Alexander Palace Forum

Books and Films about the Romanovs and Imperial Russia => Books about the Romanovs and Imperial Russia => Topic started by: Crazy_Claire01 on April 02, 2004, 06:06:10 AM

Title: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Crazy_Claire01 on April 02, 2004, 06:06:10 AM
Has any 1 read this book? I've just started reading this book and it's brill! This is the book to read if you wanna know what really happened to the Romanovs. :D
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Antonio_P.Caballer on April 02, 2004, 07:12:26 AM
Hello Claire,
I´ve read and reread this book and you will find it´s the best book to this day about the last days of the Romanovs. The research and information is outstanding. You can also ask Penny for their special edition of some material not included in the book.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Louise on April 02, 2004, 12:07:14 PM
I have just started on FOTR, and I have to say I am so impressed with the book. I am just on Ruin of An Empire and already so many myths and misconceptions about the Romanov's are being debunked. Instead of the fables regarding the Imperial couple, I'm starting to see the "real" people they were. I think I'm going to admire them more with thier faults than I do already with their perfections.

I really did consider calling into work this afternoon and saying I had a bad cold. However responsibility won out. However, I am bringing the book to work with me and I WILL find time to read.

Louise
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Robert_Hall on April 03, 2004, 12:51:17 PM
I think just about everyone on this entire board has read it!  Personally I am very impressed & particularly appreciate the refreshing perspective on the family itself. I would like to see a "pre-quel" Tobolsk and even before.  Considering the massive research involved,  Penny & Greg must have at least one other volume in them !
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Sarai on April 03, 2004, 01:42:46 PM
I have not yet read this book, but I must admit that this board has done a lot to promote it, as I have heard nothing but good things about it here! Whereas before I didn't know much about this book, now I definitely want to purchase it after reading so much about it here. It certainly seems like "required reading" for Romanov buffs. It especially intrigues me because after having read so much about this subject and thinking one has read just about all there is to know, this book contains new information, which is exactly what I am seeking.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: _Rodger_ on April 03, 2004, 02:23:27 PM
Actually, this board seems to function as an advertising and cheerleading venue for King and Wilson.  That's okay I suppose, but it's important also to bear that in mind.

I've read the book, but there are some serious issues regarding sources and speculation, and that King and Wilson may have been too reliant particularly on questionable Soviet sources.


 
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Penny_Wilson on April 03, 2004, 03:58:17 PM
Quote
Actually, this board seems to function as an advertising and cheerleading venue for King and Wilson.  That's okay I suppose, but it's important also to bear that in mind.


I'm not sure how fair this comment is.  I think that our book is popular right now because it's the latest publication.  As soon as the next one comes along from someone else, I'm sure we'll be last week's news.  8)


Quote
I've read the book, but there are some serious issues regarding sources and speculation, and that King and Wilson may have been too reliant particularly on questionable Soviet sources.


To be fair to us, we didn't just willy-nilly use any and all Soviet sources to come our way.  We always prodeeded with caution, weighing and measuring ALL testimony very carefully -- whether Bolshevik, Soviet or monarchist in origin.  Everyone involved in this case had an agenda!

Ultimately, the people who tend to think that we overly relied on Soviet sources are those who think that the murders may not have happened at all -- because after all, we only have Bolshevik testimony that it did!  So perhaps because Greg and I believe that the murders happened, we have already gone too far, in some opinions, in "trusting" Soviet sources.

I sense that you, Rodger, have serious doubts that the murders ever took place.  And I really, really would like someone to explore that possibility seriously -- more recently than Summers and Mangold, I mean.  In the present with so much more available to researchers.  The Fate of the Romanovs, while being the most recent "word" on the case (and what we believe) is certainly not the "last word" on the case.  And I, for one, can't wait for next!
  :D

Penny
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: _Rodger_ on April 03, 2004, 04:42:16 PM
Hi Penny,

And here I thought I was being so coy about my own beliefs on the matter . . .  ;)
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: _Rodger_ on April 03, 2004, 05:04:51 PM
But wait!  I wasn't finished.  The machine went ahead and posted before I could finish.   :o

Yes, I am one of those wackoes who doubts the murder ever took place at all.  I'll keep my eyes open for Valmont's empty straight jacket, lest it be tailored specifically for my size.   :P

Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Penny_Wilson on April 03, 2004, 09:43:39 PM
You are WAY too cool ever to end up in Uncle Valmont's straight-jacket, Rodger!  8)
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Janet Whitcomb on April 04, 2004, 12:33:08 PM
Hey, I like my Uncle Valmont!   :D

The King/Wilson book is being discussed because it is the most current publication, and also because it is quite detailed, and also because it is highly iconoclastic. I've found a few errors--minor things that should have been caught by the editors--but overall I think it is an extremely fine book, and I'm very grateful to Penny King and Greg Wilson for their scholarship and labor.

I always leave room for "new developments," and who knows what information might come forth as time goes on. But after all the evidence that so far has been brought to our attention, it seems extremely unlikely that any of the  Ipatiev prisoners survived.  Plus, when it comes to these fanciful stories about escapes and so forth, I keep remembering what I once heard Miep Gies, an employee of Otto Frank's at the time the Frank family went into hiding, tell all of us who attended one of her lectures--"To those who tell me the Holocaust never happened, I say, 'Then where is Anne Frank? Show me Anne. Tell me where she is!'"  

That's the way I feel about the Romanov situation. And those who did claim to be OTMAA turned out to be charlatans or mental cases. Only Anna Anderson seemed to have some basis for her claims, and she did have some impressive support.  But there were too many inconsistencies, and the DNA evidence was damning . . . though I did feel empathy for Peter Kurth and the Botkin descendents, and certain elements of the story still cause me to question my core beliefs.  

Many of us came to this story hoping--believing!--that someone had survived.  But while it's good to keep an open mind, it's also mentally healthy to avoid denial.  For myself, at least, beyond the romance of the story, I find the saga of Nicholas and Alexandra more of a cautionary tale.  The world cannot afford a World War III.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: ptitchka on April 04, 2004, 04:25:23 PM
I must confess that though I came away from FotR with mixed feelings I think it a monumental piece of work no one with a serious interest in the Imperial Family can ignore.  

Rodger - I must disagree with you about the attempted cremation of the Heir and one of his sisters.  While I agree it's implausible that Alexei and Marie could have been completely disposed of in that manner given those conditions (and please forgive me if this just sounded indelicate), would it not have made sense to their executioners to smother the flames and bury all traces of the pyre?  I have also heard (in anticipation of those that said 'then why haven't the traces been found) that road construction had been done in the Pigs' Meadow area prior to the discovery of the mass grave of the rest of the family, and the last thing the workers would have expected to find was the remains of two children as they churned up the ground.  Maybe the cremation was not attempted in that immediate area....  but if the children had rolled off the cart somewhere on the way, the 'funeral' occurred elsewhere, and may not even have involved burning.

I have a question for Ms. Wilson --  Assuming, ma'am, that, as your book relates, poor Alexei was that brutally slain, the attempt to cremate him failed, and he was buried where he lay, how would the Bolsheviks have explained the whereabouts of whatever sister was later said to have been burnt with him?
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: _Rodger_ on April 04, 2004, 07:22:16 PM
Well, there are two problems with the scenario you've outlined regarding the disposal of the alleged 2 missing 'remains.'

First, they claimed complete destruction.  They literally said that they had cremated the remains and there was nothing left, including clothing, and more importantly, NO TEETH!  

Secondly, that area has been excavated repeatedly for the past century for remains, and nothing credible has been found.

One can conclude from the second point that the first point is correct.  But then that begs the question regarding the ability to cremate remains completely under the conditions described by the 'witnesses.'  

Given the inability of search parties to locate the remains, then a third pathway, so to speak, has to be considered in the absence of any credible evidence.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Robert_Hall on April 04, 2004, 08:50:27 PM
And where is this 3rd avenue?
I am familiar with cremation- & you are correct, teeth must be ground, yet, usuallay small bits are left, which are scattered. That is the answer- to me- scattered.
[not so sure about that word though]
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Penny_Wilson on April 04, 2004, 11:57:14 PM
Quote
I have a question for Ms. Wilson --  Assuming, ma'am, that, as your book relates, poor Alexei was that brutally slain, the attempt to cremate him failed, and he was buried where he lay, how would the Bolsheviks have explained the whereabouts of whatever sister was later said to have been burnt with him?


You must be referring to Yurovsky's 1922 account of the burial in which he claims to have burned only one body, that of Alexei. He is quite clear on this point: "I ordered that we begin the burning with Alexei.  We laid his body down, and soaked it with gasoline, and quickly set it on fire, just to see if it would work, since no one knew how to go about this...It was not possible for us to burn any more of the bodies, for the farmers and workers were beginning to be about..."   He doesn't explain what happened to the missing girl at all, except in a very general way when he wrote that all bodies, except that of the tsesarevich, were put into the grave.

The problem with the cremation is that the accounts of it vary so very much.  Some variance is to be expected, as the statements of the witnesses were given between two and forty-six years after the supposed event.  And things are confused even further by statements from people who were not even on the Koptiyaki road that morning:

In 1920, Yurovsky claimed to have burned two bodies, Alexei and either Alexandra or Demidova.  We know that bodies attributed to Alexandra and Demidova were in the grave, and that neither bore signs of burning/ carbonization.

In 1922, Yurovsky claimed to have burned only Alexei -- presumably the fourth daughter also went into the mass grave, which we know isn't true.

In 1934, Yurovsky was back to burning two bodies, this time, Alexei and "most likely" Demidova.

In 1932 and in 1946, Peter Ermakov claimed that all of the bodies were burned "to ash" by using "five tins of gasoline" and "two buckets of sulfuric acid."  We have two second-hand account from Peter Voikov wherein he agrees with Ermakov that all the bodies were burned.  If you accept that any of the Romanov bodies are represented in the Koptiyaki grave, then all four of these statements are discredited.

In 1963, Michael Kudrin claimed that four bodies were burned; specifically, Nicholas, Alexei, Alexandra and Dr. Botkin.  All eleven bodies, including the four charred ones, were interred in a single grave.  We know that this is not true, because two bodies are missing from the grave (and arguably, the small number of bones left barely account for nine skeletons), and none of those in the grave bear signs of burning/carbonization.  Kudrin, however, admits that he was not at the gravesite -- unlike Ermakov, who gave himself a leading role though it seems most likely that in his drunken state he came and went from the site -- but claims that he heard the details from Isai Rodzinsky.

Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Penny_Wilson on April 04, 2004, 11:57:26 PM
Rodzinsky  claimed to remember burning Nicholas, Dr. Botkin and Alexei, then claimed that "four, five or perhaps six people" in total were cremated.  Again, this is inconsistent with the evidence of the grave -- if you accept that the grave contains the Romanov party -- especially as Rodzinsky claims that the burned half-dozen were buried separately from the remainder.

Gregory Sukhorukov made a statement in 1928 that appeared to hit the jackpot -- he claimed to have been present at the burning of Alexei and Anastasia -- the two bodies that the American team of forensic scientists claim were missing from the grave.  But if you accept that the Russian scientists are correct, and that Maria is missing from the grave, then Sukhorukov gets it wrong -- along with a number of other issues in his statement.  We asked in FOTR, however, how Sukhorukov could have correctly identified a bloodied and damaged female corpse as Anastasia, when he had never seen  her in life, while Yurovsky, who had seen her every day for the last twelve days of her life, misidentified her.

Ultimately, the totality of the evidence points to only Yurovsky and probably Sukhorukov having been at the burial site.  Sukhurukov was one of Ernakov's men whom Yurovsky found at the site that morning, ordered away, but then brought back that evening.

So, as you can see, nothing about this cremation is positively known -- even if it was carried out at all.  It is possible that the cremation was invented as a convenient method of covering up two missing bodies.  This theory is bolstered by the non-discovery of any carbonized remains anywhere for a considerable area surrounding the gravesite -- the thorough, almost "finger-tip" search was confirmed to us by Peter Sarandinaki, who participated.

Also -- and interesting aside:  Had Yurovsky or the Ural Regional Soviet wanted to completely obliterate the bodies of the Romanov party, they had the smelters of the Verkh-Isetsk or Zlokazov Factories at their disposal.  Obviously, however, there was some political value in having actual remains to prove the deaths...

The timing of Sukhorukov's statement was especially interesting to us because of a piece of information that we did not put in the book.  We didn't put it in because we didn't have enough evidence to support it fully.  We believe that in or around 1928, the grave was opened by the Soviets for the purpose of confirming just who was in the grave.  Anna Anderson was making waves in the west, and Stalin's government -- which was not Lenin's government -- may not have been confident in the assassins' statements that all bodies were dead and accounted for.  If you believe that the cremation story was made up as a cover, then Sukhorukov's statement becomes a conveniently-timed piece of anti-Anna Anderson propaganda.  

I could go on (of course!), but late on a Sunday night, with Rodger still to answer, this about sums up the problems with the various accounts of a "cremation."
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Penny_Wilson on April 05, 2004, 12:34:41 AM
Quote
Given the inability of search parties to locate the remains, then a third pathway, so to speak, has to be considered in the absence of any credible evidence.


Our beliefs in this case seem to differ in two places, Rodger:  I believe that there was a murder; you believe there may not have been (I don't want to overstate you here, but correct me if I'm wrong and you do, positively, believe that there was no murder).  You believe they all may have left the Ipatiev House alive; I think that at least two and maybe as many as four could have left that basement room alive, though two obviously died later, probably as a result of their injuries.  

I base this solely on the forensic evidence as it exists on the skeletons removed from the grave: Anyone shot through the head left that room dead.  Marie's and Demidova's skulls did not have head-shots so far as we can tell, though both were badly beaten about the face, shot in other places, and probably stabbed a good number of times.  They may not have been conscious on leaving the murder room, but they could well have still been alive.  

Anastasia and Alexei are entirely unaccounted and therefore we cannot say either way if they left that basement room alive or dead.  But they could well still have been alive too.

We do know from eyewitness testimony (that we have no real reason to disbelieve)  that one "girl" sat up and screamed, and another "girl" turned out also to have been alive.  They could have been any combination of Marie, Anastasia (because we don't know how serious her injuries may have been, absent a body) and Anna Demidova.  I think that two of them -- Marie and Demidova --  died sometime later that night, and are represented in that grave.  

Because we have no skeletal representation of either Anastasia or Alexei, I cannot say for sure that either of them was killed in that room.

Is it possible -- as has been advanced elsewhere on this board -- that Anastasia or Alexei's bodies bounced off the truck on the way to the Four Brothers? Yeah, sure, I guess so; but in my opinion, that's an almost indescribably remote possibility, and not only because the soldiers Soames, Rudolf Lacher and Andras Verhas were also riding in the bed of the truck.

Is it possible that either Alexei or Anastasia survived that night and were rescued from the truck?  Yes, I think so.  And this is a much less remote possibility for me, personally.  There were two windows of opportunity for someone to have effected a rescue:  When the truck was standing in the courtyard, loaded with some bodies, with other bodies scattered through the house and courtyard, where the guards had put them down when Yurovsky summoned them upstairs to discuss looting.  Remember, also, the sympathetic guards of Avdeyev's time who were milling around, shouting things like "Butchers!" and "Murderers!"

The second window of opportunity exists in the woods, while Yurovsky, Lyukhanov and Ermakov were scouting locations and the truck was left in the hands of the three guards, one of whom, Verhas, had earlier refused to shoot the Imperial children.

So yes, it IS possible, in my considered opinion, that someone was rescued that night.  Whether they actually were, or whether they ultimately survived their wounds, is something I don't know and don't want to speculate on.  I want to cover only what we know, or can reasonably deduce from the evidence that we believe to be true.

I'd like to know, Rodger, if you have any theories concerning what may have happened that night, and why the Romanovs may have disappeared.  And where to?

I have to admit that at one point in the research for FOTR, I considered that Anastasia and Alexei may simply have been removed from the house, a la Leonid Sednev, because Lenin HAD recently promulgated a law forbidding the enactment of capital punishment on a minor.  But that's the only time I've ever seriously considered that members of the Romanov party had not gone into the crucible of that basement room.  And I didn't consider it for long, as there is no evidence that I know of that supports such a theory.  But it was an interesting little aside for me...

Penny
(It's late, I'm pretty tired, so that's it for me!)
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: _Rodger_ on April 05, 2004, 01:19:32 AM
Penny,

There are lots of ideas.  

But they aren't worth anything until the DNA matter is properly resolved, which will settle a lot of questions.  

The best way to settle the matter a least as it concerns the Imperial girls, would be independent retesting of a number of maternal line descendants of Queen Victoria; the more, the stronger the resolution.  It is preferrable that they be closer related to her than further.  A GG grandchild has a better chance of providing a clean model of QVs mtDNA than a GGGG grandchild, for a number of reasons.

One subject is insufficient by today's standards to establish identity in a case of this gravity.  Gill and Ivanov only allegedly tested Prince Philip to establish identity of the girls, and the chain of custody, so on and so forth, has not been properly documented and established.  


Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Jane on April 05, 2004, 11:44:29 AM
Well, I finally moved off the waiting list at my local library so I am avidly reading Fate of the Romanovs at this time (so I'll re-read it when my Amazon package arrives).  So far, it's extremely engrossing, and I am hoping to weigh in here soon with more detailed thoughts and impressions after I finish it.  I am most fascinated by all the extra information and facts on the guards in the Ipatiev House.  

Best,

Jane
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Louise on April 05, 2004, 01:30:00 PM
Penny or Greg:

Great book so far. Oh ok, great is a relative word. It's fantasitically terrific!!

A couple of questions though. What made you decide on the front cover picture? I'm just curious about your decision. Also, who is the child in front of Maria and the other people in the back row? One more thing. I have seen this picture several times  and I was wondering where Alexandra is/was?

Louise
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Penny_Wilson on April 05, 2004, 02:00:41 PM
Louise...

We didn't choose the photo; the art director at Wiley did.  We were allowed to select the internal photos (though not their presentation -- we would have preferred a picture section, but our editor thought that having them spread through the book was "classier." Oy) and make a cover suggestion.  We had a gorgeous violet-shaded icon of the family that we wanted to use, but the marketing department wanted a more recognizable photo that could be eye-catching from across a crowded bookstore.

The extra people in the photo are GD Xenia's four youngest sons: Nikita, Rostislav, Dmitri and Vassily.  I don't have the book in front of me, so I can't tell you who is who, but the one in front is little Vassily.

Jane -- I'm glad you're off the list!  I hate waiting for books -- when I want to read one, I want to read it NOW!

Penny
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Janet Whitcomb on April 05, 2004, 02:32:04 PM
Louise, I'm sure that Alexandra was absent due to the cold and the fact that she often was unwell. Anything in the outdoors--especially during such vigorous weather--would probably have been beyond her, except for going back and forth between the imperial suite, the hospital and occasionally places such as Anna's home.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: nerdycool on April 05, 2004, 04:20:17 PM
Alexandra could have also been the one taking the picture...
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Antonio_P.Caballer on April 06, 2004, 10:23:13 PM
Coming back to the lost remains Penny, all this subject seems a never ending story. The fact is that there are two missing bodies and as you have already told many testimonies are fully contradictory and sometimes are motivated to stop any possible especulation of surviving romanovs. And if those people involved lied once(testimonies differs openly), why not do it a second time...Since all the surrounding area has been searched looking for the remaings and nothing is found we must assume that they were lying(yurovsky and co.)and then everything is possible, isn´t it? I do not mean that A. Anderson was Anastasia or Alexey survived(this i consider impossible). But could not be that they were carried somewhere by some soldier trying to save them and they died due to the injuries sometime afterwards?  Were it the case i suppose we´ll never find their bodies.
This could seem perhaps somehow absurd but in this subject you never know for sure: If the grave would have been in fact opened in 1928 to confirm the murder, could they have taken the remains of whom they belived to be Alexey or Anastasia? They could have used them as a proof against Romanovs pretenders if necessary...
What do you think???
Antonio.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: LisaDavidson on April 07, 2004, 12:30:28 AM
Quote
Penny,

There are lots of ideas.  

But they aren't worth anything until the DNA matter is properly resolved, which will settle a lot of questions.  

The best way to settle the matter a least as it concerns the Imperial girls, would be independent retesting of a number of maternal line descendants of Queen Victoria; the more, the stronger the resolution.  It is preferrable that they be closer related to her than further.  A GG grandchild has a better chance of providing a clean model of QVs mtDNA than a GGGG grandchild, for a number of reasons.

One subject is insufficient by today's standards to establish identity in a case of this gravity.  Gill and Ivanov only allegedly tested Prince Philip to establish identity of the girls, and the chain of custody, so on and so forth, has not been properly documented and established.  end quote

Rodger: You are incorrect as to the Victorian mtDNA in several respects. Gill and Ivanov tested Prince Philip's mtDNA to confirm the identification of Alexandra and her three daughters. While the chain of custody of the Koptyaki remains is highly questionable, the chain of custody of PP's test is, I am told, properly documented and established. (I am accepting the word of scientists on these points, as I am not a scientist.)

Second, there have been numerous tests of mtDNA of maternal line Victorian descendants and I know of only one case where the results did not match that of all the others. Whatever you may think of Gill and Ivanov, I understand the work of scientists at Brown University in the US is highly regarded. These scientists were, I believe, the first to test and document the Victorian mtDNA. Their subject was Princess Katherine (Mrs. DeSilva) of Yugoslavia. As it happens, the Gill and Ivanov results for PP exactly matched hers, and their results exactly matched the purported remains of Alexandra and her daughters.

Third, the only non-matching mtDNA was that from a finger purported to be from Grand Duchess Elizabeth. The fact there was no match leads me to believe that the finger was not from GDE.

From what I understand, the evidence is pretty overwhelming that the mtDNA sequence from QV is accurate and has been replicated so many times that it may be used to exclude those who allege descent but whose profiles do not match.


Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: _Rodger_ on April 07, 2004, 12:39:44 AM
Unpublished DNA tests have no validity.

For any scientific conclusion to be properly drawn, the basis for that conclusion has to be sound.

1223 base pairs each from 9 70 year old+ skeletons is impossible.  

Therefore the basis for all of those stories, and the publications, and the heteroplasmy, and the exhuming Georgij, et cetera, is invalid.

Fresh DNA.  You may not understand what that means, and I don't expect you to.  I'm not being condescending on that account, but apparently, it's a difficult concept for some people to fully comprehend.  But scientists experienced in this matter do.  

Besides, Nicholas Kulikovsky's DNA didn't match the published value either.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: LisaDavidson on April 07, 2004, 12:59:37 AM
Penny:

I agree with your line of thought regarding what happened to the bodies.

I've found corroboration for the "rescue off the truck" scenario in a strange and unlikely source. Eugenia Smith - who I think we can all agree was not Anastasia - published her "memoirs" and they are mostly garbage. However, buried in the garbage is a story of a White officer who took two bodies off the truck while it was rumbling through the forest on the night of the murders. If you'd like, I can look up the exact passage.

I found this rather incredible because to my knowledge, two missing bodies was not known in the 1960's when Smith's book was published. I don't know what the odds are of this, but it's the only Western source that has the "body count" correct.

What I surmise is that the two missing ones perished of their wounds - and their bodies may be near the home of a friendly guard - or wherever the "White Officer" was staying.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Greg_King on April 07, 2004, 01:32:33 AM
Interesting, Lisa-I'll have to dig out my Eugenia Smith to take a look.  To me, the main point has nothing to do with potential survival or pretenders-that's a whole other issue-and in this case it's irresponsible history to try to tie one to the other.  It's the issue of the missing bodies, and I'm reasonably sure that by the time they got to the Ganina Mine the Bolsheviks were in fact missing two bodies-hence the absurd and variant claims of attempted cremations ranging from 1 body to all 11-when in fact it would have been utterly impossible to even remotely destroy any substantial portion of one body, let alone two-witness Hitler and Eva Braun.

