Howling:Is the Doctor half-human?

Okay, so this is a dilemma that has been bugging the Doctor Who community for a long time, Is the Doctor Half-human?

For those who don't know what I'm talking about, it all started like this: in 1996, Doctor Who (1996) was released. Most fans of the show had mixed views on it, but one of the two controversial things it infamously did was make the Doctor half-human. Both the Doctor and the Master, at separate points of the film, discoverd or announced that the Doctor was half-human. Apparently the idea goes back to the Seventh Doctor, when he was quoted as saying (in a deleted scene), "...I am much more than just another time Lord..." But the question is, is he?

Well, most would say no, because they consider his statement a throwaway line, simliar to 11's infamous "507" statement. However, it can't be explained as simply as that that, because the Master also says it, and at a separate occasion with different reasoning. So, past the theory of a throwaway line, there are three other theories.

Theory one: ''The Doctor used the Chameleon Arch to trick the Master into thinking he was half human. ''This is propably the one i hear the most. This theory comes from The Forgotten, and is highly questionable, let me show why. Here is a quick timeline of the start of the TV movie:


 * The Doctor is in The TARDIS, and believes the Master to be dead. He relaxes and reads a book.
 * The Master escapes and takes control of the TARDIS. the Doctor cannot control the mechanisms and the TARDIS crash lands in New York.
 * The Doctor steps out of the TARDIS, and is shot by gangsters.
 * The Doctor is away from the TARDIS for a long period of time, and regenerates during this.
 * The Master returns to the Tardis, and finds out the Doctor is half human.

Now, can someone exsplain when the Doctor could have had access to the chameleon arch? Throughout the first half of the film, he dosen't know the master is alive, and throughout the rest, he isn't in the TARDIS. So when did he have time to do this?

Second theory: The Doctor was not born, but loomed. Sigh. Okay, so I kinda dislike Lungbarrow, so I don't know it well, so if someone wants to chip in in this theory, be happy to. As a side note, we don't know who or what The Woman was, so that I don't think you can say that she was his "Gallifreyan mother..."

Third theory: The Doctor is half-human. This is propably, interestingly enough, the most referenced theory (in media). It is mentioned in Doctor Who (1996) (duh), The Infinity Doctors, The Gallifrey Chronicles (novel), and The Room With No Doors. According to the theory, the Doctor's father was a time lord named Ulysees Meregrass, and his mother was named Penelope Gate. It, of coarse, is also the most questionable theory. Like, in Journey's End, why would the Doctor need a 'bit of human' to be clever if he was half-human? (it could be argued that Donna meant a human mind, but still) And why is this not referenced in other places? If it's true, then is this why the Doctor left Gallifrey? Was it his half-human DNaA that made him always so grouchy and frustrated? Well, I don't know.

So, let's discuss. Which theory do you think is true? Or do you have another? As you could propably guess, I'm all for the half-human theory, but what do you guys think? OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 21:27, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

I've not seen the movie or read the books but I'm quite happy to agree that the Doctor is half-human. It would definitely explain his liking of the human race. 83.100.188.140talk to me 23:23, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

It would explain it but it would also undercut it. To many (not all) who have seen the TV movie, the "half-human" statements belong with the atrocious Dalek voices (that sound nothing like Daleks) and the Doctor's casual violation of the First Law of Time as examples of why the US media shouldn't have been allowed to get their inept paws on Doctor Who, in the first place. There's nothing in any other broadcast story to support the "half-human" idea and there's plenty that conflicts with it. Perhaps it would have been followed up, had the TV movie led to a series, but there wasn't a series and it's never been followed up on TV. The revived series hasn't openly contradicted it but hasn't supported it, either. The overwhelming impression, both in the "classic" series and in the revived series, is that the Doctor is fully alien. As the Atraxi said to him in The Eleventh Hour: "You are not of this world." --89.242.74.42talk to me 09:50, January 14, 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, he isn't, either way. He was still born on Gallifrey, even if he is half human, and thus not earth, thus is not "of this world." Just because the Doctor's mother was born on earth, does not mean the Doctor was. I also think the TV film is HIGHLY underrated, and that in some cases, people hate it just to hate it. I think that it's kind of wrong to look at "the US" as a hole, I mean, it's not like everyone is the same... Otherwise, good point. I would a free that the only on screen reference to him being half human occurs in Doctor Who (1996) and a deleted scene in Remembrance of the Daleks... OS25 (talk to me, baby.) 11:55, January 14, 2012 (UTC)


