Talk:Kate Stewart

Age during The Silurians

When I encountered it, article had this statement:

Kate was five at the time of the Wenley Moor Silurian incident. (PROSE: Doctor Who and the Cave-Monsters)

Well, I've searched the book seven ways from Sunday, and all of the following search terms have failed:

• Kate
• Katherine
• Katarina
• daughter
• Fiona
• "five years"
• "5 years"
• "age of five"
• kid
• child

None of them turn up a hint of anything to do with a daughter of the Brig. Thus, I've removed this sentence because the citation is clearly wrong. If anyone knows where the statement actually comes from, they're free to reinsert it, along with the proper citation.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  00:40: Sun 23 Sep 2012

I think it might be from The Scales of Injustice. Doug86 ☎ 00:43, September 23, 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  00:49: Sun 23 Sep 2012

'Kate was the daughter',,, isn't that supposed to be 'is the daughter'. She hasn't died yet has she?

We write everything in past tense here. 170.185.224.19^{talk to me} 13:34, September 24, 2012 (UTC)

Doris the step mother

The lead asserted that Doris Lethbridge-Stewart was Kate's step-mother. That's pure speculation, since new spouses of non-custodial natural parents are not automatically considered step-parents. There's no way in hell my mother would consider her father's wife her "step-mother" in any sense, and I certainly don't think of her as my "step-grandmother". "Step-parent" is not a legal title that simply passes automatically upon a marriage certificate. Step parents have no legally-enforceable parental responsibilities until and unless they actually adopt the child, at which point they are no longer step-parents.

You have to essentially earn the title "step-mother", so we would need to have narrative evidence that there was some sort of positive relationship between Kate and Doris. We've got good evidence from Scales of Injustice that Fiona was her natural and custodial mother. As far as I'm aware, there isn't any evidence in any story that Kate had any sort of interaction with Doris.

Due to the lack of a valid source, Doris therefore cannot stay in the main body of the article, much less the lead.
czechout<staff /> ☎ ✍  16:42: Sat 26 Jan 2013

I'm unable to find a dictionary that defines "stepmother" as narrowly as you do. Oxford defines it simply as "a woman who is married to one’s father after the divorce of one’s parents or the death of one’s mother." Can you cite a source for your definition? -- Rowan Earthwood ☎ 16:57, January 26, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Rowan. I've never heard of a step-parent not being an automatic title. Ever. Adopted parent is not automatic, as it has to be done legally, while a step-parent is automatic: someone who is currently married to a legal parent. I know legalities can differ between the US and the UK, but I'm suspect of whether they truly differ so much as to not be automatic. Restricting it to being a "positive" and "earned" definition sounds more like a personal/moral definition (essentially an opinion), not a legal one. Looking at the Cambridge.org online definition of stepmother, it states, "[T]he woman who is married to someone's father but who is not their real mother[.]" I would also like a cited source to the contrary. Mewiet ☎ 04:44, April 13, 2013 (UTC)

She *isn't* Osgood's mother!

It's worth debunking the claims already spreading across the internet that Kate is Osgood's mother. She's not - Osgood does not address Kate as 'Mum' in "Day of the Doctor", but as 'Ma'am', which is sometimes pronounced as 'Mum' (e.g. when speaking to the Queen). Later in the episode Osgood addresses Kate as "Kate".86.178.204.38^{talk to me} 09:32, November 24, 2013 (UTC)

Placing of The Power of Three

Just a note to remind you guys that we write characters' articles in a chronological fashion. Tell me I'm wrong but the events of the Power of Three take place after 2013 (between 2016-17), placing this story, in the grand scheme of Earth bound things, after the Day of the Doctor. Therefore, when we write her life down on this article, surely we write the Day of the Doctor before the Power of Three?

To see more about this, check references 271 and 272 on this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_Doctor_Who_universe#cite_note-298 TheFartyDoctor ^Talk 04:51, January 3, 2014 (UTC)

This artical has been deleted cuod you provide a mother sores – The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2.103.88.122 (talk).

Did Chibnall know?

