Or more accurately, how far back does a Timelord's timestream go?

We know that the GI and then Clara entered the Doctor's timestream and made changes that effectively changed history - but does that "timestream" literally only cover his LIFETIME or does it cover all events and times that affect him?

Is there a "Terminator" element involved - with the Doctor's timestream going back to before his birth (deep and meaningful question but where do you draw a line between a sperm and egg and a "person" - same thing for that person's timestream, perhaps)

If so - Clara could/would have been on Gallifrey before the Doctor was born and she may or may not be entirely "human" (we're not talking about the "real" Clara-prime here) so...

...could she be his "human" mother?

Taken further, if a person's timestream DOES extend to whatever brought them into existence - and assuming that Timelord's evolved from "the primordial swamp" - Clara may have needed to exist before Timelords (again, to prevent a "Terminator" style attack on the Doctor's ancestors) and if so, she could even have been the very first Timelord - their "god".

It hinges on that definition of a Timestream.

Does it start at birth - or conception - or somewhen else?

Hmmm... What you have said is, er...Interesting to say the least. But, I don't think what you have said about Clara maybe being the Doctor's Mother is true. I don't see how Clara could be a Time Lady with two hearts.

We've seen Clara as a young girl of about 8 years old, in a red button minisode, just before The Bells of Saint-John episode was aired. She had her Mother there too.

If you remember, there was a mysterious woman in The End of Time, played by 60s movie actress Claire Bloom. I've read that she is most likely the Doctor's Mother.

As far as the Time stream, the show's production team haven't specified exactly how far back the Time stream actually goes.

At the moment, it seems to only go back to the First Doctor. In the Brain of Morbius, we saw all of the Doctors incarnations, from Tom, going back to Hartnell, then saw Morbius's different incarnations, before his accident.

In Ressurection of the Daleks, we saw the Doctor's Time stream, going back from The Fifth Doctor, Turlough, Tegan and Nyssa, back to the First Doctor, with Susan, Ian and Barbara.

No, it's just the Doctor's life. His own personal history, the events in which he was actually present. Or, as described in the show, his own travels in space and time.

The Time stream is just the Doctor's life but as during that life he traveled from the beginning of the Universe till the end it's possible there are Clara echo's throughout the entire history of the Universe.

Could it be that, Clara's echo, if somehow located in time and space has become apparent, The Doctor may need to know, as he may be waiting.

However old the Doctor is I guess, which at this point was at least 1200.

Actually, I remember reading that the Doctor was about 600 when he left Gallifrey, so at least 600 years I guess.

Also, follow up question. Since the Timelords helped to change history by saving the Doctor, did the Great Intelligence and Clara still jump into the Doctor's time scar.

And if not, do they still remember doing it?

I seem to remember, when watching The Tomb of the Cybermen on DVD, the Second Doctor said that he was about 450 years old. If this is true, then when we first saw the Doctor in An Unearthly Child, he would have been about 400 years old, if that.

Logically, once you have a version of time travel where changing history can happen, everything that ever lead to the Doctor existing is vulnerable, so an attack on his distant ancestors, or the formation of the planet where they evolved, or even the start of the universe, would affect him.

Of course, this is Doctor Who, where the requirements of dramatic narrative and imagination override those of strict, scientific logic.

The problem for any would-be attacker using time travel to change things is the effect on themselves. If they succeeded in altering the Doctor's past so he didn't thwart them in some past encounter, they wouldn't then have the incentive to go back in time and change things. A variation on the famous grandfather paradox.

The Curse of Fatal Death humorously illustrates this quite brilliantly.

I don't understand. What are you trying to say here?

Just rewatched Name of the Doctor and there's a definite contradiction in the script.

On the one hand, we have the Doctor specifying that the "energy" we saw was caused by him using the Tardis and "damaging" the universe - stating directly that it covers the period from him first leaving Gallifrey in the Tardis to his death (which he also states includes days he hasn't lived yet).

On the other hand, we KNOW that Clara was on Gallifrey BEFORE he took the Tardis.

Also, the episode also makes it clear that each of the Clara-copies was "born, lived and died" - we even saw one of the copy's mother and a younger version of that Clara - so she wasn't actually copies AS IS to lots of different times and places - each "Clara" is a complete and whole person in her own right.

That gives us a number of problems.

The Clara-copy we saw on Gallifrey was around 20 years old AND she was on an alien planet years before we even put a man on the moon. Either she was born on Gallifrey or she travelled there - which means travelling through space and possible, through time.

If she was born there - and if she really was a "copy" of Clara prime - we have proof that humans were on Gallifrey some time before the Doctor came to Earth - not just Clara but her parents.

If she wasn't born there, we have a human travelling to Gallifrey AND we again have proof that humans were on Gallifrey some time before the Doctor came to Earth.

One possibility is that the Clara we saw on Gallifrey was actually from the future and use a Tardis (not necessarily THE Tardis) to get there at that time. Whilst that removes the need for humans to have lived AND BRED on Gallifrey, it causes issues with the "time-lock" - so I discount that "possibility" on the basis that it is "impossible".

Incidentally - Clara also stated that she MUST enter the timestream cos she already had - which fits with the "pre-determination" model of timetravel.

I like the idea that the old woman in EOT, retroactively of course, IS CLARA.