 * The deleted scene from Remembrance of the Daleks says nothing of the kind. In that scene (which is on the DVD), the Doctor tells Davros, "I am far more than just another Time Lord." In the context, it's implying that he was a contemporary of Rassilon and Omega -- there are other hints to that effect which were not deleted from the story. Far from indicating the possibility of human ancestry, it makes that notion ludicrous. You should watch the thing before opining about it. And you might also try reading what is written. I specifically said "the US media", not "the US" or "the Americans". The TV movie, over all, isn't dreadful; it's just not very good. It tried to do too many incompatible things and ended up failing at most of them. Those who made it thought the same and say so in the extras on the DVD. More recent joint efforts between the BBC and US TV (Torchwood: Miracle Day, for example) have been far, far better. Lessons, on both sides of the pond, have obviously been learned. --89.242.74.42talk to me 13:10, January 14, 2012 (UTC)

The TV Movie has been confirmed to be canon by footage of the Eighth Doctor in episodes like The Next Doctor, and the reference to him being half-human was more than just a throwaway line. It was something of a minor plot point in the episode. Apart from the chronological issues that OS25 pointed out, that show that the Doctor wouldn't have had a chance to use a chameleon arch to do that, there is also the issue that that isn't what chameleon arches do, and there wasn't any particular reason for the Doctor to fake it. Whether or not you like the TV Movie, the fact remains that the Doctor is half human.Icecreamdif talk to me 02:38, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

Unless they decide to ignore that, like Looms. Boblipton talk to me 02:58, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

The looms are much easier to ignore though, because they aren't even from the actual show. The canonicity of everything except for the TV series is shaky at best, but as a televised episode, they really can't just ignore the tv movie.67.80.44.163talk to me 03:08, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

Not satisfactorily, anyway. Looms can be ignored because, so far as the TV show is concerned, they've never been mentioned at all by anyone. The "half-human" statements, although unwelcome to many, were apparently serious and did occur in a production that has been accepted as part of the TV show's continuity. They could just be ignored but, as I said, that wouldn't be satisfactory. It would leave unresolved conflicts. There are, though, conflicts between the "half-human" statements and quite a lot that was implied in the 1963-89 run of the show, which is why they were unwelcome to many. The conflicts can't really be avoided just by accepting those statements, either. --89.242.73.40talk to me 04:12, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

i do believe the doctor is half human, but the reason he never mentions it (apart from the 1996 movie) is because he's ashamed of it, especially in his first incarnation before he starts liking humans which was why he was so grumpy. the reason it rarelly shows up in his anatomy? i believe it is because the timelord genes are dominant in most areas, like how the brown eyed gene is more dominant than the blue eyed one so when a person has both they have brown eyes. it would also explain why the the doctor loves earth so much if his mother comes from there. also, maybe that's why he could have the meta-crisis in journeys end, because he already had some human in him which attracted donna's human-ness. the reason (the doctor)donna says that her human-ness is what makes her more brilliant than the doctor alone? the doctor was brought up in timelord society even if biologically he is part human. this would mean his views and attitudes would be like a timelord instead of partly like a human, although the human-ness could explain his renegade atitudes.

