When Outlander Season 3 episode 5, “Freedom and Whisky,” aired, some questioned Claire’s choice. Does choosing Jamie over her daughter make Claire a bad mother?
Diana Gabaldon says it herself in a prologue you all know well: “Disappearances happen all the time…Housewives reach the end of their tether and take the grocery money and a taxi to the station.” So many have asked the question: “How could Claire just leave Bree?” “How does a mother leave her child?”
It’s a question that cropped up in a new, more vocal way after Outlander Season 3’s episode, “Freedom and Whisky.” So we thought what better time than now—before the fabulous reunion where everyone will absolutely agree that Claire should have returned to the love of her life—to take a look at Claire’s decision. Here are two opposing viewpoints, or at least variations on the theme. Which one do you agree with?
Denise: Why I’m Okay with Claire Choosing Jamie Over Bree
Maybe it’s because I am around Claire’s age in Voyager. Maybe it’s because her daughter is so reassuring and independent. Or maybe it’s because Claire felt like she had put her life on hold for 20 years. But I can’t judge her for leaving and going back.
Now before I start my defense of Claire’s decision, let me make this point clear: I love my family so very much. Ask anyone who knows me. My children, all three of them, are my beginning and end. My grandchildren are the light of my day. I coordinate family reunions on an every other year basis. I LOVE my family and LOVE to be with them. But are there days when I wish I could run away? YES!! I think we all become so much of somebody’s wife, these kids’ mom, the PTO mom, the carpooler. Don’t you ever feel like just being you for a change? Doing something just for you. Something maybe no one else could ever understand, but it means the world to you.
So I feel the need to defend Claire here. How could she just up and leave her daughter? This debate is why/how she could leave her child, her Only. Living. Child. She lost one child already. Watching her say goodbye to Bree was heart wrenching in so many ways. BUT I get it…kind of. Would I ever do it? I don’t think I’d have the courage to, but I would possibly think about it. After all, I may have possibly inquired of my colleagues here to provide me with a new job in a new town and no forwarding address. Here’s why I feel Claire’s behavior is understandable if not totally forgivable.
Photo courtesy: Outlander-Online
Claire grew up in a transient lifestyle. She lived and moved with her Uncle Lamb. She didn’t really have roots. She mentions this throughout the story, and most specifically when talking about the vase. Then she was in the army during a war. She didn’t have a home for seven years. When finally settling down, she goes to Scotland and is tossed back to the 1700s. Guess what? No home there…except Jamie. Back in the 20th century, Claire tried to be happy. She tried to establish herself. She threw herself into her work, became a surgeon, worked long, demanding hours, yet I don’t think any of that made her feel as needed as she felt in the 18th century. That could have been a pull for her to go back.
Ian told Jamie that his losing Claire was equal to Ian or Fergus losing a limb. Do we not think the same for Claire? Do we not think that she was not whole living without Jamie? There are different loves in all of our lives, and one can not always makeup for the loss of another. They fill different parts of our hearts, minds and bodies. I feel like at different times in our lives we come to a crossroads. Claire has reached that point. She has lost her first love, no matter how tumultuous that relationship was. She loved Frank.
She is doing very well in her professional life, but I’m guessing she feels that, at times, she is more behind in 1968 in equality than she felt in the 1700s. I mean the Highlanders were a tough bunch to women but, in this story, the female has become the go-to for everything and everyone. She feels more respected in a way, more needed.
Despite her many accomplishments, in her 20th century life, Claire is empty. She sees Bree turning into a truly independent young lady. Claire may see so much of herself in Bree. She feels as if she has done everything for everyone and feeling like, in the process, has done nothing for herself. Claire is one to do as she feels. Maybe she is tired of being Mrs. Randall and Bree’s mom. Maybe she wants to find and feel that love that she lost so long ago. It doesn’t matter how much you love your children and their offspring, that love can never replace the feeling that is between a man and a woman. And the passion, the pulling, between Jamie and Claire is beyond this world.
