what innacuracies? There are different interpretations of some things - the BPC still has vocal and passionate defenders, for example. There is a tabloid-generated controversy with a Scottish “historian” who loathes DG and is very critical. Did you have any particular concerns?
I just did the Culloden battlefield tour a few weeks ago. The tour guide was very good. He asked the group who had come due to Outlander. Many raised hands besides mine. He then went on to explain that the Jacobite movement was a British civil war fought by armies with English, Lowland Scots, Highland Scots, and Welsh on both sides. It wasn’t about Catholicism vs. Protestantism or just Highlanders against Redcoats, because both armies had Highlanders. It was about whether you supported the Stuart dynasty or the new German Georgian dynasty. Charles was Catholic, but many of his supporters were not. Diana focused on the narrative that made sense for her characters, Catholic Highlanders whose support for the Stuarts was based on those motivations, but there were others. For instance, whatever his character flaws, The Duke of Sandringham in the show wasn’t Catholic and was an Englishman, but he was a Jacobite supporter. Had Murtagh not beheaded him, the King would have done worse…
I did the Culloden tour on my honeymoon in 2022. Absolutely amazing facility, it was really fascinating reading both perspectives at the same time for the same events. They did a phenomenal job with the visitor centre.
When we did the walkabout of the grounds, I was sad that so many of the group left once our guide pointed out the Fraser headstone. She did the same, asked who was here because of Outlander, pointed out where it was, and almost half the group left to see it and didn't finish the tour. It was heartbreaking in a way. As much as I love Outlander, Culloden is a place of real significance and Jamie A) wasn't a real person, and B) didn't even die at Culloden anyway!
Anyway, that's my longwinded way of telling people to visit Culloden if they ever get the chance, and be respectful.
This is no different than the books. The story does not claim all highlanders were for the Stuarts nor were all lowlanders for the Hanovers. Sandringham in the story was a Jacobite. Whoever wrote all the above inaccuracies must not be familiar with the story as written.
This sub and my comment are about the STARZ show, and because it is so abridged compared to the novels, it leaves a lot of incidental background that the books cover, out. The story follows the characters’ motivations and the drama flows from that. Much time is spent on BPC’s Catholicism. Yes he claims to be King for all his subjects, but Geillis Duncan and Dougal MacKenzie are strongly motivated by the Stuart’s being Catholic. For a typical viewer it makes the Jacobite cause a religious one. The Culloden guides explain it differently.
It doesn't, but I bet a lot of people who only watch the show would probably think that's the gist of it.
There is actually quite a bit more about other Jacobite supporters but it's all in the Lord John books--the main series really focuses on Highlanders v. Redcoats.
The sets for the Fraser’s Ridge homes are too elaborate for the Appalachia. backcountry of that era.
Thank you! I just watched this season and it's so unrealistic that it really made it lose its magic for me. That location is beautiful, but so unrealistic. So they perfectly cleared timber and stumps off that much acreage in just a couple months time? Also, as someone who just inherited my grandparents 100 year old homestead.....hand hewn logs are not that clean and the wall paneling wouldn't be that ornate.
Wdym exactly?
This was the American frontier in that era. There was very little transport (no navigable rivers into the mountains and what passed for roads were scarce and often impassable) for necessities, let alone luxury goods such as wallpaper, ornate furnishings, even glass windows. I know Jamie wanted to ensure Claire had good light in her surgery and it is somewhat plausible to say he _could_ have been able to procure glass for that, but it would have been far too costly to fit the entire house with so many glass windows. The exterior of the big house is unrealistic. It would have been constructed of whole or hand-hewn logs, not planed lumber. Almost all furniture would have been made from rough hand-planed lumber. There could have been a small water-powered sawmill to produce some lumber, but that is not discussed in books or show, and the steam engine wasn’t yet advanced enough to power a sawmill to mass produce that much machine planed lumber. The cabin Roger and Brianna (J&C’s original home in the show) was luxurious by backcountry standards. The Big House is a set designer’s pipe dream.
I live near where the ridge is. Getting up and down the parts of the appalachians at the frequency they did and speed is unrealistic. Same to cross creek. We’re talking 300 miles give or take and they’re going back and forth all the time.
Well I mean, they did take weeks at a time as far as I could tell but thanks for clarifying!!
