"... and that's if, I give your Mother my old cot for *Baby-You* to sleep in - which has my name engraved on the side - written in High Gallifreyan - and you're also there in adult form at the time - and you can read High Gallifreyan - because you're part TimeLord - and so have learned to read the Language prior to any of that ever happening." *weeps*

Yep! That's one extremely specific situation, I gotta say. Kudos Moffat. :sleep:

I guess that's one way you could interpret it, but you'd be wrong,.

The point is though that that wasn't what the Doc meant when he said it back then, he didn't know about this scene and therefore presumed he must have told River his name at some point so he drew the wrong conclusion. In fact he NEVER told River his name, she read it herself on the side of the crib, something he would never have guessed at the time.

Yup, it seems he made it up as he went along..
I find the problem more in that if we'd found out who she was in the library itd be like..

Doctor: who are you?!
River: amys daughter
Doctor: who the hell is amy?!
River: your future companion
Doctor: oh.

Image trying to explain Rory?

Are we sure it actually says the doctors name on the crib?

It could say something like baby boy. Or we could remember what River says "The doctor lies" and it isn't actually his cot!

Wait, explain what?

but there is no real evidence that the Doctor does not tell River his name in another way, or that she learnt his name from the cot.

Exactly what I was thinking. I think he will tell it to her if they get married, to save his life, to save her life, if they have a child etc or something like that

it's quite obvious really.

He told her his name when they got married, or whatever. When future River meets young doctor, she says "i've not seen that in a long time", meaning she saw it as a baby, and then points out she can read the writing.

Whether it says his name or not is another matter, but if it is, by this time she already knew his name.

Unless the only reason she knew it is because when she was a baby she could read it, and memorised it, and was only lying in the library to make him trust her.

Yes, exactly; there is only one situation he could tell her his name. He didn't say his name in AGMGTW, she read it. But that would be pretty difficult to prophecise, considering he doesn't know (at that point) that she can speak/read Gallifreyan.

My theory is that the Gallifryean cot has the name of the LAST baby who was in. Before they read the name River Song has already announced that she recognises HIS cot. Why does she insist that he reads the name on the cot if it his name and his cot? What would be the point?. It can only be that he reads HER name and then the penny drops..

Ooh, that is a good theory actually. (But didn't Steven Moffat say it was his name on the cot? I know this is a matter of some contention so I don't want to start an argument on it - again!) Either way, it makes more sense than my "perhaps it's a prayer/prophecy/fairytale written on the side" theory!

If it IS the Doctor's name why would AMY need to be abloe to read it to understand that River is her daughter. The Tardis cannot translate gallifryean so Amy could not read the doctor's name but she already knows it was his own cot because he has told her when she asked him to give her a piece of information she did not know about . I smell another plot hole..

But doesn't the cot have TWO names on it? We kept being shown the side of the cot - with LOTS of circles and symbols, as though it was a long name and then the foot of the cot with a shorter set of symbols. So....... could it have had the Doctor's name on the side and River's name on the front?

Aaah, not this old chestnut again! :P I'm going to watch the episode again later, and hopefully be able to understand if River actually meant for Amy to look at the cot, not the prayer leaf inside. But I doubt the debates will cool off so quickly!

Who says its his name? I've seen cots with lines from Winnie the Pooh. Doesn't make the kid 'Pigglet'

Perhaps his full name on the side, and just his first name on the foot, if Gallifreyans have family names and given names as we do.

Maybe the Doctor lied when he said it was his cot to hide the fact that he already had their daughter's cot with her name written on it onboard the Tardis - perhaps something to do with the fact that he's gone from being 906 just before 10 regenerated to being 907 a day later in 11th Hour to being 909 year later in TIA.

I think if we're trying to date episodes/Doctors by their supposed ages, we're going to end up in a bit of trouble. It's always been a bit of a moot point, considering that a) he probably doesn't know how old he is, b) it's difficult to measure time when you're constantly hopping from one time to the next and c) the Doctor's reputed to lie.

http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/The_Doctor%27s_age

Just because...

