Howling:What happens when Silence falls?

I have a theory about what will happen when Silence falls and when it will happen. I'd like to present it here to see if there are any major holes in it I've missed.

My first part, which has been suggested before, is that the question is the Doctor's name. That fits the 'oldest question in the universe' motif because the Doctor has travelled to the beginning of time and to the end.

Also, I don't think it will truly be when the question is asked but when it is answered that that answer will be used to make the Silence fall. After all, if it is the oldest question in the universe then it makes sense that it's been asked quite a few times before. However never before has it been honestly answered, and we know the Doctor will tell his name.

So as for who asks the question, I think it will be River. We know she finds out about it and we know Amy is supposed to help "bring the silence" (as was mentioned in 'Day of the Moon') so it makes sense that as River's mother she would help bring it if River asks the question.

So what is the Silence that will fall? Given we know the Silence make people forget them and they appear to have been involved in the Doctor's TARDIS exploding, which specifically created cracks which removed people from history and resulted in them being forgotten, I'd say 'Silence falling' is likely to continue that theme. I think Silence falling will be erasing everyone from history, meaning there are no more voices ever (it's the logical step up from the Daleks wiping everyone else out in the present; wiping everyone out from ever having existed).

Perhaps there's even some weapon out there whose password is the Doctor's name (hence why he's kept it secret all this time) which would result in everyone being wiped out (with the exception of the Silence themselves, who as a religious order feel they're washing away the 'sin' of other races). That explains why he trusts River so much when he learns she knows his name. The only time he'd have told someone his name is if he were willing to trust the universe itself in their hands.

So, thoughts? 210.49.167.47 12:51, September 18, 2011 (UTC)

Eh? I can't hear you. Boblipton 14:29, September 18, 2011 (UTC)

That theory doesn't quite work. For one thing, he has been hiding his names since well before the time war, and plenty of Time Lords must have known his name. The Master, who we all know isn't actually dead, must still know his name having known the Doctor as a kid. The Tesselecta specifically said that Silence will fall when the question is asked, not when it is answered, and people have been asking "Doctor Who?" since the very beginning. Erasing everyone from existance is clearly what they tried last season, and it almost worked. The other example of Silence falling would be Vampires in Venice, which was never really explained. The idea of using his name as a password for a weapon also doesn't quite work. The most likely candidate would probably be the hand of Omega since he seems to have taken that weapon with him when he initially left Gallifrey, but why would he use his own name as a password. Usually when I try to use my name as a password, my computer says that that password is weak and I have to come up with a stronger password, usually with a few numbers and capital letters thrown in. Apart from that, the Doctor isn't the only Time Lord who seems to have given up his name in order to go by a title(the Master, the Rani, the Corsair). Maybe renegade Time Lords somehow lose their name and are forced to go by a title, though that obviously doesn't explain everything.Icecreamdif 20:13, September 18, 2011 (UTC)

Time Lords aren't the only ones who go by acquired names. In the show, Ace did. That obviously started as a nickname but, because she disliked her given name, she treated "Ace" as her name and there were plenty of people who never knew her by any other name. In the real world, there's the likes of Sting, Lady Gaga, etc. -- stage names, certainly, but of a different kind from (say) Cary Grant or John Wayne. It happens in more ordinary walks of life, too. There are people who are known only or mainly by nicknames. In some cases (I know a few), if you use the "real" name, even their closest friends take a while to work out who you're talking about. The Doctor seems to be a special case, though. In The Girl in the Fireplace, Reinette, Madame de Pompadour said, "It's more than just a secret," and she was reading his mind at the time! Just the same, the name by which the Doctor was known on Gallifrey before he became known as "the Doctor" isn't likely to be the answer to the question. --89.242.66.251 21:33, September 18, 2011 (UTC)

True, but the fact that most renegade Time Lords don't go by actual names, and the fact that they all follow the same formula (The Title) suggests that the other Time Lords names are hidden just like the Doctor's. Wasn't there also a line in Fires of Pompeii about his name being hidden in the Medusa Cascade?Icecreamdif 21:43, September 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with most of what Icecreamdif said, but a few points:


 * "The Title"-style names seem to be unique to a small group of Time Lords, not even to all rogues. From what we've heard, 5 of the 10 members of the Deca had names like that, plus the Corsair (who could easily be, say, Jelpax or Vansell before they settled down, or someone who wasn't part of their clique at the Academy but joined up with them later), and the Other (which is probably where they got the pattern from—what better way to rebel than to make your very name an echo of the most infamous rebel in history?). A handful of rogues of the previous generation, like Ulysses, picked new names from other species' mythology. Other than that, nobody seems to have changed their name to go rogue. (OK, it's true that The Visionary, The Woman, and The Partisan were credited in the end titles of The End of Time with Deca-style names, but nobody called them that in-universe, and it's a bit odd to imagine someone actually being called "the Woman". Even if those are their in-universe names, the whole point of the Woman and the Partisan was that they were the only ones on the council deliberately standing against the Sanction, and they may have even been the Doctor's parents, so it doesn't seem to unreasonable that they'd follow his example.) If you only go by TV, none of this really changes; we've got the same 6 Time Lords (but we don't know 5 of them were in a clique called the Deca, and we don't know they named themselves for the Other), and we don't know anything about Ulysses and his generation, so everyone but those 6 goes by their real names.


 * As for using your name as your password, well, Peri did say that his name was impossible to pronounce, and Sam Jones said it was hard to pronounce and to remember, so maybe it's a better password than "Icecreamdif" (or your real name). But the very fact that he trusted Peri, Sam, and a few other companions with his name means it's unlikely to be the key to some super-mega-weapon. Imagine if Peri called out the wrong name in bed one night; Brian Blessed would have the power to destroy the universe. That's pretty scary. --70.36.140.19 02:08, September 19, 2011 (UTC)

Richard IV with a doomsday weapon-pretty scary. Either way, the fact that so many Time Lords have stopped using their name in the exact same way the Doctor has suggests that it is not a doomsday weapon, unless of course the Master's also got one that he's just never bothered to use.Icecreamdif 02:15, September 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * To be fair, we're talking about a master criminal who accidentally miniaturized himself and got stuck in a box; is it that hard to believe that he'd forget that "Koschei" is the password to his doomsday weapon? (PS, sorry for destroying the universe by typing "Koschei" there.)


