Historical context for Outlander: Blood of My Blood Season 2 follows. This is a show-first history guide with no future book spoilers.

Before we get into the 1715 Jacobite Rising, let’s make one thing clear: history, like story, is all about the why and the how. Knowing that the Earl of Mar raised a Jacobite standard at Braemar on September 6, 1715 is useful. Understanding why thousands of people looked at that standard and decided it might be worth risking their land, their families, their fortunes, and possibly their heads is the part that actually makes the history come alive.

That distinction matters even more heading into Blood of My Blood Season 2 because the show is dropping Brian Fraser, Ellen MacKenzie, Murtagh, Colum, Dougal, Lord Lovat, and the rest of these families into a rebellion that can look deceptively simple from 300 years away. “The Jacobites wanted the Stuarts back” is true in roughly the same way that “the American Revolution was about independence” is true. It gives us the destination without explaining the road that made anybody willing to go there.

Quick answer: The 1715 Jacobite Rising happened because Britain had spent nearly thirty years living with an unresolved argument over who had the right to decide who became king. The removal of the Catholic Stuart king James II and VII in 1688, the creation of a Protestant succession chosen through Parliament, anger over the 1707 Union between Scotland and England, economic frustration, religious division, party warfare, clan rivalries, and the arrival of George I in 1714 all piled pressure onto the same political fault line. By 1715, the Stuart cause offered different people different things: a rightful king, religious security, Scottish political restoration, revenge against rivals, recovery of power, or simply a better bet for the future.

That last part is the key to understanding the world of Blood of My Blood. There was no single reason everyone became a Jacobite, and there was no single reason everyone opposed them. The rebellion becomes interesting when we stop treating “Jacobite” and “government” as two neat jerseys and start asking what each family believed it stood to gain, lose, protect, or recover.

The First Thing To Understand: This Was Never Simply Scotland Versus England

The cleanest popular version of Jacobite history usually turns the conflict into Scotland fighting England. That image makes emotional sense, especially after Outlander spends so much time around Highland culture, British soldiers, Culloden, and the destruction that follows the 1745 Rising. Historically, though, it hides one of the most important things about the Jacobite conflict: Scots fought on both sides.

Jacobitism also existed in England and Ireland, and even within Scotland support varied dramatically by region, religion, family, politics, and circumstance. Some Highland clans supported the Stuarts. Some opposed them. Some families split. Some chiefs changed calculations between one Rising and the next because the political situation around them had changed.

That is useful for Blood of My Blood because Season 2 is setting up exactly this kind of pressure. “Which side are you on?” sounds like a political question until your answer determines whether your rival gets your land, whether your tenants are expected to fight, whether the government considers you a traitor, or whether the king you backed still exists six months from now.

To understand why those decisions became so dangerous in 1715, we have to start with a king who had already been gone for almost three decades.

Why James II Became A Problem In The First Place

James II of England was also James VII of Scotland. Same man, different royal numbering because England and Scotland were still separate kingdoms with their own histories, parliaments, churches, laws, and political interests. They had shared monarchs since 1603, when James VI of Scotland inherited the English throne as James I, but sharing a king did not make the two kingdoms one country.

James became king in 1685, and one fact immediately made many of his Protestant subjects nervous: he was Catholic. Religion in the seventeenth century carried enormous political consequences because the monarch influenced government, military appointments, public worship, church power, foreign alliances, and the legal treatment of different religious groups. A Catholic king therefore raised questions about the future structure of the state itself.

James intensified those fears by using royal power to expand rights and opportunities for Catholics and by pushing against political and religious restrictions that Parliament expected him to respect. To James, some of those actions were part of his royal authority. To his opponents, they looked increasingly like evidence that a Catholic king was willing to use the monarchy to bypass institutions standing in his way.

Then his wife gave birth to a son in June 1688, and the entire political equation changed.

Why One Baby Changed The Future Of Britain

Before the birth of James Francis Edward Stuart, James’s Protestant daughter Mary appeared likely to inherit the throne eventually. That gave nervous Protestants a reason to tolerate the existing situation: James might be Catholic, but the succession appeared likely to return the monarchy to Protestant hands. A healthy son changed that because male-preference inheritance placed the new Catholic prince ahead of Mary.

