Theory:Doctor Who television discontinuity and plot holes/The Unquiet Dead

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 Unquiet Dead 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 Doctor states that Rose is 19. She should be 17 or 18, as she was born in 1987 and was picked up in 2005, making her 17 or 18 years old.

It is possible that the Doctor simply got it wrong.

Jackie's sign in The Aliens of London said she was 19.

No, the claim that she was born in 1987 is wrong.

Rose wasn't born in 1987, when they visited that year in Father's Day the baby Rose was several months old so she was probably born in 1986.

When/where exactly does it say Rose was born in 1987? Certainly not in one of the first 3 episodes! The missing person posters of Rose in Aliens of London suggest she was 19 when she went missing. In Dalek Rose herself says she should be 26 in 2012, meaning she was 19 in 2005. The only inconsistency is in the unjustified assertion that "she was born in 1987"!

• Why did Dickens just stand there when Rose and the Doctor were leaving?

He was waiting for the Doctor and Rose to emerge from the "shed". He didn't understand why the pair were making their goodbyes when just going into a box and, having seen so much weirdness that night, probably wanted to see what would happen next.

• "Charles Dickens" here has a full head of hair, but the real Dickens had a very obvious comb over long before when this is set.

We don't take the real world into account here.

Who is "we"? And why not? it's supposed to represent a real historical person. If Doctor Who did a story set in 1960 where World War II hadn't ended, the viewer would immediately know that something was wrong, and that time had been changed, and would need to be put right. Why? because that's not what happened in the real world. Same thing with Dickens. This is supposed to be Charles Dickens, and many of his books are mentioned. Thus this portrayal of Dickens should be consistent with the real Charles Dickens. Which it isn't.