 * Anyway, the real question is: can silence fall in the forest if there's nobody there to not hear it? --70.36.140.19 03:10, September 19, 2011 (UTC)

Well, I thnk any version of the Master other than the Anthony Ainley version would be smart enough to figure it out (you know, the incarnations that don't wear ridiculous disguises for no particular reason), and we know from Logopolis that he's not above putting the entire universe on ransom. Besides, it would still be much easier for the Silence to wait for the Master to come back to life again, and then ask him what his name is then to go through this whole thing with the Doctor. Besides, how are they supposed to find out his name if they're going to kill him. Well actually, I guess that it could be that River Song was only pretending to be a good guy in those other episodes so that the Doctor would eventually tell her his name, or they are actually trying to kill him to prevent silence from falling. It still doesn't seem particularly likely though.Icecreamdif 04:15, September 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * Good point; the Silence ought to know their history well enough to be able to figure out that the Master never stays dead more than a decade or two, and often as little as a year or two. But how could they penetrate the cunning ruse of using an anagram or translation of the word "Master" as a pseudonym? --70.36.140.19 04:31, September 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it should be noted here that it was never said that the reason the Doctor's always kept his name secret was because it was the password to the weapon (or that the name itself was a weapon). The Doctor could have used a title because it's standard Time Lord practice, or because he's part of a select group of Time Lords as suggested above. This does actually make some sense if the doomsday weapon in question was password locked after the time war at which point all of the other Time Lords were dead. As far as passwords goes, a name which everyone who knows it is either dead or a trusted companion isn't a bad one (and also the Silence may not know his name is the password, just that River will eventually ask the question which gives them the password). That would also explain why the Doctor was willing to let Peri know his name before the Time War but now it's this huge secret.
 * CleverAndKnowsIt 06:29, September 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * Even though I still don't like the overall theory, you've got a good point here. Thinking back on it, his name actually became a secret during the Second War in Heaven, stopped being a secret after Gallifrey was restored, and became a secret again after the Last Great Time War. I don't know if that means anything or not, but it's at least interesting. --70.36.140.19 12:17, September 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * Since we are doing the wild speculation thing here, it makes some sense if, rather than being the password to a weapon, the Doctor's true name is hardwired into the TARDIS as a key to a self-destruct mechanism. That also would explain how the Silence were able to destroy the TARDIS and create the cracks in the universe. 177.17.48.144 14:57, September 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * well i have always thought that there is a reason the doctor hides his true name mabey out of shame for a large crime he has commited not as the passkey to a super wepon but in context of the question it has got to be something that if asked then it will be hard for the doctor to anser but i have noticed that through out the seriesesthe theme of the doctor being a being drenched in the blood of millions for example (i think davros mentions it, it is in the pandoric fariy tale and the minotor) so the question could simpley be why? Whooligist 20:57, September 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * Some reasonable hypoetheses are offered here. Mine is based on the history of Gallifrey, which went through a period of magic before the rise of the Time Lords. Names have tremendous power in magic, as has been explained in The Golden Bough. Perhaps the reason that the Doctor keeps his name secret is that it would give others power over him. This may, of course, no longer apply in actuality, but as a Gallifreyan cultural relic of that era. Boblipton 21:07, September 19, 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is sort of what happenned in The Shakespeare Code, until the Carrionites realized that they could use Rose's name against him. Still, that doesn't explain why there have been a handful of renegade Time Lords who choose to go by titles instead of by their names while most other Time Lords seem to just have names with no problem. The idea of the Doctor's name being the oldest question in the universe is interesting from a real world point of view, because that is the oldest question in the history of the show that hasn't already been answered. Still, I doubt that that is where this plot arc is going.Icecreamdif 21:52, September 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * Whooligist's idea was essentially the understanding of many of the NA writers who weren't let in on the Cartmel Masterplan (although Cartmel and Platt said they were wrong): The Doctor had chosen to hide his name because of something shameful he did, but then the Time Lords decided that gave him too much control, so they banned it. Kind of a "You can't quit, you're fired!" thing. There's a great reference to it in the EDA Unnatural History. The Doctor remembers scenes from Time's Crucible and Lungbarrow, and Little Brother interrupts his reverie, saying (paraphrasing) "That's my favorite of your origin stories, too. This is the one version where they banned all mention of his name, and yours too, right?" (The "his" here is the Other, of course.)


 * Boblipton's idea came up in another EDA (or maybe elsewhere in the same one, I forget), where a Faction Paradox agent tells the Doctor (paraphrasing again), "Once you hid your name, you'd bought into the notion that names have ritual power, so as soon as we discovered your name, you were ours." --70.36.140.19 03:42, September 20, 2011 (UTC)

I haven't read any of this stuff, but from how you describe it it sounds like they all still have the same basic problem that they act as if the Doctor hiding his name was unique, when we know that t is at least a commonish thing for Time Lords.Icecreamdif 04:10, September 20, 2011 (UTC)


 * The fact that there's something unique about the Doctor's namelessness is pretty much a given. Going back to The Shakespeare Code, for example. The Carrionites know all about Time Lords, and yet when they scan for his name to gain power over him: "There is no name" "Why would a man hide his title in such despair?" (It's Boblipton's idea followed immediately by Whooligist's, now that I think about it.) The novels basically tell us the same thing as the episodes, and don't even really add much detail. (Well, they do give us the names of most of the other renegades, and the audios give us the last one, but you know what I mean.)


 * The only question is whether that uniqueness is shared only by the 2 most notorious renegades in Time Lord history (the Other and the Doctor), or by the 7 most notorious (them, plus the Master, the Rani, the Monk, and the War Chief… and the Corsair, who we don't actually know anything about, but we can assume he fits). Or maybe there are a handful of others. Anyway, does it actually matter whether the Doctor is different from them, or whether they have the same name issues?


 * Well, you're right that it matters for at least one thing: The Doctor's name being the oldest question in the universe would be a bit silly if the Master's name were just as big a question. But I think you're also right that there are plenty of other reasons to believe that's not where the plot arc is going anyway, so it doesn't make much difference. And beyond that, I don't think The Shakespeare Code, The Girl in the Fireplace, The Silver Nemesis, Unnatural History, etc. are affected either way. --70.36.140.19 04:59, September 20, 2011 (UTC)

Its a bitt irrelevant, but I don't think that the Monk or the War Chief really count. From what I remember of the Time Meddler, the monk was just an alias that the guy was using for that particular scheme as he was disguised as a monk, and none of the aliens in The War Games gave their names (War Lord, Security Chief, etc.) ecvept for the ones who were in the tmie xzones, so it is likely that those aliens just had some protocal involving referring to people by their rank. The fact that there is something special about the Doctor's namelessness is pretty much a given(he's not like Jack who just picked an alias for a con and stuck with it), but it doesn't seem to be unique. Hopefully they will eventually do a story that focuses on it, maybe when the Doctor tells River his name, buut I don't think that that's where they're going with this seaosn.Icecreamdif 05:41, September 20, 2011 (UTC)


 * The War Chief, you're right, unless he showed up in a novel or something we never heard from him again, and that's just what he was called by the War Lords, who obviously had their own whole non-Time-Lord naming thing going on. But the Monk showed up again in The Daleks' Master Plan, and he was called the Monk again, so he seems to be the same as the Master and the Rani.


 * But I could imagine Moffat making it just the Doctor and the Master whose names are special secrets. I think 70 just brought the Master up as an example at the end there, but he actually is different from the other renegades. He's always been the kind of dual, or equal opposite, to the Doctor. The Doctor may be the only person alive who knows his real name, but he can't use it, because the Master is one of only a handful of people alive who know the Doctor's. Of course hardcore fans would ask what about the Rani, the Monk, and the Corsair, but Moffat wouldn't bother to explain that. The obvious possibility is that they were just wannabes, who took cool names even though they didn't have to (just like the first mobsters with cool aliases were actually trying to hide their real names because they were on police records, while most of the later ones just wanted to sound hard). But leaving it open means someone can write in the Rani 5 does after Moffat retires and choose whether her name is important. --12.249.226.210


 * The Other. And wht makes you think that the Rassilon (to choose a name) was really named Rassilon? Boblipton 19:53, September 20, 2011 (UTC)

Hasn't the Rani already been written back in? I heard somewhere that River Song, Amy and Rose are actually the Rani using a chameeon arch. I'd forgotten that the Monk came back again in one of the lost episodes. It may be only hardcore fans who would complain about the Rani and the Monk, but the Corsair is much more recent, and if Moffat was going somewhere with the whole name thing than he could have easily asked Gaiman to give the Time Lord character a name instead of a title. Also, the rani didn't seem like the type who would take a name just to be cool, and she certainly didn't seem like somebody who would want to emulate the Doctor and the Master. Icecreamdif 20:06, September 20, 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey, I played the role playing game. Rassilon's birth name was Rass'il Onasty, or something like that. (I remember the apostrophe isn't in quite the right place to make him "O'Nasty", because that would just be _too_ silly, but it had to be somewhere, because aliens always have apostrophes.) And the Monk and the War Chief are both the Master in disguise, and there is no UNIT controversy because the Brigadier actually said he retired in 1996 and we were all fooled by a production error in Mawdryn Undead. :)


 * Anyway, the Other is only important to fans who read the novels. And from what 70 said above (I don't know much about the Other myself), you can take care of him easily: the Doctor and the Master are both echoes of the most notorious renegade in history.