The fear therefore stopped being temporary. Britain could now be looking at a continuing Catholic Stuart dynasty, with James eventually followed by a Catholic son who could have sons of his own. For people already worried about James’s use of power, the birth transformed a difficult reign into a potentially permanent political settlement.

Seven prominent Englishmen invited William of Orange to intervene. William was a Protestant Dutch ruler, a major opponent of Catholic France, and conveniently married to James’s Protestant daughter Mary. He arrived in England with an army in November 1688, James’s political and military support collapsed, and James eventually fled to France.

That event is remembered as the Glorious Revolution. The name sounds almost tidy. The political wound it created was anything but.

The Revolution Solved One Problem And Created The Jacobite Problem

William and Mary were offered the English throne in 1689, while Parliament formally treated James’s flight as an abdication. The new settlement also strengthened Parliament’s place inside the monarchy and reinforced the principle that a Catholic could not inherit the English throne. For supporters of the Revolution, the country had protected Protestant government and answered a dangerous abuse of royal power.

Now imagine seeing the same event from the other side. James had been born the lawful heir, inherited the crown, and then been driven out after a foreign prince arrived with an army. If hereditary right made someone king, political opposition could not simply erase the bloodline because Parliament preferred somebody else.

That disagreement creates the deepest engine underneath Jacobitism. The argument is ultimately about legitimacy: does the crown belong to the hereditary heir, or can the political nation establish rules that determine who is fit to inherit it?

Once William and Mary accepted the throne, Britain had an answer in law. The people who rejected that answer had a cause.

That Is Where The Word “Jacobite” Comes From

“Jacobite” comes from Jacobus, the Latin form of James. Jacobites supported the claim of James II and VII and then the claims of his descendants, believing the Stuart family had been unlawfully displaced. If you want the wider Outlander history of the movement, our complete Jacobite history guide follows the cause forward toward Bonnie Prince Charlie and Culloden.

For 1715, though, we need to stay with James’s son. James Francis Edward Stuart grows up in exile believing the crowns taken from his father belong to him. His supporters call him James III of England and James VIII of Scotland; his enemies eventually call him the Old Pretender.

This is important for Blood of My Blood viewers because Bonnie Prince Charlie has nothing to do with the 1715 Rising. Charles Edward Stuart will not even be born until 1720. The man whose claim hangs over Brian and Ellen’s generation is Charlie’s father, which means Season 2 is taking us into the previous chapter of the same political inheritance that will eventually consume Jamie Fraser.

Why Religion Still Matters Even When The Conflict Is About More Than Religion

It would be easy to turn the whole argument into Catholics versus Protestants, but that flattens the politics in a different direction. Jacobites included Catholics and Protestants, particularly Scottish Episcopalians, while political loyalty could depend on much more than religious doctrine. Clan interest, land, patronage, nationalism, family history, and opposition to the government all mattered.

Religion nevertheless remained central because seventeenth- and eighteenth-century rulers sat at the top of political systems deeply tied to established churches. Many Protestants feared that restoring a Catholic Stuart would alter the religious settlement, increase Catholic political influence, and strengthen Britain’s great Catholic rival, France. Jacobites could look at the same situation and see religious exclusion being used as an excuse to disinherit a legitimate royal family.

That means both sides could experience the succession as a threat to an entire way of organizing society. Once the argument reaches that level, choosing a king means choosing much more than a person.

Then Britain Runs Into A Succession Problem Nobody Can Ignore

William and Mary had no surviving children. Mary died in 1694, and the future of the Protestant monarchy rested increasingly on her sister Anne. Anne had many pregnancies, but none of her children survived to adulthood; when her only surviving son died in 1700 at age eleven, the political system suddenly had a terrifying question sitting in front of it.

If Anne died without an heir, James Francis Edward Stuart had an extremely obvious hereditary claim. He was the son of the previous king. He was also Catholic, which meant the entire post-1688 Protestant settlement could unravel if ordinary inheritance rules were allowed to operate.

The English Parliament responded with the Act of Settlement in 1701. The crown would pass through a Protestant branch of the Stuart family to Sophia of Hanover and her Protestant descendants, bypassing Catholic claimants. Parliament was therefore asserting something enormously important: blood still mattered, but blood operated inside rules Parliament had the power to establish.

England had made its decision. Scotland had not.