It's come to my attention that Chris Chibnall claims he was unaware that a daughter of the Brigadier's named Kate had already appeared in the spin-off media when he wrote The Power of Three. He says he only learned about it when he was interviewed for Doctor Who Magazine. I for one find it difficult to believe that two writers could independently create a daughter of the Brigadier named Kate. When creating a child of the Brig's, you have two genders to choose from so it's not that far-fetched you'd come up with a daughter instead of a son. But of all the hundreds if not thousands of names you could use, you just happen to pick Kate? I'm not saying he's lying but I think he may have heard about her at some point in the past and then half-remembered the character when he wrote the script. Is that possible? Slughorn42 ☎ 17:04, August 31, 2014 (UTC)

It's fairly obvious that Kate's name isn't a coincidence. So either Chibnall half-remembered the character, or he's outright lying. Bwburke94 ~ Creator of All Things Brilliant! ~ 02:33, November 10, 2014 (UTC)

It's very possible that this is just the "offical" line, denying the fact that "this" Kate is not the same as "that" Kate, to avoid rights and ownership issues. MadeIndescribable ☎ 12:25, September 21, 2015 (UTC)

Infobox in violation of T:NPOV?

Currently, the infobox is, to me at least, favouring Jemma Redgrave's version of the character, such as the infobox image only being of Jemma's version, and by having Beverley Cressman's credit in the "other actors" section of the infobox. This, I feel, is in conflict with Tardis:Neutral point of view. I would like to propose some changes.

• Image: Either put Beverley Cressman's image first, with the Jemma Redgrave image in the "|image2" section, or {{stewartpic}}, to incorporate both images into a template.
• Actor: I would like Beverley's credit to take precedence over Jemma's, as Beverley was the first actress in the role. (Although I can understand the argument of Jemma's credit taking precedence, due to her portraying Kate many more times than Beverley.)

So, I hope I expressed my point clearly, and I'm open to discussion on this matter.

Epsilon 📯 📂

20:03, November 4, 2020 (UTC)

I think that you may have a point with the need for Beverley Cressman's image also in the infobox, however I don't think that her image should be first. Jemma Redgrave is the "main" actress to have played Kate - starring in several television episodes and a whole load of audios, and her appearance has been used in books and comics too. This is why I also think that Beverley should remain in "other actors" as well. DiSoRiEnTeD1 ☎ 20:17, November 4, 2020 (UTC)

I'm unsure about including multiple actors in an infobox in cases like these - should we also include David Bradley in the First Doctor's infobox? Or Georgette Ellison in Patsy Haggard's? I think we should just keep Redgrave given that she is, in terms of appearances, the main actress even if she isn't the first. -- Saxon (✉️) 20:47, November 4, 2020 (UTC)

Using Jemma's image on the infobox doesn't necessarily mean a T:NPOV, because, at the end of the day, T:NPOV asks us to "give all media equal weight". We cover both depictions of Kate on the page, not giving Beverley a "lesser" importance just because she's from a home video rather than a TV story. As you pointed out, Jemma's portrayed Kate in far more stories than Beverley (and the number increases if we consider the times Jemma's likeness has been used for comic stories and covers).

Therefore, what happens is that, as of 2020, Jemma's version of the character is much more representative of the character than Beverley's. In a comparison, we're hardly going to want an image of Bradley or Hurndall on the First Doctor infobox, because what we associate most with that character - and therefore best represents the article - is that of Hartnell's performance. Same goes for Gillan and Blackwood for playing Amy Pond. I think {[tlx|CHARACTERpic}} is of good use for Time Lord articles, but not necessarily for every time a character's been played by two or more actors. OncomingStorm12th ☎ 20:50, November 4, 2020 (UTC)

As for the actor section, I agree with the arguments for keeping it as is, hence why I noted this in my original edit.

As for the infobox image, take a look at Bernice Summerfield's infobox image - it's not a picture of Lisa Bowerman's portrayal, but from the character's depiction in a comic prior. I think there's a precedent here, that just because an actor is more recognised in a role, doesn't mean they get the infobox image.

Epsilon 📯 📂

20:56, November 4, 2020 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that image is used for Benny because it's in-universe and therefore prioritised over an image of Bowerman from a cover. -- Saxon (✉️) 21:07, November 4, 2020 (UTC)

Well, Dead and Buried and Transmission from Mars are in-universe sources, and it was decided against using images from those for the infobox.

Epsilon 📯 📂

21:12, November 4, 2020 (UTC)

Not to go much off-topic, but the current Benny image is also from an in-universe source. While we didn't go with the medium she's most recognised for, the decision was drawn between two in-universe sources, so it's not a 1:1 precedent. Had Jemma's likeness been used purely on covers, but never in an episode, then we'd have a closer precedent. OncomingStorm12th ☎ 21:50, November 4, 2020 (UTC)

Bumping this discussion, there are two other solutions, being that either the "|image2" field is utilized or we utilize "<tabber>" to allow the reader to select which image is used.