 * Icecreamdif: I'm going to ignore your statement, because I know you're really the Rani in disguise. :P --12.249.226.210 20:20, September 20, 2011 (UTC)

Damn, how were you able to see through my dissguise. Its even better than the Master's disguises of Kalid and Sir Gilles. Having not read the novels I don't know much about the Other, but I don't think that even this wiki considers the role playing game to be canon. Rassilon's not a title anyway, so even if he did used to be called Rassil O'nasty, it just mmeans that he changed his name because Rassilon sounded better, and it isn't really relevant to this discussion.Icecreamdif 20:38, September 20, 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone considers the RPG canon, which is why I quoted the other silly stuff from it, and added the :) at the end. And yes, the point is that Rassilon isn't relevant; his name isn't the same kind of secret as the Doctor. I still think the idea of only the Master having the same kind of secret works (and, sure, the Other—again, just say he's the inspiration for the Doctor and Master), even though I know some fans would be annoyed by ignoring the Rani and the Monk. And I recognized you as the Rani in disguise becaue I'm River Song's 7th incarnation, and you were my 5th. --12.249.226.210 01:03, September 21, 2011 (UTC)

I had a theory that it is actually a good thing. Consider that the base Demon's Run was named after the Good Man Goes to War poem, and Madame Kovarian didn't seem to be aware of it. Perhaps 'Silence Will Fall' is more a portent of their movement being undone, rather than a portent of their victory over the Doctor. As for the question...perhaps it was Melody Pond asking 'Who is River Song?' Just a thought. [Unsigned]

First, please sign your contributions. Either use the "signature" button on the toolbar (you may need to press "more" first) or type 4 tildes (~).

Second, when Melody asked, "Who is River Song?" silence didn't fall. --89.242.78.198 06:23, September 21, 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, it's never been said that it's the first time the question is asked that that's when Silence will fall. When we were told "he will knock four times" we didn't believe that the first time that someone knocked four times that the Doctor would die. Rather, we believed that when the Doctor died would be when someone would knock four times. In fact, given it's supposed to be the oldest question in the universe, it's pretty much guaranteed that it would have been asked before. So "Who is River Song?" is still perfectly valid. CleverAndKnowsIt 06:48, September 21, 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, as soon as the Midnight entity knocked four times, this forum, Gallifrey Base, the blogs, etc. were chock full of people who were absolutely sure that was proof positive that the Midnight entity was going to kill the Doctor… But still, valid point.


 * But it sounds like you're taking "the oldest question in the universe" literally, and it's hard to see how that could be "Who is River Song?" It's only people in the 50th-52nd and 21st centuries who've even heard of her. Well, I guess someone in the 1st century did ask "Who is impersonating Cleopatra?", but that's not really the same question, and it's still hard to believe no one in the universe ever asked questions before the 1st century. (I suppose that would explain why nobody thought to ask, "Hey, Omega, are you sure you don't want to be a bit farther back when you detonate that star"?)


 * Actually, taking it literally, the oldest question in the universe is probably, "By the way, where is Adric?" from Castrovalva, right after they turned the TARDIS around a fraction of a second before reaching Event One, but somehow I doubt that's it… --70.36.140.19 07:13, September 21, 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, wouldn't it be something more like "Are you sure it's safe to be dumping fuel from the Terminus here ?" 177.17.56.70 10:59, September 21, 2011 (UTC)


 * No no, that's not the oldest question in the universe, because there was no universe yet at that point. And if you're asking for the oldest out-of-universe question, that would be, "So, Sydney Newman, what's this new show you want to pitch?" :) --70.36.140.19 17:59, September 21, 2011 (UTC)

And then with the answer "Doctor Who?", we end up right back where we started. Actually, that could explain why the show as on the TV in Rememberance of the Daleks.Icecreamdif 18:56, September 21, 2011 (UTC)

Possible candidates for oldest question:

1. Are you sure that's a good idea?

2. What did you do that for?

--89.240.240.113 02:24, September 30, 2011 (UTC)

With apologies to Rolf Harris:

3. Can you see what it is, yet?

--89.240.240.113 03:01, September 30, 2011 (UTC)

Well, I guess you were right. "Doctor Who?" is actually the question, though this open more questions than it answers. For one thing, we have heard plenty of people ask tis question (its probably the longest running gag in the show), so it mut mean when either a specific person asks the question, or a specific time that it is asked. Since we apparently haven't yet seen the Doctor tell River Song his name, silence may fall when she asks the quetion. Remember back in Silene in the Library, when the River initially told the Doctor his name, and he said that therer was only one time he could ever tell someone hi name?The two biggest theories for when that one time would be were tthe Doctor's wedding and the Doctor's death. We have now seen the Doctor's wedding and he actually didn't tell River his name, so that must mean that he will tell River his name when he dies. Actually, it would be pretty awesome, if done right, if we found out the Doctor's name on the 50th anniversary of the show.Icecreamdif talk to me 17:49, October 2, 2011 (UTC)

He already told her when he died in Let's Kill Hitler. And apparently he must answer the question on the Fields of Trenzalore, at the fall of the Eleventh(?!) when no one can fail to answer and must answer truthfully.Boblipton talk to me 19:36, October 2, 2011 (UTC)

I'll need to rewatch Dorium's head's scenes later, but are you sure that the Doctor whispered his name to River in Let's Kill Hitler. I always assumed he told Melody to tell River that he loved her, which would make her reaction ("I'm sure she already knwos") make more sense, and would also give her more motivation to save the Doctor after learning that she was Rver Song. This, and the fact that in The Wedding of River Song the Doctor claimed to River that he was going ot tell her his name suggests that he hasn't told it to her yet. Anyway, I'm sure we'll see an episode on the fields of Trenzalore before too long, and hopefully either learn the Doctor's name, or at least learn why it has been kept a secret for so long. Icecreamdif talk to me 20:32, October 2, 2011 (UTC)