"I can speak every languauge" - whilst talking to the baby.

Perhaps just a joke - him pretending to hold a conversation with a baby making meaningless noises - but in truth, he can't - hence the Tardis translation matrix. He can speak Gallifreyan - obviously - and pick up some telepathic signals from other Time Lords and wouldn't need a translator.

Silliness aside - he's never shown any sign of "detecting" River as a Time Lord.

Aaah not this old dismissive attitude to anyone who makes a point you disagree with. My theory is perfectly reasonable and fits in with the dialogue. River tells Amy that she cannot read what is on the base of the cot because it is in Gallifryean. But she can read the baby name tag because it is in a translatable language. At no point does River say that what is written on the cot is irrelevant. It isn't to the Doctor because when River chides "can't he read?" his gaze goes down to the BASE of the cot and the screen fills with the gallifryean text at the BASE of the cot, a part of the cot we have not seen in close up until that point. Now if the text is irrelvant and the Doctor can see the leaf inside the cot then the screenshot of the base and the direction of the Doctor's glance is a cheat and done by the producers to deceive the audience.You tell me why the Doctor would need to be able to read his own name in Gallifryean to understand who River Song is when she has already said she recognioses his old cot from a distance.

Agreed-but at no point does she say it is relevant either.

The second point-well, I thought that is exactly what that shot was-a deceit, to keep us the viewers guessing up till the moment Amy & Rory discover the truth-it would be a bit naff for us to see the leaf and get it, then miss the impact of her telling her parents herself don't you think?

Having watched confidential-AK says she "thinks" the writing is the Doctors name. She doesn't know.

As a theory, I am not saying its impossible, I just think the leaf was enough for her name and identity to be revealed without the cot changing names etc. Though the idea is a nice one-I can't help think he would have noticed when he found the cot and took it out of the Tardis-bit hard to miss another name on your own cot wouldn't it?

I really have yet to hear where it is fact that the writing is the Doctors name on the cot-if it is, fine, but from the episode I did not think this was inferred. Maybe we will learn more in the next ep-but I am starting to think the big reveal was simply poorly executed since despite getting an answer so many people are convinced the answer is not quite the answer. I can not see why someone would stuff more into a scene that had quite enough already-Rivers real identity, just to be clever. Ie, Doc's name, possible future tl babies etc...just seems a bit much for a few minutes screen time.

Ooh, miaow! Actually, I haven't used a dismissive attitude about anything - but last I checked, I was allowed to be unsure about what was going down in the episode. Like I said, I'm going to watch it again later, because at the time of airing I had people shouting all sorts of things about River's identity around the place and I couldn't actually concentrate without looking like a mindless zombie. Tonight, I might have formulated a better opinion, but for now I'm just going with what sounds logical.


I'm not debating that. In fact, the above was my interpretation of events from the episode as well.


I never said it was irrelevant - in fact, I agreed with your previous theory that the Gallifreyan text changed dependent on the baby lain in the cot, and provided another example that might've got around the whole "Why would River point to the Doctor's name on the side of the crib to prove her identity?" quandry.


I think that this is indeed what happened - the producers wanted to bring dramatic tension to the scene, they wanted us to ponder on what the writing said, and they wanted to get our minds whirring.


But like others have said before me (daisybee79 being the one that instantly springs to mind), why do we assume it is his name upon the crib?

To assume anything (particularly from Moffat's writing) does, after all, make an ass out of u and me. It could be that the writing on the crib is a fairytale, or a prayer, prophecy or poem. Like Wize said earlier, just because one has Winnie the Pooh on a cot, doesn't make the child inside Piglet.

to me the kissy kissy reaction and the immense pleasure and optimism we get from the doctor looking at the writing on the crib the doctor realises that he and river have a child
my interpretaion is that each large circle represents some person
and the circles together represent a family tree of sorts the big circle appears on both the side and the foot of the crib and that is the doctors name as written in galifreyan the circles on the side would then represent his original family who are all gone following the time war
the stuff at the foot which contains fewer circles represnts the family himself and river will have in her past/his future