Claire puts on the front for 20 years that everything is all right. What if…just what if…it wasn’t. And we all know it wasn’t. She had lost a part of her heart, her soul when she came back through the stones. I am sure not a day went by when she wasn’t thinking to herself, “what if?” What if I had stayed? What if Bree was born OK? What if Jamie did survive? What if…I ever get the chance to go back? Her second guessing the decision to leave must have only been exacerbated after learning that Jamie, in fact, had been alive all those years. All those wasted years.
Photo courtesy: Outlander-Online
I can tell you now that there are times when all of us second guess our life decisions. If you can’t say you regret at least one decision, I’d like to talk to you. There is always that “what if” moment. Claire is being given a second opportunity at love. She will NEVER love the way that she did with Jamie. They are like the moon and the sun in constant pull.
As for Bree, yes, she is her daughter. But as I see each of my own children grow and become adults, I realize the need for me to be there is less and less. I know that they would not want to live without being able to ask for my advice, pick up the phone, have Sunday dinners, etc., but I also know that they are at the point where, if needed, they could. I could see each of them selflessly telling me to go and do what I needed to do. They would be OK. My heart would break in two, but I could see each of them telling me they were grown up and could do this. That is selfless love. Bree is showing how she is selfless and loving toward her mom unconditionally.
In the end your children grow up, make a life for themselves and you are somewhat left alone. Maybe Claire was seeing this as her future and felt it was time to do something just for Claire.
Janet: Why I’ve Had Second Thoughts on Claire’s Choice
First I want to make this clear: I am not a perfect mother. I have made a litany of decisions that could be described as poorly conceived or just outright bad and damaging as a parent. Just ask my kids. (Interesting aside: Both Denise and I started our points of view by offering reasons why we shouldn’t be judged for having these thoughts….but that’s an essay for another time, ladies, isn’t it? Hmmm.)
And I also made the decision at one point in my life to live in another city part of each week for a job, a bifurcated life that I lived—happily—for nine years. I justified this professional and lifestyle decision by noting that our youngest child was a sophomore in high school and our oldest two children were either in college or living on their own when I started. It’s only two or three nights a week! They’re really mostly launched! And the youngest will actually have more contact with me than if I was home because he’ll be forced to talk to me on the phone each night rather than hide in his room.
My point in raising this personal story is that I get women making decisions that are best for them in their personal lives—choosing, for instance, to take a better job that will fulfill them but also might require more travel/less Mom time at home. I applaud this kind of personal realization and action generally.
But when I sat on the couch, my 32-year-old daughter beside me watching one of the maybe three Outlander episodes she’s ever watched, we both looked at each other when it was over and said, “A mother would never do that. I would never do that.”
It was the first time I had EVER had that thought regarding Claire, and I’ve read the books three times (and counting). While I have always thought it would be difficult for Claire to leave Bree behind to find Jamie, I never once thought “What the hell is she thinking? How could she do this?” Instead I cheered her gumption and added this choice to the ever-growing list of why Claire is the perfect role model and evolved woman. Not only is she sexually sure of herself and able to ask for what she wants, but she realizes that motherhood is not a reason to deny herself the love and partnership she has been missing for 20 long years any longer.
So why was my reaction so visceral when watching “Freedom & Whisky?” I’ve decided that it’s the episode—maybe even the medium of TV itself—that is the issue. While I have LOVED Outlander Season 3 so far, I think we can all agree it’s felt a bit rushed. Yes, Voyager is more linear than Drums of Autumn and therefore easier on some levels to adapt. But it is a long book with a lot of story line to cover. Choices are made each and every week (just listen to the STARZ Outlander podcast to hear more about how the writers and production team struggle). The result in this episode is that Claire’s struggle was underplayed a bit, with Bree giving permission, i.e. allaying Claire’s guilt in such a way that she made the choice to return seem easier and therefore less genuine.