and ps boblipton, i ignore the looms too as there are things in the main show that go against that idea and the broadcast episodes always take canon priority over spin-off-media. even the fact that susan looked like a teenager instead of an adult in the first ever episode of doctor who is proof enough for me that timelords arent loomed as fully grown adults adults but born as babies like humans. and there is the later things that go against the looming as an adult idea too, like the doctor's crib in AGMGTW. Imamadmad talk to me 05:12, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, not to mention the eight year old Master. The looms are obviously not canon in regards to the TV show, but that is another discussion entirely. Anyway, the Doctor being half-human does explain why he goes to Earth much more than any other planet, why he has more human companions than any other species, why he knows so much about human culture, why his granddaughter has a human name, and it could help to explain why he ran away from Gallifrey. It doesn't directly contradict anything else in the TV shows, so we should obviously accept it as canon.Icecreamdif talk to me 18:40, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

The TV movie is the only source for the "half-human" idea. Remembrance of the Daleks can't be cited in support because the scene in question was deleted, meaning it didn't happen, and doesn't say anything about him being half-human, anyway. The "half-human" statements in the TV movie certainly haven't successfully been explained away. As far as TV stories go, they've not even been mentioned since the TV movie, let alone explained away or contradicted. The real problem is not that they've been directly contradicted since but that they contradict so much that was established before. Nobody before the TV movie said the Doctor was pure Gallifreyan Time Lord, so there's no direct contradiction. However, nobody so much as hinted that he was or might be half-human, even when they could definitely be expected to do so. The Doctor has been on trial several times on Gallifrey. He's been accused of serious crimes, including the assassination of the President, at a time when humans were forbidden to go to Gallifrey. And nobody, not even his most bitter enemies, even hinted that he might be half-human. His bio-data has been examined. And nobody said anything about unusual ancestry. Nobody. Ever. That's the contradiction. That's the dog that didn't bark. --2.96.16.116talk to me 19:06, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

Everyone seems to have his or her own little idea of what canon is and fits and trims to suit taste. The Eighth Doctor is canon, novels are canon, but not this particular Eighth Doctor novel is non-canon and Looms don't count. I suggest that once you accept that a licensed work is rendered non-canonical by the indisputably canonical TV show, then you must assume that, logically, it's all up for grabs. When you have a writer recasting a comic strip for the tv show (The Lodger) then something is run amok.. The official BBC is that there is no canon and the BBC has shown that they will violate canon when they please, and that's canonical. Boblipton talk to me 19:18, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

Possibly true. What, though, is the relevance here? And why is "a writer recasting a comic strip for the tv show" amok? The "recasting" bit is pretty important. It's what writers do. They get ideas from all over the place and recast them into stories. They always have. Human Nature was recast, too. Why complain? --2.96.16.116talk to me 19:36, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

Unless we are to assume that the exact same thing happenned to the Doctor twice, I think we have to assume that the original versions of Human Nature and The Lodger are not canon. Anyway, let's not turn this into an argument as to what is canon. Going back to the issue of the Doctor's species, it may not be common knowledge, even on Gallifrey, that the Doctor is half human. Remember, even the Master was surprised to learn that the Doctor was half human in the movie. When one episode says that he is half human, and no other episode before or since says that he isn't, then the conclusion is pretty obvious.Icecreamdif talk to me 19:40, January 15, 2012 (UTC)

I shouldn't need to repeat this but you obviously missed it: His bio-data has been examined. And nobody said anything about unusual ancestry. Nobody. Ever. That's the contradiction. That's the dog that didn't bark. If it wasn't "common knowledge, even on Gallifrey, that the Doctor is half human", someone ought to have been surprised enough to mention that the bio-data of a Time Lord indicated non-Gallifreyan parentage. If it was known, it would have been mentioned before. If it wasn't known, it would have been mentioned then. The Doctor's bio-data were being used as part of an attack on Gallifrey (by Omega), so it's not as if there was no reason to mention its unusual characteristics, just the opposite. --2.96.16.116talk to me 19:54, January 15, 2012 (UTC)