As we said in the book, missing bodies don't equal survival, but it does mean that the deaths of those two, on THAT night, remain merely a theory of history.  I do tend to find it a plausible theory that they could have been pulled off the Fiat, at the time when it was left alone in the Koptyaki Forest for a half-hour, with only four people-Serge Lukoyanov (the driver who, as Radzinsky claimed, later spent his life half on the run, harboring some secret), and three members of the Verkh-Isetsk Detachment-one of whom had just an hour or so before refused to shoot women and children.  And then there's the cryptic comment from V-I member Rudolf Lacher, who was also on that truck in the forest-"I served the Bolsheviks well-I kept my silence."  Maybe they were half dead and died that night and were secretly buried; maybe they lived for a time, then died; maybe they survived-it's all theoretical.  It's only one theory, but as probable to me as the idea that the two missing bodies were either completely destroyed or that somehow they've just been missed by a decade of searches!

Greg King
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Penny_Wilson on April 07, 2004, 01:38:21 AM
Quote
Penny:

What I surmise is that the two missing ones perished of their wounds - and their bodies may be near the home of a friendly guard - or wherever the "White Officer" was staying.


This is certainly a possibility that would wrap up a lot of loose ends -- if you don't happen to believe in any of the various claimants.

As we presented in FOTR, the whole murder/disposal of the bodies operation was nightmarishly chaotic for Yurovsky.  Given that they had to do most of the work under cover of night, in a forest, in situations which sometimes required bodies being unloaded from the truck and "tossed in the grass," or left in the back of the truck with a skeleton guard, one of whom had a "secret" and another who had just refused to kill children -- I can see where someone whose revolutionary ardor was just so overwhelmed at the carnage could pull a moving person out of a pile of the dead.  And if that person (or two) died of their injuries at a later time, then either they lie buried much further afield in the forest -- and may never be found -- or are buried under assumed names in some local cemetary.

The single item of evidence that most makes me believe that the two kids DID go missing is that Kudrin -- and I think at least one other -- speaks of counting the bodies on several occasions.  It seemed like a piece of overkill.  They were protesting too much.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Penny_Wilson on April 07, 2004, 01:58:01 AM
Quote
Coming back to the lost remains Penny, all this subject seems a never ending story. The fact is that there are two missing bodies and as you have already told many testimonies are fully contradictory and sometimes are motivated to stop any possible especulation of surviving romanovs. And if those people involved lied once(testimonies differs openly), why not do it a second time...Since all the surrounding area has been searched looking for the remaings and nothing is found we must assume that they were lying(yurovsky and co.)and then everything is possible, isn´t it? I do not mean that A. Anderson was Anastasia or Alexey survived(this i consider impossible). But could not be that they were carried somewhere by some soldier trying to save them and they died due to the injuries sometime afterwards?  Were it the case i suppose we´ll never find their bodies.


For Alexei and Anastasia, everything is possible -- because it's all just a theory of history that they died that night.  They could have been pulled alive from the truck in the Ipatiev House courtyard, smuggled across the street -- as Heinrich Kleibenzetl testified -- or they could have been taken by Lyukhanov, Verhas, Soames and Lacher in the forest and hidden away.  Perhaps they died within days and lie buried either elsewhere in the forest or in local cemetaries under assumed names.  Or perhaps they lived on for a few years or many years.  Everything is possible for them until someone is able to prove otherwise...


Quote
This could seem perhaps somehow absurd but in this subject you never know for sure: If the grave would have been in fact opened in 1928 to confirm the murder, could they have taken the remains of whom they belived to be Alexey or Anastasia? They could have used them as a proof against Romanovs pretenders if necessary...
What do you think???
Antonio.


I did shortly wonder if this was possible -- and yet in all the years of the Anna Anderson trial, the Soviets produced no evidence of Anastasia's body.

There is certainly ample evidence that the grave was opened at least once in the eighty years that the bodies lay buried there -- the most glaring evidence being that a whole lot of the bones are simply missing.  Perhaps taken as relics or momento mori, I don't know.  It seems as though the gravesite was an open secret in Ekaterinburg, so I suppose the grave could have been accessed many times.

There are a couple of reasons we think that the grave was opened on Stalin's orders in or around 1928:  The Anna Anderson event in the West; and the fact that things started to go badly for household survivors and survivors of the Ural Regional Soviet.  

Remember that Leonid Sednev died at a ridiculously early age in 1929 -- we don't know from what.  It could have been a genuine disease, sure.  But it could also have been that he was arrested and died under interrogation over what happened that night in the Ipatiev House or what he heard in the Popov House.  Because I think that when that grave was opened, the Soviets then knew for sure that two of the bodies were missing and fear must have struck them that Anna Anderson could well have been Anastasia.

There was not a whole lot of time to go digging up evidence in support of this theory for our book -- it was a minor, tangential line of enquiry for us --  but it DOES seem a totally Stalinish thing to do:  Check the grave; two bodies missing; round up all the likely suspects and interrogate the hell out of them.  :(
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Antonio_P.Caballer on April 07, 2004, 08:43:48 AM
Thanks for your answer Penny,
May be Stalin didn´t need to show the remains(if he had any) because the pretenders were not taken seriously by the Romanovs in exile and then were not a real problem. Anna Anderson was supported by many people but i think that Stalin did not care at all for those recognizing her as Anastasia. They were, after all, only courtiers or servants, perhaps some princes related to the Romanovs and that´s all. I mean that she was never accepted by any important member of the imperial family and therefore was not a political subject.
I´ve been always unwilling to considerate the possibility of two forever missing bodies. That was too cruel for me to belive. Now, i´m realizing that for now it seems the most probable option. Thinking of those so loved children laying  noboby knows where, and lost amidst the chaos and confussion of those times is so terrible...However that was a common fate for the millions of russians  in the years that followed the revolution and civil war, not to speak about Stalin´s camps. Depressing.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: _Rodger_ on April 07, 2004, 10:45:13 AM
Tihkon Kulikovsky's mtDNA did not match the putative Nicholas.

The sample was presented by Mrs. Olga Kulkovsky-Romanov for testing.

Sorry for any confusion.  
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: RobMoshein on April 07, 2004, 10:57:05 AM
Quote


As we presented in FOTR, the whole murder/disposal of the bodies operation was nightmarishly chaotic for Yurovsky.  Given that they had to do most of the work under cover of night, in a forest, in situations which sometimes required bodies being unloaded from the truck and "tossed in the grass," or left in the back of the truck with a skeleton guard, SNIP
The single item of evidence that most makes me believe that the two kids DID go missing is that Kudrin -- and I think at least one other -- speaks of counting the bodies on several occasions.  It seemed like a piece of overkill.  They were protesting too much.


OR, The murderers were well aware of how chaotic it was, and so they wanted to make very sure that they left no body behind as evidence for the White Army, by counting the bodies each time they were moved to be very sure they didn't leave any evidence behind? If I were Yurovsky, I would have made damn well sure that nothing was left behind as best I could...so maybe they weren't protesting too much, but being accurate?
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Penny_Wilson on April 07, 2004, 04:22:18 PM
Well, the problem with thinking that they were correctly counting the bodies is that.... two bodies are missing!  :o

Seriously, I can see the value in counting the bodies -- but at some point that night, the Bolsheviks lost two of them.  After that time, any claims of correct counts of eleven have to be lies.  The difficulty is in determining when the bodies went missing -- if we could do that, then we'd have  a better idea of who was lying.

I'm comfortable with the idea that they were discovered missing fairly early in the course of the night.  I can't remember which it was off the top of my head, but it was either Princess Helen or her secretary Smirnov who recounted the armed house to house searches for missing Romanovs early on the morning of 17 July, at either 6 or 7 o'clock.  And there were searches conducted by armed and mounted groups of men along the Koptiyaki Road all that day.  So these bodies went missing early -- in the first couple of hours after the murders.  And the fact that searches were made both in town and out in the woods makes it evident that the Bolsheviks didn't know exactly when they lost them either.

So if the bodies went missing from the courtyard of the Ipatiev House, then no correct count of eleven could ever have been made, making everyone a covering-up liar.  But if they disappeared from the truck in the forest, the first count made by Kudrin and a probable second count made at the time the bodies were re-loaded onto the truck after pushing the truck from the grade crossing on which it had become stuck were probably right.

In the final analysis though, it hardly matters.  The Bolsheviks lost two Romanovs that night, and any idea of what happened to them can only be a theory.

Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Reed on April 07, 2004, 04:36:47 PM
Penny - you have given me something to ponder.  :) I have always read about two of the bodies missing, but I guess I adhered to the idea they were disposed of at a different place.  How does one lose two corpses??  Not like they are going to get up and walk away!  And why would someone search houses ( new detail for me. ) for dead people? Unless they aren't dead????  Interesting!  

I have always believed that all of the family were murdered that night.  Hmm......  :-/
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: JM on April 07, 2004, 05:05:26 PM
You make a wonderful point Penny :D.

I always thought that the more I learned about the Romanovs, the more sure I would be of what their fate was. However it is quite the opposite. The more I learn the more questions I have.

It's great ;D!

Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Penny_Wilson on April 08, 2004, 09:27:27 AM
Well... we weren't confused over the Church(es).  This is one example in our book of a type-setting error.  There were several that we corrected on the galley proofs.  Some were altered successfully by Wiley -- and some weren't.  This one wasn't, though I think it's clear how we meant it to read.  It WILL be corrected in all future editions, believe me!  >:(

The error that really frosts me is in Nagorny's paragraph, where one sentence says he had black hair and the next says he had red.  Nagorny, of course, had black hair.  The red-headed sentence was misplaced in typesetting from Sednev's paragraph, which followed Nagorny's.  For some reason, this one bothers me most of all!

But in any book -- so I'm told by more experienced authors -- there are going to be a certain number of these things going on.  File under "sh** happens," I guess...  ???

Edited to say:  Hey!  Who knew that that was a forbidden word!  I demand my expletives!  He he he... ;D

Edited by FA: There are certain words the Board software has pre-programmed to change. I "re-edited" your post to reflect more your "original"...but, we are used by schools and younger children, so watch your "expletives", please.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: BobAtchison on April 08, 2004, 12:53:52 PM
Penny - you say that two of the bodies went missing during the night...

the last all-accounted for 'body count' is Sukhorukov at the mine when they were removed by Sunegin and others, no?

He says they burned the heir and 'the youngest Anastasia'...

Bob
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Greg_King on April 09, 2004, 12:59:31 AM
Quote
Penny - you say that two of the bodies went missing during the night...

the last all-accounted for 'body count' is Sukhorukov at the mine when they were removed by Sunegin and others, no?

He says they burned the heir and 'the youngest Anastasia'...

Bob


Sukhorukov is a conundrum, because there are some serious questions about his account, not to mention his claim that Anastasia was burned (if the Russian forensics experts are to be believed).  Sukhorukov named Ural Regional Cheka head Feodor Lukoyanov as the man who, on the evening of July 17, assembled his group and sent them to retrieve the bodies.  Yet Lukoyanov had not been in Ekaterinburg since late June-he was in Perm-a fact verified by a number of cables sent to and answered by him there, the last on July 19.  Sukhorukov claimed Yurovsky and his friend Pavlushin were present when they rode out to the mine; but Yurovsky was still in Ekaterinburg, and so was Pavlushin-in bed with a sprained ankle, where he remained.  Nor, according to Yurovsky, did he meet a group of men but arrived at the mine to find work already underway.  Yurovsky sent these men-presumably including Sukhorukov-away.  Finally Sukhorukov claimed Alexei was wearing a sailor's shirt, in complete contradiction to the accounts of Yurovsky and Kudrin who specifically state that ALL clothing was stripped and burned.  Finally, Yurovsky wrote that "the boys from the Cheka" only reappeared AFTER the alleged cremation.  So some serious questions about where Sukhorukov was and what he did or did not see.

Greg King
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Jane on April 09, 2004, 04:15:17 PM
Greg and Penny:  I am reading your book right now.  Last night I read your depiction of the night of the murders.  It is the most detailed, chilling, haunting and unsettling imagery I've ever read regarding the massacre (and no other word can apply).  Your book is just stupendous--and I haven't even finished it yet.

Jane
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Olga on April 10, 2004, 11:25:18 AM
i haven't read FOTR yet, but what mention is there of Lenin in it? i don't doubt that the nod for the executions came from him in Moscow. and while i'm here, are there any plans to make this board cyrillic- friendly (russian alphabet)?
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: BobAtchison on April 10, 2004, 12:25:06 PM
Olga:

We would LOVE to have the site in Russian - it would cost a considerable amount unless we could find volunteers!

Bob
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: BobAtchison on April 10, 2004, 12:31:55 PM
Greg, I have absolutely no doubts about Sukhorukov.  Avdonin and Alekseyev told me his account is matched by another independent account they have read that says the same about Aleksey being in the shirt.

He (Sukhorukov) would'nt have known what Anastasia looked like except from pictures  - just that she was the youngest - it sounds like he is making an assumption based on age or someone else told who it was.  The extraction of the bodies from the mine took some time and involved more than one person...

Bob

Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Olga on April 11, 2004, 01:44:17 AM
i would volunteer my services but my russian is fairly basic. what about Galina?
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Almedingen on April 11, 2004, 10:00:24 PM
Greg and Penny,

I loved your book!  Such thorough research.  

With regard to Grand Duchess Maria's getting "too friendly" with the guards, how much did the rest of he family turn away from her for this?  I was surprised to find that she didn't have any jewels on her after the execution.  Do you think there was a lot of anger towards her from Alexandra and Olga or merely distrust?

Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Penny_Wilson on April 12, 2004, 11:52:23 PM
Quote

With regard to Grand Duchess Maria's getting "too friendly" with the guards, how much did the rest of he family turn away from her for this?  ....  Do you think there was a lot of anger towards her from Alexandra and Olga or merely distrust?


Of course at this distance of time, and with no account of the Skorokhodov event in either N or A's diaries (as unlikely as I think it would have been for them to have written for posterity about a daughter's disgrace), it's difficult to assess just how much approbation came down on Maria's head from the rest of her family.  

The testimony that we have comes from Yurovsky and one or two other guards who noticed a difference in behavior towards Maria -- which tells me that the behavior was unusual enough to attract attention in the first place.  In Yurovsky's case, he was there from day one to plan the execution of the family, so there must have been something rather extraordinary in their behavior to make him notice.  Unfortunately, he didn't detail his observations.

As I recall, Alexandra had had occasion to reprimand Maria for her friendly attitude towards the Ipatiev House guards during the first couple of days of their internment there.  And Maria's own letter to her sisters in Tobolsk about the former Imperial beater, Ukraintsev, shows what a lot of information she had got from him in just a few days of chatting!  She was undoubtedly a "people person," and at the point of their entry into the Ipatiev House, there was no indication at all that they were entering their final prison, and so no reason for Maria to change the habits of a lifetime.  

It is important to remember that Nicholas and Alexandra had never encouraged their girls to be stand-offish with their guards and retainers.  They maintained friendly relations with everyone around them, and, living somewhat isolated lives, I have no doubt that other people gave these young women their window on the world.  Nicholas and Alexandra did not even discourage small flirtations and crushes on this or that officer or soldier through the GD's teenage years -- they even made family jokes about them.  

And much more recently to their incarceration in the Ipatiev House, the Imperial couple attempted to use their third daughter's friendly charm to their advantage on the train with Yakovlev, by sending her alone to the guards' carriage to enquire of the men what their destination might be.  So even then, N and A must have had no inkling of danger.  But perhaps on their arrival under what was so obviously now a prison regime, Alexandra thought that such friendly relations were not quite appropriate, and asked Maria to be a litle more circumspect.

After the Skorokhodov huha, it's my belief that Alexandra was upset with Maria in the usual way that a mother gets over a daughter's attraction or friendship with an inappropriate man.  Especially as she'd already been warned off.  I know that look, having had it from my own mother  ::) , and I don't think it was anything more serious than that.

Olga, on the other hand, as everyone always says, was more in tune with the under-currents in that house, and I think she saw the real danger for the family that Maria's escapade stirred up.  They knew that the White forces were approaching the city and that it was only a matter of days before Ekaterinburg fell -- Olga might have realized that their ultimate safety lay in being low-key and not attracting any untoward Soviet attention.  She must have noticed the difference in the revolutionary dedication of their lax and friendly guards and soft-hearted curmudgeonly Avdeyev and that of the committed and driven members of the Ural Regional Soviet.  It just must have been THE most monumental screw-up for the Ural Regional Soviet observers to have been in the house when Maria was caught with Skorokhodov.

So I think Olga was pretty seriously hacked off with Maria -- enough so to keep away from her younger sisters, as several guards observed.

However, time passes, and I think that family anger and disapproval also did, to some extent, because on the day before the murders, the cleaning women moved furniture in the bedroom with the four girls and all seemed relaxed and comfortable with each other.

Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Penny_Wilson on April 12, 2004, 11:52:40 PM

Quote

I was surprised to find that she didn't have any jewels on her after the execution.


Well.  A couple of things about this:  Maria MAY have been the un-bejewelled girl because she was still being punished in some way by her parents ("If we can't trust you around the guards, then we can't trust you with the jewels..."), as Yurovsky thought... BUT  Yurovsky also had to account for a missing girl.  If there were four Grand Duchesses buried in the forest, why did Yurovsky only have three bejewelled "corsets"?  He could have used Maria's disgrace in this way to cover up for the missing body.

But of course also, Maria was not in Tobolsk when the other Grand Duchesses began sewing jewelry into their clothes.  It may not have been feasible to create such an armored under-garment for Maria at the same time they made them for themselves and Alexei.

So take your pick of the reasons.  I think that it was the first  -- Yurovsky covering his butt over the missing body.

I'm glad you enjoyed the book!

Penny
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Louise on April 17, 2004, 01:45:03 PM
Penny and Greg, I have just finished reading the horrific murder scene. I can't remember ever reading anything so terrifiing as your vivid description of the slaughter of the Imperial Family and their retainers. I can't remember who posted that they had to put the book down and regroup, but I certainly am in the same space as they were.

As disturbing as I found it, I can't nor will anyone of us every be able to comprehend what the innocents suffered through in their final moments.

If it is possible I wonder if either one of you could share with us your thoughts when writing this chapter. Again, I can't imagine your anquish at having to pen this information.

You two have left an incredible mark on  Romanov history. Thank you. I still have the rest of the book to finish, but I need to regroup and will do that with Suzanne Massie's book on Pavolsk (sp)

Louise
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Greg_King on April 17, 2004, 05:37:20 PM
We both wrote it, so I can only post my own thoughts.  When we first started, we had to of course determine how to do this-the vital center of the book.  And in the first few drafts it was quite short.  But I remember thinking of something that James Cameron said about making "Titanic"-that he wanted to show on film how horrible it must have been on that ship for everyone at the end, that it didn't just slip into the water with everyone linked arm and arm singing.  And the same was true for the murder.  The Imperial Family weren't just shot and quickly fell dead, and it wasn't all over in 10 seconds, as every film has depicted.  So it became very important to me to try to portray accurately what happened, including the wounds and what happened.  And it wasn't easy to do on any level.  I know some people have said what you do-that they have to put the book down-and that's exactly what I wanted, because this is a brutal, horrendous murder, and people need to think about it.  If you believe that the IF are martyrs, then this is their sacrifice; if they are simple victims, it is still a terrible massacre.  And at no other point in the book did I try so consciously try to evoke sympathy for them.  It was hard all around.

Greg King
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Robert_Hall on April 17, 2004, 08:24:05 PM
Greg, what a great post !
Having worked in a mortuary for a while, I know that death is a process, not an event... The sadness of the murders  do need to be understood.  I think you & Penny have done a fantastic job in bringing reality to the event.
And the Titanic analogy was quite relevant.  It must have been simply horrible for both situations.
Now, Penny, your logic on Marie not having the  "jeweled" corset" makes perfect sense.  But I wonder why she was chosen to accompany them  to Ekaterinburg in the first place?  I guess [which is anything all of us can do]  is that the older daughters were left to take care of Alexei? Finish up "household" business?

Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Forum Admin on April 17, 2004, 08:34:16 PM
The were not 'corsets'. That is a mis translation from the original. the jewels were sewn into double camisoles, thin undershirts worn under the corsets. two were sewn together and the loose stones were quilted into them. the whale bone of the corsets would have prevented anyone from feeling the stones in a pat down search
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Janet Whitcomb on April 17, 2004, 09:31:31 PM
Hi Robert--

From what I've read, OTMA decided amongst themselves that Marie would accompany their mother. Olga, who was not as upbeat as Marie, would look after Alexei; Tatiana, whose constitution was not as strong as Marie's, would administer the remaining household; and Anastasia was considered still too young (and probably immature) to go along.  During the days when most of the children had been ill with measles and Alexandra was still without Nicholas, Marie had proven herself to be a brave, cheerful and willing assistant to her mother, and undoubtedly her inherently dutiful nature was also taken into consideraton.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Almedingen on April 17, 2004, 11:27:22 PM
Wouldn't it have been awfully uncomfortable to wear a tight corset with a camisole underneath with stones and jewelery in it?  Did the girls wear these all day and night?
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Almedingen on April 17, 2004, 11:30:46 PM
I was quite surprised to read that Alexandra was so argumentative while in captivity.  From the letters she wrote, I had always had the impression that she was a weak, sickly person very resigned to her fate.

Was anyone else surprised by this?
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: JM on April 18, 2004, 09:34:15 AM
I must admit I wasn't quite surprised. I've always thought she was a proud woman and some people that weren't close to her got the impression that she was 'cold'. However, that is just an 'exterior' view of her. Those who she felt she could trust she was more open to. These are the people to whom she revealed herself.

Personally I believe that her "arguementative" side while in captivity was a result of her fear and the fact that her family and her were basically prisoners. She probhably wanted to come off strong and aloof. OR, perhaps she was just misunderstood.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Forum Admin on April 18, 2004, 10:21:26 AM
Almedingen,
The girls had only loose stones in the camisoles, no jewelry. The stones had been put into fabric packets, which were quilted into the double camisoles. They had taken the stones out of Alexandra's jewelry.
As for Alexandra's "argumentative" nature in captivity, we tend to see her as "weak" or sickly. While she was often ill, do not forget that she was EMPRESS and full aware of everything that went with it. There are many reports of her being quite demanding about running her house and getting her way. She was used to people doing exactly as she said. Captivity must have been hard for her in that respect.  Read the piece on Easter at Livadia...everyone was deeply struck by Alexandra's act of performing contrition, genuinely asking those around her for forgiveness, as it was totally opposite of her usual behavior.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Penny_Wilson on April 18, 2004, 03:52:44 PM
Quote

If it is possible I wonder if either one of you could share with us your thoughts when writing this chapter. Again, I can't imagine your anquish at having to pen this information.


Louise,

As Greg said in his response, we knew that the murders would be the "vital center" of this book, and we did spend a  lot of time talking about how best to handle it.  

There was no question of soft-pedalling it; whether a reader thinks that the family and their friends were martyred or murdered, it was tremendously important to us to provide as completely researched an account as possible.  I read once -- I think it was in conjunction with my Holocaust Studies class in university -- that it is important to know what happened as thoroughly as possible, because then we can still bear witness for the victims.  I forget who wrote that -- perhaps Simon Wiesenthal? -- but I think it's very true, and this is what motivated me.  I wanted readers to feel that they could visualize that cellar room in their own minds, and follow along with what happened to each person.  And between us, I think we did a pretty good job -- Greg was just masterful in weaving together the various accounts.

It would have been all too easy to become emotionally tied up in writing that chapter, but that wasn't my job.  My job -- and Greg's -- was to make the reader feel the emotions, rather than to feel them ourselves.  So I focused myself strongly on whatever part of the murder we were writing and researching -- and the research never stopped.  Particularly in this part of the book, it was vital that everything be nailed down, checked and double-checked and cross-referenced.

