Talk:Romana II

If she regerated into Romana II, then had to change herself 4 times afterwards into the same one she was. Is she Romana II or Romana VI?

this should help you figure it out. 


 * This scene (from Destiny of the Daleks, right at the start) is explained some where (in the Gallifrey (audio series) but also some where else I think), but the general idea is that some Time Lords can 'preview' their bodies without actually regenerating fully. An example of this is The War Games, the Doctor gets a preview of his bodies, or also Planet of the Spiders with K'Ampo, and also The Watcher in Logopolis (TV story). Also in the PROSEs there's the concept of the Eighth Man Bound which also raises the concept of seeing future bodies.
 * Additionally it's generally accepted as a quirk of the story (namely one which has Douglas Adams as script editor).--Tangerineduel 15:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Is that why she said dhe was "Regenerating" instead of saying she had regenerated. and then the Doctor told her to change body?

Canonicity of presidency
Does anyone remember where it was that Russell T. Davies referenced Romana as president? I seem to recall he wrote an in-universe article or story somewhere, perhaps for an annual or DWM, in which this was referenced. This should be added to the continuity note I added, since it furthers the legitimacy of this piece of expanded universe information with regards to the TV series. 23skidoo 13:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The BBC comissioned Big Finish to create Shada involving the 8th Doctor, and Romana as Lady President of Gallifrey, with k-9. Its on the official BBC website for Classic Doctor who, in cartoon, albeit a very poorly webcast of one. Though in addition, they did have Scream of Shalka with an alternate 9th Doctor made, both in 2003, before the TV revival.14thLord ☎  13:18, February 5, 2013 (UTC)

First appearance
Instead of engaging in an edit war, please discuss the issue of Romana II's first appearance here. 18:41, September 23, 2019 (UTC)
 * Quite right. Well… my position is that it's Destiny of the Daleks (TV story), and really, as far as I'm concerned, this is common sense. The statement "Romana II debuted in Destiny of the Daleks" was unambiguously true for decades, it was the intent of every person making Destiny of the Daleks, Lalla Ward is credited as playing Romana in the episode's end credits, and the omniscient narrator in Doctor Who and the Destiny of the Daleks (novelisation) calls her Romana.


 * Should notes be made of the Lying Old Witch retcon? Yes, of course. But wrapped in the same sort of copious "according to one account" language with which we rightfully smother War of the Daleks on pages such as Shoreditch Incident and Movellan. The same logic that would have us say the Doctor's TARDIS was the companion in Destiny would also bind us to the idea that Antalin first appeared on TV in Remembrance of the Daleks, and… does anyone want that? Come on. I'm the biggest War of the Daleks defender on this Wiki at the moment, and I don't want that. Outrageous retcons are valid, but in a "according to one account" way, not in the way that so wholly suppresses the original as to make it disappear from infoboxes. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎  19:03, September 23, 2019 (UTC)


 * Not to mention that Lying Old Witch isn't entirely without conflict, with other sources such as Gallifrey (audio series) and The Chaos Pool (audio story) giving two more reasons for Romana's regeneration, relating to Pandora and the Key to Time, respectively. Danochy ☎  23:23, September 23, 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the above reasoning, personally. I would like to hear from the dissenting voices. I know that these things can be contentious. The whole deal of Delgado's Master either being the same as Pratt or having a new-Who style regeneration is another controversial one, where different retcons disagree with one another and create a mess for us while trying to present info from the original TV sources.

I wish we could simply attach a footnote to Destiny in the infobox, explaining how it may or may not be City of Death instead. We should definitely be open to suggestions that can properly represent the ambiguity in this situation. 04:17, September 24, 2019 (UTC)