Howling:The first incarnation of River couldn't have killed the Doctor on Lake Silencio...

Is it just me, or does it have to be the third incarnation (Alex Kingston) of River that kills the Doctor? Because the media constantly reports that it was "a toddler", etc., that did. Assuming that the little red-haired girl at the orphanage was the first incarnation of Melody/River, she could not have killed the Doctor because she regenerated in 1969 into Mels after escaping out the astronaut suit. In "A Good Man Goes to War", the Doctor said that the Silence (Madame Kovarian, etc.) would take her to Earth to "raise her in the proper environment", so I guess that would be the Silence-infested orphanage, where maybe some of her training took place. I think the spacesuit was "coming to eat her" so the Silence could transport her to 2011 so she could kill the Doctor, but she escaped, got a disease, and regenerated six months later. Based on "Let's Kill Hitler" (where River says she might gradually take down her age to freak people out), it seems that, being half-human and half-Time Lord, she can change her age as she likes. So she probably lived 20 years (because it appears she has no access to time travel) before she caught up to Amy and Rory's timestream and lived with them. By the time she regenerates into River ("Let's Kill Hitler"), she has not yet killed the Doctor and is eager to accomplish the task. At the end of this episode, Rory remarks how the River they know is in prison. So, presumably, the astronaut came back for her (somehow...I'm assuming this will happen in the finale) and she killed the Doctor in 2011.

So this opens a lot of questions that make it more interesting than it seems: What would compel River to kill the Doctor after we saw her change in "Let's Kill Hitler"? Is she part of a big Silence master plan...or is she the creator of it? And by the way, since Lake Silencio is spanish for "Silence", do you think there could be a Silence stronghold underneath it? That would explain the astronaut rising out of the water. Glimmer721 22:08, September 18, 2011 (UTC)

So far we don't know which incarnation of River/Melody was in the spacesuit at Lake Silencio. From the records available to the crew of the Teselecta, we know they believe it was River/Melody and that they also believe the Doctor's death on that date is a fixed point. However, the older River/Melody who was watching (with Amy and Rory) seemed quite genuinely not to know what was going on. Bearing in mind the abilities of the Silence aliens, it's entirely possible that the little girl (Sydney Wade) incarnation could have been the one in the spacesuit but subsequently have had her memories suppressed. Later incarnations would not then know that the programmed mission had already been accomplished (or apparently accomplished). In that case, the Mels (Nina Toussant-White) incarnation and the pre-change-of-heart River (Alex Kingston) incarnation might well still have tried to kill the Doctor -- the programming was still in effect and (as far as memory was concerned) the mission had yet to be fulfilled. If it was the post-change-of-heart River (Alex Kingston) incarnation who was in the spacesuit then, as noted above, we have to explain not only a switch back to murderousness but a further subsequent switch to the River we've seen most of -- the one who eventually gives her life to save the Doctor in the Library. The trouble is, given what we know the Silence can do and the (potential) availability of time travel, it's possible to explain any of these possibilities, plus others I can think of but haven't put in here, plus (I expect) more others I've not thought of. What's not (yet) possible is to eliminate any of them. To put it briefly: Insufficient data! --89.242.66.251 23:01, September 18, 2011 (UTC)

The interesting thing about the Teselecta records is that they know Melody was the one in the spacesuit, and it's the River Song incarnation that they know. Notice right after she regenerates, one of the crew says, "That's definitely Melody Pond", as if they hadn't been sure until seeing the face the recognize. Of course you can explain this in other ways. For example, their records would presumably have the face she had in the Library, because that's where they're supposed to punish her, at the end of her life. And yet, Amy doesn't ask the Teselecta to show records of Melody Pond, but of River Song. Maybe this means that Melody Pond, in her River body, kills the Doctor in 2011, without having ever changed her name. Amy and the Doctor are remembering, and the records of River Song are showing, a previous version of history or whatever where she didn't kill the Doctor and did change her name. (Remember, Moffat has established that time travelers remember the old history when history changes.) In other words, the Doctor's death is on an alternate timeline, and may even be the point of divergence for that timeline; by preventing his death, they enable Melody to become River. Which sounds great at first, but when you think about it, it's horribly tragic, because they know River will fall in love with the Doctor, then begin meeting him earlier and earlier in his timeline (before the first kiss, etc.), and in a few short years she'll die in the Library with a Doctor who didn't even know her.

As for the 1970 stuff, just one comment: If she didn't time travel (and wasn't put into stasis or something by the Silence), are you suggesting she lived 20 years as a toddler in New York? Out of all the possibilities, that one seems the least likely. She could have lived 20 years in New York and then regenerated into a toddler in 1990, but in that case, we have no reason to believe she was a toddler in 1970. (The only evidence that she was a toddler in 1970 is "Last time I tried this, I ended up a toddler", not "every time" or "both times".) If you don't want another regeneration, then you pretty much have to assume that the spacesuit "coming to eat her" was either going to put her in stasis or send her into the future (or just hold onto her so the Silence could send her into the future through other means). --70.36.140.19 02:43, September 19, 2011 (UTC)

I've not seen anyone suggest Melody lived 20 years as a toddler in New York. We don't know how she got from NY in 1970 to Leadworth in the 1990s. That's one part of the puzzle but, in a time travel show, it doesn't have to be an important part because there are several ways she could have done it. The trouble isn't that nobody can think of a way to account for the known facts; it's just the opposite: lots of people can think of lots of ways to account for the known facts but, so far, nobody has enough information to narrow it down to just one way. --89.242.66.251 04:13, September 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * Quoting Glimmer721 from the start of this thread: "So she probably lived 20 years (because it appears she has no access to time travel) before she caught up to Amy and Rory's timestream and lived with them." And she was very young when she caught up to them. Which means she either stayed a toddler for 20 years, was able to not just tweak her age but change it from 22 to 2, or regenerated again. There are, of course, many other possibilities that don't involve her living 20 years through normal time, but those were explicitly excluded. --70.36.140.19 04:21, September 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * Quoting from your quote of Glimmer721: "it appears she has no access to time travel". That only (so far) means we don't know whether she had or not -- and it needn't have been Melody herself who had access to it. The people who originally kidnapped Amy and later kidnapped the baby Melody obviously did have access to time travel. They equally obviously were not the kind simply to let their "weapon" slip from their grasp without trying to retieve her. I fully agree we don't know time travel was used but we have no way yet of knowing it wasn't. It's not the only possibility but it remains one of the possibilities. --78.146.179.196 20:59, September 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * Glimmer721 is clearly saying that she probably lived 20 years, given that his actual statement is "she probably lived 20 years". The fact that you disagree with that statement is fine, but it doesn't change the fact that he said it. --70.36.140.19 03:10, September 20, 2011 (UTC)


 * It's rather clear that I was disagreeing with what Glimmer721 said, not denying he'd said it. That being so, your response seems somewhat pointless. --78.146.178.98 12:28, September 20, 2011 (UTC)