We know she knows it and there's only one time he could tell anyone. And we know what he told River this time. Apparently we're going to have to wait for Tenzalre.Boblipton talk to me 21:28, October 2, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense. If people have to tell the truth at Trenzalore, then either River will pick a really bad time to try to find out her husband's name, or someone else will try to find out for whatever reason. This still leaves the question of why silence must fall when the question is asked, or perhaps when it is answered. We know that the Doctor isn't the only renegade Time Lord who has hidden his name, and this is obviously a question that goes back much further than the hole last of the Time Lords thing. The 50th anniversary will be in season 7 or 8, so that could mean that the question will be asked at Trenzalore during the 50th anniversary special. This would likely mean the presence of quite a few past Doctors and companions, and possibly even old enemies like the Master. There are also still some other unanswered questions abut season 5. The TARDIS blowing up is the most obvious unanswered question. There could have been a Silence present in th eTARDIS that River forgot she saw, that blew the thing up in an attempt to kill the Doctor to prevent the question from being asked. Of course that still doesn't explain why River seemed to remember hearing the Silence, why it sounded so different from the Silence in season 6, and why River didn't try to mark her arm. Then, there are still references to silene falling in season 5 that still don't quite make sense. In Vampire in Venice, for example, what did the vampire meanthat "through some they saw silence and the endof all things," and what was with the silence in Venice at the end of the episode. Maybe there are two different things referreed to as the Silence-one kind caused by the cracks erasing the universe from existance which the Doctor undid in The Big bang, and one kind caused by somebody asking "Doctor Who?" Anyway, hopefully most of these questions will be answered in the next season, though I'm sure each answer will create a hundreed more questions.Icecreamdif talk to me 22:24, October 2, 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it safe to assume Tardis blowing up to be done due simple technology of order? Now it is obvious that their time technology is advanced enough. Why explode it? Why the hell not, it was their first try to assasinate the Doctor, they could leak Pandorica information to Alliance and such. Well they didn't acheived their goal in 5th season and tried another scheme in 6th one. So do i think.

95.32.172.224 04:24, October 3, 2011 (UTC)

Icecreamdif, "It's probably the longest running gag in the show": There's no "probably" about it. It was asked in the first episode in 1963. The notable thing about that is that it was asked by the Doctor. Ian Chesterton, not knowing Susan had taken her surname from the name on the scrapyard gates, assumed the Doctor would have the same surname and addressed him as "Doctor Foreman", to which the Doctor responded, "Doctor who? What's he talking about?"

According to the dialogue in The Wedding of River Song, "Silence will fall when the question is asked and answered," (not just asked). The question has been asked often enough in the show but never, so far, answered. We know that, by the time of Silence in the Library, River knows the Doctor's name and she's still around after (in her timeline) being told. We don't know, however, that this means the question has been asked and answered. If the Doctor had simply told her his name without being asked, then (technically) it wouldn't have been.

The business about it being the oldest question in the universe is a bit odd. It's certainly the oldest in the show, since "Doctor Who" appeared on screen at the start of the first episode, before anything had actually happened. But the oldest question in the universe? The only plausible explanation for that I can think of just now is that the TARDIS has gone back to the very start of the universe twice (that I remember): Once in the First Doctor story The Edge of Destruction and once in the Fifth Doctor story Castrovalva. I can't recall whether or not the question was asked on either occasion, though. If it was, that might (I suppose) qualify it as the oldest in the universe. --89.241.71.64 05:24, October 3, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I know that the question was asked in the first episode. I said "probably," because I figured it might have been something like "its bigger on the inside," though I'm not sure if that qualifies as a gag, and I can't remember if Ian or Barbara actually said it(from what I remember they refused to believe it at the time). The whole oldest question in the universe thing is probably just referring to the fact that it is the oldest question in the show. From an in universe perspective, I don't think that anyone asked the question in Castrovalva or The Edge of Destruction. Wasn't it prety much just the Doctor and his companions in the TARDIS on both those occasions, though I supose that Ian or Barbara might have asked for his real name during all those arguments they were having in Edge of Destruction. Alternatively, it might be the oldest question in the new universe from The Big Bang, or the Doctor might go back to the beginning of the universe in the next season. I agree that right now the TARDIS blowing up was probably the Silence attempting to assassinate the Doctor, but it still leaves plenty of unanswered questions. For one, you'd think that the Silence or Madame Kovarian would be able to figure out that that would end the universe, what with having their own TARDIS-like machines and all, and it now seems that they actually do not want silence to fall. Even if the Doctor could plausibly have told River his name without her asking, the fact that his name is now part of the overall plot arc, the fact that River Song is part of the overall plot arc, and the fact that River Song knows the Doctor's name suggests that her knowledge of his name is involved in the silence falling. It would also add a further level of irony if the Silence created River Song to kill the Doctor to prevent the question from being asked, but she was in fact the one who asked the question.Icecreamdif talk to me 06:18, October 3, 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if Silence Falling has anything to do with River meeeting the Doctor in reverse order ? We know the "current" River is travelling forwards with the Doctor - but at some point in her timeline something has to happen to make her timeline reverse with respect to the Doctor and everyone else. Perhaps anyone who hears the Doctor's name starts travelling backwards through time ? Then the Doctor would be left alone - in silence. 177.17.77.207 08:27, October 3, 2011 (UTC)

No,she wasn't being literal in The Impossible Astronaut. She doesn't meet the Doctor in a normal forward order, and she doesn't meet him in perfect reverese order. She kind of meets him in a generally reversish order, but she reall meets him in completely random order. Just look at the order of her episodes so far. It goes something along the lines of A Good Man Goes to War, The Impossible Astronaut/ Day of the Moon, Let's Kill Hitler, Closing Time, The Impossible Astronaut/ Day of the Moon again and The Wedding of River Song at the same time, A Good Man Goes to War again, The Impossible Astronaut/ Day of the Moon again, The Pandorica Opens/ The Big Bang, A Good Man Goes to War again, The Time of Angels/ Flesh and Stone, The Wedding of River Song again, the future to get his sonic, and Silence in the library/ Forest of the Dead. I'm sure there are a few minor errors in there, but as you can see she meets the Doctor in a completely random but generally reversish order.Icecreamdif talk to me 11:57, October 3, 2011 (UTC)

I'm in general agreement with you position, Icecreamdif (pause for those paying attention to use the paddles). It's random with a general drift to backwards; that last clause is because he met her first when she died. Hard to move forward from there. Boblipton talk to me 13:26, October 3, 2011 (UTC)

Hard but not impossible, especially for villains and Rory. If Moffat wants to, I'm sure he can arrange for the Doctor to work out a way to give River a body again and retrieve her personality, memories, etc. from the Library's storage. That doesn't mean Moffat will want to, only that he could. --89.240.240.47 15:30, October 3, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but there's no good reason too, since he can just bring back younger versions of her as he's been doing. It would be much easier to show River breaking out of Stormcage than to show her as the Doctor's first Node companion. Plus, if the Doctor could do that he probably would have done it at the time.Icecreamdif talk to me 20:49, October 3, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, actually you are right, I was wrong (I am 177...). I keep thinking Jim the Fish etc, is after WORS in the (older) Doctor's timeline, but of course it is before. So when the (older) Doctor and (older) River meet in Utah, she is still going forwards wrt, the Doctor's timeline presumably. Then after she witnesses her younger self killing the Docter, she apparantly from that point on in her timeline starts meeting younger Doctors. I'm not sure about the "future to get his sonic"...wouldn' t she have had it already by Utah (2) ? But I feel we are going off topic now - maybe we should start a new topic to discuss River's timeline ? 200.199.23.121 21:12, October 3, 2011 (UTC)

