Theory:Doctor Who audio discontinuity and plot holes/The Book of Kells


 * The Doctor seems to be getting his information from fan fiction. He states that "The Monk" left Gallifrey fifty years after he did. However, in The Time Meddler (TV story) the Doctor fails to recognise the other Time Lord, 'guesses that "I would say I am fifty years earlier". "The Monk" however instantly recognises the Doctor.
 * Eight's memory is hardly the most reliable thing in the world, and given how long it's been since his first incarnation, he could be forgiven for mincing the facts slightly.


 * Not a goof as such(except by whoever has the power to veto scripts), but this story reintroduces "The Monk"...it is set in an 11th Century monastery(where he disguises himself as a monk), and features Vikings. The equivalent would be every story featuring The Rani being set in an early 19th Century Northern town where she disguises herself as the owner of the local bath house.
 * Nonetheless, he had adopted this moniker in No Future, so there is a precedent.


 * The Doctor and "The Monk" state that they haven't seen each other since the events of The Daleks' Master Plan (TV story). So presumably 4-Dimensional Vistas, Follow That TARDIS! and No Future never happened.
 * Eight's memory has, once again, never been the most reliable thing, and the Monk went through a troubling ordeal at the end of No Future, what with being tortured by a Chronovore. Is convenient mutual amnesia out of the question?


 * Graeme Garden's character states "I am called The Monk". Except of course that the character was never actually called "The Monk". He disguised himself as a monk in 1066, and explicitly pointed out to the Doctor that that was a disguise. The name "The monk" is equivalent to "The abjudicator" or "The portreeve", not "The Doctor" or "The Rani".
 * Nonetheless, he had adopted this moniker in No Future, so there is a precedent.
 * Yes, a rubbish story that contradicts the story it's trying to be a sequel to. Then years later another rubbish story that contradicts the story it's trying to be a sequel references the first rubbish story, yet still manages to totally contradict it.
 * Your opinions on the quality of the story do not change the fact it explains the very "plot hole" you are complaining about. Indeed, one suspects that your opinions on the story are rather more influenced by the fact it does not comform to your rigid idea of the Doctor Who universe than anything else...