Why Scotland Suddenly Had Enormous Leverage

Remember that England and Scotland still had separate parliaments. The English Act of Settlement could determine who inherited the English crown, but Scotland was under no obligation to choose the same successor. That opened the possibility that Queen Anne could die and the two kingdoms sharing one monarch for more than a century could suddenly choose different kings.

From England’s point of view, that possibility was dangerous. Scotland sat directly on its northern border, France remained a major European rival, and France had supported the exiled Stuarts. A separate Scottish kingdom choosing a Stuart monarch could create a friendly base for England’s enemies and undo the political security achieved after 1688.

Scotland had leverage because England badly wanted the succession question settled. Scotland also had problems of its own, and those problems made negotiations over union attractive to part of the Scottish political class.

Why Scotland Would Agree To Union At All

Scotland entered the eighteenth century under heavy economic pressure. The catastrophic Darien scheme—an ambitious Scottish attempt to establish a trading colony in Panama—had failed and devastated many investors. Scottish merchants also lacked equal access to England’s enormously valuable colonial trading system, which made economic integration attractive to people who believed Scotland needed a larger commercial future.

England wanted political and dynastic security. Scotland wanted economic opportunity. During the 1706 negotiations, the basic bargain becomes remarkably clear: England secures the Hanoverian succession for both kingdoms, while Scotland gains access to English colonial markets and the economic system surrounding them.

On May 1, 1707, the two kingdoms became the Kingdom of Great Britain. The Scottish Parliament ceased to exist as a separate legislature, Scottish representatives went to the new Parliament at Westminster, and the Protestant Hanoverian succession became part of the constitutional structure of the united kingdom.

That settlement solved England’s succession problem. It also handed Jacobites one of the most powerful recruiting arguments they would ever have.

Why The Union Made The Jacobite Cause Bigger Than A Royal Family

The Union was controversial from the beginning, and dissatisfaction continued afterward. Many Scots disliked the political process that produced it, resented the disappearance of their Parliament, disliked new taxes, or felt the economic rewards promised by union arrived too slowly. Those frustrations did not automatically make someone a Jacobite, but they created an audience receptive to the idea that the new British political order had taken something away.

This is where Jacobitism becomes politically potent in Scotland. Restoring the Stuarts could now be packaged alongside restoring Scottish political liberty and repealing the Union. A dynastic argument about who belonged on the throne could absorb a national argument about whether Scotland had surrendered too much of itself in 1707.

Think about what that does to the sales pitch. A potential supporter no longer has to care only about the genealogy of an exiled king. He can care about the Stuart claim, the Scottish Parliament, economic resentment, religion, his clan’s standing, local rivals, or several of those things at once.

That is why asking “Were the Jacobites fighting for Scotland or the Stuarts?” gives us the wrong kind of choice. For some people, those goals had become intertwined.

Then Queen Anne Dies And The Entire System Gets Tested

Queen Anne died on August 1, 1714 without a surviving child. The constitutional machinery built over the previous quarter-century now did exactly what it had been designed to do: the crown bypassed James Francis Edward Stuart and passed to George, Elector of Hanover, who became King George I of Great Britain.

George was related to the Stuart family. He was not some random German prince pulled from a hat. His path to the throne existed because Parliament had deliberately moved through the Protestant family tree while excluding the closer Catholic Stuart line.

For supporters of the Revolution settlement, George’s succession proved that the system worked. The transfer was peaceful and Protestant government continued. For Jacobites, it proved the opposite: the political establishment had constructed an entire constitutional machine specifically capable of keeping the man they considered the rightful king out of his inheritance.

Now the argument had a living target sitting on the throne.

Why 1715 Happens Now Instead Of 1710 Or 1720

History usually needs more than a grievance. It needs an opening. George I’s accession created one because it rearranged political power at exactly the moment Jacobites had spent years waiting for another chance.

English politics were already bitterly divided between Whigs and Tories. George strongly favored the Whigs, which pushed Tory leaders away from the new center of power and convinced some that the Hanoverian monarchy threatened their political future. Jacobite organizers saw unrest in England and unresolved anger in Scotland and began imagining that several kinds of dissatisfaction might finally converge.

The government saw the danger too and moved against suspected conspirators in England. In Scotland, however, John Erskine, Earl of Mar, escaped north and began organizing.

That is the moment when decades of pressure finally find somebody willing to pull the trigger.