Yes, they hugged goodbye and there were a few tears. But where was the ugly crying and sobbing that absolutely would have happened IRL, a point that for me hit full absurdity when Bree, after a few minutes in Roger’s arms after seeing her mother get in a cab and drive away for potentially ever, walked into the kitchen, put on the Santa hat and brought the tray of food in for what was apparently going to just be a normal evening. ON CHRISTMAS! No. Way. People.
Photo courtesy: Outlander-Online
In the book—and please, I know it’s a different medium and I do not hold Ron D. Moore and his wonderful team to the unrealistic standard that the show and book must be the same—but in this case, the difference is critical. Of course the book has more time to flesh out the angst surrounding the leave-taking. Got it. But the book also does something else that makes Claire’s decision to leave more plausible. Claire tries to sneak out of the house the day she is to go through the stones to avoid one last goodbye, a goodbye she is afraid she might ultimately not complete because leaving Bree is so difficult. When she arrives at the stones, Bree is there, dressed in faux 18th century garb. “If you don’t go back,” she says to her mother, “I’m going to go back. Jamie deserves to know about me.” Or words to that effect.
What could otherwise be seen as a selfish act by Claire is suddenly transformed into a sacrifice. She can’t let her daughter go through the stones, a trip that has been described like dying and which Bree has no idea how to navigate. No mother would do that. And so she leaps herself. And in that leap, a personal choice simultaneously becomes a sacrifice of sorts—an act that every mother everywhere can identify with. We forgive Claire, thinking perhaps of sacrifices we have made, and we cheer her choosing her self and love once again…
We’d love to hear what you think—how do you feel about Claire’s choice to leave her daughter to reunite with Jamie?
Wow! I was NOT expecting this. I thought you two would have the exact OPPOSITE viewpoints about this. Shows you what I know! I hear you, Janet — and this is from someone with no children — but I have already ceded in my head before every single TV episode of Outlander that things will be accelerated and/or different from the books and we just have to go with it. I could feel Claire’s angst about leaving in the show. It was rushed but I understand and accept it. Just can’t do it all in 53 minutes. I am on board with her decision to go back. Every woman deserves to be allowed to be their authentic self. For 20 years Claire was living someone else’s life and not her own. It’s only in the 18th century and with Jamie that she can be who she truly is. I don’t begrudge here that. She discharged her debt and her promise to raise Brianna and it’s time to find herself again. Too many women I know who are married and with children lose themselves. It’s terribly sad to watch. My friend told me once that as much as she loves her (5) children, from the moment they were born everything was about raising them to the point where they could launch, leave her house and be productive human beings on their own. She has a very good track record so far and her kids adore her. So, something to it, I think. Great post, ladies. Gave us all — even non-mothers — something to think about!
I get scolded often about my choices, first to stay with my son in a bad marriage (not that I didn’t love my husband, but that he had multiple issues of his own that I tried but was unable to help with.) Then, I stuck with a sister who was stubborn, didn’t make the best health choices, and held on to her independence long past when she should have been making better plans. She always left life decisions until the very last minute, and above all, she blew off the details that would have made her life a little easier in the long run. I tend to get distracted easily, which is my cross to bear and I am trying to deal with this. I need to take care of myself, because no one else will.
I wish I had met Claire earlier. She is capable, inherently kind, and adventurous. She might be afraid, but is a warrior in her own way. Just because one isn’t a helicopter mom, doesn’t mean she lacks love for her children. There is something to be said for letting kids become what they need to be to survive and thrive. (Frank also did this by teaching Bree to shoot, etc, and that is the role of a father – to teach his children, both male and female, how to meet the threats they might face.) I personally, learned to step back and let others teach my son when they had more skills than I had to convey. I taught him how to clean his room, take pictures, how to make an omelette, cookies and spaghetti sauce, and how to do laundry. Tried durned hard to teach him to manage money, and for a while there, I thought I failed, but then he became a financial adviser. He took it from there. He may be a bit more of a helicopter father than I would wish, but that is not my place to say. My job now is just to love the whole package, Son – wife – and grands. and to take care of self as best I can. If one neglects one’s own care, one surrenders all care to someone else, and probably not in a way one would wish to have.