Epsilon📯 📂

19:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Infobox image: Cressman v Redgrave

I think we need to have a discussion as to what the main infobox image should be - not necessarily to change the images themselves, but rather to discuss which actor appears first in the tabbed gallery on page load. I personally think it should be Redgrave who appears first, as she has had the most appearances and is therefore most widely recognised in the role. Aquanafrahudy has recently changed the primary image to Cressman, and has given the following reason for doing so: "Cressman was first". However, I'd argue that if we set a precedent for going by first appearances, rather than most appearances, then a tabbed gallery for Amy Pond would have Blackwood as the main image over Gillan. I just don't think going by who appears first is the best way. Just wanted others thoughts on this. 66 Seconds ☎ 21:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd agree with this. Kate Stewart is, as you say, most recognisably played by Redgrave. Kate Stewart's main actor is also noted as being Redgrave in the infobox itself so it would be consistent with that. Concerning non-Time Lord characters, I think we should order images by first appearances only if there's a roughly equal number of performances for each actor. BlueSupergiant ☎ 22:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

I too agree that the forefront image should match the performer listed in "main actor". BananaClownMan ☎ 22:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Indeed; as per the Amy example this seems to be current policy at least in new-T:BOUND terms, and I for one think it quite sensible. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 13:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

In terms of precedent, going primarily by number of appearances, I would say that Bernice Summerfield would be precedent; she has more audio appearances than novel appearances, and the novel appearance comes first. In terms of recognisability, then surely the Katy Manning Iris would be first on Iris Wildthyme, as opposed to one that I didn't even know existed. (Although that's incarnations, so different). And in-universe, Cressman is the younger version, but that of course doesn't hold up to the Amy Pond precedent. But I suppose recognisability is a valid point, but I do worry if having Redgrave first is properly T:NPOV compliant. Aquanafrahudy 📢 15:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Change infoxbox image

I'd like to replace our current Redgrave infobox image with the image on the right. This one has better lighting than the current image. It is also slightly portrait, making it appear larger on desktop, and is more focused on Kate herself rather than any background details. 66 Seconds ☎ 08:53, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

While no longer banned outright when it's the best available option for other reasons, I nevertheless don't think being in portrait format should be considered a positive for an infobox image; it does make the box taller, which is inconvenient. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scrooge MacDuck (talk • contribs) .

Yeah, I'm not a huge fan of the recent spate of technically-not-quite-square infobox images. Jack "BtR" Saxon ☎ 13:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Will try making it more square. 66 Seconds ☎ 15:42, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

With the brighter lighting and the now adjusted dimensions, I'd say this image is better. BlueSupergiant ☎ 20:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

The Giggle: actions while effected by the giggle

the current section talking about her personality without the zeedex during the events of the giggle reads as follows: "As the waveform simply influences the victim into assuming that they are always right, it is likely that this a subconsciously suppressed personality.", while this could be the case, i think this is a subjective interpretation and there are other, just as likely answers.

there is no reasonthat i recall that someone under the giggles effects has to have already believed what they where saying before it started, is that not the point? that people where unable to think of themselves as wrong. so for someone whohas regular dealings with shapeshifters, infiltration and high security. it seems pretty logical for a passing, reasonable thought to become something completly unrealistic, not because they actually always believed what they where saying but because they simply think themselves correct by default.

so she is asked a simple question, but she takes it as a violation of privacy. now she is thinking about privacy and related concepts, like security. the person she is talking to is a shape changing alien, normally she wouldnt be too worried about this. definitly thought about it, maybe planned some worst case scenarios, but never actually believed the doctor to be an enemy. but since she cant dismiss her own thoughts as incorrect, and she is on edge against the doctor, she thinks the doctor is prying. that makes her think of the doctor as a spy, that makes her think about the doctor not bieng from earth, it doesnt make sense for the doctor to be a spy and kate knows that, but since she already had the idea that the doctor is bad, she is incabable of taking in any infomation that contradicts her point

same with the wheelchair thing, she doesnt really believe shirley is faking on a deep, subconscious level, its the opposite. she knows shirley and so deep down, she knows the truth, but the truth and reasonable answer comes second to the faliable first thought. most people, even those who are fairly knowable on the subject, will be surprised seeing someone in a wheelchair standing, because it goes against the pattern, the expectation we have of things based on past experiance. normally the pattern recognision first thought gives way to the more thoughtful second thought. you kneejerked for a quick and flawed explination upon seeing something that didnt match your expectations but now you are actually applying critical thought and formed your beliefs based on that, but if you took your first thought as gospel and where incapable of recognising any critisisms, your own logical brain wouldnt be able to correct you and instead of an opinion based on a thought out worldview and sound logic, you have the kneejerk explinations of the primitive part of your brain, the same part that makes you flinch away from jumpscares because it would rather you flee from something harmless then do nothing when a threat arrives.

i rambled but basically i think:"it is likely that this a subconsciously suppressed personality." is a bit of an assumption and relies on subjective interpretation of events. i dont claim my own interpretation as more or less valid, i simply provided it to prove the existance of other explinations to make its subjectivity apparent. suggesting a charecter has a whole other, suppresed, xenophobic and ableist personallity is i think a bit of a grand statement considering how little evidence there is to support it and how vaguely the effects where described

disclaimer, i searched around for guidelines but i cannot find any, if this is the wrong use of this feature let me know, additionally if guidelines for its use do exist please point me to them and i would be very grateful – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bookwrym77 (talk • contribs) .

