But isn't all Gallifreyan text written as those circles? Some of the TARDIS readouts, and the engraving on the Doctor's fob watch, for example.

No - there have been a number of "Gallifreyan" texts over the years using different types of symbol - possibly explained as "High Gallifreyan" being used for official stuff and a "Low Gallifreyan" for handwriting and informal - the latter looks more like Arabic - scratchy and squigly symbols.

Aaah, okay. Just ignore me then!

I'd say that the "Only one sutuation..." line was written for a one-off character with no intention of explaining when that was (maybe written with no specific thought about what they would be - just a cool line).

If so, there is no "right" - answer - just whatever Moff wants it to be. I could be somthing as "funny" as him having to sign her Tardis driving licence or it could be something as heavy as on his death bed.

I like the suggestion that she could read it off the crib at some point - common sense says that if it was his crib, it would have his real name rather than one he gave himself later.

I'm dubious though cos I suspect he lied about it being his.

The Doctor doesnt see River's name from the crib, he saw it on the prayer leaf. Moffat said it on his twitter. So I dont see why Rivers name would be on the crib, plus the fact, he doesnt take it with him when he goes after her, why would she be raised in it? I'm obviously assuming that he doesnt see her for a while due to the fact River said her first meeting he knew everything about her.

The Doctor was not reading the writing on the cot, he was reading the writing on the prayer leaf. The camera shows the writing on the cot, but I think it's just one of Moffat's cruel tricks. Like Amy's monologue at the beginning, I tought for a second she was talking about the Doctor being the father, but she was talking about Rory, and I had to pause the episode for a quick cursing.

Watch the scene closely.

Immediately after River says "Can't you read" and the Doctor looks at the bottom of the cot, the camera cuts to Rory and Amy. Then it cuts to the writing on the cot - i.e. it is Rory and Amy who look at the Gallifreyan writing thinking that is what River is refering to. When the scene flips back to the Doctor and River, the Doctor is looking in the cot (blink and you'll miss it) before looking up at River realising who she is.

Matthew

How could river have known the crib would have her name on it?
It doesn't make sense, only the ganger baby was in that crib, she wouldn't remember from being newborn so we are to assume that they get melody back as a baby and she stays on the tardis.
When we see the little regenerating girl she is much older I thought that must have been when they got melody back??

On one of her other visits to the TARDIS could she not simply have written her name onto it? Or am I missing something blindingly obvious?

Surely that would have been by far the simplest explanation?

The explanation is that her name isnt on the cot, its the Doctors.

Having now watched that particular scene far too many times than is healthy I completely agree (scratch what I said before ). Not only do Rory and Amy not understand what River is saying and they think she's referring to the script ON the cot, we are given a bit of sneaky misdirection also by the camera focusing on the cot, rather than where the Doctor is actually looking - INSIDE the cot, at the embroidered leaf.

Love it.

Can someone eplain the precise origin of the 'it's the Doctor's name on the cot' theory? If his name is supposedly shrouded in secrecy, it'd be pretty silly to have it, oh, say, just written down where anyone could find it (for instance, when the Master stole it in Utopia)?

That's not what happened on screen.

Amy says - "I Still can't read it" and River says "That's because it's Gallifreyan, it doesn't translate - but this will"

If Amy wasn't looking at the writing in the crib, why would RIver say "...it's Gallifreyan..." and tell her to look at the cloth instead? Wouldn't she say "You're looking at the wrong thing" or "I didn't mean that writing" rather than saying why that something else was written in another language?

All River did was say that Amy couldn't read the name on the crib because it was written there in Gallifreyan but she could read the same name on the cloth because the Tardis would translate it for her.

I can see this one running and running but yeah, you are correct. It was just a bit of clever, sneaky misdirection to make people think they were talking about the writing on the cot. They weren't though. The Doctor was looking at the prayer mat.

There's actually a very obvious reason why the Doctor would tell River his name. Because he now knows it is vital she knows it to gain his trust in the library.

There actually doesn't need to be any other reason than that. Typical timey wimey Moffat.

Surely that's the point, the whole "can't you read" and looking at the cot was River's subtle way of pointing out that she can read it. Which is enough for the Doctor to put two and two together and realise that River is at least part Timelord and that she now knows his name, and given that there is somebody else part timelord (i.e. the baby) he puts the two together while Amy and Rory are still completely confused.

Having subtly made her point, River then gives Amy and Rory a more straightforward way of revealing her identity

Random Theory Time

River knowing the Doctor's name because she can read Gallifreyan doesn't seem to explain why the Dr was so upset at her death. The Doctor seems to think that her knowing his name means she is someone special to him. After all, the 'one time' he could tell someone his name can't be 'when they can read Gallifreyan' otherwise it's just a bit odd. He never told other timelords. It would also be odd if the 'one time' was when the person was the daughter of a companion. The 'one time' must be quite specific.