Why The Earl Of Mar Chose Rebellion

Mar is useful because he keeps this history from becoming too romantic. He had been a major political operator under Queen Anne, had served the existing system, and had supported the Union. When George I arrived, Mar lost political favor and suddenly found himself outside the new distribution of power.

His decision to embrace the Jacobite cause therefore sits at the intersection of ideology, opportunity, resentment, and ambition. That does not make every Jacobite grievance fake. It makes Mar recognizably human: political systems are filled with people whose principles and interests become extremely difficult to separate once power starts moving around.

Mar traveled into the Highlands and gathered supporters at Braemar. On September 6, 1715, he raised the Stuart standard and proclaimed James Francis Edward Stuart as king.

The argument had become an army.

Why Braemar Matters So Much In Blood Of My Blood

Blood of My Blood has already taken us to Braemar, which means the show is placing its fictional families directly beside the historical ignition point. This is where the political tension bubbling through the MacKenzies, Frasers, Grants, and the wider Highlands stops being gossip about succession and becomes a decision with consequences.

Mar quickly gathered a substantial force. According to the UK Parliament’s history of the Rising, he eventually mobilized around 16,000 men, including members of roughly 26 Highland clans and strong support from Episcopalian areas in northeastern Scotland. The size matters because hindsight makes failed rebellions feel doomed from birth; in the autumn of 1715, the government faced a movement large enough to control much of the Highlands and create a genuine threat.

People standing at Braemar did not know they were extras in the opening act of a rebellion historians would eventually call a failure. They were looking at thousands of armed men and trying to decide which future was about to become real.

That is exactly the headspace Season 2 needs.

Why A Clan Chief Could Not Treat This Like A Personal Political Opinion

This is probably the most important historical idea for understanding Brian, Ellen, Colum, Dougal, Murtagh, and Lord Lovat. A clan chief choosing a side could put tenants, relatives, dependents, land, political standing, and future inheritance into the same gamble. Victory might bring influence and reward; defeat could bring imprisonment, forfeited estates, broken alliances, or the empowerment of a rival family waiting to profit from your mistake.

Local politics therefore matter just as much as grand ideology. If your enemy joins Mar, supporting the government may create an opportunity to destroy him. If your land depends on government favor, rebellion may be suicidal. If your family’s power has been damaged by the post-1688 settlement, a Stuart restoration might look like the best chance to recover everything.

This is also why entire clans do not behave like one character with one motivation. Chiefs could struggle to control their own followers. Family branches could disagree. A decision made at the top could create danger underneath it.

Blood of My Blood already understands that family loyalty and personal desire are different forces. The 1715 Rising takes that same conflict and gives it an army.

Lord Lovat Is The Perfect Example Of How Messy This Gets

Simon Fraser, Lord Lovat, becomes especially useful here because anyone approaching him only through later Jacobite history can easily assume his politics in 1715. Lovat had deep connections to the Stuart cause and would eventually back the Jacobite side during the 1745 Rising, a decision that ultimately helped send him to the executioner’s block.

In 1715, he made a different calculation. Lovat supported the government and helped the anti-Jacobite effort around Inverness. His rival, Alexander Mackenzie of Fraserdale, had joined the Jacobite cause, which meant a government victory could strengthen Lovat’s own claim to Fraser power and property.

That is almost a perfect miniature of the entire political problem. Lovat can possess Jacobite sympathies and still conclude that the Hanoverian government is the better choice for Simon Fraser in 1715. Thirty years later, when the board looks different, he can make a different bet.

For Blood of My Blood, that matters because Brian Fraser is not simply inheriting a political philosophy from his father. He is inheriting a man who understands politics as leverage, survival, family power, and opportunity. You can follow how Brian, Lovat, the MacKenzies, and the rest of the family tree connect in our Blood Of My Blood family tree guide.

Why Ellen MacKenzie’s Season 2 Problem Is So Interesting

Ellen enters this rebellion from another side of the same trap. Clan MacKenzie cannot make its decision only by asking which king feels morally correct. Whoever leads the family has to think about what happens to Castle Leoch, its people, its alliances, and its future if the chosen side loses.

That creates a brutal leadership problem because the morally satisfying choice and the safest political choice may point in different directions. Protecting a clan can require relationships with people you distrust, strategic ambiguity, or keeping enough options alive that the family survives either outcome.