You still don't quite understand. River didn't initially meet the Doctor in perfect forwards order, and then meet him in perfect reverse order. They meet each other in completely random order, with a general backads trend. Her first few meetings with him were in perfect forwards order, just like his first few meetings with her were in perfect reverse order, but it is just a coincidence anddoesn't mean anything.Icecreamdif talk to me 02:34, October 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * But I don't think we have seen any out of order meetings - from Demons Run to TWORS the meetings are all forwards, then from TIA back to Silence in The Library were all reverse order. The "randomness" if any must have been between TWORS and the older River in TIA (River in the Stormcage, Jim the Fish, etc). 177.17.77.207 14:14, October 4, 2011 (UTC)

river last meeting with the doctor was his first meeting with her, and her meeting before that, was pretty late for the doctor, and maybe the last one for him (giving her the sonic)

The Doctor has met River twice since A Good Man Goes to War. I have no idea what TWORS is, but if your time is too valuable to be spent typing it out, mine is certainly too valuable to be spent figuring it out. From her viewpoint she has also be older each time she has met him. This certinly doesn't mean that their time flows are in sync. It simply establishes the end points of a line running from Let's Kill Hitler to Forest of the Dead for River and The Marriage of River Song onward for the Doctor (and possibly back to Forest of the Dead for Moffat's retirement years, since we don't know what happened in between times) They can meet at any random moment in their respective timelines and if the TARDIS wants to see her daughter, more often.Boblipton talk to me 17:31, October 4, 2011 (UTC)

I think "TWORS" is The Wedding of River Song but I also think you're right about spelling it out, at least the first occurrence in a contribution (a contribution, not a page). Using initials for repeat references is fair enough -- after it's been made clear what the abbreviation means. If someone referred to "TDD" without giving the full title at all, would they mean The Doctor Dances or The Doctor's Daughter? Clarity needs to take priority over laziness! --89.242.67.210 17:52, October 4, 2011 (UTC)

I think "Silence will fall" means just that: the fall of the silence. The only way the Dr can overcome them is to reveal who he truly is. That is what happens on the fields of trenzalore, and that is why the Silence are working so hard to defeat the Dr. They want to prevent their own downfall. 173.174.212.164 14:37, October 9, 2011 (UTC)

I suppose poeple are trying to answer this seriously, so my serious thought is that this is not a serious in series question. It's a metafictional observation that once all the mystery is sucked out of Doctor Who, what's left isn't worth keeping, end the series. The source or rationale behind the mystery doesn't really matter. It's a MacGuffin. But it needs to be there. Boblipton talk to me 18:49, October 9, 2011 (UTC)

I doubt it. They were getting a bit metafictinal with phrases like "the oldest question in the universe, hidden in plain sight," but the falling of the silence when the queestion is asked is a big enough plot point that it has to reference omething in-universe. Giving us the Doctor's name also wouldn't suck all the mystery out of the show. When the shwo first started there were other mysteries (where did the Doctor come from, where did he get the TARDIS, who are his people) which we have now known the answer to for decaes, but th sshow didn't stop being good after The War Games. Even if we ddi ever learn the Doctor's name, there would still be plenty of mysteries left (why did the Doctor run away from Gallifrey, why did he bring Susan and the Hand of Omega with him, how is he half-Human when most Time Lords don't interact much with other species), and even plenty of mysteries from the new series (how did the Dcotor end the Time War, who was the Woman in End of Time, how did Rassilon come back to life, there's still plenty we don't know abou River). Still, Moffat might not give us an actual answer to the Doctor's name, just because it would be hard to come up with a name that gives a satisfying answer to the oldest myster in the show. If done really really really well, learning the Doctor's name can be made into the best episode in the enire series, but if it isn't done perfectly it would end up being one of the worst episdoes of all time that completely ruins the sho by, as you said, taking all the mystery out of it. I'm not sure if even Moffat could write an episode as good as it would need to be to reveal the Doctor's name.Icecreamdif talk to me 19:59, October 9, 2011 (UTC)

is it just me, or is moffat starting to get predictable? i mean, on other websites i looked at (im not sure if it is the same here as i wasn't here then) almost everyone guessed the identity of river correctly before AGMGTW and dissmissed the possibility because it was too obvious. and then with the question, i gave the correct suggestion in another thread in the howling not too long after the idea of the question was given. also, his episode quality has gone down in my oppinion as lets kill hitler is one of the few episodes of doctor who i would consider bad. this is just my oppinion (and sorry that that was really off topic) Imamadmad talk to me 19:24, October 11, 2011 (UTC)

Well, the final scene at Amy and Rory's house got leaked months ago, so people knew that River was Amy and Rory's daughter, but Moffat's writing has been a little weak lately. Moffat was amazing at what he did during the RTD era, which was basically writing stories with scary monsters and really good plots, but he isn't as good at coming up with season long plot arcs. All of the elements of a really good story are there, but the way Moffat put them together just didn't really work. For exaample, I disagree that Lets's Kill Hitler was a bad episode, but it was nowhere near as good an episode as it should have been. For one thing, you can't put Hitler's name in the title, put him in all the trailers, and then give him all of five minutes of screen time. More importantly though, the way that he introducedd young River was completely rushed and obvious. The idea of making River Amy and Rory's childhood friend is a good one, but as soon as I heard the name "Mels," I knew it was River, and I would think the same is true for most people. If Moffat had introduced Mels a a it character back in The Eleventh Hour, instead of introducing us her to us in flashback ten minutes before she regenerated, the story would have worked much better. Really, I thnk Moffat just didn't really know how to handle the idea of doing a season long plot arc. He should hve followed the lead of the key to time season, or Trial of a Timelord, and followed the arc for the entire season, or at least made A Good Man Goes to War, Let's Kill Hitler, and The Wedding of River Song into two parters. Some of the one-off episodes were really good, but it was a bit distracting when, after all these new mysteries are introduced in The IMpossible Astronaut, the Docvtor decides to go off on some unrelated adventures for a while. The way I would have organized the episodes would have been
 * 1.The Impossible Astronaut
 * 2.The Day of the Moon
 * 3.The Doctor's Wife
 * 4.The Rebel Flesh/The Almost People as one episode
 * 5.A Good Man Goes to War
 * 6.A Good Man Goes to War Part 2
 * 7.Let's Kill Hitler
 * 8.Let's Kill Hitler Part 2
 * 9.The Girl Who Waited
 * 10.The God Complex
 * 11.Closing Time
 * 12.The Wedding of River Song
 * 13. The Wedding of River Song Part 2

Thirteen episodes just isn't enough time to tell the entire story that Moffat wanted to tell and to throw in a bunch of one-off episodes, and that dumb split in the middle certainly didn't help. To make the plot arc work, Moffat would have had to either add more episdoes to the season, or spend more of the episodes he had on the arc.Icecreamdif talk to me 00:53, October 12, 2011 (UTC)

