Howling:The only water in the forest is a river

what does this mean?! It is a given the the river is River song, but the bit about no other water would mean there are no Ponds. So will something happen to Amy?

We can't be sure that the TARDIS was referring to River Song. That is the most obvious answer, but keep in mind, she wasn't particularly good with names(she got Amy and Rory confused and thought Rory was the "pretty one.") Is it likely that the TARDIS would have known River Song's name, and been able to work out the pun. Of course, this isn't the first time the TARDIS has communicated through metaphor.Icecreamdif 03:03, May 17, 2011 (UTC)

Could also be a reference to River Song's death which occured in Forest of the dead, just a thoughtTooty1967 08:36, May 17, 2011 (UTC)

Two theories: The only WATER: #REDIRECT Amy POND, RIVER Song in the FOREST: The Forest in "The Time of Angels" and "Flesh and Stone" is RIVER: River Song Meaning, that Amy Pond = River Song, they are basically the same person. Some people even say that River (=Amy) is a Time Lady, and one of her incarnations is the little child in the two-parter. (from DWO)

Mine: The only water - A metaphor for a person in the forest - A metaphor for the TARDIS is River - River Song

Meaning, the only person the Doctor can believe is River... How about that?Drwhobg 14:17, May 17, 2011 (UTC)

That seems a bit convoluted. The only thing that Amy and River have in common, apart from knowing the Doctor, is that there names both relate to water. We have already seen River Song in 2 forests anyway (the artificial forest on the Byzantium, and the Vashta Nerada's "forest" in Forest of the Dead), and it is possible that we will eventually see another forest. The TARDIS was shown to see events non-linearly in that episode, so it is likely that she was warning Rory about something that hasn't hapenned yet. The phrase will probably make more sense when we are given more information, but it seems a big step to go from "the only water in the forest is a river," to "River Song and Amy Pond are the same person and they are both also the little girl."Icecreamdif 21:06, May 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Icecreamdif. Sure, it could mean Amy and River are the same person, but there are a million other possibilities, and we probably don't have enough knowledge yet to figure it out. Of course there's no harm in speculating, but according to regulation 734/Pear/3, any speculation that's that convoluted, with that little backing, must also assert that at least one character is the Rani. --99.35.132.17 13:16, May 20, 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh my god, can I please have your permission to use the regulation thing on other forums? XD Sorryaboutthatchief 07:41, May 25, 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure, have fun. As a government regulation of the Third Great and Bountiful Empire, it's in the public domain. :) --99.20.128.35 07:49, May 25, 2011 (UTC)

And that would mean that the Rani is.... Rory. Boblipton 17:21, May 20, 2011 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that we've seen a few other water themed names since the end of Series 4. The Next Doctor's guest hero was named Jackson LAKE and The WATERs of Mars' named Adelaide BROOKE. The "only water" could refer to either of them as well. This also reminded me of one of the most peculiar moments from Eleventh Hour where The Doctor asks Amy how she knows that a duck pond is a duck pond is it hasn't got any ducks in it. Probably not related in any way, but I felt that it might be worth a mention. 99.246.114.146 15:06, May 24, 2011 (UTC)


 * So you think we should be asking how an Amy Pond is an Amy Pond if it hasn't got any Amy in it? I like that somehow, although I have no idea what it could mean....


 * Wow, someone was really on top of things... Kudos! --12.22.110.54 19:21, August 25, 2011 (UTC)


 * Anyway, Moffat has said again and again that all those water names were just a coincidence, and pointed out that half of them weren't even created by him. But maybe he's protesting a little too much. Or maybe that's exactly what he wants us to think, so we won't believe it's a red herring, but it actually is. But what if _that's_ exactly what he wants us to think, so we won't be expecting the truth? But [snip infinite recursion]... That sneaky bastard! It's almost as if what he actually wants is for us to stop second-guessing him and just watch the episodes he writes (which, of course, even has to know is never going to happen). --99.35.132.17 02:57, May 25, 2011 (UTC)