Season 1 made Ellen interesting because she understood power before she formally possessed it. She read rooms, anticipated moves, and tried to create choices in a system designed to make choices for her. The Rising turns that skill outward: now the question becomes whether Ellen can protect a family when history itself is closing off the safe exits.

Why The Government Could Not Simply Ignore The Highlands

Mar’s success in gathering forces gave the rebellion real military weight. He established himself at Perth and controlled a large part of Scotland, while the government’s main force under John Campbell, Duke of Argyll, was dramatically smaller. Parliament’s account says the Jacobites outnumbered Argyll roughly three to one by the time the armies met at Sheriffmuir.

That numerical advantage is another reason we should resist treating 1715 as an inevitable failure. Government victory had not been guaranteed by destiny. The Jacobites had assembled enough men to create an opportunity; what they needed was leadership capable of turning numbers into strategic momentum.

That is where Mar begins to fail the cause he helped ignite.

Why Sheriffmuir Matters More Than “Who Won?”

On November 13, 1715, Mar’s Jacobite army met Argyll’s government forces near Dunblane at the Battle of Sheriffmuir. The fighting became confused enough that portions of both armies defeated the enemy opposite them, allowing both sides to claim pieces of success. The battlefield itself did not produce the clean winner we usually expect a major historical battle to provide.

The strategic result was much clearer. Mar had the larger force and needed to turn that advantage into movement; instead, the Jacobites withdrew toward Perth while Argyll gained time to regroup. A rebellion lives on momentum because it has to convince uncertain people that the existing government can actually be replaced.

That is the deeper reason Sheriffmuir hurts the Jacobites. They needed the battle to make their future look inevitable. It made the future look uncertain.

Why The Rising Starts Collapsing Even Before “The King” Arrives

The Scottish campaign was only part of the larger Jacobite plan. A related rising in northern England ended badly at Preston, where Jacobite forces surrendered on November 14, one day after Sheriffmuir. Within roughly the same stretch of time, momentum was disappearing on both sides of the border.

James Francis Edward Stuart finally landed in Scotland in December 1715. That should have been the emotional payoff of the entire movement: the man supporters considered James VIII and III had come to claim his kingdoms. Instead, he arrived after the rebellion had already lost the thing he needed most.

His physical presence could strengthen legitimacy among believers. It could not reverse weeks of strategic failure, rebuild the English rising, or magically turn Mar into a more effective commander.

By February 1716, James and Mar had left Scotland.

Why 1715 Fails

The Rising fails because the coalition never turns its grievances, numbers, and opportunity into a coordinated political and military victory. Mar gathers an impressive army but cannot use it decisively. The English rising collapses. James arrives too late. The government survives the dangerous period long enough for the rebellion’s initial energy to bleed away.

That explanation is more useful than saying the Jacobites were hopeless. They clearly were not. The 1715 Rising became the largest massing of Scottish Jacobite forces against the government and briefly controlled enough territory to make the threat serious.

The tragedy is that a cause can possess deep grievances, real popular support, thousands of armed men, and a claimant with a recognizable hereditary case and still fail because those pieces never become an effective machine.

History is full of movements that can explain why they deserve to win more clearly than they can explain how they are actually going to win.

Why 1715 Is Different From The Jacobite Rising Claire Knows

For Outlander viewers, the temptation will always be to look at 1715 and see Culloden coming. The connection is real, but the two Risings belong to different political moments. The 1715 movement supports James Francis Edward Stuart directly; the 1745 Rising is led by his son Charles Edward Stuart—Bonnie Prince Charlie—trying to restore the same dynasty a generation later.

The world around the cause also changes over those thirty years. Government military preparation changes, Jacobite support changes, European politics change, and the memory of earlier failures changes what people are willing to risk. Even individual families can reach completely different conclusions in 1745 than they reached in 1715.

If you want to follow that later story through Jamie and Claire’s generation, our Outlander Season 2 guide tracks the series through Paris, Bonnie Prince Charlie, the 1745 Rising, and the road toward Culloden.

What 1715 Changes About The World Jamie Fraser Will Eventually Inherit

This is where the history becomes more than useful background for the prequel. Jamie Fraser is born into a world where Jacobitism already has memory. The adults around him have already seen people choose sides, watched fortunes change, learned what government attention can cost, and discovered how quickly clan politics can become national politics.