It was only when I read the chapter afterwards -- long afterwards, probably after it had been type-set and I hadn't worked on it for a few months -- that I had an emotional response.  And for me, that response was to the death of Dr Botkin.  I couldn't tell you why, but the idea of that man struggling to raise himself from the floor struck me deep in my heart.  I had to go and take a long, hot shower and cry and pound on the walls.  I was very melodramatic!  ::)

The other thing that effected me emotionally was a single account of Trupp's last moments that we did not include because we could not finally establish the witness' presence in or around the murder room:  This witness claimed that in his last moments, after the shooting began, with every gun pointed straight at the Emperor's chest, Trupp pushed himself off the back wall and charged the assassination squad, cursing and shouting "like a Catholic," the person said.   I can believe it possible that an old military man like Trupp would react like this -- but what that witness must have thought of Catholics!  ;D
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Louise on April 18, 2004, 10:19:31 PM
Greg and Penny, thank you for sharing your insights on the slaughter of the Imperial Family. As difficult as it was to read, I understand why you chose not to candy coated the murder. It added a sense of horror to the finality of their lives.

The evil that men do certainly bares witness to this event.

Louise
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Cathy_Steriling on June 15, 2004, 03:05:59 PM
Dear Greg & Penny,

I am reading your book. It is very interesting. You have done a marvelous job!  ::)
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: DeAnochka on June 16, 2004, 05:38:28 PM
Quote
You can also ask Penny for their special edition of some material not included in the book.


Penny: How can I get your "specail edition" copy? What kind of un-published information is included?

Thanks!

Deshka
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Greg_King on June 17, 2004, 06:56:57 AM
Quote

Penny: How can I get your "specail edition" copy? What kind of un-published information is included?

Thanks!

Deshka


It should be listed with back-issues on the website-

http://www.atlantis-magazine.com

It contains material cut from the book for reasons of space, including a long examination of Kerensky's intent on sending the Romanovs into exile; the motives of several mysterious figures working among the Bolsheviks in Tobolsk; a day-by-day, hour-by-hour timeline of the Imperial Family in the Ipatiev House; a longer examination of the four "Officer" letters; a discussion about the so-called "Train to Perm" that figures in a lot of the Romanov conspiracy theories; a detailed ballistic recreation of the murder and forensic examination of what that evidence reveals; and a very long review of every (up to 2003) book published on the murders in English, Russian, French, German, Italian, etc.

Greg King
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Sarai on June 17, 2004, 07:23:14 AM
Greg,
This special issue sounds very interesting and I would love to purchase a copy! I know that Penny has said that not all of the "Atlantis" backissues are ready for purchase yet, however. Do you know if this one is available? Thanks!
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Greg_King on June 17, 2004, 07:30:52 AM
Quote
Greg,
This special issue sounds very interesting and I would love to purchase a copy! I know that Penny has said that not all of the "Atlantis" backissues are ready for purchase yet, however. Do you know if this one is available? Thanks!


Hi Sarai

I think it's only the first 5-6 that are problematic at the moment-we switched over to a new system and the issues that came before it all have to be re-formatted by hand because in the first year the illustations and photos were within the text and have to be realigned.  But certainly anything in the last year or year and a half is available easily enough, including the special issue.

Greg King
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Robert_Hall on June 17, 2004, 09:31:31 AM
I will vouch for Greg & Penny...I have a copy. The issue is a great addenda to FOTR. I can see why the material had to be edited out or their would have been a "volume 2"!
Now, as for those Vol. 3 issues ?? {hint, Penny]
Cheers,
Robert
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Penny_Wilson on June 17, 2004, 03:18:12 PM
The special "Fate of the Romanovs" issue of Atlantis is definitely available and the details should be on the website.   Any questions can be directed to me in my inbox here.  Starting on Sunday and for about a week afterwards would be a good time to hit me with orders, because I have a bit of downtime between "real" work and putting together the next issue of Atlantis, which is going to be out a little late because of waiting for research to complete in St Petersburg...

One item that Greg didn't mention in his account of the special issue contents is the article we wrote on the "lysv" inscription found on the wall of the murder room.  Quite by chance, we think we managed to stumble across the actual meaning of those letters!  It's one of my favorite pieces of serendipitous research...  :D

As for the rest of Atlantis -- Volume 4 is entirely available, Volumes 1 and 2 are not, and Volume 3 is just about finished being upgraded...  So I'll be dropping you a line soon, Robert!  :-*
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Merrique on June 21, 2004, 01:35:09 PM
I finally got my copy of FOTR and I must say this is a very well written book.Penny and Greg you have done an excellent job.I just started it sat. and I'm almost half way through it,I can't put it down.Thank you both very much for doing the research and writing this book.It really is excellent! :D
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: DeAnochka on June 23, 2004, 02:50:26 PM
Greg and Penny,

How many years of research did you spend in collaboration on "Fate of the Romanovs?" What would you say was the most difficult process in writing your work?

I know, I am far too eager and curious for a Hobbit  ;)

Much obliged!  :D

Deshka
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Greg_King on June 27, 2004, 06:16:20 PM
Quote
Greg and Penny,

How many years of research did you spend in collaboration on "Fate of the Romanovs?" What would you say was the most difficult process in writing your work?

I know, I am far too eager and curious for a Hobbit  ;)

Much obliged!  :D

We both started on our own projects about the same time-round 1990; we joined together to do a single book in 2000, and spent the next 3 years working together.

The most difficult part was probably that the writing was all done, with a few exceptions, by each of us and exchanged in emails; living in different states, we would spend what time we could together, researching in Russia and Europe, and a few months together here to assemble materials and discuss them.

Greg King

Deshka

Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: AGRBear on July 03, 2004, 05:26:42 PM
I found it interesting that you found so much information on the once "mysterious"  Vassili Yakovlev plus a photograph.   According to your footnotes,  the person who was your main source was Yaklov Yurovsky.  

Was there any other source which mentioned  Yakovlev's history and his name as Konstantin Mayachin?

Where was the photograph found?

AGRBear

NOTE:  My mistake.  I should have said Yakovlev not Yurovsky.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: rskkiya on July 03, 2004, 09:01:41 PM
Deshka,
Greetings from a blockheaded Bracegirdle from Hardbottle!  (Hobbits Rule! ;D )
R

AGRBear,
I believe that many revolutionaries used multiple names...after all Stalin was originally Ioself Dzugashvily and Trotsky was Lev Bronstein.
R
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Penny_Wilson on July 04, 2004, 01:25:21 AM
Quote
I found it interesting that you found so much information on the once "mysterious"  Vassili Yakovlev plus a photograph.   According to your footnotes,  the person who was your main source was Yaklov Yurovsky.  


Sorry, but you're wrong here.  The main source for Myachin-Yakovlev's story was Myachin-Yakovlev himself.  There are unpublished memoirs written by him at two archives: TsDOOSO, fond 221 op. 2 d. 964 and the Party Archives of Bashkirov, fond 1832.  We quote from both of them, and both of them are correctly sourced in our notes.  We also quote and source several published works, for example, Mstislavsky and Kobylinsky via Sokolov.  Yakov Yurovsky is NOT our "main source" for information on Myachin-Yakovlev.

Quote
Where was the photograph found?

AGRBear


We purchased our photo of Myachin-Yakovlev from a private collector with impeccable sources.  There is another version of our photo which appears in Love, Power and Tragedy, though theirs bears official stamps and seals, and ours does not.  It is undoubtedly the same man, if you want to check.

Penny
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: AGRBear on July 04, 2004, 01:06:39 PM
>>Myachin/ Yakovlev<<

Opps, thinking one name and writing another.  My mistake.  
Quote
Love, Power and Tragedy, though theirs bears official stamps and seals, and ours does not.

Penny


Is this a book?  If so, who is the author?

AGRBear
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Sarai on July 04, 2004, 01:43:40 PM
Yes, this is a book. Its complete title is The Romanovs: Love, Power, and Tragedy by A. N. Bokhanov et al. It was published by Leppi Publications. You can find it on Amazon.com or through the publisher's website (they are located in the UK) at http://www.leppi.com.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Penny_Wilson on July 04, 2004, 02:01:00 PM
Love, Power and Tragedy is just a fabulous picture book on the last Romanovs.  Probably my favorite in the picture book category.  Amazon sells it:

http://tinyurl.com/2to2m

Leppi also publishes a similar book on the Montenegrins called Nikola and Milena, King and Queen of the Black Mountain.  It has tons of photos and loads of new and detailed information on all their children and many of their grandchildren and descendants alive today.  Grand Duchesses Anastasia and Militza feature prominently, and I was very interested to see photographs of their sister Maria, who died at the age of sixteen while attending the Smolny.  Amazon has this book too:

http://tinyurl.com/253lg

I highly recommend them both.  Maybe I should have put this on the recommendations thread... ;D
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: DeAnochka on July 04, 2004, 09:02:06 PM
rskkiya,

[glb]I love the Lord of the Rings![/glb]
;D

(Almost as much as I love the Romanovs)  ;)
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: DeAnochka on July 05, 2004, 02:59:37 PM
Quote
Love, Power and Tragedy is just a fabulous picture book on the last Romanovs.  Probably my favorite in the picture book category.


Geesh, Penny, I guess there's no way to get this book any cheaper! Darn, I hate it when good books like these go out of print. I payed a lot for a used copy of 'Anastasia's Album' and the book came in Russian! Oh well. So it goes.

Quote
Those Romanovs cost me a lot of money  ;D


Thierry, this is so true! Ha ha. But they're worth the money.  :)

Deshka
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: rskkiya on July 05, 2004, 08:24:36 PM
Well...
Now I am just going to have to get this book...as everyone here is so enamoured with it! :D
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: ptitchka on July 05, 2004, 10:28:23 PM
I must confess that although I am not at all 'enamoured' with the book - and am in fact either uncomfortable with or unconvinced about some of the conclusions drawn therein - the book is formidable and cannot be ignored by anyone with a general interest in the Imperial Family.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: AGRBear on July 06, 2004, 04:17:20 PM
Quote
Yes, this is a book. Its complete title is The Romanovs: Love, Power, and Tragedy by A. N. Bokhanov et al. It was published by Leppi Publications. You can find it on Amazon.com or through the publisher's website (they are located in the UK) at http://www.leppi.com.


Picked it up for $48 from amazon used book section.

-----

Back to Myachin/Yakovlev.  Was it in his memiors about his various deeds and alliases...?    And,  how do you or other researchers confirm that these papers are authenic  and not something placed there by the communists just like they did for Halliburton whom you mention on p. 19 -20?

For those who don't have their book,  King and Wilson talked about American journalist who was given the oportunity to talk to Ermakov. And I quote:  >>"In fact, Soviet authorities had carefully managed the entire Ermakov "confession."  His translator, the mysterious Walter, was later discovered to have been an agent of the GPU. successor to the Cheka.  Many year later, Stoneman speculated the entire affiar had been designed to "feed" Halliburton, as an unsuspecting dupe, "with Moscow's prepackaged 'facts.'"<<

AGRBear
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Greg_King on July 07, 2004, 06:44:46 AM
Quote

Picked it up for $48 from amazon used book section.

-----

Back to Myachin/Yakovlev.  Was it in his memiors about his various deeds and alliases...?    And,  how do you or other researchers confirm that these papers are authenic  and not something placed there by the communists just like they did for Halliburton whom you mention on p. 19 -20?

For those who don't have their book,  King and Wilson talked about American journalist who was given the oportunity to talk to Ermakov. And I quote:  >>"In fact, Soviet authorities had carefully managed the entire Ermakov "confession."  His translator, the mysterious Walter, was later discovered to have been an agent of the GPU. successor to the Cheka.  Many year later, Stoneman speculated the entire affiar had been designed to "feed" Halliburton, as an unsuspecting dupe, "with Moscow's prepackaged 'facts.'"<<

AGRBear


The answer is research, pure and simple.  Yakovlev left 4-5 memoirs or statements, so we compared content, looked at what we knew to be true versus any peculiarities, looked at when things were written and deposited, etc.  While you have to exercise ordinary caution, I think suggesting that anything that originates from Russian archives or from a Soviet source is suspect is simply imposing personal prejudice.  Yakovlev's memoirs, and their content, bear no relation to the Ermakov "confession," which when it comes to what happened after the murders simply falls apart as a deliberate lie.  You always look for key indicators like distortion or error when examining anything in this case, but you also examine materials against a wider catalog of other materials that can help confirm or deny their veracity.

Greg King
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: AGRBear on July 07, 2004, 02:37:09 PM
Who discovered the information on Myachin/Yakovlev?  

And, when was the information discovered?

And,  I must say thank you for putting up with me and all my questions throughout the Alexander Palace Discussion Board.

Quote

 While you have to exercise ordinary caution, I think suggesting that anything that originates from Russian archives or from a Soviet source is suspect is simply imposing personal prejudice.

Greg King


Yes,  I do suspect data found in the Russian archives or from Soviet sources about the execution of Nicholas II and the others.  And, obviously so have you and Wilson, or,  you wouldn't have been so careful with double and triple checking what you found.

AGRBear
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: rskkiya on July 07, 2004, 07:14:04 PM
AGRBear,

Yes, Mr. King and Ms. Wilson are dealing with a very complex and argued over aspect of history, and as any serious historians would do, they want to be certain of getting the facts right.  I do not doubt that they also confirmed the information given to them by those sympathetic with the Romanovs.

R.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Abby on July 08, 2004, 11:08:11 PM
WOw, I have learned so much on this board so far..and I thought I knew all I could! I agree with the person who said that they thought the more they read about the Romanovs' fate, the more they would know but it turns out to be the opposite!

There are so many stories and possibilities of what happened that night, that I doubt we will ever know what happened to them. So FRUSTRATING!

I never knew that Maria was flirting with the guards in Ipatiev house-- when you say that she was "caught" with Skorokhodov-- what exactly was she doing?  No other books give mention of this... very interesting, gosh!
Also interesting (I have not yet read the book, but I am asking for it for my birthday in Sept.!) is your detailed account of the murder scene, from what I read here. Where did you find such information (about how Dr. Botkin and Trupp died)?  Why can't all books be that way!

If the murders did take place (I am not saying they didn't. I just don't know!) then it would be damn peculiar to find out why the Bolsheviks went door-to-door the next morning looking for Romanovs! I have heard this many times in other publications, from Ekaterinburg residents who claim to have seen Red Guards board their trains and search for "Anastasia" or "Alexei". In "Hunt for the Czar" a man describes how his young son, who resembled Alexei, was snatched by Reds on a train and almost taken away until the father showed them that his son was not lame, and proved it to them by having the boy walk and run-- I guess something they didn't think Alexei was able to do.

So many mysteries, one on top of the other! This has got to be the hardest case of the century to crack!

Here is an easy question: does anyone have a picture of a truck that looks similar to the Fiat that was supposed to have carried the bodies? I always wondered what a 1918-era Fiat truck looked like.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: AGRBear on July 12, 2004, 01:52:44 PM
Quote
....
I never knew that Maria was flirting with the guards in Ipatiev house-- when you say that she was "caught" with Skorokhodov-- what exactly was she doing?  No other books give mention of this... very interesting, gosh!
....

Here is an easy question: does anyone have a picture of a truck that looks similar to the Fiat that was supposed to have carried the bodies? I always wondered what a 1918-era Fiat truck looked like.


According to King and Wilson, p. 244-45 Marie and one of the guards by the name of Ivan Skorokodov were missing.... No farther details are really known accept it caused a stir .."...entries for the period between June 24 and July 3 are frustratingl unavailable..."  The first day being the day of Marie's birthday.

As for the truck, I'm wondering if it really could carry eleven bodies .... Does  anyone have a photo?

AGRBear
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Abby on July 12, 2004, 04:10:28 PM
Wow there are hard to find pics on the internet of these.

1916 Fiat:http://www.armyvehicles.dk/fiattruck1916.htm

a really old Fiat (undated though it looks old)
http://www.autogallery.org.ru/k/fa/fiat_GebhardFlatz.jpg

Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Penny_Wilson on July 12, 2004, 10:20:46 PM
Quote

As for the truck, I'm wondering if it really could carry eleven bodies .... Does  anyone have a photo?

AGRBear


We have a photograph of the truck involved -- the make, model, etc. -- as provided to Ian Lilburn by the auto maker. I have looked around for the photo a little bit this evening, but couldn't lay my hands on it.  It had the specifications on it -- cab size, bed size, etc -- and I remember being quite surprised at how big the truck was.  

I had thought that it was maybe the size of an F150, which is what I drive, but it was actually bigger -- I want to say a 3-ton truck size, like a big dually, only without the wheel-wells cutting into the bed.  Eleven bodies could have fit fairly well, especially as this was also a stake-bed truck, with sides extending up quite far.  

The strain on the truck, I think, was not the number of bodies in the bed -- though eleven bodies plus the guards who rode along would have filled it --  but rather was the weight of the bodies.

So it wasn't a small truck at all -- don't think of the Waltons' truck here!  :D
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: AGRBear on July 13, 2004, 02:51:01 PM
I'm sure I'm not alone in asking if you find the photo of the truck or one like it to place it on this thread so we all can see it.  Please.  And, thanks ahead of time.  The both of you have bee great in all of the threads where we have asked tons of questions.

On p. 316 King and Wilson talk about the truck and the bodies, also, where the guards were while traveling.  They say three (Yurovsky, Ermakov and Lyukhanov) were squeezed in the cab.  I hope one of them were smaller than the others because most truck at that time period had a stick shift that came up from the floor on the right side of the driver.  I remember as a kid finding myself in this position in an old pick-up truck and it was an unpleasant experince.  Then they say that hanging on the outside of the truck were the others  (Soames, Lacher, Verhas).  Telling us this was Kudrin / Michael Medvedev....  

Was he, also, on the truck?  Maybe on the running board, if this truck had them.

They combined the weight of 17 people to a weight of about 2,200 pounds plus one small dog, maybe.

The engine, they tell us, was sixty horsepower and the engine was prone to overheating.

To add to this was the uphill grade and then there was the mud....

p. 317 -There had been a rain storm on the 15 the of July.....

Several times the engine over heated and the engine had to be shut off.....  If you have ever been in a truck when the engine has overheated,  you know it takes a long time to be cool enough to be safe to get the radiator cap off.... because water needs to be added... then off the truck rolled toward the Four Brother's Mine.... at five to ten miles an hour...  Two hours for ten miles....  

I really think it would have taken them at least more than three or four hours.  

If they started at three in the morning that would have made it about six or seven in the morning....  

The main reason would have been the radiator and the engine lugging from all this weight.

It was the radiator that overheated, again, that caused the truck to stop next to or in Pig's Meadow...  and  King and Wilson tell us on p. 318,  "nearly four-thirty in the morning".  Attempts were made to get the truck out of the muck....  If you've ever watched men trying to get a truck out of the muck,  they don't try just once or twice.... so this took more time.

Let us not forget,  the eleven bodies had been removed.

The railroad ties had to be found by some hut and then carried to the truck.  A tie isn't light.  This, too, took time....

Truck was driven out of the muck, the bodies were reloaded and it finally slide into more muck about a mile from the Four Brother's Mine...

p. . 318 "It was now nearly four-thirty in the morning.

Unable to go farther they unloaded the bodies and placed them into "carts they  brought"...

Brought?  On the truck?  If not where did  Yurovsky and Ermakov find them and how long had this taken, I wonder?

If the open carts had been on the truck,  how much weight is to be added to the already heavy load?

p. 321-2  "It was nearly seven in the morning..." when the bodies, which had been placed in carts, stopped at the shafts known as the Four Brothers.


Oh,  let's not forget the meeting with Ermakov's group of guys who had thought they were going to get to execute Nicholas II and the others.  That little scene must have taken up even more time....

Since I know King and Wilson took great pains to add up all the events and matched them with the time slots,  I wonder, if they should have given these men more time just to get to this point in time.  If they do, does that mean certain things could not have happen by the time Yurovsky returned to Ekaterinburg by noon?

AGRBear
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: rskkiya on July 13, 2004, 03:04:44 PM
AGRBear...


"Certain things could not have happened?'

What do you mean?  

R.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: AGRBear on July 13, 2004, 04:23:19 PM
Did not mean to sound mysterious.  I just meant:  Could all of the events Yurovsky claimed he accomplished from the point they reached the mine until he was in Ekaterinburg at noon, which I assume is documented, been accomplished ???

AGRBear
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Abby on July 13, 2004, 04:43:38 PM
2 Fiats

1. 1916
(http://www.armyvehicles.dk/images/fiat1916.jpg)

2. Undated

(http://www.autogallery.org.ru/k/fa/fiat_GebhardFlatz.jpg )
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: AGRBear on July 14, 2004, 09:15:15 PM
Great photographs.  The one shows a trailor with a pile of wood.  Wonder how much a load of wood like that would weight.... Hmmmm  ::)

AGRBear
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Olga on July 15, 2004, 05:17:24 AM
Quote
And,  how do you or other researchers confirm that these papers are authenic  and not something placed there by the communists just like they did for Halliburton whom you mention on p. 19 -20?


Reds under the bed, AGRBear? Just because they are communists doesn't mean they lie about EVERYTHING.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: AGRBear on July 15, 2004, 09:46:24 PM
Oh dear,  did you say  I said that ALL communists were liers? No, I don't think so.  

The quote of mine you mentioned was answered very nicely by Penny Wilson who had this fact about Halliburton in her and King's book The Fate of the Romanov.

AGRBear

Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Greg_King on July 16, 2004, 02:47:19 AM
Quote
Then they say that hanging on the outside of the truck were the others  (Soames, Lacher, Verhas).  Telling us this was Kudrin / Michael Medvedev....Was he, also, on the truck?...then off the truck rolled toward the Four Brother's Mine.... at five to ten miles an hour...  Two hours for ten miles....I really think it would have taken them at least more than three or four hours.  If they started at three in the morning that would have made it about six or seven in the morning....they unloaded the bodies and placed them into "carts they  brought"...Brought?  On the truck?  If not where did  Yurovsky and Ermakov find them and how long had this taken, I wonder? p. 321-2  "It was nearly seven in the morning..." when the bodies, which had been placed in carts, stopped at the shafts known as the Four Brothers....Since I know King and Wilson took great pains to add up all the events and matched them with the time slots,  I wonder, if they should have given these men more time just to get to this point in time.  If they do, does that mean certain things could not have happen by the time Yurovsky returned to Ekaterinburg by noon? AGRBear


I've had to edit your query for reasons of space.  First, we don't say or intimate that Lacher, Soames, and Verhas were "hanging" off the truck-they were in bed, as we write, according to Yurovsky, not Kudrin, who we note was not in the truck or accompanying it, despite his claims.

Ermakov's quote that it took two hours to go the ten miles clearly, in the account, refers to the time on the truck only-not the full amount of time to get to the mine.

Re: the carts: Not sure how you missed that-it's in the book-the truck encountered Ermakov's Verkh-Isetsk Detachment waiting with carts in the Koptyaki Forest.  They were not brought with the truck.

As to our timeline being off, I think it's very close, based on Yurovsky's 1922 memoir-he is the one who sets the time of arrival at the mine at nearly 7AM.  That means it took them a total of 3:30-3:45 hours from the time they left the Ipatiev House to the time they reached the mine.  If you read this part carefully again, I think you'll see that it all fits together and indeed took almost 4 hours, as we write.

Greg King
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: AGRBear on July 16, 2004, 03:12:43 PM
Greg King wrote: >>....you missed that-it's in the book-the truck encountered Ermakov's Verkh-Isetsk Detachment waiting with carts in the Koptyaki Forest.<<

I did miss this point.  So,  I reread it.   On p. 321 the bodies were loaded into the carts".  And, yes, it was  on p. 318 you mentioned Ermakov's men with carts.  "Followed by this detachment, the Fiat continued down the muddy road....Nearly a mile beyond, the Fiat sank into a muddy patch..."  