My theory goes like this. Clara's Biological appearance and persona were scattered throughout time, all over the universe, she was born to different parents of different species, but always looked and behaved similarly, hence "Echos." NOT clara, but reminiscent of her.

One was born onto Gallifrey before the Doctor, and her way of "Saving" him was by CONCIEVING him. She ages and becomes clare bloom.

Very fanwanky I know, and I completely accept it has no basis in canon, and no evidence. But its just my little Head-Canon

I'd worry more about the kissing and flirting between Clara and the Doctor (and the fact Moffat says it's the first time we've seen 11 really fancy someone and not know how to deal with it) if she's his mother!

Here is my favorite variation on that paradox:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYlJH81dSiw

We didn't see a copy of young Clara and her mother. That was THE Clara. Not a copy. There was and is a Clara. The rest were echoes or copies...however you want to see it.

So clearly she isn't or couldn't be the Doctors mother. Quite where that came from is beyond me. As is the stuff about humans traveling to Gallifrey whether from the past or future. The version of Clara we saw on Gallifrey was exactly that. A Gallifreyan Clara.

Of course it doesn't all hold up to much scrutiny and as such shouldn't be subject to it. It just spoils the fun. As it would with most Doctor Who plots if one started to treat them as science and not science fiction.

Its best left at the fact we have one Clara. She jumps in. Is then scattered throughout Space and Time. Done.

Those two sentences describe Moffat's style at the Helm of Doctor Who perfectly.

Yes we did. We saw baby and little girl Victorian Clara, showing that they were all born. In Summer Falls there's mention of 'Amy' meeting a much older Clara who has lived her life.


Yes and that's his biggest fault as a writer. The idea of a Clara having been born on Gallifrey (in fact the idea of all these Clara's, all these lives she can partially remember) is a huge one. The trouble is he's never much interested in exploring consequences and that's a big pity because it strips some of the depth out of his stories.

If there are a lot of echoes of Clara, are all of the echoes important or is The Doctor waiting for a particular Clara?

All the echoes are important, the Doctor isn't waiting for anything. He was hunting for what turned out to be the original.

And yes, the Clara we saw on Gallifrey can be reasonably assumed to be Gallifreyan. I don't think that it matters much that Gallifreyan Clara needed to be born many years before the Doctor stole the Tardis (I think the overall effect of the splintering is Clara's lives crossing the Doctor's at the important points), but it does mean that she bumped into him a little earlier than his 'timeline' damage would have started, which is a bit of a fudge.

I'm not so sure it does - it would be a huge criticism of a 'harder' sci-fi writer, but I don't think Moffat has any pretensions of being that, and has been quite honest about it. He works in parable and allusion.

You are mistaken - go back and watch the scene where Clara is talking about what it's like to have entered the Doctor's timestream - she says that she has lived many lives, been born, lived and died - and whilst saying that we are shown her VICTORIAN mother AND a younger version of Clara staring out of a window - also in Victorian costume.

It isn't just applicable to sci-fi though. It's a basic of writing in general and Moffat's big weakness. He loves the big ideas but he's not a fan of the personal consequences and I can see why to some this means his writing and characters lack depth.

We have the original Clara as a companion. He isn't waiting for any Clara anymore, anyway, as the GI has been defeated. That was the whole reason for her splitting herself up in his timeline.

Of course, they could revisit it, but it seems highly unlikely.

I think this is rather unfair. It is certainly applicable to sci-fi in general but in particular when it comes to time travel and similar subjects. They are open to alot of criticism and analysis. I applaud Moffat for at least embracing this side of the show. It doesn't always work and sometimes the ideas seem to run away from him but much the same can be said of Arthur C Clarke, Phillip K Dick and books and films from HG Wells through to Back to the Future, The Time Travellers Wife etc. They often fall apart if taken apart piece by piece but it depends what you think is more important. Total sense and consistency or a damn good story. I favour the latter every time. So it means we have the sublime Blink and then the utterly terrible Wedding of River Song.

RTD largely avoided these problems and the subsequent criticism by favouring a simpler and more character led form of story telling. Which worked for him but I don't think he ever really tried to exploit the mad potential of time travel. Moffat has. And he has tied himself up in knots on occasion. Doesn't bother me. Some disagree.

But to say this is a weakness of Moffats and his alone is simply wrong. I return to Back to the Future. It is for my generation an all time classic. But anyone could sit down and tear it to pieces when it comes to 'making sense'. But is that what we look for in our sci-fi? I certainly don't. And I would always take a more daring approach over simple monster of the week or blobs of sentient fat.

Most of the time, you need consistency to make a damn good story. Doctor Who is the exception that proves the rule in that it regularly is inconsistent, but it remains entertaining anyway.

Perfectly logical time travel stories are few and far between. Babylon 5's time travel element springs to mind, but I'd have to go to literature for the best examples. Two short stories by Robert A Heinlein: "By His Bootstraps" and "All You Zombies". I've mentioned them here before. Highly recommended!

"it's only SF" is often used as some sort of excuse for bad writing. In fact films and TV have often been the source of atrocious writing where the characters act in an inconsistent way to fulfil the needs of the plot.

SF is harder to write than conventional dramas because it should be consistent with known science, or at least come up with plausible reasons for contradicting them, as well as having believable characters. If it's fantasy it needs to be consistent within the rules it establishes for it's fantasy world as well as having believable characters.

I love "All You Zombies"! It is a classic.