Such a great post! Like Anne said above, you always seem to give us a lot to think about.
This question never occurred to me as Brianna is a grown woman at the time that Claire decides to go back to Jamie.
Denise pointed out the basic truth of a parent: In the end your children grow up, and make lives for themselves. Raising kids to be happy, capable, responsible, good adult human beings is pretty much the goal of a parent. Claire and Frank did exactly that.
The bottom line is (for me), that Claire’s heart is Jamie, just as (Ian pointed out) Jamie’s heart is Claire. Doesn’t matter what, if any, family Claire has in the 20th century, or how her career is doing or any of the other arrows getting thrown at her. Without Jamie, Claire is not whole. Now that Brianna is a well-adjusted adult, Claire can change that and WITH Brianna’s encouragement. There is no reason for Claire NOT to go back to Jamie—IF THAT IS WHAT SHE WANTS TO DO.
Why is it that a woman who follows her own path, based on her own life is often called selfish? Is it because it’s not what the rest of us might do? Odd thing about being a human being: each of us doesn’t always feel like the rest of us do about a great many things. My parents taught me that.
I think one reason a woman choosing to do what she wants is considered selfish is because women’s actions are always measured through the lens of motherhood, even if the woman isn’t a mother. The person judging her behavior HAD a mother or maybe WAS a mother….and therefore those feelings affect their judgment. Anyway that’s my theory…
So thought-provoking, ladies! What went through my mind first was, in the end, we typically regret the things we wanted to do but didn’t. Could Claire have lived with the regret of not reuniting with Jamie? Then, Janet brought up the point of Diana’s brilliant original plot line – Bree gives her an out, saying if you won’t go, I will. I hope the writers will give non-readers the opportunity to fully understand how much Claire and Bree love each other and how hard it was for them to part. #keepingthefaith (for now) Can’t wait for 306!
Karen–Season 4 should certainly do something toward their relationship if the writers follow the book’s trajectory there….and of course the later books certainly do. Fingers crossed for seasons 5-8! 🙂
Ok, so I’m a relatively new Outlander fan and I’m caught up on the show but still not through book 1. I know you Janet agreed in your post…but it keeps hitting a nerve:
Why DO I keep coming up against comment after comment (on Facebook mostly,) dismissing this incredible show simply because it’s had the nerve (so it seems) to deviate from the source? I find it more in this fandom than any other I’ve come across, (maybe save “Harry Potter,” since those numbers are statistically massive and no one there can possibly agree on anything even if they think they do.) I can’t tell you how many outside comments are willing to dismiss an entire performance simply because the character is the wrong HEIGHT or needs a wig. Really? Looks trump skill?
Am I not finding fellow sympathizers? Is it just me? Is it the unusual length of time the books existed pre-show creation? The sheer length of the sources? Whatever it is it’s contiually interfering with lovely discussions like this one and it’s very sad to me when I’ve fallen for this whole team and their unbelievable work. I met Sam last month. So humble. Brilliant. It’s not that I dislike the books. I just hate continuously talking about what the show is not doing while I’m sitting here happily obsessing over so much beauty. The dialogue. The ACTING. The cinematography. The locations. The costumes ALONE are nutso. Overall I’m loathe to say a show needs to be the book/movie/whatever, or “is just getting by, somehow” ever. I’m admittedly super biased towards theatre. It really offends my director sensibilities. “Hey! We have new ideas, even in adaptations! We’re artists too! HUMPH! ?” Ok, sorry,… wow, rant over. But see? It’s such a bummer!