A new question comes to mind:  If Ermakov's men were following with horses and carts,  why didn't they just hitch-up the horses and pull out the truck from the mud?  The bodies could have remained on the truck...  In fact, the horses could have pulled the truck the rest of the way.  Instead,  they  unloaded the bodies and took the time and effort to get railroad ties.... Got the truck out of the mud and reloaded the bodies...

You did say Yurovsky asked,  "...And why so many people?" "And why so many carts?"  All these people were on horses.  And, I asume the carts were being pulled by horses....


When the truck was stuck why didn't they just load the bodies into the carts right away since they had to unload them to get the load lighter to get the truck out?   They had gone "seven miles".   They knew the mines were near.  Yurovsky even said, "...why all of these carts?" The leader of the detachment had known the number of people they thought they were going to kill where they met on p. 318 and then how many carts were needed to take the bodies  to the mine.

One thing for sure,  Yurovsky had depended too much on Ermakov's ability to arrange things....  Or, was it Yurovsky who was not the leader history makes him out to be?

AGRBear

PS.  Forgot to say thank you to Greg King.

Little did you know what you were getting yourself into when you told me to ask questions after I read your book.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Forum Admin on July 16, 2004, 03:14:52 PM
You can read Yurovsky's own specific account here:
www.alexanderpalace.org/palace/Yurovmurder.html
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: AGRBear on July 16, 2004, 03:33:39 PM
Thanks for the URL.

I haven't had time to read it word for word, but I see one of my questions may be answered.  Yurovsky said:  "If only there had been carts instead of carriages.  But there was nothing we could do."

"...carriages..."

I assume this meant the detachment was going to take eleven live people to the mines  where they planned to shoot them.

It also mentions that Yurovsky's part was to have quit as the trucks rolled away from the Ipatiev House.

All interesting.  I'm going back to read more.

AGRBear
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Abby on July 22, 2004, 07:01:36 PM
I just finished reading chapter 21, when they talk about the controversy of Anastasia vs. Marie being in the grave, and picked up something I'd not noticed before: the scientists claimed that Marie had a gap in her front teeth, and no gap was observed in the skeleton supposed to be Marie's, and the Russians were insisting skeleton 6 was Anastasia.
I was wondering if anyone had any photographs of Marie's teeth showing. I don't think I've ever seen a gap there...I think I have only seen a handful of pictures of the Grand Duchesses even smiling with their front teeth, and most of them are Olga Nicholaevna and one odd side-view shot of Tatiana on the inside cover of Virginia Cowles'  "The Last Tsar."  None of Marie Nicholaevna, though. I'd be interested to see any.

Abby
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Sarai on July 22, 2004, 08:12:47 PM
Abby,
There is more on this subject in the following thread, entitled "The Last Imperial Family's Teeth":
http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=family;action=display;num=1078845785;start=7

I have seen pictures of Maria with a gap in her teeth, I just don't remember where just now (probably in one of the sources listed in the above thread).
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Abby on July 22, 2004, 09:55:59 PM
thanks for the link. Sarai!
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: AGRBear on July 24, 2004, 02:57:31 PM
More questions for King and Wilson:

In the 1934 report of Yurovsky mentions having read Sokolov's report.  This is what he said:

"About two months ago, I was looking through the book by Sokolov, the preliminary investigator of the extremely important cases under Kolchak, when I saw a photo of those stacked ties."

Are there any real differences between his first report, before he read Sokolov's report,  when compared to the 1934 report?

Is there an English translation of the first which we could find and read?

AGRBear
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Abby on July 24, 2004, 03:01:47 PM
I thought I remember reading that all his reports were in contrast to each other on certain points. I don't really think that he could remember exactly every detail and repeat it verbatim from the last report unless he were looking at a copy of it in front of him..which he wasn't doing when he gave that speech to the Bolsheviks. (Was that in 1934)?

I am always too lazy to look up facts. Sorry if it wasn't 1934 and I confused anyone!
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: AGRBear on July 24, 2004, 03:17:12 PM
Quote
You can read Yurovsky's own specific account here:
www.alexanderpalace.org/palace/Yurovmurder.html



This was 1934 report.

I know memory isn't perfect that was why I asked if there was any major differences.

AGRBear
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Sarai on September 06, 2004, 07:48:08 PM
I purchased The Fate of the Romanovs a few months ago, due entirely to the glowing recommendations of many people on this forum. Admittedly, I would otherwise not have purchased it, as I thought I had read all there is to know on the Tsar and his family, and at this point I am more interested in photograph books about them, but the promise of new and even controversial information intrigued me. Well, I was not disappointed with the book and would like to list some of the points that most drew my attention, in no particular order of importance:

1 – The most compelling and memorable part of the book for me is the incredibly detailed massacre scene. This is simply the most painstakingly meticulous depiction of the murder of the Imperial family and their servants that I have ever read, anywhere. It is very graphic and disturbing, but if anything, it makes me feel for them even more. It is surely a far cry from the scene described in Nicholas and Alexandra, where Massie writes, “Olga, Tatiana, and Marie, standing behind their mother, were hit and died quickly.” We now know that the girls unfortunately did not die quickly. I was aware of this fact before reading FOTR, but I had no idea how much they truly suffered. It is a very haunting image that still disturbs me, as it completely dispels any hope that, if they had to die, then at least their deaths could have been relatively quick and painless. I sometimes find myself looking at pictures of the girls as small children and flashing forward to that horrible death scene, and feeling so sorry for them knowing what was to come.

2- I was surprised at some of the remarks that Nicholas made with regards to Jews and demonstrators. I know that these were his perceived enemies, but some of the comments are outright chilling and, frankly, disturbing. It is no surprise to me that Nicholas was anti-Semitic, a fact that I could forgive him for due to his being a product of a time and place where such ignorant attitudes prevailed, but the quotes in the book seem so cold, for instance: “Reading a report that Cossacks in Saratov had ‘unfortunately’ beaten a group of doctors suspected of assisting local peasants, Nicholas underlined the word ‘unfortunately,’ added a question mark, and wrote, ‘Very well done!’” (pg. 38); “Hearing that a revolt in the Caucasus had passed without bloodshed, Nicholas replied, ‘That is no good! In such cases one must always shoot!’” (pg. 38); “In the Baltic provinces, a certain Lieutenant Captain Richter began, on his own authority, to execute suspects without benefit of trials or even official arrests; learning this, Nicholas commented, ‘What a fine fellow!’” (pg. 38). Also, the fact that Nicholas seemed satisfied at the outcome of the Easter Massacre at Kishinev in 1903, where fifty Jews were dragged from their houses and murdered in the streets, with the Emperor’s knowledge and support (pg. 39). I have read the thread on Nicholas’s anti-Semitism before and I know that he eventually began to change his attitudes, but these comments put him in a very unfavorable light. Like I said, I know he was a product of his time and place, and that we cannot judge 19th century people by 21st century standards, when people know that racism is wrong, but it is still a rather difficult fault to acknowledge in a man that was otherwise perceived to be so good and gentle.

Similarly, there was the revelation of Alexei as a sometimes downright spoiled brat. For instance, an eyewitness who lived near Livadia described how the heir “liked to greet people who bowed to him with a bloody nose by hitting them in the face as they bowed,” and when he was not allowed to do that, he greeted them with “very bad language” instead. I had read this account before and it does not make the child seem very likeable, but I know that he eventually outgrew such behavior and was generally an agreeable and sensitive person. Although somewhat disappointed at Alexei’s bad behavior, I cannot fault him for it, because what else would you expect from a child who felt so exalted and indulged from his earliest years, and who was rarely punished or disciplined.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Sarai on September 06, 2004, 07:48:19 PM
3- I was surprised by the revelation that in the Ipatiev House, it was Tatiana, who along with Maria and Anastasia, befriended some of the guards. Tatiana has always been portrayed as being the haughtier of the sisters, the most aloof and unapproachable, and yet she, and not Olga, was actually the friendlier one in the end. However, I know that this may be due to Tatiana’s more outgoing personality and her constant desire for making friends with people outside the family, and also because Olga was the most sensitive to the situation and felt the most depressed by it. I really cannot fault her for not being friendly with her captors, she knew they were not there to be her friends and felt they were there instead to humiliate and restrict them.

4- I think the quote from Macauley about Charles I hits the nail right on the head. This is a quote criticizing “the swell of popular sentiment that excused the errors of his reign by looking to his private life.” Most compelling from that essay is this line: “A good father! Ample apologies indeed for fifteen years of persecution, tyranny, and falsehood! We charge him with having broken his Coronation Oath, and we are told that he kept his marriage vow! We accuse him of having given up his people to the merciless inflictions of the most hotheaded and hard-hearted of prelates, and the defense is that he took his little son on his knee and kissed him!” (pg. 525). As the book suggests, this can eerily be contrasted with popular sentiment today about Nicholas II. We acknowledge that he was a generally poor ruler, but we forgive him because he was a good husband and father. I admit, I have done that before and continue to do it, and I am fully aware of this. Yet I am also trying to maintain a more balanced view of him, and accept criticism of him with an open mind, as it usually does not change my overall opinion of him. Yes, I wish he was less inclined to give up his life to fate, that he was not an anti-Semite, that he was a stronger ruler and not so influenced by his wife, and that he was not so intolerant of change and of differences in people. I accept his faults but I still like the man in general. I guess I am sentimental and I cannot forget the good side of him, the fact that he was a loyal and tender husband and loving father, for that was a part of him too. And to me that seems to outweigh his faults, for I think he was more good than evil. I agree with this book that it is good to see people’s shades of grey and not just in black and white, and that Nicholas was not all white and his captors were not all black either. Such is the complexity of human nature. I also agree that Nicholas was more a man than a saint, and I am personally more comfortable seeing him that way. I admit that, while not as fanatical about the Imperial Family as some, I am somewhat an apologist for them and always try to see their better sides and sometimes even choose to ignore their darker sides. I guess I don’t understand how you can be a Romanovophile and not like something about them. I can’t see them completely objectively simply as historical figures, and I have to find a connection with them and something I can relate to and like about them, if I am to continue to like them with such passion as I have for the last 12 years since I first discovered them.

5- Finally, what do others here think of the characterization of the Tsar and his wife made in the book? I think the most sympathetic personalities in the family as portrayed in the book are the Grand Duchesses. I admit that I was somewhat uncomfortable with the portrayal of the girls’ home life as lonely and neglectful, in contrast to the happy, ideal home life that we have all read about. And that Alexandra could be so distant with them, sometimes going without seeing them everyday, and that they felt ignored (I did always think it odd that she communicated with her daughters by writing letters under the same roof). Well, I was not comfortable with this portrayal and do not entirely agree that Alexandra was not such a good mother, but this is hardly a safe and comfortable book. It does shake your assertions about the family and for that it is refreshing.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: ptitchka on September 08, 2004, 09:06:06 PM
Quote

Similarly, there was the revelation of Alexei as a sometimes downright spoiled brat. For instance, an eyewitness who lived near Livadia described how the heir “liked to greet people who bowed to him with a bloody nose by hitting them in the face as they bowed,” and when he was not allowed to do that, he greeted them with “very bad language” instead. I had read this account before and it does not make the child seem very likeable, but I know that he eventually outgrew such behavior and was generally an agreeable and sensitive person. Although somewhat disappointed at Alexei’s bad behavior, I cannot fault him for it, because what else would you expect from a child who felt so exalted and indulged from his earliest years, and who was rarely punished or disciplined.


I myself chocked this anecdote up to the same sort of bad press the family got from Princess Catherine Radziwill and others who stood on the outside of the Imperial Family looking in.  I cannot imagine an invalid child actually punching, biting or otherwise assaulting another person like this.  In the days before people were taken to court for defamation of character, slander, libel, misrepresentation and plagiarism, people could write anything and get away with it.  Look at the coarser and more hostile things the Bolshevik executioners said about the Romanovs!  Can they be trusted as entirely unbiased judges of character?  (Now I do realize that that's a question like a double edged sword?)
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Penny_Wilson on September 09, 2004, 09:29:56 AM
Quote
I myself chocked this anecdote up to the same sort of bad press the family got from Princess Catherine Radziwill and others who stood on the outside of the Imperial Family looking in.  I cannot imagine an invalid child actually punching, biting or otherwise assaulting another person like this.


I think that it is a little short-sighted to chalk this anecdote up to erroneous bad press; Alexei has been "caught on tape" in the Finnish Skerries, smacking a person upside the head, and we have the words of other Romanov family members, such as the estimable KR as confirmation that the Heir could be badly-behaved.

Alexei was not an "invalid child."  He had a chronic illness, and at this point in the story was too young to appreciate that an ounce of prevention was worth a pound of cure.  At this age -- he must have been five, six, seven at the most, I think -- he was ready to explore the world and test his boundaries, and being restricted from doing so must have been very frustrating, I think, especially as he must have felt quite well in himself.  In a young child -- especially one exalted from birth and, yes, a little spoiled -- frustration can manifest itself in a little bit of petty violence: biting, kicking, hitting, etc.  My own neighbor has a five-year-old girl with chronic asthma; a nice little girl most of the time, but when temper takes her over not being allowed out on certain days -- or whatever -- she bites!

So our inclusion of this anecdote was NOT a condemnation of Alexei, but rather an illustration of where he was in his life at that time.  

Quote
In the days before people were taken to court for defamation of character, slander, libel, misrepresentation and plagiarism, people could write anything and get away with it.  Look at the coarser and more hostile things the Bolshevik executioners said about the Romanovs!  Can they be trusted as entirely unbiased judges of character?  (Now I do realize that that's a question like a double edged sword?)


This anecdote about Alexei originated neither from a Bolshevik during the revolution, nor from a Communist during the Soviet years.  It came from a woman called Catherine Frolova, who lived in the vicinity of Livadia in the first decades of the twentieth century; she was a close contemporary of Alexei's, being probably only a year or two older.  She did not make her statement until the 1990s, well after the fall of the Soviet regime.  Combined with statements from people like KR, and the evidence of the film that caught Alexei smacking his friend, we have no reason to doubt her word.  8)
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: ptitchka on September 09, 2004, 06:21:48 PM
Dear Ms. Wilson,

I thank you for a most civil and well-reasoned reply.  Please forgive me for what was basically a knee-jerk reaction made in defense of that member of the Imperial Family I revere the most.  Unlike the Tsesarevich I do not grow in the quality of self-restraint and patience as I grow older!


BTW - For anyone wishing to read something about how well Alexei could behave when he was older, I highly recommend the latest issue of 'Orthodox Life'.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Dasha on September 09, 2004, 07:12:30 PM
Quote
Dear Ms. Wilson,

I thank you for a most civil and well-reasoned reply.  Please forgive me for what was basically a knee-jerk reaction made in defense of that member of the Imperial Family I revere the most.  Unlike the Tsesarevich I do not grow in the quality of self-restraint and patience as I grow older!


BTW - For anyone wishing to read something about how well Alexei could behave when he was older, I highly recommend the latest issue of 'Orthodox Life'.



Hi Elizabeth,

If it's not too much trouble, can you post a link to that if one exists?

Thank you in advance!  ;D

Dasha
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: ptitchka on September 09, 2004, 07:27:19 PM
I'll do better than that in your case at least.  I wish there were a link!
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Dasha on September 10, 2004, 12:13:44 AM
Quote
I'll do better than that in your case at least.  I wish there were a link!


Thank you Elizabeth!  I saw your PM.   ;D

Dasha
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: pushkina on September 11, 2004, 05:32:03 AM
where is that link for the alexei article?
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: ptitchka on September 11, 2004, 08:09:13 PM
My dear 'Pushkina'

I am sorry to say that there is no link to the article that I brought up on the Internet.  This article was in the magazine, Orthodox Life, an English-speaking publication of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, and did not by any means deal only with the Tsarevich-Martyr, though what was written about him was very nice.

Would you like me to send you a copy of that article?

Elizabeth

PS:  Oops!  This is trailing off from the intent of this thread.  Sorry!  Could we start up a new thread for any response to this specific thing?
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: JASPER on November 08, 2004, 03:33:20 AM
Book is brill yes, but TOO MANY inaccuracies and wrong assumptions. Also, some continuity errors. BUT, overall a good insight to what did and might have happened. I am now writing a book about how I FOUND the grave of the two missing Romanov children - Alexei and Anastasia or Marie,  on Sunday 27th June 2004.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Richard_Cullen on November 08, 2004, 04:54:00 AM
Well Jasper I will be stunned to hear your account.  I rather think that Greg and Penny's book is excellent and confronts many of the issues not previously broached.  I am obviously missing the bits about inaccuracies and discontinuity, maybe you could articulate these for our (my) information and enhanced knowledge on the subject?

Richard
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Forum Admin on November 08, 2004, 09:10:02 AM
Posted elsewhere but needs to be repeated here:I don't mean to rain on anyone's parade, but to be blunt, such a claim is of too great importance to go unproven. Frankly, the claimant cannot expect otherwise and must expect such a response. We have had MANY claimants of various ilks here, and all are greeted with a grain of scepticism.
To "Jaspar" (who is a lady it seems, in England) I must insist, that SOME tangible evidence, photos, affadavits, something to prove your claim be included here, or else I must insist that you stop making the claim.
 
Everyone always says "I cannot because of the newpapers, book, film..." whatever, but we have been burned before. Our rule is PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS, or please keep it shut.
NO DISCUSSION ON THIS TOPIC UNTIL SUCH PROOF IS FORTHCOMING. PERIOD.
 
Thanks, and truly not meant to be rude, just sceptical.
FA
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Penny_Wilson on November 08, 2004, 10:54:26 AM
I just wanted to let you know, AF, that I have seen your questions, and will answer them -- but I've just spent my morning AP Board time answering points from an article posted on the Anastasia thread -- and I have some other stuff to get to now.  But I WILL answer later today, unless Greg gets here first!  

Penny, looking forward to the discussion... 8)

Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Abby on November 08, 2004, 03:30:42 PM
"Fate of the Romanovs" definitley was a ground-breaking book, I thought, and it was so much new information that I was kind of in disbeleif for a while. I had no idea that the girls had animosity toward their mother or were detatched from her at all. And the death scene, which was so detailed, was all new. I read most of the book with my mouth open, lol. As it was the first book to "debunk" some of the "myths" that I have been reading repeated over and over in the other books about the family, (myths being how the family is portrayed as being almost saintly and almost one-dimensional, and also how they were treated while in the Ipatiev house) I was skeptical about some of the stories, like the Marie-and-soldier love story, I had to keep in mind that there WAS new information that no one had been able to access before, and that is a reason why no other books wrote about such things. However it is always hard to accept new facts when the same things have been pounded into one's head time and time again. But I suppose that is how lies are created, and we have to go back to the drawing board and put aside any preconcieved notions we have about the Romanov family.

I look forward to the discussion, too.... :)
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Janet_W. on November 08, 2004, 03:57:22 PM
My reactions were similar to yours, Abby.

Human behavior and interaction is very complicated, and I appreciate the considerable research and documentation in FOTR. Greg and Penny have shaken us up a bit, which is not in my opinion a bad thing at all!

Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Greg_King on November 09, 2004, 05:54:09 AM
Hi AnastasiaFan-

I'm not quoting your post for reasons of length, but will try to answer your questions.  First, I should say, I don't see anything that we wrote as "accusations," as you phrase it; we simply tried to present information and evidence, and couple that with analysis.  I guess I would ask you rather specifically to what "accusations made against Alix" you are referring?  Everything within the book is either cited and sourced, or the analysis is drawn from those materials cited and sourced, so perhaps you can tell me exactly what the question is?  One important thing to keep in mind is that our profiles of the family were largely focused on the final years of the dynasty and the time in captivity, and most of the information about their dynamic between 1916-1918 is drawn from previously unpublished sources like the full depositions of Gilliard, Gibbes, Bitner, Kobylinsky, and others, in the Sokolov Dossiers.  It's my guess that you've never read these, since they have never been published in full, and thus are unaware of the opinions on which we drew.

Regarding Olga's relationship with her mother: if you look again, you will see that this information is sourced-it derives from comments made by Vyrubova, Dehn, Bittner, Gilliard, Gibbes, Kobylinsky, and others.  For example, in their full depositions, Gilliard, Bittner, Gibbes, and Kobylinsky all remark on the strained relationship between Olga and Alix.  By strained we don't mean that they weren't speaking or hated each other, but those around them commented on a notable coolness in their relationship.  We certainly don't take the position that they were mortal enemies, and reading this into what we say doesn't reflect our views.

Regarding Tatiana and the reference to Toria: please see page 49; we don't say what you have us saying-our sentence reads "With Tatiana, the Empress mirrored the behavior of her own aunt, Queen Alexandra, and [this should have read who] treated her daughter, Princess Victoria, like a "glorified maid."  This quote is cited, and the analysis that AF tended to treat Tatiana in this manner is derived from a number of sources, including those mentioned above, as well as Alix's letters, in which she refers to Tatiana as being the girl who follows her wishes and attends to her.

The edit of Tatiana's letter was for reasons of space; if you read into it that Alix was neglectful, sorry-that's nowhere near to what we say-we included it because on the contrary it shows how the girls longed to have regular contact with their mother, in a normal way, and the fact that they could not was hard on them.  We didn't distort anything.

As to Marie: Again, Gilliard, Gibbes, Bitner, and Kobylinsky, in their complete Sokolov depositions, all comment that Marie had little in common with her mother and adored her father, that she was far closer to him.  Regarding the letter you mention-again, you've distorted what we actually say-not, as you write, "you claim Marie wrote it because she felt unloved by her mother"-we say nothing of the kind.  We say (page 49) "Marie believed she had been unwanted and was unloved, a situation unwittingly exacerbated by the Empress."  As to Marie's reply-again, please read the book carefully-her letter of response clearly indicates that she was NOT reassured.

It seems to me that you are trying to read something into what we say that simply isn't there, and (no offense) the examples cited above are actually inaccurate representations of what we wrote, or seem to be your interpretation of what we meant.  The latter's fine-everyone forms their own opinions-but please don't distort what we say in the book-it's better if you have further questions like this to simply and accurately quote from the actual text, rather than paraphrase it and add your own interpretation.

Greg King
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Richard_Cullen on November 09, 2004, 07:59:02 AM
I want to lend my support, for the little it is worth to Greg's comments above

Richard
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 09, 2004, 08:19:25 PM
I want to add my two cents here, as AnastasiaFan and I started to discuss this topic on a different thread.

One of the reasons I liked FOTR is because until this book came out, I always felt like something was missing from the portrayals of the characters in other Romanov- related books. The personalities were often polarized, either too stereotypically good or too stereotypically bad, kind of flat even because of that. The authors always seemed to take sides and go out of their way to show either the angelic IF or the evil revolutionaries. To me, somehow something was always missing in these portrayals, something I couldn't quite put my finger on but I always felt that there must be more to it. In FOTR we saw things that were different. We saw the IF members that were not such an ideal family after all, instead a normal human one with all the issues and problems of a normal family. They had issues like normal teenage daughters have with their mother (who doesn't?). This of course didn't  mean they were matricidal, or that they couldn't stand the site of her or would never write loving notes or letters to her, they just mean that there were normal tensions between the mother and her children, as we can witness across the board in a common human experience, royal or not they were human. Somehow the portrayal in FOTR seemed more realistic to me. I know there have been many accounts of the IF being the most harmonious and the most ideal family ever, who never had any discords among each other or any disagreements and who all loved each other at all time and never argued. This is all very nice, and I am sure some people really did see them that way. But we all know that things are rarely, if ever, what they appear to be. I am not saying that this means that things behind the royal doors were totally different than they seemed, or that when no one was looking Nicholas would get drunk and beat his wife and children or something like that, but I am fairly sure that they were not as ideal as they have been described in the past. I am certain that beyond the "facade"(for the lack of better term), they were real human beings - teenagers or young adults, with mood swings and all. I don't think that makes them seem any less admirable in certain ways that they were, and it doesn't make them any less likable. In fact, quite the opposite, it made them seem more real and more interesting. I think this was the first book that actually addressed many of these things, and maybe this is why many people were taken aback by it. But just because something was never addressed in other books before, it doesn't mean at all that it must be false information. In fact, from what I understand, Penny and Greg were two of very few Romanov historians who actually went to primary sources for their references, and this makes it more credible to me.

