Does anyone want a thread for people who are happy for Harry and Meghan? Thread 4

[Mummy195]

Hope you don't mind Dave.

LaMarschallin

Yes, I understood it was an attempt at humour.

SetPhasersTaeMalkie

LaMarschallin

Yes, I understood it was an attempt at humour.

Oh, well done!

Because in your previous post you didn't seem to understand the attempt:

14:10SetPhasersTaeMalkie

Again, in the spirit of the thread, Archie really isn't an absolute munter.

I really don't understand why anyone would post this.

I understood you were trying to be funny. It still doesn't mean I understand why you posted it.Yes, I get It - to be funny.

It wasn't.

More peace pipe required, maybe?

I'm sure I'd wince equally at the dearth of vocabulary.
I'm even more bored with lazy vocabulary.
I'm not someone who thinks all babies/toddlers are gorgeous (there are some absolute munters)
If you really can't understand (and I doubt that, as you don't seem stupid), read back a bit
Actually, I believe that you don't see that. I totally believe that you were unable to understand that I was merely criticising tabloid speak.
*But I'm so glad those scrawny babies I produced are able to:

1. use a varied vocabulary
2. spot a joke when it's waving its knickers in the air and shouting "I'm a joke!"*

Charming, such an inveigler*. You didn't do that good a job, you're not as wry and clever as you think you are.

*Just for you

I get It - to be funny.

Fair enough.

I don't get why people put random capitals in their posts.

I think it was funny.
You think it wasn't.

I'll get over it.

Sorry: : It.

(Really must stop now.

Too easy.)

I don't get why people put random capitals in their posts.
It is usually due to typing on mobile phone keyboards.

Another day another deliberate derail.
Its so yesterday.
I am starting to wonder about it all.
Anyways, it was a lovely video of a happy child.
I really don't understand anyone using it as a tool to attack.

I am still trying to get my head round titles.

Thanks thisenglishlife.

We should just ban all titles @samcro

Ahh but if we did,

What would I think about to get to sleep

No-one want to put their money on who he favours? I'm not good at this, (for instance I can't see HMQ in Charlotte, no matter how much everyone else sees a resemblance) but Archie looks predominantly Markle to me.

Although pale skinned at the moment he has brown eyes which I hope means he has the sort of colouring that likes the LA climate, otherwise it could be a bit miserable for him growing up there.

Anyway, he looks well fed and much loved.

I think he was gorgeous but I’m a sucker for babies. I’m particularly miffed as my neighbour has had a baby & I can’t cuddle. She’s even more miffed as I was designated babysitter.

I think Archie looks like Thomas Markle senior, but that he might have strawberry blonde hair, so a bit of Harry's colouring. Harry looks far more like Diana's sister than Diana, but I can see Charles in him as he gets older.

He is not he was - duh!

Talking of likenesses... I think this is uncanny... Princess Charlotte and Sarah Chatto. (daughter of Princess Margaret)

@Samcro
why just why? is that how low people are going to try and find fault in a baby?

She wasn't finding fault in a baby. Why did you default to negative?

@Rousette, I don't think Charlotte looks Sarah Chatto at all - different face shape, different eyes, nose and mouth.

I also think Archie looks like Thomas Markle.

LaMar I didn't read criticism in any of your comments. You sound like me, underwhelmed by babies that we aren't related to. Archie looks like a sweet little boy but he's not Jesus.

Isn't it funny how people see things differently. To me they're like two peas in a pod. But there you go

I just didn't get the "joke"

It happens.

Not getting dragged into another row.

I can't remember what her dad looks like, so can't comment on that.

I used to think my ds looked like my brother, its only as he got older i realise i was seeing myself.

I can see what you mean Roussette but I can also see the differences.

I remember H quite clearly as a baby and I don't see much similarity between him and Archie. H's features were finer and he was less stockily built. All that could change of course. At the moment Archie looks very much a Markle, to me at least.

Arch (as she calls him) is just a baby. Looks like any other to me, neither more nor less 'cute' or 'adorable'. He looks healthy though, which is good. Not sure storytime was his 'thing' today though, and he appeared to prefer a different book to the one that was being read to him.

I have forgotten about one year olds, is he huge or is she tiny, or is it just that growth phase where they look much bigger than actual babies?

Isn't that typical of a 1 year old, they never want to do what yiu want.

They were lucky he didn't throw the book if he didn't want it.

Hope this posts

They look the same here