Maud Angelica and Leah Isadora: discussion

[Lena]

An very unusual photo of a Royal mum....but I have to say that I like it!

Interview with Märtha for the magazine, in which the photos are.

 

[Elizajane]

Originally posted by Lena@Nov 4th, 2003 - 9:36 am
An very unusual photo of a Royal mum....but I have to say that I like it!

Interview with Märtha for the magazine, in which the photos are.

Great cover page with Martha Louise and little Maud! Very unique indeed and I also like it. I'm wondering what may be in store with Mette-Marit and her baby as per photographs such as this? Oh, how I wish I could speak and learn Scandavavian languages!

 

[Alexandria]

Maud Angelica's first Christmas -- and looking absolutely adorable!

 

[Fireweaver]

Little maud is getting rather tall. the way her legs are dangling make me think she's going to be over the average height for a girl

 

[Britters]

I don't want to start a huge discussion about this but I am going to reply to Lena's comment (and I mean no offense to you Lena I'm just stating the other side of things!)

The designer labels that you pay so much for are, a lot more often, of better quality. BEcause the designers are receiving such a large sum of money for each particular article of clothing, the designers and makers are able to use a higher quality of fabric.

Besides that, not many children know that Valentino or Fendi are these amazing designers that young. In fact up until they are in their teens most probably don't even understand the concept of "labels."

I also don't think that the Royals and what not dress their children in designer label fashion when the child is going to go and play outside or what not. But when they are going to church, or someplace where the family is sure to be photographed the parents are a bit more concious of that their child is wearing.

 

[moby]

on a sidenote, ari behn looks like that guy from the movie A VIEW FROM THE TOP.. the guy playing gwyneth's love interest?? i forgot his name.

 

[Josefine]

Maud Angelica will be 1 year may 29

 

[Alexandria]

Originally posted by Josefine@Apr 27th, 2004 - 2:49 pm
Maud Angelica will be 1 year may 29

Actually Maud Angelica's birthday is April 29.

 

[moosey60]

We'll hopefully see some new photos of Maud Angelica on Thursday to celebrate her 1st birthday!

 

[norwegianne]

Maud Angelica crying at Ingrid Alexandra's baptism
http://www.vg.no/bilder/bildarkiv/1082272506.17064.jpg

 

[Alisa]

I have never seen a 1 year old baby with no hair....

 

[Alexandria]

Originally posted by Alisa@Apr 28th, 2004 - 12:54 pm
I have never seen a 1 year old baby with no hair....

Lots of babies don't have hair, even at 1. I did not have hair until I was two and a half/three years of age. Some babies, like Catharina-Amalia are born with lots of hair.

 

[norwegianne]

Well, she has hair. Maybe it's just very fine hair?

 

[Josefine]

http://www.aftenposten.no

a great photo

 

[Alisa]

Lots of babies don't have hair, even at 1. I did not have hair until I was two and a half/three years of age. Some babies, like Catharina-Amalia are born with lots of hair.

I have never seen one..I had a lot of hair as a baby...even at 5 months old there was enough hair to hold cute little clips.. :flower:

 

[Alexandria]

Originally posted by Alisa@Apr 28th, 2004 - 5:12 pm
I have never seen one..I had a lot of hair as a baby...even at 5 months old there was enough hair to hold cute little clips.. :flower:

Just because you have not seen any babies without hair at a year old does not mean that they do not exist, and that all babies have a head of hair at a year old. Unless you have seen every baby in the world through all of time to verify that this is true and a matter of fact ... This seems to be such an important issue for you that at one Maud Angelica does not have hair yet, are you suggesting that there is something "unusual" or "odd" about Maud Angelica because of this?

Looking at the 2 pictures Josefine posted, I think norwegianne is right in that Maud Angelica has very fine hair, almost like peach fuzz it seems.

 

[Alisa]

Just because you have not seen any babies without hair at a year old does not mean that they do not exist, and that all babies have a head of hair at a year old. Unless you have seen every baby in the world through all of time to verify that this is true and a matter of fact ...  This seems to be such an important issue for you that at one Maud Angelica does not have hair yet, are you suggesting that there is something "unusual" or "odd" about Maud Angelica because of this?

Looking at the 2 pictures Josefine posted, I think norwegianne is right in that Maud Angelica has very fine hair, almost like peach fuzz it seems.