Could that time be when he has a child with someone? He and River may have a child together and so he tells her his name.

If that is the one time, it would be upsetting for him as he knows she is the mother of his child but also because it probably brings back memories of his other now dead children and past wife.

I'll let someone destroy this theory now.

Au contraire, I actually agree with this. The Doctor, in his tenth incarnation when he first met River, probably did go through the motions of "the only time I'd ever tell someone my real name is if they were my wife/babymama/whatever".

But then, at that time, he didn't know Amy or Rory, and didn't know that there would be a "human plus!" girl called Melody Pond who would be able to drive the TARDIS and know Gallifreyan, so he would have no reason to believe she would know his name other than the "only time I'd ever tell" explanation. And besides, it suits her purpose for River to make the Doctor believe this is so, because then he suddenly trusts her, and that's what she wants.

Of course, now the Doctor's next regeneration knows that Melody = River, and that she can read Gallifreyan, and drive the TARDIS, and is "human plus", then it might throw things into a new light for him.

Forgive me if what I'm about to say is actually what you were getting at.

But as Tennant's Dr didn't have a concept of human baby plus or anything like that, the 'one time' must be something already established in his mind.

So, to extrapolate (big words make me feel like I'm the Dr!), whilst in the Library, he knew that the only time to date he had told someone his name was when he had a child with them, and therefore, for River to know his name, he must have a child with her in the future.

Again, apologies if that's what you were saying. Little slow at this end.

Sorry, re-read this.

Are you suggesting that once the Amy/Rory human plus child comes on the scene he would realise that there was actually more than 'one time' i.e. he'd think 'oh turns out there was more than one time, I'd just never thought this would happen."

Also, surely in last night's episode, the Dr doesn't actually tell River his name, she (we assume) reads it. Tennant spoke about telling his name which I don't think we've seen yet.

Exactly what I think as well

Not quite! I'm saying that, once he realises River could have known his name from the text on the Doctor's crib (which is supposedly his name, though I know that's hotly debated right now ), it might come as something of a relief - like a pressure lifting from his shoulders. Less, "Oh, there was more than one time I would tell her", more "Oh, so that's how she knows! So I don't have to have said anything at all".


We haven't seen the situation to which Tennant was referring, because that and her seeing his name on the crib are likely two different times. Tennant's Doctor probably thought something along the lines of "She knows my name! But how could she know? I must've told her - but why would I do that? There's only one time I would! She must be my future wife/the mother to my child!" but now that we know River could read Gallifreyan and thus know his name by the means of the writing on the crib (like you said, assumedly), we don't actually have to see that at all.

Think of it as though you had a very embarrassing middle name. You probably wouldn't tell everyone what it was, so the only time someone outside of your immediate family (but close to you) could plausibly know what it was would be, in your mind, if you were to marry (and your full name was used). Now, if your fiance found out what your middle name was before you got married, from reading your future daughter's birth certificate (for example) your mind would probably leap to the most logical assumption - that they would only know because they had married you and thus it was revealed in the ceremony, not because they could read it in x, y or z place.

Why do I think this is becoming more non-sensical as I go on? Please tell me it all makes sense!

No no, you're making sense. I get what you mean. I just wonder whether that might be a slight let down dramatically if true. If it turned out the one time wasn't actually what he thought it was and she just got it from reading his cot, River's death in Forest of the Dead loses something a bit.

Say what you've said is true (if I've understood you right. Feel free to lambast me if I've once again got this wrong) and then you go back and watch Forest of the Dead and see Tennant's reaction to River's death. You'd think something like 'if only he knew that she got it off his cot and so he doesn't need to get all worked up.'

But if she does turn out to be his wife/mother of child, it would retain some power.

Lambast away!

What he says, very specifically is "River, you know my name. You whispered my name in my ear. There's only one reason I would ever tell anyone my name. There's only one time I could."

He places such significance on the fact that she knows his name, even implying that there's only one possible explanation. In addition, this one reason has been kept secret from the audience. It would be a disappointment if it then turned out that this secret reason was actually not how she knew at all, and just a red herring.

After the Library incident, I did think, as Helbore said up thread, that whatever occasion it would be when a Timelord tells his/her name (marriage, probably) wouldn't necessarily apply, because the Doctor would know that he would have to tell River his name in order to save her.

It could be quite casual, over tea and scones one afternoon.

Now the Doctor seems to think they are going to get quite kissy-kissy etc and River implies they become more intimate, so I think it is marriage when he "tells" her (even if she already knows from reading his cot).

I loved the way the Doctor seemed so chuffed about this possible future with River. I hope I'm right about it. I hope they come to Darillium for their honeymoon.