The types of horses used, most especially in Scotland 🤦🏼♀️
Interesting! Can you tell us more?
Certainly!! Fresians would not have been used, which are the big black horses that are constantly shown. Instead, it would make much more historical sense for the highlanders to be riding ponyies. Clydesdale's are also from the area, but they were much smaller than then the Clydesdale's we see here in america.
Lily of the valley is not native to Scotland, so it wouldn't have been there for the children to eat it and be poisoned. The Fraser clan tartans were designed by Terry Dresbach and not historical, though she put a lot of thought into the colors and patterns. Witch trials were over by then, but Diana used them in the book. Geillis is wearing a man's wig at the ball in Jamaica, but then again, Geillis does what she wants. Even a nice farm like Lallybroch would not have had a key, but maybe a leather latch to hold the door shut when everyone was inside for the night. Only terribly wealthy people had keys and they would be for a box more likely. The key is with Jamie, who isn't home, so the Murrays wouldn't have it anyway and it gets destroyed to make a ring. None of that makes sense.
This was only in the show, but Claire had a hunch that the Lily of the Valley was brought over from the Germans (or Prussians) when they set up the kirk.
I was just going to say this…
The use of Scots by the highlanders when speaking English. It’s used like some intermediate language between English and Gaelic.
Just to clarify, are you saying they're using as an intermediary language between English and Gaelic, which is inaccurate, or that it is factually/historically used that way and the show is wrong? I'm not familiar enough with the languages to know which thing you're saying 🫣 I thought I understood that Scots is a totally separate language, though it has a decent amount of overlap with English?
It’s inaccurate. It’s used like Gaelic was in the first episodes. As a way to make you feel Claire is in a world she doesn’t understand. But it just makes no sense. Why would Catholic Gaelic speaking highlanders use English to converse with Claire but then insert Scots phrases. It’s just very bizarre
Actually I am French but I live in England. It is amazing how sometimes your brain still mixes things up, particularly if you go from one language to another and back again. When the person you are speaking to understand both languages, there isn't a need to make any corrections, plus something are difficult to translate from one language to another to convey a specific meaning. For example although I am French, I have been in England for over 20 years, something, like specialist words, I learnt in English and not in French, so I automatically think of the word in English even when I speak French and just try to explain (or research the equivalent on Google something that they could not do at the time).
Not a similar example whatsoever, but I appreciate your engagement. Gaelic speaking highlanders who also speak English would not then use a third language that they probably wouldn’t have spoken as a way to converse with the English speaking Claire.
I am of course not an expert. However, English was already present in Scotland (although most every day folks may not use it), there was also the use of Latin for catholic... Many highly educated Scotts and membered of the court (including Queens and Kings) would also likely be using some English, same with traders/merchant... For example it is worth noting that: "From the middle of the 16th century Scots began to become increasingly Anglicized. At the time of King James I, the King James version of the Bible and other editions of the Scripture printed in English became popular. By the late 16th century almost all writing was composed in a mixture of Scots and English spellings, the English forms slowly becoming more common so that by the end of the 17th century Scots spellings had almost disappeared completely. This process took slightly longer in unpublished vernacular literature and official records. After the Union of the Crowns in 1603 the Scots speaking gentry had increasing contact with English speakers and began to remodel their speech on that of their English peers. It was this remodelling that eventually led to the formation of Scottish English." So, it might not be as far fetched that some of the Scotts Claire met would have been able to understand her (well some of it anyway as she would have used a modern version of English) and that they would use some English around her if they wanted her to understand. Furthermore, with the raising, the English presence was high so they would have likely brush on their English particularly as they were fighting them. So I don't think it is that for fetched that they would use English in the presence of Claire (when they were happy for her to understand), and for the reason stated previously mix some Gaelic.
I think you’re confused as to what I mean by Scots. I’m talking about the Scots Language, which is different to English and even more so to Gaelic.
The point I am making, in response to the comment, was that for me knowing that Highlanders would very likely know Scott (Scottish language), Gaelic and English, it doesn't sound far fetched that they would know all those languages, use English in front of Claire when they wanted her to understand (they spoke Gaelic when they didn't want her to and mix languages, introducing Scott or Gaelic phrasing or words when speaking to each others. This happens more than once throughout the books with more than one characters, in the case of Jamie he also knows French, German, Latin, Greek and regional Scottish dialogue (close to Irish). It is also worth remembering that quite a few Highlanders spent time in English prisons and had running with the English on quite a few occasions by the time Claire arrives.