Relax, you are making a big deal out of nothing really. I am not suggesting anything at all, I was simply stating that I have never personally seen a 1 year old without of hair. :flower:

 

[Alexandria]

Originally posted by Alisa@Apr 28th, 2004 - 9:56 pm
Relax, you are making a big deal out of nothing really. I am not suggesting anything at all, I was simply stating that I have never personally seen a 1 year old without of hair. :flower:

It just seemed to me that it was an "issue" for you that Maud Angelica had no hair as you insisted that you had not seen any babies at that age without hair and even mentioned how much hair you had at a mere 5 months, full of clips and bows.

If my personal interpretation of your comments is wrong, then that is my mistake, but there is absolutely no need to tell me or anyone else for that matter who may/may have misinterpreted your comments to "relax."

 

[Alisa]

just seemed to me that it was an "issue" for you that Maud Angelica had no hair as you insisted that you had not seen any babies at that age without hair and even mentioned how much hair you had at a mere 5 months, full of clips and bows.

It was never an issue, I was just making a comment. :flower: You then replied to my post and spoke about yourself having hair at 2 1/2 and that's why I spoke about when I had hair.

If my personal interpretation of your comments is wrong, then that is my mistake, but there is absolutely no need to tell me or anyone else for that matter who may/may have misinterpreted your comments to "relax."

Yes, your personal interpretation of my comment is wrong. My apologies for telling you to "relax", I just saw no need for you to get defensive about a totally harmless statement. If you were not sure about the intentions of my comment all you had to do was ask. :flower:

 

[renats]

I think that Maud is extremelly adorable. But I like her better when she's serious. Nothing against her smile but when she's smilling she looks too common. Like 90% of the babies. If I was babysitting a smilling Maud Angelica and another baby, I could easily return the girl to the wrong mother. But when she's serious, she looks different. Different in a good way. "Rare" kind of different. And she'll look even better when her hair grows.

 

[Josefine]

how cute is this...

her first christmas

 

[poes]

Has anyone else noticed that martha-louise isn't paying attention as much to her baby as Ari is in the pictures? It might just be a coincidence, but Ari is holding the baby most of the time. They are a lovely family though.

 

[norwegianne]

Originally posted by poes@Apr 30th, 2004 - 3:46 pm
Has anyone else noticed that martha-louise isn't paying attention as much to her baby as Ari is in the pictures? It might just be a coincidence, but Ari is holding the baby most of the time. They are a lovely family though.

Well, on most of the events that we get photos off, ie. public engagements, Märtha is strictly speaking at work... But she was carrying her straight after the birth, and some other events... so they seem to share. But since Märtha's working, even if it is family events, it seems logical that Ari, who works at home, takes care of Maud Angelica while she does it.

They have both stated that they share the responsibilities equally.

 

[Alexandria]

Originally posted by norwegianne+Apr 30th, 2004 - 6:13 pm--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (norwegianne @ Apr 30th, 2004 - 6:13 pm)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-poes@Apr 30th, 2004 - 3:46 pm
Has anyone else noticed that martha-louise isn't paying attention as much to her baby as Ari is in the pictures? It might just be a coincidence, but Ari is holding the baby most of the time. They are a lovely family though.

Well, on most of the events that we get photos off, ie. public engagements, Märtha is strictly speaking at work... But she was carrying her straight after the birth, and some other events... so they seem to share. But since Märtha's working, even if it is family events, it seems logical that Ari, who works at home, takes care of Maud Angelica while she does it.

They have both stated that they share the responsibilities equally. [/b][/quote]
Also, Maud now a year old might be quite heavy to be carried around for long periods of time, so Martha Louise might not be able to carry her for as long as Ari can. Walking around and carrying a 20-30+ pound baby can be exhausting, I'm sure.

 

[Bubbette]

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/bildeser...309.ece?start=7 cute

 

[moosey60]

Very cute picture from her presentation:

Hello, world!

 

[Josefine]

there will be a brother or sister for Maud Angelica in april of 2005

 

[Mandy]

June 26, 2004 - Maud Angelica, Märtha Louise and Ari Behn.
From www.cover.es

 

[Larzen]

Maud Angelica is sitting on the lap of Didrik Digernes(I think that is his name) husband of Marianne Ulrichsen, Märthas maid of hounor. They are expecting their first baby a little before Märtha and Ari is expecting their 2.

 

[Mandy]

Maud Angelica is sitting on the lap of Didrik Digernes(I think that is his name) husband of Marianne Ulrichsen, Märthas maid of hounor. They are expecting their first baby a little before Märtha and Ari is expecting their 2.

Larzen, this is great news about Marianne Ulrichsen. Thanks for sharing it with us.