Helen
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 09, 2004, 08:59:02 PM
Quote

My questions were just about information not being cited. I had been talking about that with a few of my Romanov friends who also thought there were no sources for a lot of the information. None of them wanted to ask why, so I decided to do it (I'm more vocal than them anyway). But I plan to wake up a little earlier tomorrow and go check out the book so I can see the sources myself. And getting up an hour early to check out a book can be seen as a very weird compliment. You have no idea how hard that is for me!  ;)


To be honest, I don't remember what was cited and what wasn't, I got too involved with reading it to notice. I don't own a copy of FOTR so I can't check now either. But I just remember thinking when I was reading it, "well it's about time someone addressed some of these issues and talked about some things that may have gone on between the girls and their mother, etc.", no one ever has before as far as I could remember! This is especially true for the four girls, their personalities have always been kept so two dimentional, to a point where all four seemed interchangable, kind of like when they are referred to as OTMA, one entity. Yet, I am sure each one was very distinct. I mean they have been described as different superficially, but not really sufficiently. I was kind of happy to see in FOTR that some of the girls showed a little bit of a rebellious spirit towards their mother, because let me tell you, as a mother Alexandra seemed to have been a real pain in the-you-know-what at times! And as a spouse too for that matter. I know she loved them all very much, but talk about controlling... Coming from someone who grew up with a very controlling mother, believe me I know what I am talking about  ;). Plus, I think the fact that there had to be at least some amount of feeling of being neglected on the part of some if not all of the girls, that would have been very normal, almost unavoidable I would say. Think about it, not only were they treated (at least subconcsiously) not nearly as important as their brother just because they were females, not only because there were four of them and only one Alexei which automatically made him the center of attention, but also they were four healthy girls trying to "compete" for attention with a boy, the heir to the throne no less, who was so often on the verge of death! Yes, of course they loved him, but I am sure that at times they had to resent him on a certain level too, at least subconciously. I would be surprised if they didn't feel some sort of a complex about that situation and act it out in some ways. They would not be "normal" if they didn't act sometimes the way it was described in the book. So this is part of why I was very happy when I came across this book and started reading it and learned that all this may have been the case. Frankly, I couldn't understand why some people had a problem with any of this...

Well, AnaFan let us know about the citations, I'd be curious to hear about that too. And yes, I can fully understand the tortures of having to wake up an hour earlier just to check book citations!  ;) ;D

Helen
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 10, 2004, 09:09:26 PM
Quote

Well Helen, it turns out much was cited in the first chapter, however what was cited was pretty much quotes we have already read before. It didn't appear to be anything new. I can't really sit here and type it all, because that would take way too long, but I will tell you it's between pages 45 and 51. I did realize something though. Much of what was stated about Alix and OTMA comes down to one's own opinion. For example I'll go back to the glorified maid statement. I can understand how a person may or may not view it that way. I guess I can see both points of view. If that is one's take on the relationship, that's fine. However, it is my opinion that that just wasn't the case, since I don't see any real comparison between the two Alexandra's and their daughters. Infact, I see the exact opposite. As stated before, unlike Queen Alexandra and Toria, Empress Alexandra never forced any of her children to be her servants. As Gillard said, it was the girls themselves who came up with the decision to help her when she was ill. Also Empress Alexandra said she would allow all of her daughters to marry, which was the exact opposite of what Queen Alexandra (and many other royal mothers) did. So no, I don't see the comparison between the two at all. But like you said Helen, the children do seem to come more to life in this book because they come across like many teenagers and young adults we know. The bad they experienced in their home life is like many families, and I do like the fact that was added in the book since it does make them more "real." However I won't tip toe around the fact that I am disappointed that none of the good was really mentioned, and we know from the girls' letters and diaries that there was also a lot of happiness concerning their relationship with their mother as well as with the rest of their family. I will probably finish reading the rest of the book today, because the last time I read it was about 8 months ago, and all I really remember was something about bears in a hallway and Marie trying to open the cellar door.  


AnFan, thanks for looking that up for us.

It's hard to say about that whole Tatiana/Alexandra dynamic ( I think it was Tatiana who was compared to Queen Alexandra's daughter, right?) because as you say, it would be pretty subjective, even if you were there to witness it, let alone if you are just looking at someone else's accounts of the situtation. Stuff like this always is subjective and you can't really prove or disprove it. Some people will see it one way and others another way, so when you are looking at something like this from a historical perspective, it just depends on whom you are talking to. There was probably some truth to the interpretation, although whose truth? There really is no absolute truth to this... One of the most frustrating things for me has been switching over from the field of hard science to the humanities field, namely history. Some things are just so hard to accept about humanities research, because everything is pretty subjective, whereas in science it isn't usually. In science you have a hyporthesis and you can test it and find out if your hypothesis is valid based on your results. With humanities you can't do that because your results are only as good as your sources, so there is a lot ambiguity going on. The same can be said for psychology I guess, and a lot of what we have been talking about is along the lines of psychology, I suppose. You can sort of look at the IF and figure out what the deal may have been based on what you know about them through psychology. Of course you can't prove anything, but you can assume some things with a reasonable amount of certainty. So this how we have to look at this, because even with citations and sources, history is not really provable like, say, chemistry is. I am sure that there was alot of good and also bad inside that family just like with any other family, and I am pretty sure they had similar, to a degree, dynamics as any other family.
BTW, I know what you mean about grad school, I am currently in grad school too, and to me it's more like boot camp than anything else!  ;)
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 10, 2004, 11:00:48 PM
Quote

Yes, there was good and bad in the IF like any family. But like I said, I didn't like the fact that the good was never mentioned. We have so much evidence -- from letters, to diaries, to eye witness accounts -- of not only the good between Alix and OTMA, but the family as a whole. It just would have been nice if the good had been added in there as well. It would have been balanced then and not so one-sided, truly making them like all families.
  


You know, while I was reading about this stuff, I didn't even think that what they were talking about was bad, I just thought it was something different, and found it more interesting than the usual. Perhaps the reason G and P didn't talk about the other stuff is because it has already been talked about so much that there was no point to bring it up again, maybe they wanted to bring in only fresh information that was never talked about. I mean, every Romanov book has the same staple stories about the family that everyone knows by heart about, so I actually thought that it was refreshing to read something different. And as I mentioned, it didn't occur to me that it was anything bad, I just saw it as new information. Maybe I am just not so sensitive to that kind of stuff because I grew up in a very insensitive household where no one really realized it nor cared. Our family motto was "Just get over it!"  ;)

Helen

P.S. I guess everyone has a shared experience in grad school, my own three hour classes cause much the same reaction in me!  :-/ ;)
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 11, 2004, 09:46:41 AM


"I as talking about the full depositions of Gilliard, Bittner, Gibbes, and Kobylinsky he said he read. "


Ok, I see. That makes sense.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 11, 2004, 10:27:37 AM
Quote

I know there are even more unpublished letters and journals out there written by the IF that do speak of the good times they had together, and I just think it would have been interesting to read that as well.
I'm still curious to know where these unpublished documents are located!


Yes, I would love to find out about this too. Do you know if they are in Russia somewhere or were they exported after the revolution?  
Did you know that Yale University Library has a collection of the IF pictures and letters that were never published (from what I understand they weren't). I would love to take a ride up there and check them out, apparently they let you literally go through them with special permission! I tried contacting Yale by email about this a while ago, but never got a response, but I still haven't given up on this. I wonder if anyone knows more about this collection. Maybe I should make a posting about this, but I am not sure if it already has been posted somewhere, I am just not sure where to look for it.  
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 11, 2004, 10:35:09 AM
Quote

I asked Greg a couple of times in an earlier post, but he hasn't responded.


Do you mean you asked him about the unpublished letters and journals or about the Yale collection? I am assuming you are talking about the former. Maybe Greg doesn't know. Greg, are you there?
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Abby on November 11, 2004, 02:25:25 PM
Quote


Did you know that Yale University Library has a collection of the IF pictures and letters that were never published (from what I understand they weren't). I would love to take a ride up there and check them out, apparently they let you literally go through them with special permission! I tried contacting Yale by email about this a while ago, but never got a response, but I still haven't given up on this.


Do you mean the Beinecke albums, Helen? You can view them online...i was going to give you the link but i can't find it no matter how much i 'googled'!
i cannot find the link that takes you to the page that had the 5 albums and you could click on them and go through all the pages. does anyone know what i mean? I used to look through the albums and it looked different. i think maybe they changed their website?

I really want to go to Yale and look through them, if they allow you to! I live in Northeast PA and Yale is about a 2 hour drive.
I call for a field trip!!!
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 11, 2004, 02:31:28 PM
Quote

Do you mean the Beinecke albums, Helen? You can view them online here:
http://highway49.library.yale.edu/romanov/SearchExecXC.asp
i cannot find the link that takes you to the page that had the 5 albums and you could click on them and go through all the pages. does anyone know what i mean? I used to look through the albums and it looked different. i think maybe they changed their website?

I really want to go to Yale and look through them, if they allow you to! I live in Northeast PA and Yale is about a 2 hour drive.
I call for a field trip!!!


Thanks, Abby, I think this is it. I think a field trip is a good idea, and it sounds like you and I are practically neighbors. I just wish someone replied to me from Yale and let me know how this works. Someone told me that they visited the library and saw the collection and were able to look through it, but this was years ago, I am not sure if this is still the case now. Would anyone else be interested in a field trip?

Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Lanie on November 11, 2004, 02:37:56 PM
Here is the link for the albums: http://beinecke.library.yale.edu/dl_crosscollex/romanov_album.htm

If your browser is like mine and fussy you might have to click on the album and whe nyou click to go to another page of the album you have to let it load (it'll be the same 1st page) and refresh the browser and it'll show up.  Blah.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 11, 2004, 02:43:33 PM
Quote
Here is the link for the albums: http://beinecke.library.yale.edu/dl_crosscollex/romanov_album.htm



Thanks!
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Abby on November 11, 2004, 02:52:25 PM
YAYYY LANIE FOUND IT!!! :D

Now I know what I am doing tonight instead of studying for my biochemistry exam.... hahha
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 11, 2004, 02:53:23 PM
Quote

Hey, I'm down South, but not too far from y'all! I would join this field trip as well! Is it just pictures there, or documents as well?


It would be awesome if we could get a small group together and carpool up there. Maybe during the Christmas- New Year break or something like that? I think that they also have documents not just pictures, but I am not 100% sure. But even if just pictures, it looks like a great collection!
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 11, 2004, 02:55:53 PM
Quote
YAYYY LANIE FOUND IT!!! :D

Now I know what I am doing tonight instead of studying for my biochemistry exam.... hahha

Abby, I just sent you an email to your school email address...
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 11, 2004, 03:28:54 PM
Quote

If there are documents there, I WILL read them, even if I have to break down the door to reach them! I'm not sure an email will cut it, I think a phone call is better. I will be more than willing to phone them and find out everything.


AnFan,  I just spoke to someone over at Yale, and apparently there are letters and such that we can see in their original form, unfortunately the photos they let the public see are only facsimiles... But I think still worthwhile to go! I just emailed you too.

You know, I just realized, we probably need a different  thread for this subject, as we have digressed from the original topic!  ;D
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Penny_Wilson on November 11, 2004, 05:07:08 PM
Quote
I as talking about the full depositions of Gilliard, Bittner, Gibbes, and Kobylinsky he said he read. But yes, I want to read their unpublished letters and journals as well.


These statements -- and many, many others -- may be found in one or more of the surviving copies of the Sokolov Dossier.  Bearing in mind that not all copies of the Dossier are complete, there is a Sokolov Dossier in Michigan, at the Henry Ford Archives.  

Perhaps another road trip?   8)

Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 11, 2004, 05:54:04 PM
Quote

... there is a Sokolov Dossier in Michigan, at the Henry Ford Archives.  

Perhaps another road trip?   8)



Hey, I've never been to Michigan, perhaps it's about time I paid a visit  8)  ;D I personally think it would be very cool to see Sokolov's dossier!  :o
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Laura Mabee on November 20, 2004, 02:52:04 PM
*bump*
Sorry to bump this thread, but I thought I wouls post on it. I have to agree with AnastasiaFan on this one. I am glad that I read this thread because I have the same impressions she did on this book. And I appreciate her asking the questions, because I cannot usually phrase what I am thinking.

I am half-way through the book so far, maybe I'll finish this week  ;D
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: rskkiya on November 21, 2004, 12:21:38 PM
Well, it seems that I must again be the real live toad in the imaginary garden...croak croak :-/

   I cannot tell you just how very disapointed I am in this book --but then again I am certain that I came to it with outlandishly high expectations...So far nothing that I have read in "Fate"  was not written better or more thoughtfully in other texts, but perhaps I read too much!
  ITEM * It's rife with typographical and basic conpositional errors --to wit-- in one passage an individual has "black hair" - in the NEXT sentence he has "red hair ?" Greg /Penny -- Had you no proof readers?
  ITEM * That NAOTMAA were not members of the healthiest or most emotionally balanced of families... Well Duh!
   Admittedly I am not quite halfway thru' -- so maybe I will be magically surprised in the next two pages or so...Hmmm.
 
rskkiya

Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Sarai on November 21, 2004, 03:23:27 PM
I actually agree on a lot of the points AnastasiaFan was making on the book. I can understand why some of those who may not like the book may be afraid to post their criticisms on the board, since the majority of people here seem to be big fans of it and those who aren't appear to be in the minority. I will admit, I was reluctant to post my criticisms of it as well because of this.

I reviewed the book earlier in this thread and posted my comments on it. I think it was a well-researched book and I don't regret buying it, but I can certainly understand rskkiya's disappointment with it, because I started reading it with very high expectations as well, based on all the raves I had read about it here. It is a massive work and the authors are to be commended for their research and effort, but, yes, a lot of it I had already read before, especially the parts dealing with the family's life before Ekaterinburg. The strongest part of the book for me was the detailed account of the family's daily life in the House of Special Purpose and the account of their executions. These things were actually new to me and I had not read them before in such detail. Like, for instance, that Maria tried to make friends with a guard, and that all the girls except Olga sometimes socialized with them. It was also a relief to read that their life in that house was not as horrific as it had previously been made out to be. The minutely detailed account of the executions is extremely moving and powerful, as you realize exactly the tremendous amount of agony experienced in those dying, chaotic minutes. It was also interesting to read the politics behind the decision of granting them sainthood.

So those were the good points for me. But to return to my original point, I have to stand up and admit that I agree with AnastasiaFan that, upon initially reading the book, it did seem kind of one-sided in that it mostly showed the negative side of the family. Alexandra especially came off to me as extremely arrogant and unlikeable. Nicholas was a cold-blooded anti-Semite and Alexei a spoiled brat. The only sympathetic characters were the four daugthers, and this is because they seemed to be victimized, first by their parents' neglect and later possibly by the guards. I am open-minded and agree that the family were not always the perfect angels they were made out to be, but I also think that if their negatives are to be pointed out, then one should explain the possible reasons behind them. Yes, Alexandra was not nice to the guards, but I can't blame her, given they represented those who had just ruined their lives. Yes, Nicholas was anti-Semitic, but that was a product of his upbringing and of the times, and from what I've read on this board, in his last years he had actually relented quite a bit and both he and his wife were willing to concede more rights to their Jewish subjects. Yes, Alexei was a spoiled brat, but that's not surprising given the fact that he was rarely disciplined, and as he matured he changed into a nicer person who was much more sympathetic to those in need. Despite this, I can understand as someone pointed out here previously, that perhaps the book pointed out the more negative aspects of these people because everyone else has already glowingly covered all of their positive ones. But I think if someone is reading this book as an introduction to the Romanovs, their perspective on the family may be skewed and unbalanced.

Anyway, those are further thoughts I had on this. I have mixed feelings about the book, I liked some things and didn't agree with others, but such is the nature of such a work. If others are not enraptured by the book, they should speak up as well, because it's O.K. Everyone has different opinions and not everyone has to like it, even when it seems everyone else does.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Janet_W. on November 21, 2004, 03:42:34 PM
Sarai, I agree that FOTR should not be the first book for anyone interested in reading about the last Romanovs. It is best for people who have read the works of Massie, Kurth, and perhaps a few others. And since FOTR is about a very specific situation--the final months of imprisonment--I would hope that it would be read only by people who already are familiar with the basic story and previous viewpoints. But since it is such a formidable work--with considerable footnoting and an extensive bibliography--I'm guessing that it isn't exactly the type of item to be prominently displayed in mainstream bookstores, or to be found in small public libraries or doctor's or dentist's waiting rooms! It's the type of book searched out by folks like us, who already have read a number of Romanov-oriented materials . . . and therefore its specific subject focus and less-than-comprehensive overview of Nicholas and Alexandra's earlier years should be okay. So although I found it a very emotionally tough read in parts, I'm glad to have read something about the family written in a different tone and from a different approach.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: JM on November 21, 2004, 05:20:53 PM
I got it at McNally Robinson, which is probably the biggest bookstore in Saskatchewan. It's part of a chain as well.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Sunny on November 21, 2004, 06:09:12 PM
AnastasiaFan, my thoughts on FOTR are aligned with yours. I appreciate the incredible work that went into it, and have read most of Greg's books (even the one on Sharon Tate). In the seven months I've had the book, I've only gotten through 3/4's of it, in the same time reading several other books on the subject.

Respectfully, I don't find it balanced, and hope it isn't the first choice of too many new to the subject.

Sunny
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 21, 2004, 06:09:29 PM
Quote
FOTR should not be the first book for anyone interested in reading about the last Romanovs. It is best for people who have read the works of Massie, Kurth, and perhaps a few others. And since FOTR is about a very specific situation--the final months of imprisonment--I would hope that it would be read only by people who already are familiar with the basic story and previous viewpoints.


This is a good point. One of the reasons I liked FOTR was because it gave another side to the Romanov story that we all have been reading about for years in many other Romanov books. I saw it as a new a spin to the "old tale", so to speak, and this is why I found it very refreshing. But it didn't occur to me that someone who has never read any other Romanov books would see it in a very different way, and that the personality descriptions may come off skewed.

You're right, this book would not be appropriate as an introduction - I think it was meant as a more in depth study of the family, and others, - geared at a reader who is already familiar with and had long before formulated  opinions about the characters. So yes, when you look at it that way, it may come off as an unfair portrayal. But as someone who has been reading about the subject for a while, I only saw it as introduction to different facets of the personalities.

I agree though, I would not recommend this book as an introduction to the Romanovs, it is definitely more for long term fans.

Helen
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Laura Mabee on November 21, 2004, 08:10:52 PM
It's great to see that htis threat is active again. I agree with many on here that this is definatly not the book for first time romophiles  ;D But I did find that I was dissapointed in knowing that they didn't put in the rest of Tatiana's letter about not having Alix around. I thought that the reason of "not enough space" was interesting. Since the rest of the letter, it seems, was only a sentence. ???
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Louise on November 21, 2004, 09:38:21 PM
I've pulled this book out of the university library and I'm going to re-read it again. I will understand DNA, I will understand DNA--if I keep repeating that I will understand DNA.  :)

Louise
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: JM on November 22, 2004, 07:22:21 AM
For what it's worth, my opinion of FOTR has changed. It seems to me that there was more of an incentive to prove that things "weren't all that great," rather than to just tell the truth. There's nothing that bothers me more than when somebody tries to convince me that I'm totally wrong, just for the sake of being a rebel or something. The truth about the Romanovs lies somewhere between Massie and Wilson & King. But I still love the book for it's wonderful description of the whole Ekaterinburg/murder/investigation part of the saga. There was probably only four pages that irritated me, and that's not bad.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Richard_Cullen on November 22, 2004, 07:51:43 AM
Things weren't all that great, in fact they were pretty diabolical, on anybody's measure.  What followed the Romanov's was worse, or the excesses of Stalin and to some extent Lenin were worse.

Nicholas II was a poor ruler, an extremely poor ruler and for which Alexandra must accept some blame.  Their almost blind belief in the 'divine right of kings' and autocracy where out of date even in late 1800s, early 1900s.  I have just re read A Life Long Passion and it is clear from one of the letters that Alexandra holds out hope for this autocracy to continue into Alexei's reign, if he were ever to be crowned monarch.

But the dreadful suppression of the 1905 Revolution and the punitive measures taken in its aftermath are a testament to poor leadership.  Pogroms against the Jews etc.  Nicholas could have chnaged it if he had really believed and committed himself to democracy and given the Duma real power.

Robert Service's new book on Stalin is quite insightful around this period.

As an aside I don't think that Greg or Penny are trying to tell anybody to think anything, I believe they are recording the facts.  As with all historical research you can either accept them or reject them.

Richard
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: rskkiya on November 22, 2004, 10:57:23 AM
   My deep frustration with this work lies beyond its numerous "typo's" and conpositional failures to its promise of "shocking new information"... Where oh where could that information be? I still haven't found anything here  I didn't already know...

   I am still uncertain why King and Wilson still keep the old "Anastasia survived" dream alive...Ah well back to the book. :(

rskkiya
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Robert_Hall on November 22, 2004, 11:26:26 AM
I think that bit was just publicists blurb. Nothing they could do about it.
I like the book, a bit repetitous perhaps, but extremely well researched, detailed and for once, refreshing.
Also, I do not hink the Anastasia bit was necessarily perpetuated.
Best,
Robert
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Richard_Cullen on November 22, 2004, 01:51:41 PM
Anastasiafan,

I don't think Greg and Penny have failed to do justice to the Imperial Family.  They were a family out of time, not just with those who sort to use revolution, but out of tune with the nation as a whole.

They were locked into the past - a past that many other modernised nations had left behind long ago.  I think Greg and Penny (and I don't know either personally) have captured what it IF was really like.  Aloof, arrogant, dismissive of others, not very bright and committed to preserving their lineage.  Other royal hoseholds across Europe with constitutional, or almost constitutional monarchies exhibited very much the same behaviour.

The arrogance of royalty at that time and the aristocracy which assumed they were the rightful 'leaders' kept, even in Great Britain, vast swathes of people were kept in servitude and not allowed to realise their potential.  How can that be right?  And I am not a communist, or a socialist, I just believe in social justice.  Yet when I compare Russia at the turn of the century to Germany, Great Britain, France (I know it was a Republic) Russia trails by miles - it is as if it is in a time warp.  That time warp was controlled by the Romanovs.

I have said elsewhere I am very sorry that they met such an unpleasant death, especially the children, in fact I can think of few things more horrible.  But I also find it difficult to in any way mitigate Nicholas and Alexandra's behaviour.

I don't think there was any scandal attached to the relationship between Rasputin, Alexandra or the girls as some might suggest.  But what a dumb relationship to fall into, and to compound the fact just about everyone, who was anyone told Nicholas so.  Alexandra just dismissed out of hand any criticism.  So blind if their murderers are to be believed the girls still had momentos of the man.  They had practised of course with their French friend Phillipe. Such lack of judgement, misguided beliefs and stupidity in two such powerful people beggars belief.

The children unfortunately reflected their parents' attitudes and had the world not been tuned upside down by World War I and Russia by the revolution they might have perpetuated that autocratic self belief well into the the 20th century.

I just wonder how many of us would have been favoured people in the Romanov regime - very, very few I would think unless you were born into royalty?  I wonder what our life would have been like in the unfashionable parts of St Petersburg, not particularly good I suspect.

It is unusual for me to express my views so strongly but I think fact is fact.  History should be fact and I thinkthat is what Greg and Penny have set out - the facts.  But as I have said before it would be a boring world if we all agreed.