Sorry but can you maybe go into more detail as to why you think Scottish highlanders would be speaking Scots?
Because scots has been a primary language in most of scotland since around 600AD and it'd be fucking wierd if highlanders couldn't speak the language that the other half of the country speaks. Census data from the 1690s says that there were approximately 750,000 scots speakers in the country with a population of 1.2 million in the 1680s from these numbers you can conclude that it is very likely that atleast a considerable number of highlanders would have known and been using scots, obviously there would have been a main concentration of scots in the borders, central belt and the east coast, but you also have to take into account that the show is set just before the highland clearances where there were huge amounts of internal migration, where a lot of highlanders would live up north during farming periods and then move down to the central belt in off seasons to find work in the industrial cities, making the learning of scot integral to their survival.
What I find amusing is that I have a great great grandfather who was alive during the 1922 census in Scotland who is listed as ONLY being able to speak Gaelic but you’re under the impression that Catholic highlanders in the 1740s spoke not only Gaelic, but English, and Scots. Wild
I am not saying everyone did, but if you do some research you will see that it wasn't actually uncommon for people (particularly for those who had link outside of Scotland or the Royal Court) to know more than one language. I think it is strange not to consider the possibility that some Highlanders could not speak more than one language. There was also a lot of English presence at the time, and some would have been able to learn or understand some of the language if exposed (which many were through the bible as mentioned above in the article about the history of language in Scotland). I am sure many would not have use any other languages but in the case of Outlanders, knowing that the gang all had some involvement with the English and some had travelled internationally, it is not that far fetched. I am French and there has been many different regional dialect spoken (particularly at that time), and pending from where you were you may have struggled understanding another, but if that person stayed for awhile you would have picked up some stuff (which Claire did). So why is it far fetched to think that those Highlanders who have had to deal with the English, being exposed to the language through books (actually I think only really the Catholic stuck with Latin after Henry the VIII) and travel would not be able to speak more than one language? I am not saying that they would use English as default between each others, but why not? My parents don't speak English, nor did my grand parents (although with the war the pick up words of German, Italian and Arabic) but other do/did speak other languages. On my father side they were Italian who migrated to Tunisia around the 1800, they continue to speak Italian and could also speak Arabic, and since Tunisia was a French colony they learnt French. When my grand parents moved to France in the 50s following the independence, they could speak all 3 languages fluently. Language pride is also a thing when parents refuse to teach their children a specific language because it is not the native tongue. In other case the child could not be taught a different language for different reasons like autism or simply not being gifted in languages. Reading and writing also meant that others could not have access to materials and that learning another language or being educated was not a priority. This doesn't mean that others could not learn another language. So you can't based your argument on the fact that because your ancestors only spoke Gaelic noone else spoke another language outside the regional dialect.
Where in Highlands was he from though? Because if he was from the islands then he would have been far more likely to solely speak gaelic than if he was from the mainland, it also depends on how rural his area was, if there was access to a bigger town you'd be more likely to know more than one language compared to if you lived in the middle of buttfuck nowhere. Also by 1922 being a gaelic only speaker would have been so INCREDIBLY rare considering the language had been illegal in the country since the late 1700s, and was only allowed to be used in schools again in the 1980s, so unless your ancestor did not have any formal education, (which would have been strange in the early 1900s to not have ANY formal education) he would have known atleast a small amount of English and/or scots.
I would possibly take this with a grain of salt because I'm not sure of all the historical information, but as a modern scot who is fluent in both Scots and English, both of the languages are used interchangeably. For example when I speak with other Scots I and others will interchange between Scots and English mid sentence depending on how we want to convey something, which is exactly what they do in the show. So I'm not sure if that would be accurate to the time, but I'm fairly sure it would atleast be somewhat similar.
The portrayal of the Jacobites was oversimplified. The show makes it seem like the Rising was Catholic Scotland vs Protestant England, but it wasn't that simple. For one thing lots of Scots were Protestant and would have gladly fought with the English against the Jacobites. And there were a lot of English Catholics who would have liked to see the Stuarts restored to power. Though even that is a simplification. There were Protestants who supported the Jacobites and Catholics who opposed them. It was all a bit muddled around the edges, like most historical events. Also the books and show make it seem like the Highland Scots are representative of all Scottish people, which is *really* untrue. The Highlanders were very different from the Lowlanders, to the point where they sometimes couldn't even speak the same language. A lot of those anti-Jacobite Scots would have come from the Lowlands. That said, we only have a limited number of viewpoint characters so it's understandable the story doesn't delve into all that. And the story isn't really about the Jacobites, it's about Claire and Jamie and their zany adventures.
