As someone who has watched Love Actually approximately 7 million times in my life, there are some things that are just facts in my mind: 1) Keira Knightley is supposed to play a full-grown adult.
2) This adorable child (played by Thomas Brodie-Sangster) is supposed to be AN ACTUAL CHILD — probably like 7 or 8 years old.
So when I saw a particularly shocking Tumblr post making the rounds this week, I was — as the kids say — shooketh.
UMMMMMM, PARDON ME???????
Let me quickly repeat that for anyone in the back: THEY WERE ONLY FIVE YEARS APART. The bride whose marriage was interrupted by a ridiculous guy holding signs is only five years older than the child who ran through an airport because he was in love with an American girl.
If you're like me, you just googled their ages. If you're not like me — here they are for reference:
This shocking factoid was thrust into national attention thanks to this viral tweet:
HOW THE FUCK
Some people have made the obvious point that puberty is a thing that happens and that there is a big difference between 13 and 18...
"it's called puberty" yes i know thanks captain obvious. but still. he looked 7 and that's what's "shocking"
...but honestly, they both looked NOTHING like their actual ages:
so uhhh he was 13 and looked 8 and she was 18 and looked 25 ... interesting https://t.co/ZXMJYtvWkR
Many people, myself included, are freaking out over this brand new information:
??? Kiera knightly was 17 years of age in love actually???? this cannot be correct . No no ???????? https://t.co/5ZuyhMoPV1
i cant believe keira knightley was 18 when she was in love actually???? im 18 and i look like a toe from hell
i just looked it up and apparently he was 13 in that film???? i thought he was like 6 or 7 what the fuck https://t.co/8enXfd1oGM
thomas brodie sangster doesn’t age and dermatologists hate him for that https://t.co/fKI4bh5sMy
Excuse me while I go attempt to process this for several hours. Bye!
