Sorry if I'm being dense, but didn't the events of the Doctor's Wife happen after the perfume came out? I got the impression we were looking at pre-TIA Amy and Rory...

I didn't get that impression. There was nothing to suggest when in Amy's timeline this story took place. It could have been pre-TIA or post-TGC.

It was the date on Craig's newspaper: 19 April 2011, I think. 23 April 2011 is when the Doctor died.

This is exactly what I thought, is this a continuity error or what? The way it's set up would suggest that many months had passed since The Doctor dropped them off home, in that time Amy had launched a perfume yet it takes place before, or during the time that they travel to America to meet The Doctor leading to his death. So what, did he drop them off many months before the earlier versions of them left for America and if so there can't have been two separate versions of Amy and Rory at the same time.

Someone tweet Moffat. Or Roberts. We need an answer!

and i dont recall amy being the face of perfume b4 that???

But we know that at some point the real Amy was replaced with her flesh version. So one of them is the Amy that signs the autograph, and the other is the one who battles Uncle.

I really hate the convoluted story and time line Moffat created. I don't think it adds anything to the series whatsoever.

What's this rumor that the perfume bottle is the shape of the newly redesigned Emperor Dalek....

@lucille7777 I agree fully that story telling wise it adds very little (with a few exceptions), but it makes more logical sense for there to be so much complexity as opposed to RTD's simplistic approach.

@HarrySaxon: "Complexity" is not a bad thing, but being inexplicable is. Posters are debating when in the time line all of this occurred and we shouldn't have to guess. Perhaps the Doctor could tell someone, in one of his many rants and for the benefit of the viewer, at what time something significant is occurring because I, and others I'm sure, don't find confusion entertaining.

I find confusion inherent in time travel. It is the very reason Time Lords didn't allow themselves to get involved, even in the face of tragedy. Change the past, change the future, go back and fix the past, change the present, drop your sports almanac, alter the past, alter the future. Even Bill and Ted figured that out to some degree, but isn't that what we love about The Doctor? Or is it just banter, trench coats, and romance with shop girls?

I think basically what we have here is a scriptwriter wanting to pay tribute to a previous episode and have a touching moment, and in the process creating a minor continuity problem.

When you do a time-travel show these things happen. Rose Tyler missed a year in series 1 and that's caused no end of problems in terms of Martha and Donna's continuity.

I say the best approach is "shrug shoulders and move on"

this is from episode TWELVE the doctors wife is episode FOUR. further, the TARDIS says he WILL ask (meaning at some point in his future timeline) what it means. so, easy enough: the time the TARDIS is speaking of when he asks what "petrichor" means is when amy tells him about the ad contract for a perfume called "Petrichor". NOT that difficult, sheesh

amy pond will never be short of a few bob or two-first she becomes a fashion model and then-after being zapped back in time by a weeping angel the successful children's author amelia williams-although,surely,amy must have ceased to then exist in 2011?,but,then this is typical of 'the impossible girl'