My take on the matter is a bit different. There were two season-long arcs in the classic series: the Key to Time, which worked, and the Trial of a Time Lord, which didn't for a number of reasons. Colin Baker wasn't a very good Doctor, a fault I lay more at the feet of John Nathan-Turner than Baker. Also, Robert Holmes dying before he could finish the last serial didn't help. When we get to the BBC Wales series, what have we got? Were Davies' plot arc really plot arcs? At the time, they didn't seem more than running jokes until they turned out to be Very Significant in the season finales. Season Five saw Moffat lay his cards on the table at the very beginning and it worked, along with some excellent writing by Moffatt in his pair of two-parters. Nor has this season been bad. It has has some stories, like The Doctor's Wife, as good as any. But the story arc has been split between solving the mystery of River Song and the Silence, and has, I feel in agreement with Icecreamdif, been rushed. I can see why it has been rushed: Moffat wishes to reset Doctor Who to a more basic level, with a more mysterious Doctor peeking out from the Madman in a Box. First, though, he had to clear up River Song --- and I agree he is rushing it a bit -- and the Silence, which he has done. It's not a reboot, but it is a reset and I look forward to some excellent episodes next year. At least the jokes will be good.Boblipton talk to me 01:31, October 12, 2011 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with what you're saying, Boblipton. I don't think that anyone would argue that the Sixth' Dotor's tenure was filled with more than a few problems, none as bad as his pathetic eit immediately after Trial of a Time Lord. The Key of Timme arc worked very wel, probably due to a combination of the fact that Tom Baker was one of the better Dcotors, Romana and K9 were some of the better companions, each story was pretty much independant of the other stories only loosely connected by the quest for the key, and Douglas Adams wrote an episode. The only Davies plot arc that anyone thought was a running joke at first was really the Bad Wolf arc. The Christmas Invasion and Tooth and Claw made it pretty clear early on what Torchwood was, and I think everyone knew that Rose popping up at random in season 4 was significant in some way. Season five's plot arc worked pretty well, but its one-off episodes were pretty hit or miss. Vincent and the Doctor and the Silurian two parter were both very good, but The Beast Below and Victory of the Daleks were both pretty bad. Season 6 was easily the most ambitious plot arc in the history of the series, and as a first attempt it turned out okay. Some episodes, like the opening two parter and A Good Man Goes to War were very good, but other episodes like Let's Kill Hitler really felt likehe was trying to do too much in too short a time. A particularly bad idea was summing everything up in one 45 minute episode. I think that this year's better product in the Whoniverse would have to be Miracle Day, which was able to sustain a longer, more elaborate plot arc in three episodes fewer than Doctor Who's. There were just as many mysteries as in Doctor Who, but the episodes all felt more interconnected, with each episode leading into the next, and it was much less predictable than Doctor Who. Still, this was Doctor Who's first huge story arc, and hopefully Moffat will learn from his mistakes to make season 7 amazing.Icecreamdif talk to me 02:13, October 12, 2011 (UTC)

well, from what i've heared, series 7 will be alot less arc-heavy and will be a more traditional episodic season (thankfully). i also agree that one of this season's downfalls was how most of the main episodes felt rushed and a few of the episodes seemed to revolve around an element of the arc instead of having their own story (eg lets kill hitler), which made them less apealing to me. i also agree that moffat's writing was generally better during the rtd era with better story lines and better aliens (and non-aliens-who-were.initially-thought-to-be-aliens) too. i think the way the plot arc was integrated into this series wasn't done the most effectively -- it needs to either be all about the plot arc, like in miracle day, or only a smaller arc, like the crack in the wall, bad wolf, mr saxon etc -- but it was a good first try that gave us some great episodes like the doctor's wife, night terrors and god complex. Imamadmad talk to me 07:11, October 12, 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure that season 7 will still feature arcs, bt they will probably be more in the background like they have been in the past. I didn't think that episdoes like The Wedding of River Song or Let's Kill Hitler were bad, but they could haave been much better. Both stories had the potential oto be much better episodees, but they were too rushed, and thus didn't work as well as they could have. Any idea if season 7 is going to be split or not?Icecreamdif talk to me 18:45, October 12, 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, maybe it doesn't literally have to do with the Doctor's name but rather his parentage. When someone ask "Doctor Who", he is only expecting to know about the surname, which is symbolic of one's parentage/ancestor etc. Of course the ongoing joke is that we don't know the Doctor's name, but maybe the mystery behind this Silence Arc is the Doctor's father, or even mother, tying in with the Tenth Doctor's ending. The Doctor may or may not be woven in the Television canon, but the genetic material may have some dark secrets, e.g. Rasillon being his Dad or really having some human genetic material woven in....Anyway, I amquite certain that far too many coincidences happened, so Moffat probably does come to this site for references and look at these posts...so things may or may not have changed by now....222.166.181.72 02:03, October 13, 2011 (UTC)

Well, tthe whole loom thing probably doesn't exist in television canon, given the references to the Doctor and the Master's parents (and in the Doctor's case they were explicitly his biological parents), and the fact that his pwe've seen the Master as a child. It is possible that Doctor Who refers to the Doctor's parents, but it is unlikely. For one thing, we've got the TV movie, which recent episodes have basically confirmed is canon, which states that the Doctor's mom is a human. Of course, that could make for an interesting plot arc, but I'm guessing that Moffat and most other writers want to stay away from that issue, since it is one of the many things in that movie that makes absolutely no sense at all. The few references that we have had to the Doctor's early life make it seem like his parentage isn't particularly mysterious. According to the TV movie, he knew his dad on Gallifrey when he was young, and the handful of other episodes that reference his early life mad no mention of him being any kind of orphan. Therefore, the only reason that his parentage could be conidered mysterious now is that the Time Lords and Gallifrey are gone, along with anyone who would have known who the Doctor's parents (or at least his dad) weere anyway. The only plot involving his paents that would really be particularly interesting, would be if we learned how one of the non-interfering Time Lords who rarely leave a Gallifrey that doesn't allow aliens could possibly have had a chance to mate with a human. Maybe his dad was a renegade. The Dotor being half human does at least explain why he is so obsessed with Earth, and it could explain why his granddaughterhas a human name.Icecreamdif talk to me 03:19, October 13, 2011 (UTC)

The only puzzling part of his granddaughter's name is her forename, Susan. Her surname was adopted from the name on the gates of the scrapyard (I. M. Foreman). That surname was sufficiently unfamiliar to the Doctor for him to be puzzled by it, when Ian Chesterton addressed him as "Doctor Foreman" -- leading to the muttered response: "Doctor who?" That made it seem as if the surname Foreman was one Susan had taken only because the school expected her to have a surname and suggested that she only actually used it at school. Since the Doctor habitually called her Susan, it's unlikely that that was an assumed name -- unless it had been assumed early on and consistently used thereafter. It could be that Susan actually is a Gallifreyan name that just happens to match a name used on Earth, as does Flavia (the name of the Chancellor at the time of The Five Doctors).

It has never, in nearly 50 years, been explained why the Doctor left Gallifrey with one and only one relative -- not on his own or with more members of his family. It was made fairly clear that Susan's reason for going with him was that she felt he needed her to look after him. The absence of the middle generation (Susan's parents) suggests either that her parents were dead or that there had been some kind of falling out that put grandfather and granddaughter on one side and parents on the other. From the conclusion of The Dalek Invasion of Earth, when Susan is left on Earth with David Campbell, it seems more likely that her parents were dead, rather than merely estranged. Susan's attitude to Earth (both 20th-century and 22nd-century Earth) also indicated that she felt no strong ties to Gallifrey.

It's also never been explained why the Doctor had to steal what Teagan described as "a rackety old TARDIS" in order to leave Gallifrey. The TARDIS's motives are fairly clear (from The Doctor's Wife, if nothing else) but why didn't the Doctor have access to a more modern ship?

