You are exploring the discontinuity index, a place where any details or rumours about unreleased stories are forbidden.
Please discuss only those whole stories which have already been released, and obey our spoiler policy.

This page is for discussing the ways in which The Reign of Terror doesn't fit well with other DWU narratives. You can also talk about the plot holes that render its own, internal narrative confusing.

Remember, this is a forum, so civil discussion is encouraged. However, please do not sign your posts. Also, keep all posts about the same continuity error under the same bullet point. You can add a new point by typing:

* This is point one.
::This is a counter-argument to point one.
:::This is a counter-argument to the counter-argument above
* This is point two.
::Explanation of point two.
::Further discussion and query of point two.

... and so on. 
  • The clothes found in a box in the farmhouse fit the travellers perfectly.
There may have been many more, unseen, outfits of different sizes elsewhere in the farmhouse that the travellers do not mention. Furthermore, if this is a safe-house, then clothing of various sizes to dress people that have been helped to escape is a very prudent consideration.
  • The dying Webster tells Ian of 'Le Chien Oris' and Jules Renan, but he remembers him talking of 'The Sinking Ship' and Barrass.
We didn't hear the entire conversation Ian had with the dying man, obviously.
  • Renan has made a rule that the escape line works on first name only terms, yet he knows two of the people on it as Rouvray and D' Argenson.
It may be Renan's personal rule (desire) but he can't prevent others from sharing their surnames if they want to.
  • The involvement of Robespierre and Napoleon in this story is historically inaccurate.
Both Robespierre and Napoleon were in France in 1794
The issue here is that the story appears to suggest that Robespierre was overthrown in the same coup that brought Napoleon to power. These were actually separate coups, five years apart.
After Robespierre is overthrown, Jules wonders who will emerge as the next leader. Jules already knew of Napoleon's part in the downfall of Robespierre and so the fact that he does not assume that he will take charge straight away suggests that it will be a while before Napoleon does take charge. Ian responds to this by saying "remember the name Napoleon Bonaparte". This whole exchange suggests that it will be a few years before Napoleon emerges as leader and that he hasn't done so already.
Or more simply, the Doctor Who universe is a different universe to ours and so, whilst it is very similar, not all events happen in the same way. Therefore there is no discontinuity in the fact that Robespierre's downfall happened at the same time as Napoleon's rise to power.
  • The physician Susan is taken to after falling ill doesn't seem to notice Time Lord anatomy differences.
He does act suspicious of them, but that seems to be purely about what side of the conflict they're on.
Do we know for certain that Susan is a Time Lord? Is she really the Doctor's grandaughter? He might have adopted her when her family was killed, and called her his grandaughter to avoid suspicion. (That would explain why he was willing to leave Susan on Earth at the end of The Dalek Invasion of Earth.) Even if she is his blood-grandaughter, she could be as little as 1/4 Time Lord.
Without mentioning works that came after the episode in question, in "The Sensorites" she describes "Her home planet" [Gallifrey, but it wasn't named that yet] and she has telepathic abilities, which are implied to be common on her home planet. Then again, the Doctor calls himself human in that story, but that doesn't change the fact that that term is used VERY loosely by him and other Time Lords. There are many places that specifically state or at least imply that she was a Time Lord. As for the Doctor leaving her behind at the end of The Dalek Invasion of Earth, we can't expect him to have the same concept of family and emotions as an ordinary human being because he's an alien, all of his incarnations have acted strange like that at some point. Not to mention, since that story came after this one, we can't use evidence from it to explain something in this story.
I think it is safe to say that the physician was more worried about reporting them for being on the opposite side of the conflict to him than he was about actually treating her.
Getting back to the original point - medical science and capability weren't at the same level then as they are today. They may not have noticed any anatomy differences, or simply chalked them up to her being ill (double heart beat being interpreted as a flutter, temperature indicating a fever/chill, etc).
Not to mention isn't there an argument raised from other places where the first doctor only seems to have one heart while the second and subsequent doctors have two that a Time Lord only gains their Second Heart after their first regeneration.

  • The sign the Doctor sits on reads "Paris 5 km". The meter wasn't formally defined until 1799 and the kilometre wouldn't enter common parlance in France until far later. The more common term was myriametre and even that wasn't common at this time.

" The Tardis translates written information as easily as spoken and as such it may have converted the distance from the original into a more understandable form.

  • The Doctor references an eclipse that was due to occur soon, and the chain gang and their leader were familiar with the upcoming event. Eclipse prediction was accurate enough in the 1790s for them to all know when eclipses would occur, and in fact there was an annular solar eclipse partially visible from Paris on September 5, 1793. However, the episode takes place in July of 1794, which did have an eclipse, but it was visible only from the Southern Ocean and Antarctica.
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.