Richard
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Richard_Cullen on November 22, 2004, 01:52:37 PM
should have been 'sought' not sort

R
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Janet_W. on November 22, 2004, 02:10:02 PM
My terminology re: my thoughts about the book is a bit different than the terminology others have been using. I don't love the book, for it tells me things which are uncomfortable to know and frequently extremely disturbing to contemplate. And although the approach does not idealize, extol or worship the family--as some authors might be accused of doing--I'm not sure I find the less-than-perfect family dynamics and the very probable betrayal of a trusted family retainer refreshing! I do, however, respect the book, realizing that it is the result of a tremendous amount of research, writing, and editing. Do I question some of the material? Of course. But not to the point that I discount it.

Today being the anniversary of the assassination of President Kennedy, I'll draw an analogy between the families. Discard whatever you may think of both the Romanovs and the Kennedys, but consider this: During the time JFK was in office, most of the press respected the Kennedys and their private lives, and what the press wrote about the family was almost without exception either worshipful or poked gentle fun. Only a few authors were critical--some in a hateful manner, a few using a measured tone. Then came the assassination. Suddenly, and for years after, the market was flooded with heartfelt but definitely sentimental reminiscences. In time, however, the mood changed, and the books began to either viciously attack or offer well-considered, legitimate criticism.

Although the censorship during the Kennedy regime was largely self-imposed by the members of the press themselves, I think there is a parallel to the Romanovs. Yes, scurrilous books did come out during the reign of the Romanovs--and books that contained valid criticism as well.  But after their overthrow, reminiscences began to proliferate, by those who knew them not as political icons but as people. Then, a long period of time went by . . . and Robert Massie came along, collating those various reminiscences, as well as the more critical thought. And from that point on an entirely new group of books were published about Nicholas and Alexandra, generally focused on the cohesiveness of their family.

FOTR is unusual in that it focuses on the family, but at a time in their lives when—revolution or no—the family’s dynamics would have been radically (no pun intended) changing. And yes, I realize that it has been stocked in many, many bookstores—but only a few copies for special interest folks like ourselves, rather than huge displays at the entrance, with stacks and stacks of copies nearby.

Another point: I think we should also consider that we bring our own history to each one of these books. If we have been reading an entire collection books that take a particular tone, then read something which challenges that tone, we are going to be brought up short. Also, it’s tough to read what we don’t necessarily want to read. That these people were three dimensional and—like us all—possessed frailties that were occasionally unendearing . . . well, again, there’s another jolt to our sensibilities!

I come from a family of four. If each of us had written a book about our family life, and then each of our friends also had written books about us—and, moreover, if each of these books by friends covered slightly different periods in our lives—you can bet there would be a dichotomy of tone and reportage.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Laura Mabee on November 22, 2004, 04:06:58 PM
Quote
Another point: I think we should also consider that we bring our own history to each one of these books. If we have been reading an entire collection books that take a particular tone, then read something which challenges that tone, we are going to be brought up short. Also, it&#8217;s tough to read what we don&#8217;t necessarily want to read. That these people were three dimensional and&#8212;like us all&#8212;possessed frailties that were occasionally unendearing . . . well, again, there&#8217;s another jolt to our sensibilities!
 
I come from a family of four. If each of us had written a book about our family life, and then each of our friends also had written books about us&#8212;and, moreover, if each of these books by friends covered slightly different periods in our lives&#8212;you can bet there would be a dichotomy of tone and reportage.


Janet, You're whole post was brillant, but I quoted this part because I believe this is something that everyone should think of.  :)
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: rskkiya on November 24, 2004, 11:11:43 AM
    Alas, the duo of  King and  Wilson will certainly not be able to get a possitive consensus on the worth of FOTR or "Fate" as I will heretofor refer to it -so as to not confuse it with "The Fall of the Romanovs"- another (and in my opinion better) book on this same topic.
    Basicly King/Wilson point out some home truths about the Imperial Family, that many here might not like, they were full of human imperfections - no real news there...For the handfull of academics, scholars and hard core "rivet counters" at this site - the information that was suggested as radical, new and recently discovered is in fact information that has been availible and in print for some time!
    Maybe we are being too hard on them... Having read Mr. Kings work on Felix Yusupov, I now understand that his aim was simply to write a light, middle-brow book, full of pretty pictures, on an unusual and tragic member of the Tzarist court- not to present any kind of scholarly study.

    I was looking for the likes of Crankshaw and Figes --I found a collection of picture postcards instead...

ahhh well.

rskkiya



Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Elisabeth on November 24, 2004, 12:10:44 PM
Quote
   Alas, the duo of  King and  Wilson will certainly not be able to get a possitive consensus on the worth of FOTR or "Fate" as I will heretofor refer to it -so as to not confuse it with "The Fall of the Romanovs"- another (and in my opinion better) book on this same topic.
     Basicly King/Wilson point out some home truths about the Imperial Family, that many here might not like, they were full of human imperfections - no real news there...For the handfull of academics, scholars and hard core "rivet counters" at this site - the information that was suggested as radical, new and recently discovered is in fact information that has been availible and in print for some time!


I think "Fate of the Romanovs" (King and Wilson) can stand shoulder to shoulder with "Fall of the Romanovs" (Khrustalev and Steinberg) any day. To compare the two is similar to comparing apples and oranges - both are fruit, but different kinds. King and Wilson's book provides a historical narrative based on primary and other sources, while Khrustalev and Steinberg's book is essentially a collection of primary sources translated into English. Both are valuable resources for Romanov scholars, but serve different purposes. That said, I prefer King and Wilson's book for a number of reasons.

As much as I applaud the publication of Khrustalev and Steinberg's book, and wish they would follow it up with a sequel (because there are so many primary sources that have yet to be published, either in Russian or in English!), I found more minor errors in it than I did in King and Wilson's book - for example, the dating of the "letters from a Russian Officer" (the "rescue conspiracy" in June 1918). I think Wilson and King actually devoted a lot more time and energy to working out an accurate day-to-day timeline of the events in the Ipatiev House, and the effort shows. I also have to say that I always thought Khrustalev and Steinberg's introduction to their book was a little condescending to the general reader (the usual tried and true, but much over-used "it's all a matter of self-projection" theoretical line). King and Wilson seem to have more respect both for their subject matter and for (all of) their readers.

Additionally, while most of the primary sources translated into English in "Fall of the Romanovs" were already available in Russian publications at the time this book was published, there is a wealth of new information in King and Wilson's book - most of it still otherwise unavailable to anyone working outside of the Russian archives. To give just two outstanding examples, King and Wilson fill in the individual backgrounds and personalities of many of the guards in the Ipatiev House, and provide new and intriguing details about  their relationships with the prisoners (including the incident with Maria and the guard Skorokhodov).

The only minor criticisms I have of Wilson and King's book have to do with certain (possible) embellishments I detected in the murder chapter (when you read the primary sources in the original Russian, it is not at all clear that the witness, speaking 45 years after the event, is not exaggerating this or that detail, or that based on such conflicting statements, you can really state with any certainty that so-and-so was the one who did such and such) and also, the authors' argument towards the end that the deaths of Alexei and Anastasia are not an established historical fact. I think most academic historians would disagree with them on this, on the basis of the evidence provided in "Fate of the Romanovs" alone!

Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Janet_W. on November 24, 2004, 01:34:12 PM
Well, I now know what I'm going to be doing this Thanksgiving holiday weekend . . . comparing and contrasting my copies of Fate and Fall!  :D
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Richard_Cullen on November 24, 2004, 01:47:33 PM
I think the comments about Greg's book on Felix Yusupov are excessive and not called for.  I am not sure what a scholarly book looks like, but I have some difficulty in anyone writing a biography in the normal sense about Felix Yusupov.

Firstly you could only go up to his time of exile, what did he do of any note after that other than write his memoirs and sue people?

Had he not been involved in some way in Rasputin's death (and not any where near as much as he suggests) he would have been just another not very bright, very rich, very confused, duplicitous boy, living a highly privileged life in Tsarist Russia.

There is so much padding in 'Lost Splendour' that when you deconstruct it you are left with very little.  So much of what Yusupov says about himself is unreliable that I have to wonder if the word 'truth' was in his dictionary.

When I first started researching Russian history I think like many I saw him as a sort of hero figure.  I have come to know him as a thoroughly unpleasant, devious, manipulator of the truth.

For 70 odd years we have believed the stories of Yusupov and those who knew of him Purishkevich's accounts of Rasputin murders.  They lied, three shots at close range, one at contact range to the forehead. Doesn't quite fit the glory story they crafted.

I think Greg did a superb job writing about a subject with so little history or substance in his life.

It is easy to criticise historians, writing history and historical biographies is a difficult and time consuming task.

So far as speculation about what witnesses may or may not say some years on (FOTR) - it is doubtful if this can ever be satisfactorily resolved without a forensic (of the court) re-examination of the evidence.  Even such an in depth and time consuming project might not iron out differences or conclusively support the facts one way or another.

Richard
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Louise on November 24, 2004, 02:04:06 PM
I have enjoyed FOTR each time I have read it. I for one am extremely glad for the other dimension of the IF that was portrayed. History cannot and should not be seen with rose coloured glasses, but should in fact attempt to look objectively at the subject. The subjects in question are the IF in captivity. This is not a light, and airy scenario regarding the family and  it is not about the wonderful, idealic life they lead before the revolution. It is about their captivity and deaths. They were human, they did have their faults and quarrels and their sometimes pettiness.

I found the book more poignant that most  books I read, because Greg and Penny forced to look at their exile and murderalmost from  the beginning of the book and not in the last pages, like so many other books do .

I have been reading about the Romanovs since I was 15 and I have to say, I did learn many new things in this book and many awoke me from the usual perspective we are use to reading about. For that I am thankful.

Now I am off to study the Black Death and relish the pestilence and mayhem of the middle ages! Whoever said history is boring and dull doesn't know what the heck they are talking about. Death, mayhem, bigotry, incest, adultry, cutthroat politics just keep me clued to my books. :)

Louise

Louise

Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Abby on November 24, 2004, 07:32:06 PM
Quote

The only minor criticisms I have of Wilson and King's book have to do with certain (possible) embellishments I detected in the murder chapter (when you read the primary sources in the original Russian, it is not at all clear that the witness, speaking 45 years after the event, is not exaggerating this or that detail, or that based on such conflicting statements, you can really state with any certainty that so-and-so was the one who did such and such) and also, the authors' argument towards the end that the deaths of Alexei and Anastasia are not an established historical fact. I think most academic historians would disagree with them on this, on the basis of the evidence provided in "Fate of the Romanovs" alone!



yes i thought that too about the murder scene! it was so detailed, how did they know all that? it was so horrific, i could only read it once.

but elizabeth, if you think the evidence in the book points toward the deaths of Anastasia and Alexei being historical fact, woulnd't that contradict King and Wilson saying that the bodies were never found ? I forget exactly what they say in the book, I will have to go back and look!
:)
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Elisabeth on November 27, 2004, 07:51:04 AM
Abby, while it's true that the remains of Anastasia and Alexei have never been found, this doesn't mean that their deaths in July 1918 cannot be considered an established historical fact. Bodies in murder cases are not always found - and yet perpetrators have been tried and convicted for those murders. The most famous historical case of missing murder victims (aside from Anastasia and Alexei) is probably that of the Princes in the Tower - they vanished without any apparent trace for almost two hundred years (skeletal remains were not discovered until 1674), yet most contemporary historians rightly assumed that they had been killed. I think, given the particularly brutal nature of the Romanov murders and the number of wounds inflicted on the victims on the night of July 16-17, 1918, there is no possibility that any of them could have survived for more than a few hours (particularly Alexei, who suffered from hemophilia). This is also the assumption made by most historians.

But all this essentially boils down to an issue of interpretation. I simply disagree with King and Wilson on this point - it doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong! Ditto with the murder chapter. I don't have access to all the sources they used - some of the statements by participants and witnesses have yet to be published in Russia or the West - so all I can do is base my opinion on those sources I am familiar with, such as the reminiscences of one of the murderers, Kudrin. What I questioned about the description of the murders in FOTR was, for example, how King and Wilson could know for certain that it was Maria who ran for the storage room doors (in other statements, Maria was standing with Demidova apart from the other women, already next to those very same doors), or for that matter, that she only suffered one gunshot wound, to the leg (because all bullet wounds do not leave traces on the skeleton - and the skull presumed to be Marie's was extremely damaged). Again, this is all a matter of interpretation. Given the same set of facts, different people can reach rather different conclusions, although hopefully we all agree on the general outline of what happened (that is, most of the victims did not leave the Ipatiev House alive).

And for a thorough discussion of the mystery of the missing bodies, see "The Missing Bodies" thread!
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Abby on November 27, 2004, 02:02:59 PM
Quote
Abby, while it's true that the remains of Anastasia and Alexei have never been found, this doesn't mean that their deaths in July 1918 cannot be considered an established historical fact. Bodies in murder cases are not always found - and yet perpetrators have been tried and convicted for those murders.


Ah yes, I understand. It really is not probable to assume that they survived based on the fact that bodies were never found. As we have discussed before, numerous things could have happened to the bodies after the two children died.


Quote
What I questioned about the description of the murders in FOTR was, for example, how King and Wilson could know for certain that it was Maria who ran for the storage room doors (in other statements, Maria was standing with Demidova apart from the other women, already next to those very same doors),


I agree here. It seems as though the details in the murder scene were very specific for having been derrived from the analysis of the skeletons. I mean, scientists can tell the manner and type of injury, and route of entry and positioning and all that, but if the details such as where each victim was standing and which one ran for the storeroom door were taken from the accounts of the executioners, I think the accounts were too varying in content from one another to consider one to be the truth.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: hikaru on May 03, 2005, 08:18:58 AM
I have just bought this book in Russian.
The cover is very stylish. Dark blue.
The Russian name is  "Romanovs: The Fate of the Tsar's dynasty.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Abby on May 03, 2005, 09:07:58 AM
Really? Are you sure that it is  the same book? If so, that's neat. I didn't know they had it in Russian.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: hikaru on May 03, 2005, 10:34:27 AM
I have no original , but I think , it is the same.
It is just issued.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Macedonsky on May 10, 2005, 04:31:25 AM
Quote
I have just bought this book in Russian.The cover is very stylish. Dark blue.
The Russian name is  "Romanovs: The Fate of the Tsar's dynasty.

ISBN: 5-699-10642-1, Moscow:EKSMO, 2005
(http://www.top-kniga.ru/annots/54000079195.jpg)
Interesting that Russian translation has 976 pages while English original only 657

Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Elizabeth on May 18, 2005, 10:33:50 AM
Just wanted to post that I've been reading Greg & Penny's book (again!), and since I'm now "officially" on this board, I wanted to commend both of them for such a fabulous work.  I read it when it first came out and thought I'd pick it up again, as it's approaching the anniversary of the murders.

While reading the book, I have been thinking how HARD it was for the family to not have regular church services, ESP. during Holy Week and Easter (which - in my opinion - is the most magnificent period of the entire church year, and yes, I'm Orthodox!).  Any thoughts?

Greg & Penny (if you're "out there") -- Starting back at the Alexander Palace, was the family denied services (I'll have to go back and check), esp. since Easter in 1917 fell AFTER the abdication?

I recall that they were allowed to go to church in Tobolsk, but that "privilege" was denied after the priest prayed for the IF during the Great Entrance of the Divine Liturgy.  Were they able to have a priest visit the house at Tobolsk regularly?  And what happened to the priests/bishops in Tobolsk after the Bolsheviks took over the city?  Were they punished?

At the Ipatiev House, I recall you writing that they were denied a priest on several occasions, but Yurovsky releted shortly before the murders.  Did the priests who were there in those final days write a book on their experiences (I saw in the footnotes that you referenced one of them and a publication in French, I think).  Is this available in translation?  Were those priests able to escape from the city after the White Army entered?

Also, it seems that the IF was never left ALONE with the priests - hence, I would assume that no confessions or counseling between the IF and the clergy were permitted.  

Just some thoughts . . .
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Belochka on May 19, 2005, 01:51:03 AM
Quote
ISBN: 5-699-10642-1, Moscow:EKSMO, 2005
(http://www.top-kniga.ru/annots/54000079195.jpg)
Interesting that Russian translation has 976 pages while English original only 657


The reason may have something to do with differences in printing format between the two publications. ;)
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Ortino on July 13, 2005, 01:23:33 AM
It could also be the language itself. A word or phrase in English might be longer in Russian characters or even need to be expressed in multiple words to explain it. Things such as size of the print could also potentially affect the length.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: imperial angel on October 12, 2005, 10:51:33 AM
I enjoyed this book, and think it is a place where you can find out much about the Romanovs you never knew before. You think all the information has been rehashed and rehashed, and then you read this book it is amazing! It is long, but it is the most recent book on everything and the conclusions are quite true, and there is much evidence to back them up. The way the authors write was impressive, it makes you aware of how everything they say is true, and commonsense. I read this book in spring, 2004 and reviewed it then, and should post my review. I have nothing but praise for this book, and think you can only debate minor details about it.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Belochka on November 02, 2005, 06:20:33 PM
Quote
My first post here!
Welcome aboard!

Quote
Anyway, I'm coming at this late and I've not yet completed the book. Perhaps my opinions will change and if they do I'll be sure to make note of it.

Regards


Many different interpretations are available both in Russia and in the west. It is always preferable to read a number of these, and not rely on a single authorship.

:)
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: RealAnastasia on November 03, 2005, 10:51:56 PM
Quote
  My deep frustration with this work lies beyond its numerous "typo's" and conpositional failures to its promise of "shocking new information"... Where oh where could that information be? I still haven't found anything here  I didn't already know...

    I am still uncertain why King and Wilson still keep the old "Anastasia survived" dream alive...Ah well back to the book. :(

rskkiya


Generally, I don't agree with you Rskkiya, but in this one I MUST DO IT.

I excpected a lot of this book, since Penny Wilson and Greg King said that there was so much new information an evidence in it. I can't find it in my country, and it is not translated into Spanish ...So an excellent person from this board, Felix, send "FOTR" to me to read...And I must said I was deceived. I couldn't find anything new or shocking in the book. The only "shoking" thing in this work is the murders of the Romanov's account. Extremely sensasionalistic if I must to said it. Disgusting...Too much for me. A great deal of "blood", "body fluids", "exploding brains", and "urine" for me. I don't need it really. I don't need to know how the lovely four girls finished their lives in a mass of blood, brains and urine.  I don't need to know how Alexei remained frozen in his chair, spotted with his parent's blood. Not in a book.

But beyond this unnecessary details, there is nothing more. Nothing new about a "surviving Anastasia" (not Anna Anderson, nor any of the well known "Anastasias") or a "surviving Alexei". The book is nothing than an excuse to said how a tyrant Nicholas II was,  how Alix was addeply histerycal woman, how OTMAA were normal children and more than that, bad children, in any case, not lovely children, especially Alexei who was so naughty and bad that attacked other children to have their noses bleeding (I didn't like this hypothesis a bit), and how Bolsheviks were nice guys who wanted freedom for they beloved Russia and that killed NAOTMAA for pure idealism. Ideous...Awful. What can I say?

I expected to find in this book more info about AA and other pretenders. There is NOT. Now, I know that Penny Wilson and Greg King doesn't think that AA was AN anymore because the DNA, but they doesn't accept that AA was FS. And I feel I need to go vomit. They doesn't affirm this for they really think that DNA is wrong or manipulate, but for they need to sell new books and it's more suitable for their bussiness that they said that AA was really a Red Agent or something like that. I'm an historian since I had 16 years old, but only in the last four years or so I felt that I'm near the nausea. People may be blinded for their political or social views and their forget the truth.

The truth...The only thing who must be almost holy for us, historians...

RealAnastasia. :'(
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Belochka on November 04, 2005, 12:26:03 AM
Quote
The only "shoking" thing in this work is the murders of the Romanov's account. Extremely sensasionalistic if I must to said it.

The book is nothing than an excuse to said how a tyrant Nicholas II was,  how Alix was addeply histerycal woman, how OTMAA were normal children and more than that, bad children, in any case, not lovely children, especially Alexei who was so naughty and bad that attacked other children to have their noses bleeding (I didn't like this hypothesis a bit), and how Bolsheviks were nice guys who wanted freedom for they beloved Russia and that killed NAOTMAA for pure idealism. Ideous...Awful.

People may be blinded for their political or social views and their forget the truth.

The truth...The only thing who must be almost holy for us, historians...

RealAnastasia. :'(


RealAnastasia, your honest appraisal is refreshing.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Tania+ on November 04, 2005, 12:27:28 PM
The statement below is a statement that we must all stand by, for whom ever, or for what ever we search the world over for.

Real truth is noble in it's stance, and can never be mis-used.

If truth is holy for historians, you can imagine what it is for the every day citizen, and in expressing that of a leader, it allows you to know the true direction of that countries course.

In the end, to follow truth and speak truth, is to offer the excellence of what freedom is in every way. It's the best we have to offer present and future generations.

Tatiana



"People may be blinded for their political or social views and their forget the truth.

The truth...The only thing who must be almost holy for us, historians... "

RealAnastasia.  
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Belochka on November 04, 2005, 06:17:02 PM
Quote

In the end, to follow truth and speak truth, is to offer the excellence of what freedom is ... It's the best we have to offer present and future generations.

Tatiana


Well stated Tania. The problem is that some western authors who expouse their new sensationalist hypotheses and oblique remarks only serve to cloud such truths.

That is exactly why such interpretations must be viewed with caution and not be accepted as factual.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: rskkiya on November 04, 2005, 08:36:10 PM
Quote

Generally, I don't agree with you Rskkiya, but in this one I MUST DO IT.

I excpected a lot of this book, since Penny Wilson and Greg King said that there was so much new information an evidence in it. I can't find it in my country, and it is not translated into Spanish ...So an excellent person from this board, Felix, send "FOTR" to me to read...And I must said I was deceived. I couldn't find anything new or shocking in the book. The only "shoking" thing in this work is the murders of the Romanov's account. Extremely sensasionalistic if I must to said it. Disgusting...Too much for me. A great deal of "blood", "body fluids", "exploding brains", and "urine" for me. I don't need it really. I don't need to know how the lovely four girls finished their lives in a mass of blood, brains and urine.  I don't need to know how Alexei remained frozen in his chair, spotted with his parent's blood. Not in a book.

But beyond this unnecessary details, there is nothing more. Nothing new about a "surviving Anastasia" (not Anna Anderson, nor any of the well known "Anastasias") or a "surviving Alexei". The book is nothing than an excuse to said how a tyrant Nicholas II was,  how Alix was addeply histerycal woman, how OTMAA were normal children and more than that, bad children, in any case, not lovely children, especially Alexei who was so naughty and bad that attacked other children to have their noses bleeding (I didn't like this hypothesis a bit), and how Bolsheviks were nice guys who wanted freedom for they beloved Russia and that killed NAOTMAA for pure idealism. Ideous...Awful. What can I say?

I expected to find in this book more info about AA and other pretenders. There is NOT. Now, I know that Penny Wilson and Greg King doesn't think that AA was AN anymore because the DNA, but they doesn't accept that AA was FS. And I feel I need to go vomit. They doesn't affirm this for they really think that DNA is wrong or manipulate, but for they need to sell new books and it's more suitable for their bussiness that they said that AA was really a Red Agent or something like that. I'm an historian since I had 16 years old, but only in the last four years or so I felt that I'm near the nausea. People may be blinded for their political or social views and their forget the truth.

The truth...The only thing who must be almost holy for us, historians...