The combination of those two unexplained facts seeme to me to indicate some kind of political/social conflict -- and that's something that might relate to the Doctor's identity, not simply his name, as suggested by 222.166.181.72, above: who he is, not just what he's called. --89.240.245.231 15:01, October 13, 2011 (UTC)

An additional thought: If I were in Moffat's position, I'd at least be considering revealing the Doctor's name (eventually and after a big build up) but simultaneously revealing that knowing his name does not solve the mystery or answer the real question. --89.240.245.231 15:09, October 13, 2011 (UTC)

If he does decide to reveal the Doctor's name, then it will take a lot of buid up so that it will actually mean something. Imagine, for example, if in Forest of the Dead the Doctor asked River Song "who are you?" to which she repl0ied "Oh, my real name's Melody Pond, though I went by Mels back in the 90 sand 2000s. I'm the daughter of your next companions" The audience would just think "Oh, OK. THat's who this wwoman is." However, Moffat spent a season and a half introducing River's parents, exploring Amy's mysterious pregnancy, showing a mysterious little girl regenerating. By the time that Melody reveled who she was, it actually meant something ato the audience. Similarly, they can't just randomly give the Doctor a name (unless the name is Rassilon or Borusa or something, both of which would be really lame plots). He will need to spend time building up to it so that when his name is finally revealed it will actually mean something. THat is, unless he is just planning on letting us see him whispering it to River or something without actaully telling the audience. I was talking about the name "Susan," not "foreman," which I hardly remember ever being used. I was just speculating that she might be named for her human grandmother, but there are a million other posibilities. Some of the other questions you raised have been answered though. The War Games pretty much answered why the Doctor stole the TARDIS; the Time Lords have a policy of non-iinterference, which the Doctor broke. Time Lords never leave Gallifrey unless they are either renegades, or have a very good reason for leaving. The Doctor had to steal the TARDIS if he wanted too leave. The Second Doctor claimed that he left because he was bored, though it gets a bit more complicated if you take Rememberance of the Daleks into account. One would think that stealing the Hand of Omega would at least get mentioned during his trial. It is kind of weird that Susan's parents were never really mentioned. I don't remember him ever talking about his children in the classic series, but in the new series he mentionsthat they are dead and seems very saddned by the fact. I alwways assumed that they didn't die until the Time War. Maybe Susan's travelling with the Doctor was similar to Leela's or a few others. Maybe the Doctor wanted Susan to stay on Gallifrey with her parents, but Susan wanted to stay with him so she either forced her way into the TARDIS, or she stowed away. The Doctor couldn't exactly control the thing at the time, so he had to take her on his travels with him, and by the time of The Dalek Invasion of Earth he figured that she wouldn't eactly get a warm welcome back obn Galliffrey, since she was technically a renegade, so she was better off staying in the 22nd century than wandering throughout time and space with him.Icecreamdif talk to me 16:38, October 13, 2011 (UTC)

Icecreamdif:

"The War Games pretty much answered why the Doctor stole the TARDIS; the Time Lords have a policy of non-iinterference, which the Doctor broke": The Doctor did break the policy but only after he'd left Gallifrey.

"Time Lords never leave Gallifrey unless they are either renegades, or have a very good reason for leaving.": So why TARDISes, when time travel on Gallifrey itself is forbidden? There'd be no use for a TARDIS, except to leave Gallifrey. The Time Lords did leave but only (originally) to study other times and places. However, at least one was deliberately exiled (with a TARDIS) by the Time Lords -- the Rani. Exiling her was an effective way to guarantee interference of a fairly nasty kind. It's quite possible, of course, that the Doctor had no legitimate access to a TARDIS because he wasn't trusted by the Time Lord "establishment" but that's the kind of thing I meant by "political/social" conflict.

"I don't remember him ever talking about his children in the classic series": Nor do I, which is rather the point. Being with a granddaughter implies having a child who's the granddaughter's parent. Neither grandfather nor granddaughter ever mentioning the granddaughter's parents is odd and doesn't happen without a reason -- something that makes it too painful to mention them. That something may be death, it may be a quarrel, or it may be disgrace of some kind but those are about the only possibilities. There are, admittedly, many possible kinds of quarrel or disgrace and a fair number of reasons why someone's death might not be talked about, especially if the death is connected with a quarrel or disgrace.

"One would think that stealing the Hand of Omega would at least get mentioned during his trial": One would indeed -- assuming the Time Lords actually knew about it. That has always made me suspect that the Time Lords had lost track of the Hand long enough before the Doctor's departure that they didn't connect the two. If the Hand had disappeared at the same time as or shortly before the Doctor did a bunk in a stolen TARDIS, the Time Lords would at least have suspected a connection. To speculate: Perhaps the Doctor decided to leave Gallifrey -- or, at least, decided on the timing of his departure -- because of the Hand. Taking it with him and then leaving it on Earth does suggest an intention to keep it out of the hands of the Time Lords. That, in turn, would imply that he'd found the thing (presumably on Gallifrey) but the other Time Lords neither knew where it was nor knew he'd found it. They might not even have known it still existed. After he'd tricked Davros into trying to use the Hand, the Doctor sent it back to Gallifrey but that could be explained by changed circumstances on Gallifrey or, at least, by the Doctor thinking circumstances had changed.

Susan going with the Doctor: Stowing away is possible. Since she was young at the time, using literal force seems unlikely. "Forcing" her way into the ship by means of blackmail -- "Take me with you or I'll tell everyone you've got the Hand of Omega," perhaps -- is much more likely than trying to use muscle power. --89.241.74.8 00:09, October 14, 2011 (UTC)

Well, keep in mind, the Doctor was a frail old man at the time. I can't really see Susan blackmailing him like that, because A. Susan would never rrat the Doctor out, and B. The Time Lords weren't able to find the Doctor until they caught him in The War Games anyway. She obviously wouldn't have engaged him in a fist fight, but she might have pushed her way past him and started pressing buttons or something. Stowing away is probably more likely though. I haven't seen Mark of the Rani in a while so I can't remember everything that happenned, but it is a bit weird that the Time Lords exiled her and let her keep a working TARDIS, unlike some other exiled Time Lords rwho we could mention. Is it possible that they originally stuck her on one planet, but she did a better job repairing her dematerialization circuit than the Doctor did. Time Lords have TARDISes for the extremely rare cases when interference is necessary for some reason, and to go around observing the universe without interfering. They are not for individual Time Lords to go travelling around in. If the Doctor was to legitimately acquire a TARDIS he would need to travel with at least five other Time Lordds, and he wouldn't be allowed to do much more than observe. This wasn't enought for the DOctor. He wanted to interact with other cultures, and proteect people from random alien invaions. The only way to have the total freedom thathe had (or at least the first two Doctors had), or even the near total freedom that 4-8 had, the Doctor needed to steal a TARDIS. It definetly is weird that neither the Doctor or Susan everm entioned her parents at all. You would at least think that Ian Or Barbara would have asked about them. I am guessing that they were alive during the Classic Series, because it would be weird if they died before the show started, the Doctor never mentioned them once, and then started mentioning them occassionally afte r the Time War. Maybe they were more traditional Time Lords who didn't approve of the Doctor's way of doing things, and were getting annoyed with him corrupting their daughter's mind. I guess it's possible that the Hand of OMega was another one of those lost artifactsthat were largely considered legend on Gallifrey. That still deoesn't explain why the Doctor stole it though. Most of these questions will probably never be answered. Now I wish they'd make a Doctor Who prequel movie that answers all these questions, though I don't suppose that will evver happen as it would make the character much less mysteriious. Icecreamdif talk to me 02:39, October 14, 2011 (UTC)