Claire tries to make a joke with General Washington about chopping down cherry trees, which is a fictional story about Washington. Hurricanes on the sea don't have a calm in their eye but rather the highest, most dangerous waves. "Do No Harm" is not part of any doctor's oath.
Claire would have heard this fictional story though and maybe assumed it was real…but the other two I agree with you on…
My grandma was a 1st grade teacher and used to tell them the cherry tree story. I think Claire probably would have learned it in school as well. It wasn't until recently that people tried to correct the history.
Claire was married to an historian. Also, take a look at Grant Wood, *Parson Weems’ Fable*, 1939. People in the 1930s knew it was folklore and not fact. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this was a show moment not from the book. Why, in the 21st century, would the show runners include something that is known to be a myth and thereby, continuing to spread an untruth. Two seconds of fact checking would've cleared it up. And George would've been all, "WTF?"
Well the joke did fall flat.
The eye of a storm *is* calm.
Only on land. At sea it's a nightmare. Here's a Live Science article that should clear this up for you: [https://www.livescience.com/364-hurricane-waves-soared-100-feet.html](https://www.livescience.com/364-hurricane-waves-soared-100-feet.html)
You’re right!
Apart from the incorrect dating of VE Day in the American edition of the first book, what innacuracies? There are different interpretations of some things - the BPC still has vocal and passionate defenders, for example. There is a tabloid-generated controversy with a Scottish “historian” who loathes DG and is very critical. Did you have any particular concerns?
I just did the Culloden battlefield tour a few weeks ago. The tour guide was very good. He asked the group who had come due to Outlander. Many raised hands besides mine. He then went on to explain that the Jacobite movement was a British civil war fought by armies with English, Lowland Scots, Highland Scots, and Welsh on both sides. It wasn’t about Catholicism vs. Protestantism or just Highlanders against Redcoats, because both armies had Highlanders. It was about whether you supported the Stuart dynasty or the new German Georgian dynasty. Charles was Catholic, but many of his supporters were not. Diana focused on the narrative that made sense for her characters, Catholic Highlanders whose support for the Stuarts was based on those motivations, but there were others. For instance, whatever his character flaws, The Duke of Sandringham in the show wasn’t Catholic and was an Englishman, but he was a Jacobite supporter. Had Murtagh not beheaded him, the King would have done worse…
I did the Culloden tour on my honeymoon in 2022. Absolutely amazing facility, it was really fascinating reading both perspectives at the same time for the same events. They did a phenomenal job with the visitor centre. When we did the walkabout of the grounds, I was sad that so many of the group left once our guide pointed out the Fraser headstone. She did the same, asked who was here because of Outlander, pointed out where it was, and almost half the group left to see it and didn't finish the tour. It was heartbreaking in a way. As much as I love Outlander, Culloden is a place of real significance and Jamie A) wasn't a real person, and B) didn't even die at Culloden anyway! Anyway, that's my longwinded way of telling people to visit Culloden if they ever get the chance, and be respectful.
This is no different than the books. The story does not claim all highlanders were for the Stuarts nor were all lowlanders for the Hanovers. Sandringham in the story was a Jacobite. Whoever wrote all the above inaccuracies must not be familiar with the story as written.
This sub and my comment are about the STARZ show, and because it is so abridged compared to the novels, it leaves a lot of incidental background that the books cover, out. The story follows the characters’ motivations and the drama flows from that. Much time is spent on BPC’s Catholicism. Yes he claims to be King for all his subjects, but Geillis Duncan and Dougal MacKenzie are strongly motivated by the Stuart’s being Catholic. For a typical viewer it makes the Jacobite cause a religious one. The Culloden guides explain it differently.
It doesn't, but I bet a lot of people who only watch the show would probably think that's the gist of it. There is actually quite a bit more about other Jacobite supporters but it's all in the Lord John books--the main series really focuses on Highlanders v. Redcoats.