I agree that people need to take a deep breath and realize TV and books are two different mediums and let it gooooo. (Channeling my inner Else there). I LOVE them both and they are different. I don’t always agree with the TV choices, but that’s okay. It doesn’t make the adaptation any less worthy in my opinion. Diana wrote long, difficult to adapt books. It’s one reason we all love to read them. And the TV folks are doing an admirable job bringing that story to us on the screen….
As a mother of 3 and grandmother of 4. I believe that Claire had a right to have some happiness in her life, and if goi g back thru time to Jamie is what it took so be it. I live in South Africa, my eldest child and her family has lived in England for 19 yrs. my eldest son and his family have lived in New Zealand for 7 yrs, my youngest son is a marine engineer and spends at least half the year out of the country. I see my daughter and her family once a yr. and my eldest son and his family I’ve seen 3 times in the past 7 yrs, my youngest son I see a Bit more often. Now should I put MY life on hold for them? Neither they nor I believe so.
So in Claire’s case Bree is an adult who is independent and fully capable of living her own life. To hold her mother back would be selfish on her part.
I have not been enamoured with how the writers have demonized Claire this season, they have been as cruel and unkind as Frank was (but that’s a now unnecessary conversation) I only hope the writers give us back the REAL. Claire. Minnie rant over. However, Janet you are correct, had they shown Claire as she was depicted in the book it would have been more honest and a truer reflection of Claire. I see no earthly reason they couldn’t have done it. So bottom line I’m ok with Claire going back to Jamie to find love again.
Ginny
Your point about how our children can end up all over the world, ie not a big part of our lives–or as large as we would ideally like–is a good one. That is, after all, some of what we hope when we raise them–that they will be independent etc. And I agree that Claire has been more demonized this season overall in how they chose to play out her and Frank’s relationship. Overall I enjoyed the book version better of this particular part. That said, I do think they needed to show us more of their relationship for TV purposes….tough choices all around.
As a single Mom with 3 terrific grown children, I believe Claire should leap at this chance to be with Jaime! ‘Nuf said!
When my 4 kids grew up, I expected them to leave and fly on their own. They expected me to take care of myself. If I hadn’t read the books, I think I still would agree with Claire. An opportunity like this is a great chance. Everyone deserves happiness, even moms. At the stones, Bree felt and heard the noises, too. I knew that was key. Life, thank goodness, goes on. Even after parents die.
Claire needed closure, so she went knowing she could get back..
Read the books, they are wonderful , Diana puts everything into perspective.
Claire did the right thing.
I was nodding along with both sides of this debate, and I found your idea Janet, that despite the need for change, (as whatever serves the show,) it was still missing the given circumstances that would push Claire back, striking.
(For anyone unfamiliar with the term- characteristics found in the plot that help actors justify their characters’ actions whether they’re internal or external; i.e. it’s really cold out so I’m shivering all the way through this despite really being in a theatre with boiling hot lights! Or what drove Janet and her daughter’s instinct that Claire acted out of sync, say.)
I don’t know if I want Briana at the stones. I don’t think I needed that, but I’m also not a Mom. I want Claire to do it for herself more than it be a sacrifice. But I do very much like the idea that Briana could have insisted on her own attempt to go, or pushed harder the sentiment that Jamie was owed the same truths she found out. And I feel like grown-up Briana (especially in 1968,) would feel incredibly guilty as if she were holding her mother back… I thought that one conversation between her and Roger could have come back harder. She worries she’s horrible for not wanting Mom to go away. I’m definitely speaking as the grown daughter here. If I had found out what Briana did…in the end I’d frankly be very upset if she tried to stay for me and denied herself her full relationship. I’d also be really depressed for Jamie, the father I would not know. Why does he have to suffer without Claire? What value is there in a false reality, really? I think their relationship might gave even suffered, unintentionally. The questions would be endless. I found Claire’s “I could have lived my whole life not knowing” to be a huge tipping point. As a fellow writer, I also intuitively insist that the story isn’t over. Something had to give. We want more 1700s happiness! ?