about the fact that the doctor only left with susan and never mentioned any other immediate family member in the classic seriesi think could be because there was a war conserning galifreyans before an unearthly child took place in which all the doctor's family exept susan died and so he took her away and never mentioned it to not bring back the memories and grief. do you think this could be a plausible explanation?Imamadmad talk to me 09:21, October 14, 2011 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that Susan actually was the Doctor's genetic granddaughter ? Or even that she was a Timelord ? The Doctor may just have referred to her as his granddaughter as a way of explaining their relationship to humans ("This is my granddaughter Susan" certainly sounds better than "This is my companion xdshfuihsduif who I picked up on planet dgfyugyfgydgf and we have been travelling together for 200 years through time and space in that police box over there"). As for the Doctor stealing a TARDIS, it doesn't seem so strange to me. Both he and the TARDIS wanted to travel, and she unlocked her doors for him. She said she was a museum piece, so maybe she meant that literally - the Doctor could have encountered her literally in a museum. Otherwise you would have to assume that all Timelords have access to a TARDIS of their own whenever they want. And don't forget a TARDIS is supposed to have a crew of 6, so the first question would be - OK Doctor, you want to borrow a TARDIS - fine, just sign here. And then fill out the names of your other 5 crew members. ... Actually I have my own theory, which is that the Doctor got thrown out of Gallifreyan high society and was working as a janitor at the Gallifreyan museum of Technology. Until one night he discovered the doors of a certain TARDIS unlocked...177.17.50.62 10:39, October 14, 2011 (UTC)

Susan recognized Gallifrey in The Five Doctors and knew about he dDeath Zone. The Doctor couldn't have gone to Gallifrey in between when he ran away and The War Games, so we at least know that Susan is Gallifreyan. Since the First Doctor never referered to any of his other young companions as grandchildren, we should just assume that Suan is in fact the daughter of one of his children. The Doctor didn't just spontaneously tdecide to travel because the TARDIS opened its doors; theDOctor aas looking for a TARDIS to steal and the TARDIS wanted to travel, and the rest is history. A Gallifreyan war before an Unearthly Child seems unlikely. Episodes like The Ddeadly Assassin and The Invasion of Time make it seem like the Time Lords have been at peace for a very long time, and have hardly had any contact with the outside world at all, let alone fought a war.Icecreamdif talk to me 12:07, October 14, 2011 (UTC)

nothing, thus "Silence must fall", it's the answering that will cause catastrophe not the silence. --222.166.181.74 17:14, November 3, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, not good stuff like having the entire universe never having existed. Bad stuff. Boblipton talk to me 17:54, November 3, 2011 (UTC)

As Icecreamdif points out, in The Five Doctors, Susan instantly recognised the Dark Tower and knew they were in the Death Zone on Gallifrey. In the same story, Turlough asked her if she could operate the TARDIS on her own and she said she could (although the TARDIS was trapped in a forcefield, at that point, and couldn't go anywhere). Nothing in the show has ever hinted that Susan was anything other than the Doctor's genuine grandchild; everything has indicated that she was exactly that. However, it's not "weird if they died before the show started, the Doctor never mentioned them once, and then started mentioning them occassionally after the Time War": He didn't really mention them (or Susan) after the Time War. All he did was indicate that he had once had a family but no longer had one. He's never talked about individuals. To Dr. Constantine (The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances), he indicated he'd lost his children and grandchildren. To Martha Jones (Smith and Jones), he indicated he'd lost at least one brother. He's never, though, told anyone anything about his relatives beyond the mere fact of their former existence and that they're no longer around. He's really no more forthcoming about them than he ever was.

It also does look as if the Time Lords had not only been at peace for a very long time before the events of The Deadly Assassin and The Invasion of Time but had become excessively complacent about being technologically superior to other species. They panicked a bit in The Three Doctors but that didn't really shake their complacency in the long run -- probably because they found out that the threat they faced then came from a Time Lord (Omega).

As Boblipton indicates (with a slight whiff of sarcasm), it's a bit implausible that the silence that will fall when the question's asked and answered would be worse than "having the entire universe never having existed". On the other hand, the consequences of the TARDIS explosion may have been far more drastic than the Silence expected and they may still not know that those consequences happened. After all, the Silence (and everything else) in Series 6 were in the rebooted universe and it seems that only the Doctor, Amy, River and Rory know that the reboot occurred. The Silence seem quite likely to remember nothing about it -- although they might have a memory of some kind of failed attempt to kill the Doctor. It's been said before (in other topics) that these people don't appear to know what they're doing. That actually does make sense. First, they don't have the Time Lords' understanding (and perceptions) of time. Second, the Silence aliens (the ones that look like Munch's Scream) aren't tremendously bright -- they've never needed to be. Canton, for example, found it very easy to manoeuvre a silent into saying what he wanted it to say. The silents didn't manipulate humans by outsmarting them but by being able to plant suggestions and be completely forgotten about, most of the time. If the silents wanted a device (whether a spacesuit or a TARDIS-like ship), they'd not need to learn how to build one, they'd only need to motivate some other species to do it for them. Most of the time, it won't matter that they don't understand how things work, as long as they know how to use them. Occasionally, real understanding is needed -- and that's when they come unstuck. It's not only possible but highly likely that what they're trying to avoid isn't worse than the consequences of the ways they're trying to avoid it -- it's just that they don't realise what those consequences will be. "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain." --89.242.67.168 08:17, November 8, 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly possible that the Silence falling isn't nearly as bad as total event collapse and that the destruction of the universe was just an accident on the Silence's part, but it is just as likely that the falling of the silence will somehow be even worse than total event collapse. Just look at the finales we've had so far in the new series-first the Daleks bomb entire continents of futuure-Earth, then Daleks and Cybermen invade modern-day Earth, then the Master takes over the entire world, then Davros steals the Earth and attempts the destruction of reality itsself, then the Time Lords try to destroy time, then the TARDIS blows up destroying the enire universe, then all the laws of time have broken down-the stakes get higher and higher with each finale. Moffat could very well find some way to make the falling of the Silence even worse than the total event collapse, and the falling of the silence must be very bad considering the lengths that Kovarian and the Silence are going through to stop him.Icecreamdif talk to me 14:53, November 9, 2011 (UTC)

Well,it depends on your viewpoint. Prisoner Zero was quite willing to see all of Earth boiled by the Atraxi rather than being retaken by them to be killed. As Mel Brooks noted, if I cut my pinky, it's a tragedy. If you fall into a manhole and die, it's comedy. Maybe the Silents like comedy. Boblipton talk to me 16:07, November 9, 2011 (UTC)

Silence falling doesn't need to be as bad as total event collapse. All that's needed is for the Silence (the order) to believe silence falling will be worse than what they think the alternatives will bring. They could be overestimating what silence falling will mean. They could be underestimating what the alternatives will mean. Even if silence falling really would be terrible, perhaps it would be terrible only for them -- as Boblipton points out, they may not be bothered what happens to anyone else.

Icecreamdif has a point about the stakes inflating with each finalé. That, however, can't go on forever. More to the point, if it goes on too long, it ends up destroying the show's credibility -- and "too long" isn't far off. The finalé needs to be big and spectacular but it doesn't need a universal threat to be big and spectacular on the screen. In many ways, the Series 1 finalé was more spectacular than either of Moffat's finalés and it certainly worked better than the Series 6 finalé. --89.241.78.112 09:07, November 10, 2011 (UTC)