RealAnastasia. :'(


Thank you so much RA!
    I am honoured that we agree about this.
Although I didn't have too much of an issue with the 'gore factor' regarding the execution, I did find this book refreshing only in its attempt to point out the personal everyday pettiness and bad behaviour of any family under such circumstances -- I get a wee bit tired of the "Lovely & Holy Family game"  - but then again - I am not a Believer!

rs

Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Lizameridox on November 04, 2005, 11:35:59 PM
Hear, hear.  You have said it all, better than any review that has tried to say the same thing.  Thank you, RA, and thank you, Belochka!  

That said, FOTR is proof that it is very difficult to remain objective about history that one has become attached to, either through hyper-romanticism or deliberate, blatant iconoclasty.  Do we blame the polarized opinions produced by this book on the tenor of the times or on shrewd marketing?

Content-wise, it is an unwieldy volume in need of editing, and basically a deconstructionalist, politicized spin on older material that has either never been translated into English or gone out of print.  It could be compared to an unfinished doctoral dissertation meant to impress the European History faculty at a left-leaning university on the West Coast, that should have been sent back for further work before the degree was ever awarded.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Arleen on November 05, 2005, 08:22:17 AM
After reading the last couple of days of posts this morning one thing stands out.  RA it really makes me feel sad to know that Felix sent that book to you as a gift, and paid the postage on it, only for you to knock it to death on this forum.  That is sort of like looking a gift horse in the mouth.  There are plenty of people who would love to receive a book like that and would be grateful.

Most of us loved the book!

..Arleen
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: rskkiya on November 05, 2005, 09:45:21 AM
It is a highly flawed text...
Yes - it does possess some good insites, nevertheless it is flawed.
Arleen, I understand that "many of us loved the book" but that doesn't compensate for its innacuracies and historical errors. RA is a historian, and while I do not agree with some of her views, I respect her right to critique this work.

ever yours ;)
rskkiya

Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Belochka on November 05, 2005, 07:14:10 PM
Quote
 RA it really makes me feel sad to know that Felix sent that book to you as a gift, and paid the postage on it, only for you to knock it to death on this forum.  That is sort of like looking a gift horse in the mouth.  
..Arleen


Arleen does this mean that if you receive any book as a gift, no matter how flawed it maybe, you are then unable to provide your honest opinion about its contents?

The gift of giving is an entirely separate issue.

RealAnastasia was very honest in her assessment of this publication. We should respect her valuable opinion, which I happen to agree with. I commend her strongly for taking this step.

Have you ever considered that many posters may prefer silence rather than publically expressing their real opinion about FOTR?

Sadly the west is yet to present an accurate portrayal of the I. F.'s final days. :-/
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Sarushka on November 05, 2005, 07:22:00 PM
Quote
Sadly the west is yet to present an accurate portrayal of the I. F.'s final days. :-/


It's been a while since I've read this WHOLE thread, but I'm interested to know...

Is there a preponderance of outright inaccuracies presented as truth in this book, or is it more a matter of the use of questionable sources and unsavory interpretations?
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Belochka on November 05, 2005, 07:31:56 PM
Quote
... a matter of the use of questionable sources and unsavory interpretations?


Yes, the two elements quoted above will lead to inaccuracies and only serve to create myths. :-/
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Sarushka on November 05, 2005, 07:34:00 PM
Thanks for the clarification. Can you recall which particular sources one should be most wary of?

And what, then, is a more accurate portrayal in your opinion?
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Ortino on November 05, 2005, 10:55:06 PM
Quote
Have you ever considered that many posters may prefer silence rather than publically expressing their real opinion about FOTR?


  I shall put myself in this catagory. I would rather not express my full thoughts of FOTR in case Penny or Greg ever decide to come back.

 I agree though that RealAnastasia is entitled to her opinion and the right to express it. There are many times when I buy books or get them as gifts and don't enjoy them. I think her assessment should be considered highly valuable.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: griffin on November 05, 2005, 10:57:54 PM
I have tremendous respect for Greg King so this is hard for me to say but I must say it. I have never been so dissapointed in a book in all of my book reading life. Aside from the gore (which in my opinion was not needed) I found nothing shocking about this book. I have heard it all or read it all elswhere.
And then there is also the notion of Anastasia surviving and the whole Anna Anderson deal. First, I have never believed in AA claim and it will take serious convincing to change my mind, but I am open-minded. I think with this book as many other AA supporters or Anastasia survived supporters that they want to have their cake and eat it too, they question,question,question the DNA tests only to say the overall tests were for real just not the ones on AA.
Does anyone else get me on the last point?
sorry for the long post,I needed to get it out.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Belochka on November 06, 2005, 02:29:10 AM
Quote

 I would rather not express my full thoughts of FOTR in case Penny or Greg ever decide to come back.  


Respectfully, it would be unreasonable to expect that if any published author is available on this forum, then posters must either remain silent or praise the author's interpretation, simply to maintain a sense of decorum.

Amazon book reviews hardly provide an accurate assessment when friends and associates offer their "valuable" opinion.

Surely in an open forum such as this one it is reasonable to proffer one's genuine concerns which in hindsight should provide valuable information to that author?

If we all "tow the same line" and state that any book assessed on this forum is scholary, because the author might be present, then we are creating our own myth right here. :-/
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Lucien on November 06, 2005, 03:12:30 AM
Quote

Respectfully, it would be unreasonable to expect that if any published author is available on this forum, then posters must either remain silent or praise the author's interpretation, simply to maintain a sense of decorum.

Amazon book reviews hardly provide an accurate assessment when friends and associates offer their "valuable" opinion.

Surely in an open forum such as this one it is reasonable to proffer one's genuine concerns which in hindsight should provide valuable information to that author?

If we all "tow the same line" and state that any book assessed on this forum is scholary, because the author might be present, then we are creating our own myth right here. :-/


Hear hear,spot on Belochka,at every single point.I have long hesitated to join this,what,discussion?To the book,there's nothing much new in it,inspite of all the"thorough"investigations,just learns where and how brains and body fluids
might fly in case one gets the same treatment as the late IF.Scholarly?NO.
But,no doubt,one would get an A+ at any High School for the "essay",by lack
of better knowledge alone.
Sensational?Just as a script for yet another uncanny B-movie.Just imagine,
now if Hollywood would buy the rights,and who would star.......I'm not serious ofcourse,
just "day-dreaming" along the authors line....
That is how it comes across to me,I'm sure that appeals to a certain brand of
people,allthough all are entitled to see it for what they think it's worth.  
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Ortino on November 06, 2005, 07:32:08 AM
Quote
Surely in an open forum such as this one it is reasonable to proffer one's genuine concerns which in hindsight should provide valuable information to that author?  


  I wouldn't describe this as an "open forum." The smallest comments or criticisms can erupt into major disputes and rivalries here. Just look at the Survivors section! If not for this, I would rather not have to defend everything I say.

  I agree that criticism can be valuable, but I'd rather not have my comments held against me in the future by the authors or anyone else. In short, I'll say I was disappointed with the book. I expected more from them and found nothing new or gripping to tempt me to finish it (which I didn't). They clearly worked hard on this book and the information was thorough, but there is something lacking.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 06, 2005, 08:29:56 AM
Quote



   I wouldn't describe this as an "open forum." The smallest comments or criticisms can erupt into major disputes and rivalries here. Just look at the Survivors section! If not for this, I would rather not have to defend everything I say.

   I agree that criticism can be valuable, but I'd rather not have my comments held against me in the future by the authors or anyone else. In short, I'll say I was disappointed with the book. I expected more from them and found nothing new or gripping to tempt me to finish it (which I didn't).  


Ortino, I can understand what you mean. In a forum such as this, we should all be able to offer critique and valid intellectual challenges freely and openly - as it is done in the academic world - without the concern (or even fear) of nasty verbal retaliation. But sadly, this is what often ended up happening... although for all it's worth - it has been much better lately.

Regardless, I think that it is still important to try not to be intimidated and provide your honest opinions. Otherwise what's the point of having a discussion forum?
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Sarushka on November 06, 2005, 10:20:53 AM
Laying aside the issue of how the Imperial Family's dymanics were portrayed, would anyone care to offer an opinion on the accuracy of the information presented regarding their captivity and treatment in Ekaterinburg?
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: rskkiya on November 06, 2005, 01:39:56 PM
Sarushka :-*

   I will state that in FOTR we have some very detailed research regarding "who was where"( i.e.: Guard X was an Social Revolutionary who had worked in a car factory near Muscow, Guard Z was not a bolshevic and came from the Baltic states where he had been in prison, etc.... ) We can trace almost all of the guards/executioners  before and after the executions. This minutiae can clarify and help to quash all sorts of romantic myths of sentimental rougue guards helping members of the IF escape, etc....(not withstanding the curious insistance on the 'magical survivor myth' encouraged by the authors.)
    There is also a good deal of material on the IF's day to day behaviour - the quality and amount of food that they enjoyed  -[tea? coffee? soup? chocolate?] /daily activities / entertainment-games-reading materials/ {how many baths can one family take in one day?} ;)
   This research also helps to explode the myths of the poor GDs being forced into a dirty 'graffiti scrawled bathroom.'
    The above mentioned information by itself is not actually NEW - but it is well documented and clear.

    In my poor personal [academic] opinion, this is the only valuable contribution by King and Wilson in this text.
    I expressed this point at this site some time ago. I was sadly disapointed by the highly abusive and  unprofessional retort that I received from Ms Wilson. Mr King did not comment.

If this thread was ever originally The PW/GK Fan Club then I was not aware of it.

rs




 
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Lucien on November 06, 2005, 04:12:02 PM
Rskkiya,I believe that anyone in the public view,authors in this case,can expect both to be hailed and to be critisized,depending on the value of their work.Now,if anyone has been reading most,if not all,anywhere else already,than it adds little to the knowledge of that person and as that is one of the reasons,if not the only one,for purchasing such work,then it can be very disappointing to sort of re-read what you already know.

This thread is not about anyones fan-club,it's about a published work by two people that have added little to nothing that wasn't already to be read elsewhere.

And to Ortino,really,as I've been reading elsewhere in this same thread:"put your money in your mouth"!Why would you,or anyone,hoover over a possible future reply by the authors?What nonsens.I have to credit this to PW,she stated,early in this thread,in regard to how popular this book was at that time(april 2004) and she was clairvoyant in her words:"as soon as another one(book) comes along by someone else,I'm sure we'll be last weeks news".
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Ortino on November 06, 2005, 04:50:06 PM
Quote
And to Ortino,really,as I've been reading elsewhere in this same thread:"put your money in your mouth"!Why would you,or anyone,hoover over a possible future reply by the authors?What nonsens.I have to credit this to PW,she stated,early in this thread,in regard to how popular this book was at that time(april 2004) and she was clairvoyant in her words:"as soon as another one(book) comes along by someone else,I'm sure we'll be last weeks news".


 Let's see.....perhaps the answer is that I don't seek confrontations with others unlike some people? The prospect of being bashed and trashed on this site is not a pleasant one and really, if you noticed, the results have caused people to leave. Besides the fact that your quote makes no sense in this context, Penny certainly wasn't saying that when she was defending her work from such criticisms.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Sarushka on November 06, 2005, 05:28:55 PM
It's unfortunate that the publisher chose to make bold claims and use superlative words like shocking to market this book. It seems to have caused a lot of ill-will among readers.

As for myself, I'm less concerned with whether the text measures up to the flap blurbs than whether it presents reliable information. I may or may not agree with the authors' interpretation, but as long as I can separate fact from conjecture, I'm happy.

As to the accusation that much of the information presented in Fate can be found elsewhere -- I'm mildly surprised. I encountered a good deal of information in King & Wilson's book for the first time. (Granted, I read Fate before I read Fall of the Romanovs.) Let me then repeat my previous query:
Does anyone care to name what they consider superior sources on the Romanovs' captivity?
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Georgiy on November 06, 2005, 07:50:47 PM
Well, I haven't re-read this book in ages, and it's not really one that I care to pick up for light reading. I have a few qualms about it, and tend to agree with Rskkiya and Real Anastasia's opinions.

Certainly, it doesn't seem like the authors really understand Orthodoxy or Sainthood within the Orthodox Church from what I recall of the passages pertaining to that. That for me was the biggest disappointment with the book. I am not saying that everyone must agree with the Orthodox Church's point of view about the Romanovs, but ISTM that the authors just don't get it, and also don't think it's worth getting.

Now as for the rest, it is good in that it has in one volume all the bits and pieces scattered through a plethora of other books. The execution, while gory, I think, should be more widely read, albeit, a bit editted perhaps, but it shows quite clearly how the stuff like it was all over in seconds, Alix and Olga cross themselves, everyone instantly dead except Alexei and Anastasia, who are then very quickly and neatly killed, is a ridiculous myth. That may be the more redeeming part of the book.

As for the foibles and character flaws of the Romanov family - well, everyone has them, we are none of us perfect. They were not sanctified for being wonderful people, but for the way that they met their fate. The fact that they screamed or tried running about the room to escape the bullets in their last minutes of terror does not in any way detract from their Passion-bearing status - even Christ on the cross called out asking why God had forsaken Him, and spent hours before in agony (of soul) in Gethsemane.

What I do not like about the portrayal of their character flaws is that it is unbalanced - it is like they want to show so much the worst sides of their characters that their positive aspects get altogether glossed over.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Belochka on November 06, 2005, 09:01:23 PM
Quote
Certainly, it doesn't seem like the authors really understand Orthodoxy or Sainthood within the Orthodox Church from what I recall of the passages pertaining to that.

What I do not like about the portrayal of their character flaws is that it is unbalanced - it is like they want to show so much the worst sides of their characters that their positive aspects get altogether glossed over.


Thank you Georgiy for expressing your thoughts so perfectly and with integrity.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Sarushka on November 06, 2005, 09:25:04 PM
Quote
Now as for the rest, it is good in that it has in one volume all the bits and pieces scattered through a plethora of other books.


Thanks for saying that! I can get as sick of rehashes  as the next guy, but there is value in having such a mass of research gathered together in one place.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Tania+ on November 06, 2005, 09:29:38 PM
Well stated, and expressed. I agree with you Georgiy in particular, as many posters seem to want to address and focus on the flaws of their IH. You said it quite well :

"What I do not like about the portrayal of their character flaws is that it is unbalanced - it is like they want to show so much the worst sides of their characters that their positive aspects get altogether glossed over"


But this was for me, the most important part of your quote:

"As for the foibles and character flaws of the Romanov family - well, everyone has them, we are none of us perfect. They were not sanctified for being wonderful people, but for the way that they met their fate"

"The fact that they screamed or tried running about the room to escape the bullets in their last minutes of terror does not in any way detract from their Passion-bearing status - even Christ on the cross called out asking why God had forsaken Him, and spent hours before in agony (of soul) in Gethsemane"

Tatiana
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Belochka on November 06, 2005, 10:18:00 PM
Quote

Thanks for saying that! I can get as sick of rehashes  as the next guy, but there is value in having such a mass of research gathered together in one place.


Researching for a book is an intense exercise, but how one uses and interprets the material in their discovery process, are the most crucial considerations.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Lizameridox on November 06, 2005, 10:29:53 PM
Well said, Georgiy.  Martyrdom is not pretty at all at the time it occurs.  No one likes to suffer; though suffer we all must.  If the brave little Ataman thrashed about like the soldier he wanted to be, if the pretty flirt tried to flee, if the good doctor asked, 'so you are not taking us anywhere?', it only means that God Himself made saints of human beings just like the rest of us and can save to the uttermost all those that trust in Him.

I have quibbles with FOTR about all the determined iconoclasty I came across, but have to admit there are some glimmers of truth mixed in with all that is unattractive in the book.  If the book had only been more concise and less contentious in tone, there would have been no problem with it at all because it does form a compendium of many sources that are now out of print, however speculative or erroneous they may have turned out to be.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: imperial angel on November 07, 2005, 10:57:31 AM
So the thread on this book has really expanded.. I can't see what there is debate. I will say that when I read this book, it really expanded my view of the Romanobs, and every page had new info I had never read before. With all the books on the Romanovs, this is a achievement. I liked the first part of this book best. I thought some of the author's sentiments could be my own. I will post my review sometime, though in view of everyone's enlightened opinions, does it really matter? ;)
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: imperial angel on November 07, 2005, 11:01:02 AM
Reading some of these posts more.. well, you could object to parts of their opinion/appraisel of the Imperial Family. I remember I was not entirely comfortable with that. However, I enjoyed the new information, which made me even more fascinated with the Romanovs.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: matushka on November 07, 2005, 04:23:07 PM
Belochka, you told about inaccuracies, some others about mistakes, souspicious sources. Could you detailed which informations in the book are suspicious, not exact?
Not being a specialist of the Romanov's death I modestly have to say that I found a lot of new informations.
As Georgy, as Belochka and other I dislike the tone, the spirit of the book, the total and affiched deny of spirituality. I would also, as you did, seriously critize the way the authors portrayted the family. My impression was first that they decided once for all that the members of the family are not at all interesting and good people, and they want to show that, second that they have the desire to demythifie all what concerned the Romanov and they are doing that with acharnment in any case. The authors, for example are doing a great deal of this Maria's letter "no one loves me". I see here the usual feeling of a shy girl in a big family, the normal feeling of a child who had just heard some stricts words from her mother because she did something wrong. And the simple fact Maria write it shows that the communication was good with her mother. The same with the fact the girls stayed with AF in Ekaterinburg in spite of going for a walk with the others. The authors see here some despotism and egoism from AF. I remember letters of Olga and Tatiana in 1912 to their mother. They are about to live, AF will stay. The 2 girls - and they do not know the sister writes also - are ready to stay with her. The mother answer she does not want, they have to go and have good time, she do not want to choice. The girls probably wanted to stay with their mother.
I think every little detail the authors quote and their own interpretation about the characters of the family could be reinterpreted in a more calm, not so ideological way.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: elfwine on November 07, 2005, 07:52:01 PM
    All that I could suggest is the possibility that the 'less than rosy family' life is offered up to counteract the 'pretty and sweet family' image which is mythologised in so many documentaries and books. It made them seem more real to me than the 'perpetually psalm singing milktoasts' that I use to think NAOTMAA were.... :P
   I am NOT Orthodox (!)  but I guess that a "cranky" saint is still as saintly as a meek, bland one.  ;)

We'll never know what was the actual situation - perhaps it was somewhere between these two extreams.

elfwine  
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: rskkiya on November 08, 2005, 07:19:48 PM
    Good point, I can see the political aspects behind the ROCs choice of sanctifying (is that the word?) them as Passion Bearers (as far as I am able to understand this title - as I am not Christian) and FOTR does make the Romanovs seem more human and less "marble".

    I don't think that the arguements made by King and Wison about the DNA evidence are accurate.

*You wisely commented that many people here may not wish to have their "sugar coated Imperial family image" disturbed.
*This is a very good point!

While I never thought of them as "sugar coated" I will consider this suggestion very carefully and reread this book.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Georgiy on November 08, 2005, 07:48:20 PM
Rskkiya - the Orthodox term for making someone a Saint is that they are glorified. The Roman Catholics use a different term.

I for one, appreciate that the Romanovs, like all people had their foibles, and their good and bad sides. That they are Passion-bearers does not make them any less Saints, or of some kind of lesser status as Saints. Saints are Saints. Often times, people have lead quite dreadful lives up to the end, but then redeemed themselves. I think the Orthodox Church has many Saints like that. I think our Saints shine through with their humanity and their reality and closeness to us. Some kind of Holier-than-Thou marble statue does not seem to me to be a Saint. (That is not to say that many, many Saints lead very Holy lives which are worthy of our emulation; rather that reading the Lives of the Saints, it is for me their humanity that shines through, and their eventual salvation and attainment of theKingdom of Heaven - and it is such that we are called to imitate.)

Sorry for going off on a religious ramble here.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: elfwine on November 09, 2005, 06:20:15 PM
Quote
Rskkiya - the Orthodox term for making someone a Saint is that they are glorified. The Roman Catholics use a different term.

I for one, appreciate that the Romanovs, like all people had their foibles, and their good and bad sides. That they are Passion-bearers does not make them any less Saints, or of some kind of lesser status as Saints. Saints are Saints. Often times, people have lead quite dreadful lives up to the end, but then redeemed themselves. I think the Orthodox Church has many Saints like that. I think our Saints shine through with their humanity and their reality and closeness to us. Some kind of Holier-than-Thou marble statue does not seem to me to be a Saint. (That is not to say that many, many Saints lead very Holy lives which are worthy of our emulation; rather that reading the Lives of the Saints, it is for me their humanity that shines through, and their eventual salvation and attainment of theKingdom of Heaven - and it is such that we are called to imitate.)


8) WOW  8)
Good point ...Its often easy - and maybe a bit lazy - to percieve SAINTS as dry or just too remote or to full of  holiness - but as you pointed out so well, it's their Redemption thats key. I don't know if I beleive, but you made a very valid point. Seeing NAOTMAA as tired, cranky bored and fussy makes them more sympathetic to me as simple human beings - and maybe as saints as well.

elf
(who is very thoughtful about saints now!)
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: rskkiya on November 09, 2005, 07:04:10 PM
Quote
Rskkiya - the Orthodox term for making someone a Saint is that they are glorified. The Roman Catholics use a different term.

I for one, appreciate that the Romanovs, like all people had their foibles, and their good and bad sides. That they are Passion-bearers does not make them any less Saints, or of some kind of lesser status as Saints. Saints are Saints. Often times, people have lead quite dreadful lives up to the end, but then redeemed themselves. I think the Orthodox Church has many Saints like that. I think our Saints shine through with their humanity and their reality and closeness to us. Some kind of Holier-than-Thou marble statue does not seem to me to be a Saint. (That is not to say that many, many Saints lead very Holy lives which are worthy of our emulation; rather that reading the Lives of the Saints, it is for me their humanity that shines through, and their eventual salvation and attainment of theKingdom of Heaven - and it is such that we are called to imitate.)

Sorry for going off on a religious ramble here.


Thanks for the clarification...
While I still become confused regarding the rather subjective issue of any 'act of redeption' on the part of NAOTMAA - I remain highly moved at the insite that you express on this point.

well done sir

rs
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: imperial angel on November 10, 2005, 10:53:24 AM
Here is my review of this book around the time I read it ;)
Review of the Fate of the Romanovs by Greg King and Penny Wilson. April, 2004.

This is the latest, but probably not the last word on the subject of the Romanovs and their murder. The event that occured on July17, 1918 has provided controversy since it happened and will probably do so until the end of time. From modern debates about whether Anastasia is present in group of remains, to 1918 rumours about the Romanovs, there has always been a obsessive interests in the events surrounding their end. It seems that the combination of royalty, wealth, and death will never cease fascinating people. You do have to conclude its not that surprising.

This is the first book written on the end of the Romanovs since 1995. The last book was the last days of the Romanovs by Robert K. Massie. That book was a good entertaining introduction to the subject and was definitive at the time. But since then, many things have happened in the story of the romanov remains. This book brings you up to date on them. This is excellant reading although this book is 528 pages long. I have not read a more informative book about the Romanovs for a long time.

The most interestimg information in this book is that about the Grand Duchesses in captivity. You cannot find this information elsewhere. The information on the debates surrounding the reamins of Anastasia is also very interesting. Based on the evidence in this book you have to conclude, that Anastasia remain's are missing, not those of Marie. But this is not definite proof that Anastasia survived or that Anna Anderson was Anastasia. Anna Anderson has been conclusively proven false. It is unlikely that Anastasia or Alexei survived but it was possible. Anastasia is more likely to have survived given the Tsarvitch's hemophilia. Because there are no remains proven to be theirs the authors are right to leave their deaths a open question. The authors write in conclusion that in death, the Romanovs have become icons, and that this is their ultimate fate. This is very true.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Caleb on December 07, 2005, 04:56:20 PM
Quote
We both wrote it, so I can only post my own thoughts.  When we first started, we had to of course determine how to do this-the vital center of the book.  And in the first few drafts it was quite short.  But I remember thinking of something that James Cameron said about making "Titanic"-that he wanted to show on film how horrible it must have been on that ship for everyone at the end, that it didn't just slip into the water with everyone linked arm and arm singing.  And the same was true for the murder.  The Imperial Family weren't just shot and quickly fell dead, and it wasn't all over in 10 seconds, as every film has depicted.  So it became very important to me to try to portray accurately what happened, including the wounds and what happened.  And it wasn't easy to do on any level.  I know some people have said what you do-that they have to put the book down-and that's exactly what I wanted, because this is a brutal, horrendous murder, and people need to think about it.  If you believe that the IF are martyrs, then this is their sacrifice; if they are simple victims, it is still a terrible massacre.  And at no other point in the book did I try so consciously try to evoke sympathy for them.  It was hard all around.