You nailed it, Janet. In the relatively brief episode, the angst Claire suffers with her decision isn’t so obvious as the book. And good reminder about Bree’s blackmail at the stones! She is quite the combination of her two strong-willed parents, particularly in the book. Selfless AND headstrong.
There very often comes a time in any family when the children, much loved as they are, move on. Perhaps it’s just marriage but often they move away…away from home, family and friends.Considering that Claire and Bree will not be able to call or write, as we can today, presents another problem that we wouldn’t have to contend with. However, Bree is grown and will be anxious to begin her own “future”. Neither of them will forget their lives together, so no, I do not think it beyond belief that much as they would miss each other…both are strong women, who at this point…don’t really know, for sure, if they will ever see each other again. So they move on…taking their memories with them. This is selfless love.
I Agree with both. #1 would be almost my exact thoughts.
Children like Bree that are strong, confident, smart and have financial security would and are wishing you well.
Then Go have your life.
As a 5-times-through reader of all Diana’s books, my reply is colored by the book story, not just the show. First off, her world in Boston was collapsing since the death of her barely-there husband. Episode 3 doesn’t mention how she lost her position at the hospital through a difficult decision to care for an end-of-life patient. Her daughter has clicked with Roger, whom Claire trusts very much and is part of the 1700’s story as well. Brianna has plans for college (also different in the book) where she does very well in her engineering studies- (strange and unecessary change in the show). In the book, Brianna says as Claire hesitates at the stones, ” if you don’t go, I will”. If you know Claire from the books her decision to go to Jamie makes more sense. Also, most importantly, Claire knows that both Brianna and Roger have the gift – heard the stones, so can travel if they wish. So I agree, the story was rushed, leaving some difficult outcomes, but that’s why I tell everyone, “Just read the books!” 🙂
Agree! Claire could see the connection between Roger and Bree and she trusted Roger with her—my oldest son just got married and it felt like a completion to me regarding him.
Raising children is a job you work your way out of. Then you become a very loving, but often a distant person in their lives. They may come to you with questions but go about their own lives. In this case Bree told her mom she loved her but didn’t need her. I think that let Claire go. I don’t think she was a bad mother. She was not a clingy mother.
Remember the Irish, Italian, and other immigrants to our country (USA). Early in the 20th century, people crossed the ocean often never to see their immediate families again. Mostly, I am guessing, it was older parents left behind in the old country as their offspring headed to America. But, they still did it often leaving parents behind. Recently, Many immigrants have come from South America leaving their children behind, so the parents could earn money to send home. Claire left for love, but Bree seemed okay with it.
Absolutely, Claire should have left Briana. Briana had her own life to lead and was living at home only because it was in the same town as the school she was attending – Harvard University. Many of that age go away to University and never really return home fully again.
Also, Claire had agreed to ever mention Jamie again nor search for him while Frank was alive. She kept that agreement and as a result, as Joe said, lived a half life for years. Now she had the opportunity to get some of that happiness back. Life is too short, and she was right to return. All this is my opinion.
Janet what a great question?!,also so much food for thought,well I don’t think Claire is a bad mother,she struggled with it,lot more in the adaptation,then in the books,it has been put forward lot more realisticly as real life, in the adaptation,then in the books,there she did not come over for me as a best of mothers,I have been very much in love,but could not or would not, ever leave my child no matter how old He is!It has to be a hard thing to choose in between the love of your life or your child,so who am I to judge,I can only speak for myself,I would always choose my child.I do believe lots of woman leave their children even when they young,they have their reasons,but lot more man leave a child & partner.Well now this is a bit of a spoiler,thank God things work out well on the end for Bree&Claire.No I don’t think she is a bad mother,but different from my way of feelings!There is always circumstances that play into these decision.My own mother left me & my sister when we were very young,fortunately very good relatives brought us up.I did not have to choose,the love of my life left us,but there are no hard feelings now!Sorry about my ramblings,but it was good to talk about it!