Brian, Ellen, Murtagh, Colum, Dougal, and Lord Lovat therefore are not simply placeholders waiting for Jamie’s story to start. Their generation is helping create the political culture Jamie will inherit. What they learn about loyalty, survival, leadership, family obligation, and the Stuart cause does not disappear when the Rising ends.

That is one of the most interesting things Blood of My Blood can do as a prequel. The original Outlander introduces Jamie and Claire shortly before the 1745 Rising and asks whether they can change the history coming toward them. The prequel has the chance to show us that the people who raised Jamie were already shaped by an earlier collision with the same historical wound.

1715 Jacobite Rising FAQ

Why did the 1715 Jacobite Rising happen?

The 1715 Jacobite Rising grew from several connected political pressures. Jacobites rejected the removal of James II and VII and the Protestant succession established afterward; many Scots were unhappy with the political or economic consequences of the 1707 Union; English politics were deeply divided; and George I’s accession in 1714 pushed some opponents of the new regime toward the Stuart alternative. The Rising began when those older grievances found an opportunity to converge.

Who were the Jacobites trying to make king in 1715?

The Jacobites supported James Francis Edward Stuart, the son of the deposed James II and VII. Jacobites recognized him as James III of England and VIII of Scotland, while his opponents commonly called him the Old Pretender. He was the father of Charles Edward Stuart, better known as Bonnie Prince Charlie.

Was Bonnie Prince Charlie involved in the 1715 Jacobite Rising?

No. Bonnie Prince Charlie was born in 1720, five years after the Rising began. The 1715 rebellion supported his father, James Francis Edward Stuart; Charles would lead the later 1745 Rising on behalf of the same Stuart claim.

Was the 1715 Rising Scotland fighting England?

No. Scots fought for both the Jacobite and government sides, while Jacobite support also existed in England and Ireland. Political allegiance could depend on religion, family interests, local rivalries, attitudes toward the Union, dynastic loyalty, economic concerns, and calculations about which side seemed most likely to protect a family’s future.

Why did the 1707 Union matter to the Jacobites?

The Union joined England and Scotland into Great Britain, created one Parliament at Westminster, and secured the Protestant Hanoverian succession across the new kingdom. Because many Scots resented the loss of their Parliament or were disappointed with the Union’s political and economic consequences, Jacobites could connect Stuart restoration with the promise of restoring Scottish political independence.

Where did the 1715 Jacobite Rising begin?

John Erskine, Earl of Mar, raised the Stuart standard at Braemar on September 6, 1715. That moment transformed years of conspiracy and political dissatisfaction into open rebellion, which is why Braemar carries so much significance heading into Blood of My Blood Season 2.

What happened at the Battle of Sheriffmuir?

Mar’s Jacobite army fought government forces led by the Duke of Argyll near Dunblane on November 13, 1715. The fighting was confused and tactically inconclusive, but the outcome favored the government strategically because Mar failed to capitalize on his larger army and the Jacobite advance lost momentum.

Was Lord Lovat a Jacobite in 1715?

Simon Fraser, Lord Lovat, had extensive connections to Jacobitism during his life, but in 1715 he supported the government and benefited from the defeat of Jacobite-aligned rivals. He would make a different calculation during the 1745 Rising, eventually backing the Stuart cause and being executed for treason after its failure.

Why does the 1715 Rising matter to Blood Of My Blood?

The Rising puts the generation before Jamie Fraser inside an earlier version of the political conflict that will later define a major part of Outlander. Brian, Ellen, Murtagh, Colum, Dougal, Lord Lovat, and the clans around them now have to decide what loyalty means when dynastic politics, family survival, land, religion, personal relationships, and the future of Scotland all begin pulling in different directions.

The Real Reason 1715 Matters

The most interesting thing about the 1715 Jacobite Rising is not that everybody suddenly became obsessed with who wore the crown. It is that the crown sat at the center of much larger questions about religion, Parliament, Scotland, the Union, land, family power, economic survival, and who possessed the authority to decide the future. Put enough of those questions in the same place, give people reasons to believe the existing order may finally be vulnerable, and a political argument can become an army very quickly.

That is why the history fits Blood of My Blood so well. Brian and Ellen spent Season 1 trying to claim the right to choose their own future despite everything their families expected from them. Season 2 is about to put them inside a rebellion born from an entire country arguing over the exact same thing on a much larger scale: who gets to decide what comes next?d