Job/timeline

I'm a little confused as to what KS's actual position is. I've tried to put together a rough timeline: 1) 2012 (The Power of Three) - Head of Scientific Research 2) 2013 (50th special) through 2014 (Death in Heaven) at least inclusive - Chief Scientific Officer 3) 2021 (Flux #5) to present - overall head of UNIT worldwide, unless I'm mistaken.

Have I got this right? Kevin 'Chalky' Kaiba ☎ 17:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Infobox image discussion

I'm thinking now might be a good time to open a full discussion on a new infobox image for Jemma Redgrave as Kate Stewart, before the new series starts in May. I've added some possible images to the gallery below. 66 Seconds ☎ 16:13, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• 

  Current

• 

  1

• 

  2

• 

  3

• 

  4

• 

  5

• 

  6

• 

  7

• 

  8a

• 

  8b

• 

  9

• 

  10a

• 

  10b

• 

  11a

• 

  11b

• 

  12

• 

  13

• 

  14

• 

  15

• 

  16

• 

  17

• 

  18

• 

  19

• 

  20

• 

  21

• 

  22

• 

  23

• 

  24

• 

  25

• 

  26

• 

  27

• 

  28

My favourites are 2, 6 and 18. 66 Seconds ☎ 16:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

My vote would go to 2. Well lit, well focused, just instantly stood out to me. — Fractal Doctor • 19:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

2 is still my personal preference. 1, 3 and 4 are also good candidates. BlueSupergiant ☎ 01:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Would anybody else like to offer any opinions on this? 66 Seconds ☎ 10:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

If it's ok with an admin, I would like to now update this with #2 based upon votes here and the comment from Scrooge above. Think it would be best to have the brighter image ready for when the new series starts in May, even if the vote remains open here. 66 Seconds ☎ 08:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Not an admin, but I'd be okay with #2. Still think it's the best, and clearest. Of course, come the end of June, we might have more potential contenders so we can continue to discuss this throughout Season 1 and beyond if necessary. — Fractal • 10:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I personally like #16. (It's also from The Giggle which means it's in a higher resolution which is another benefit.)

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

11:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Just my opinion of course, but my issue with #16 is that the camera is looking down at her, which makes her appear somewhat defeated. As head of UNIT, or similar, I prefer the images where the camera is either looking up at her or is on the same level, that way it emphasises she has some degree of power. 66 Seconds ☎ 11:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Added some more images. 66 Seconds ☎ 22:28, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Any further thoughts on this? BlueSupergiant ☎ 17:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Potential future rename

Okay, I feel need to highlight this before Kate appears again. It appears that now Russell T Davies has taken over the show, he has gone back on the idea that Kate has dropped "Lethbridge" from her name, as now in both The Giggle ^[+]Loading...["The Giggle (TV story)"] and 73 Yards ^[+]Loading...["73 Yards (TV story)"], Kate is identified repeatedly as "Kate Lethbridge-Stewart". For now, this means that Kate should be called "Kate Lethbridge-Stewart" when being cited to The Giggle and 73 Yards, much in the same was we do this for her appearances in Downtime and pretty much everything pre-2013. Long term, we may have to rename this page, but we'll cross that bridge when we have more modern sources using her full name.

(Although has anyone ever done a tally? There has got to be a lot of usage of "Lethbridge-Stewart" in the Candy Jar books at least.)

EPSILON^🔎 |📯|📂|📦|📝

13:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I actually came here to suggest this. I think this is something we're probably going to have to do in the near-future, if not this year, given there's been a clear conscious change in how she's referred to, by both herself and others. SilverSunbird ☎ 20:47, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Kate Lethbridge Stewart was her original name in Downtime and in the Candy Jar books. She is called "a Lethbridge Stewart" in her first television appearance as well and "Kate Lethbridge Stewart" in Day of the Doctor. So its not just a RTD thing. WarDocFan12 ☎ 22:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

We're definitely heading for a rename. She's now Kate Lethbridge-Stewart. — Fractal • 09:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)