Read on MacDuff
Great discussion Ladies! Bravo to both of you! I just love dissecting these plots and characters as you can most likely tell, so I wanted to wait a day before answering.
Do I think Claire is a bad mother for leaving Bree?
Boy, isn’t it horrible how women are tough on other women? If it was a man in Claire’s position, I don’t think we’d even be discussing it.
Sad really.
While I did have concerns with the way Claire was with her pregnancy with Faith in Season 2, I absolutely do not think Claire is a bad mother for leaving Bree.
Faith was totally dependent on Claire, her well being was dictated by Claire. But Bree is an adult, a grown up person.
In fact, I just love the way that Claire treats Bree more like another adult woman–not her child, not her princess.
Claire is a nurturing character, but she does not smother.
Janet said it so perfectly that Claire had led a transient lifestyle in her youth: as a woman she had no problem living an Army life, a life that had no roots.
Family is another form of roots, considering them.
Family is central to Frank, and a large part of Jamie’s character. Much to his detriment sometimes (Black Jack, Geneva, sending Claire and Bree back through the stones)
But Claire is different.
I think in Claire’s point of view, she deeply resented being sent back through the stones, and played the role of doctor, wife (and not well) and mother for 20 years. She buried her passions, her authentic self–the self she enjoyed most being– for all that time.
Her frustration at the stove that did not light was so perfect!
I think many women do this: They play roles for others, and then if they are lucky, they get to explore their own passions, pursuits and happiness, later.
For Claire that happiness is Jamie.
It is like that old joke: “When does happiness begin? When the kids are grown and the dog dies.”
Denise: I loved your point as well, I would have loved to have seen more closeness between Bree and Claire as mother and daughter.
In the show, I didn’t really see it.
Of course Bree hears the buzzing at the stones too, so….
I hope this all makes sense, Hugs
Dawn
My god the girl was 18 years old, on her own and she saw how unhappy her mom was……she actually was at the stones to make sure Claire went through and she said if you don’t I will……..
It is not even possible to call Claire a bad mother. I can’t even believe anyone would question this.
I think Claire was an excellent mother, she was torn between going or staying with Bree. She went because Bree insisted and she wasn’t a little girl left alone, Bree was was a woman and very unselfish. Claire gave her all that she owned so she can survive. If Bree wanted Claire to stay, Claire would’ve stayed for 2 reasons #1 to be with her daughter #2 to fulfill the promise that she gave to Jamie.
Jamie choose death over Beee and Claire and it’s Claire , the one that DID raise her and who lived with a broken heart for 20 years to raise this child as Jamie remarried, had other kids and was serviced by maids, maidens and murderers? Good lord, sexist women are so ridiculous
I see this question quite a bit and it is actually a very sexist question when you get down to the root of it. It almost offends me that people say things like “a mother would never do that” because it seems like mothers are always being mom shamed no matter the outcome. But dad shaming isn’t a thing in our society and I didn’t see it mentioned above as you were trying to shame Claire for her choice either. It’s been thrown around that Claire was a bad mother for leaving but it’s not brought up that Jamie was a bad father for making them leave. But when you look at their choices and compare them Jamie definitely picked the more selfish ones. He knew his fate if he stayed on Culloden moor and instead of trying to find an escape, a different route, or even leave with Claire he selfishly pushes them both away. And for what? Just so he could complete his destiny and get his glory by dying in a senseless battle. But Claire went back to her time and spent 20 years in a loveless unhappy marriage just so Bree could have a father and give her the family unit she deserved. And now she has the chance to go back to the happiness she once had that makes her a bad mother? Why is it that the mother is always expected to sacrifice everything when it comes to parenting but the fathers always seem to get a pass? If Claire is a bad mother for leaving her fully grown adult child at her request to find love then Jamie’s a bad father for not being around because he wanted to die senselessly for Scotland.