Greg King


The way I see the Romanovs in the execution is that they're victims in this case. Personally I wouldn't consider them martyrs on the pretext that I consider martyrs people who died for the purpose of Christ, & though it's possible that there may have been religous tensions between the Bolsheviks & the Romanovs, but I'm open to other ideas. However I can, if I understand it right, can see why the Romanovs could be considered as "passion-bearers" I think that the murders were on the base of political reasons. Also, my theory, as horrible as it is, is that Anastasia & Alexei may have been killed later & buried somewhere else. I don't however believe the Anna Anderson claim, particularly when it comes to the  DNA testing between Anna & the Duke of Edinburugh, which came back back with "99% accuracy" that Anderson was not related to the royals.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Arleen on December 12, 2005, 03:07:34 PM
Dear Leushino it seems that you have stumbled into entirely the wrong website for you!

Arleen
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: imperial angel on December 13, 2005, 11:26:49 AM
We all different, and it seems to me that speculation is good. I don't care why someone is on this board, just that they are here, and are contributing to the board.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Robert_Hall on December 13, 2005, 11:55:49 AM
Leushino, you are definitely not alone in your views about the Romanovs. Although many, if not most on this board have some sort of devotion to either the family or some of its member not all of us do. One of the best attributes of FOTR in my opinion was the humanising of the myths.
Interesting thought that Anastasia  & Alexei wcould have been taken seperately to be executed, but I honestly cannot see why. What would the reason have been ? Anyway, FOTR gives a pretty graphic depiction/acount of the murder of the entire party. I know of no other book to have gone into such detailed research and such thorough results.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Robert_Hall on December 13, 2005, 02:06:18 PM
Quite welcome, you are.
My own take on the events I have stated before- that is, N&A and probably Alexei were politcal victims.  The others [meaning the children & servants]  just caught in the crossfire of the inevitable end.  Just why they came to that end , to me, seems to be a series of fatal mis-steps by everyone at every juncture. Not the least of those mis-steps being made by N&A themselves. Sometimes it bothers me that people get so worked up over this one family and yet seem to forget that millions of other families, who did not live in palaces have met the same fate or worse- even today.
I will agree that FOTR is a bit too long. It can get bogged down in repetition and semingly irrelevent details. But, that is the thoroughness with which King & Wilson present their case.
Someone mentioned that they would not read any other book by the authors based just on this one volume. That seems a bit short-sighted. Greg King's other bios are of the more popular history style, easy to read. I have not seen a copy of his next work- Court of Nicholas II, but I have a feeling I am familiar with some of the material he may have used in his research, so I expect another well crafted work.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Elisabeth on December 13, 2005, 04:01:45 PM
Leushino, the whole so-called mystery about the fate of Anastasia and Alexei is a load of cobblers, as far as I'm concerned. IMO this was the only serious flaw in King and Wilson's FOTR, their insistence that the deaths of Anastasia and Alexei were not historically established facts. Even though they as authors and researchers had just presented dozens of pages of evidence in contradiction to that statement...Their detailed and graphic description of the murders speaks for itself. How could anyone have survived such a bloodbath? Least of all a hemophiliac child? The whole idea is ludicrous.

But personally I found nothing objectionable in King and Wilson's debunking of the popular myth of Nicholas and Alexandra's perfect idyll of  "family happiness." Indeed I thought the authors' very sober reconsideration of the facts made the Romanovs seem far less idealized and much more human by comparison with other works. I could identify with them more as a result. After all, no one is accusing Nicholas and Alexandra of child abuse. The "accusations," such as they are, fall far short of any crimes; actually, they are much, much more innocent - for example, Alexandra's failure to understand and address her third child's unhappiness more sensitively. Well, I ask you, what parent on earth isn't guilty by default of that particular "sin"? Who perfectly understands their child and can always anticipate each of their individual needs and wants? So Alexandra was a little dismissive of poor Maria, and only addressed her concerns in a personal letter to her ... so that's the breaks of being a child in general, much less an imperial child. I can't imagine poor Prince Albert Edward, the future Edward VII of England, getting even this amount of attention from his formidable mama, Queen Victoria, except in the most negative sense.

It's true, maybe King and Wilson neglected to provide a larger historical context for their discussion of Nicholas and Alexandra's abilities as royal parents. Perhaps they should have compared them to other royal parents before drawing their conclusions. But surely that's a minor quibble, given all the other plusses of this book.

And BTW, I for one found the in-depth discussion of the bones RIVETING... I wouldn't have missed it for the world. Leushino, you don't know what an opportunity you are being presented with... only in Veniamin Alekseev's book is such a discussion of the forensic findings available.

Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Robert_Hall on December 13, 2005, 04:11:45 PM
I agree, Elisabeth. The bit about Alexei & Anastasia surviving the massacre is puzzling. Especially, as you say, after the quite vivd description of it. I think perhaps they might be presenting the idea that they might not have actually been dead upon the removal of the bodies, but not actually survived to live on ? In other words, still breathing but not for long ?
In any case- I do not beleive that anyone left that room to survive, except the executioners themselves.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Sarushka on December 13, 2005, 04:32:13 PM
Quote
I think perhaps they might be presenting the idea that they might not have actually been dead upon the removal of the bodies, but not actually survived to live on ?
I think this is the most likely scenario. I got that impression from Penny in particular, in her response to an opinion poll I posted some time ago in the survivors forum. I believe it is possible for some of the victims to have left the cellar room alive -- albiet mortally wounded.

It's been a few months since I read the book, so I don't remember the nuances of the topic of survivors. Do Greg & Penny actually assert a belief that Anastasia & Alexei survived, or do they just explore all possible theories (however unlikely)? I believe Penny said somewhere -- though whether in the book or on the boards, I can't be sure -- that the lack of remains doesn't prove continuation of life.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Sarushka on December 13, 2005, 04:39:34 PM
Here's a thought:

How much do you think people's impressions of FOTR as a whole were hindered by the less-than-rosy portrayal of the Imperial Family being placed at the beginning of the book? I'm willing to bet that for some folks, the unsavory first impression colored their feelings about the remainder of their reading.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: matushka on December 16, 2005, 03:51:56 PM
Sarushka, even if I desagree with the authors's opinion about the family. I found the book really useful for people, who, like me, never particullary studied the subject of their death and was impressed by their work. So, there was no bad influence for me!
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Robert_Hall on December 16, 2005, 04:36:33 PM
I would tend to agree that the Romanov "fans" were pretty much set off from the start.  So much of the popular bios of this lot are if not downright idolotry at least sympathetic. The other extreme is of course, outright condemnation for being everything from greedy blood sucking leaches of society to complete idiots.
Imo,  I think FOTR took the most objective view.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Janet_W. on December 16, 2005, 08:53:01 PM
I agree with Robert. Most of the books I've accessed have been sympathetic. A few have been worshipful, and one or two have been dismissive, condemnatory and downright insulting.

Since I approach the topic as a person interested in history and personal relationships, I find much to admire in FOTR. If I were a White Russian and/or a member of the Russian Orthodox church, however, doubtless my attitude would be significantly different toward the book. Also, if I were an out-and-out romantic, I would definitely be offended by FOTR. However, I've been around long enough to note that families tend to be rather complex beyond the photos that end up in photo albums. Even the seemingly picture-perfect families who issue those gushing Christmas letters about everyone's accomplishments have numerous underlying currents.

Robert Massie's book, to my mind, walks the line very well between hagiography and condemnation but nonetheless leaves one with a sympathetic feeling and a fascination for the days of Imperial Russia. There's nothing wrong with this at all, in my opinion, but of course most of us do prefer gravitating toward the real-life fairy-tale world--for certain classes--of prerevolutionary Russia.  FOTR, however, takes place after these glory days. The situation is both tedious and tense, and above all nebulous.  Moreover, no longer is the Empress young and beautiful, but a middle-aged matron who has endured much and has also been the cause of some of her family's problems. The Emperor is likewise no longer charismatic and operating from a position of power, but a husband and father at loose ends, trying to reconcile what has happened to Holy Russia and what role he played in the failed monarchy. The family is presented as all families actually are (with apologies to Tolstoy!  ;) ) as being less-than-perfect and having less-than-perfect relationships, despite the fact that they undeniably love each other and have survived adversity together, both in their previous and current existences.

To use another comparison, I have a number of books about Anne Frank. They all have a respectul tone to one degree or another, but some offer quotes from her childhood friends admitting that, while Anne was bright, kind, and great fun, she also had less-than-exemplary traits because--brace yourself--she was a human being. As was Princess Diana, and as were the Imperial Family before they were declared saints.


Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Ortino on December 18, 2005, 12:00:51 PM
Quote
To use another comparison, I have a number of books about Anne Frank. They all have a respectul tone to one degree or another, but some offer quotes from her childhood friends admitting that, while Anne was bright, kind, and great fun, she also had less-than-exemplary traits because--brace yourself--she was a human being. As was Princess Diana, and as were the Imperial Family before they were declared saints.


  Quite right. I have found here that people seem almost offended by an acknowledgment of the Imperial Family's less-than-exemplary characteristics and traits. While they are now saints, they were once human beings. I believe that FOTR does not glorify the Imperial Family as most other books do. It shows them, in my opinion, in a more realistic light than the one that we IF lovers have created.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Georgiy on December 18, 2005, 09:15:38 PM
Ortino and Janet have made some very good statements. As I ahve said, I found the book interesting, and useful in that everything is there, not scattered across lots of different books. I do not like how the authors treat Orthodoxy, but that is their perogative as authors and mine as a reader.

Too often we tend to forget the human-ness of the IF. Of course there would have been squabbles and petty annoyances with each other. They were in an extremely stressful situation. The fact that they remained so close to each other in such difficult circumstances says a lot about them in my opinion. Think for a minute how we ourselves would feel if we with our own families (and if you don't have 4 siblings substitute your cousins) were incarcerated in a small hovel (compared to our 'palatial' suburban houses) and only allowed out for an hour or two a day. How would our behaviour be after a month or so?
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Tania+ on December 18, 2005, 11:30:22 PM
Hello Georgiy,

You know I agree with you 100%. In fact many times throughout many of these threads, when I read of the composure of their IF, and all they had to endure, I wonder all the more how I or any of us could have maintained our composures, etc.

I'm deeply affected by many who have stated they should have been subjected to so many difficulties, including their murders. It stops me cold when I read such entries, for I wonder all the more in whose hands could I feel safe if i were to be in any of the posters who felt this way. I'm enlightened when you bring up the importance of humanness. As i stated on another thread, we all have our differences, but when it comes to realizing how we feel about our lives, our families, it places the story of what Greg King and Penny Wilson offered to millions. I gained much from the book, but again like you, noted that Orthodoxy was not addressed very well.

Personally, I have found more strength in my daily living by reading the positive entries of those as yourself on the AP Website, who care so deeply about human life.

I hope we remember not to forget that we are 'human'.
Again, I think it is important that last question you asked :

How would each of us behave knowing it was us or one of our loved ones in such daily difficulty ?

Tatiana

Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Robert_Hall on December 19, 2005, 01:04:56 AM
The book was written as a secular history, not an Orthodox canon. It stands on the merits of the research and presentation of the facts found from that research.
There are plenty of "martyology" volumes to satisfy the faithful.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Georgiy on December 19, 2005, 02:10:47 PM
I have not said the book should be an Orthodox martyrology. I have said that it is obvious the authors know very little about the Orthodox Faith, and while their research may well have been meticulous in some areas of this book, the flaws are deep and obvious wherever there is anything pertaining to Orthodox Christianity in the book, which is a big pity, and really my biggest complaint about the book. At the same time I know that it can be very difficult to understand Orthodox Christianity without actually being Orthodox - as a living Faith it is not some dry museum piece, but something which permeates every aspect of the Faithful's life - something which is lived, a way of life. However a little reading and research would not have gone astray in this case.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Robert_Hall on December 19, 2005, 02:52:39 PM
I understand your points, Georgiy. And being from an Orthodox background myself, I also know how difficult it may be for "outsiders" to understand, much the same with Orthodox Jews, the Islamic faith, anything different when it comes to spirituality outside of one's own experience.
My view of FOTR however, is that the authors were researching and presenting the mechanics and movements of the "Final Days".  The connection with the family's faith was  presented, but without great embellishment. I personally think that would have gone too far away from the aim of the book.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Sarushka on December 19, 2005, 03:06:39 PM
Quote
I do not like how the authors treat Orthodoxy, but that is their perogative as authors and mine as a reader.


Georgiy --
Do your feelings in that regard apply to the authors' treatment of the Imperial Family's glorification, or to the way they presented the Romanov's own religious views & practices during their lifetime?
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Georgiy on December 19, 2005, 03:24:52 PM
Both, but more the former.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Robert_Hall on December 19, 2005, 11:04:41 PM
My point exactly: their "Glorification" was not the subject of the book.

Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Petrushka on January 06, 2006, 02:46:08 AM
Hi all - I've only just started to get to the end of this book hence a rather late addition to the thread.
I do think the book has some valuable information - I felt that much of the research on individuals so often neglected in other works - eg the IF's retainers - was very interesting and 'new'.
The book is undoubtedly 'well' researched in terms of the sheer volume of resources it derives from.
However, in my opinion (granted I'm no more than a huge IF addict) there are three massive flaws:
(1) The language is simply terrible - hyperbole, ludicrous over use of adjectives to an annoying "get on with it" degree.  These tend to overshadow some very interesting points with a narrative which isn't needed - In terms of pros - Massie they are not!
(2) In an obvious effort to depart from the 'norm' with Romanov literature, I do feel that the authors have swung too far in their criticism. Whilst undoubtedly we are often guilty of looking at the IF with rose tinted spectacles - the authors have taken the book to the other extreme and it is weighted far too heavily as a critique of Nicholas, Alexandra and numerous others - we all know they had many faults but there is much to be commended as well.  The result is rather heavy handed and tries to hard to be controversial.
(3) Finally and perhaps most importantly - despite the incredibly lengthy pros - the authors choose to make sweeping and very quick deductions based on very tenuous evidence.  Within a couple of lines they have made huge assumptions without really backing them up with anything substantive - this makes for some tough reading!  
Undoubtedly though the book does have many merits and does give a different view of events - nothing outstandingly new - just a different perspective.  Certainly not a book I'd recommend to history students or new IF fans - but for anyone who has already digested a number of period and modern works on the period it certainly has value.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: leushino on January 06, 2006, 11:04:48 AM
Robert, I completely agree with your feelings regarding the book. The authors, in my opinion, did a superb job of researching the FATE of the Romanovs. That was the thrust of the book and upon that intention, the book should stand or fall. As to the criticism regarding their treatment of Orthodoxy, I believe it to be entirely without merit and quite frankly, unjust.

Now... I "wish" the authors had shortened the book by about a 150 pages. But....  ;)
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Robert_Hall on January 06, 2006, 12:54:16 PM
I will agree that the book could have used a better editor. It is a bit too "wordy", in my opinion.  But, personally, I do not think they [the authors] went too far in their portrayal of the family. If anything, they could have gone further in describing real people going through real events.
I am curious, Petrushka,  what conclusions are you refering to ?
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Mander on January 06, 2006, 02:23:31 PM
I just got my copy of this book yesterday. I can't WAIT to read it and join in the conversation:D
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Eddie_uk on January 06, 2006, 02:31:39 PM
Quote
(2) In an obvious effort to depart from the 'norm' with Romanov literature, I do feel that the authors have swung too far in their criticism. Whilst undoubtedly we are often guilty of looking at the IF with rose tinted spectacles - the authors have taken the book to the other extreme and it is weighted far too heavily as a critique of Nicholas, Alexandra and numerous others - we all know they had many faults but there is much to be commended as well.  The result is rather heavy handed and tries to hard to be controversial.


Hear hear!!  I firmly believe the IF was extremely close right up to the bitter end. How could they not be? You would need the support of your family in such a deadful ordeal!! Of course i'm sure they had their arguments like any other family would. Also i wouldn't believe anything the revoluntionaries said about a divided family or a disgraced Marie, rubbish IMO!  :)

Also, as usual,  people forget they were just human beings with faults like the rest of us!!!

Thank you!
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Janet_W. on January 06, 2006, 02:43:13 PM
Robert, thank you for making some excellent points about this book.

So many readers have felt "their" Romanovs were co-opted. But FOTR is not about the Romanovs during their imperial days; it is exactly what it says in the title . . . information about NAOTMAA regarding their imprisonment, murder, and attempts to recover their remains. It therefore covers information about the Romanov captors, the Romanov's interaction with their captors, and also the Romanov family's interaction with each other.

I believe the authors have approached their subject of the family's final days with as much neutrality as possible--either for, or against, the Romanovs. What bothers so many readers, it seems, are the conclusions drawn from the authors' research that burst the bubble about this family being "perfect."  While many posters are Russian Orthodox and regard them as saints, many of us are approaching the Romanov story as biography and history rather than with religious veneration. And anyone who has studied a family and various family interactions with each other over a period of time knows it is a complex subject. The fact that this family went through tremendous travail toward the end of their lives cannot help but add to the equation. Saints they are, within the Russian Orthodox Church. But to many of us who want to make sense of the terrible tragedy that overtook them they remain flesh-and-blood people with all the various aspects of humanity that we recognize in ourselves. We ask ourselves, if a brutal murder could happen to these people, could it happen to us? Our friends? The family of any present nation's leader? And what about all the other families since that time who have been exterminated due to unrest, terrorism, and war? When does the bloodshed end and rationality begin? This, I feel, is a large part of what Greg Wilson and Penny King wanted to bring to our attention, and encourage us to think about, in researching and writing FOTR.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Elisabeth on February 08, 2006, 11:43:06 AM
Over in the Final Chapter section, in the "Rape" and "Anna Anderson's Story" threads, we've discovered a major error in FOTR. The authors misquote one of only two sources that claim the grand duchesses were (it's strongly implied, sexually) harassed by the guards on board the Rus during their journey from Tobolsk to Ekaterinburg. The other source turns out to be secondhand, by someone who wasn't actually there. So it now appears that the harassment never happened at all. Here's the link:

http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=lastdays;action=display;num=1125891788;start=0#0

The discussion starts on Reply 67.

After reading this, what are your own thoughts about FOTR? Do you still regard it as a credible source of information about the last days of the imperial family? Or are you now inclined to be more skeptical about some of the authors' claims?  
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Robert_Hall on February 08, 2006, 12:01:20 PM
Yes, it is definitely a most credible source and also the most up-to-date available thus far.
As for the supposed sexual assault. the authors did not state that it had happened, they said someone else did in an attempt to use as many references to events as they could find. I do not think they necessarily gave credence to that report at all. I agree the passage was a bit "sensational" and I would rather it not have even been included, but hey, it is not my book.
I also have my reasons to question their motive in the missing bodies debate. Again, they maintain that 2 MAY NOT have died immeadiately in the cellar, NOT that they necessarily survived.
All of their sources are duly noted and the writing is above standard.
If I could figure out how to do it, I would re-post this to the other threads, as I do not feel like retyping it !  If anyone feels like doing it for me- be my guest !!
Cheers,
Robert
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 08, 2006, 01:30:32 PM
Quote
Y As for the supposed sexual assault. the authors did not state that it had happened, they said someone else did in an attempt to use as many references to events as they could find.


Robert, one of the two sources about this incident (i.e. Volkov) seems to have been blatantly misquoted, in a way that could not have been a mistake or a misunderstanding. This seems to have been done to corraborate the information that came from the second source (which was a second hand account from someone who was not even present on the Rus). This latter source implied that there was some sort of a sexual harrassment, or even possible molestation, of the GD's on the Rus on its way to Tiumen... The authors of course were careful not to say it outright, but the implication was very strong. This is a very major implication, which no historians ever evoked.

I actually liked FOTR when I initially read it a couple of years ago (although I never finished it because it was due at the library and I had to return it). I liked it because it seemed to present some new and refreshing information and a different perspective on the old story. But this incident, and other things prior to this, have definitely made me question the credibility of the rest of the book...

Quote

I also have my reasons to question their motive in the missing bodies debate.


IMO, it is because they wanted to "keep the door open" for Anna Anderson... but this is only my opinion.  8)

Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Forum Admin on February 08, 2006, 04:12:37 PM
So that people understand this part of the discussion, I have pulled this over from the "Final Chapter" thread on the subject:

FOTR states that  "Through the open doors, the soldiers leered at the grand duchesses, refusing, as Volkov later learned, to 'leave them in peace.'" (p. 141, FOTR).  That is not what Volkov wrote. Volkov states specifically the opposite, that the grand duchesses "were left in peace."

FOTR states "The women, as Buxhoeveden recalled, had been ordered "to leave our cabin doors open all night.  No one undressesd.  Through the open doors, the soldiers leered at the grand duchesses.." Buxhoeveden as you can read for yourself NEVER said anything like "the soldiers leered at the grand duchesses. Buxheoveden's actual quote says : Rodionov had sentinels posted everywhere, even at the doors of the lavatories, and ordered all of us ladies to leave our cabin doors open all night. No one undressed.  The little Caesarevich was locked into the cabin he occupied with the sailor-attendent Nagorny, for fear, I suppose that he should "swim away".  It appears that the phrase "Through the open doors the soldiers leered at the grand duchesses" was ADDED by the authors, but in such a way that the clear implication was that it came from Buxhoeveden's memoirs, rather than being speculation of the authors.

FOTR states "The abuse reached a cresendo as the night wore on." What abuse? The original source material shows no sign of abuse, yet the authors do not let the reader know that any "abuse" is their mere speculation.

We take many authors to task in this forum for the accuracy of their writing.  That is a legitimate and, in our opinion, constructive exercise.

Greg King is our friend, yet it would be a dis service to not point out inaccuracies in the book.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: BaronessSophie on February 08, 2006, 05:33:01 PM
Quote
After reading this, what are your own thoughts about FOTR? Do you still regard it as a credible source of information about the last days of the imperial family? Or are you now inclined to be more skeptical about some of the authors' claims?


I never really thought FOTR was that credible to begin with, so I am not that surprised by this latest discovery. I have always felt that the authors were just aiming for sensationalism.

Quote
IMO, it is because they wanted to "keep the door open" for Anna Anderson... but this is only my opinion.  8)


I agree. Especially since Penny Wilson posted on this very forum that she believes it is likely Anna Anderson was Anastasia.

Quote
If she was Anastasia -- and I myself believe it likely that she was -- then Gleb and his sister Tatiana were her two truest friends.


http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=anastasia;action=display;num=1075191962;start=75


Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Sarushka on February 08, 2006, 07:45:17 PM
Quote
After reading this, what are your own thoughts about FOTR? Do you still regard it as a credible source of information about the last days of the imperial family? Or are you now inclined to be more skeptical about some of the authors' claims?  

I'm certainly becoming skeptical.

There are a fair number of interpretations and opinions in FOTR that I don't fully agree with. That alone doesn't bother me. Opinions, as long as they are clearly delineated from facts, are not inappropriate in a non-fiction work. Now, however, it appears as though King & Wilson have presented information in a misleading way. I'm not at all comfortable with this.

To clarify, possibly to the point of redundancy, but please bear with me: While King & Wilson didn't exactly misquote Volkov (the small section in double quotation marks is accurate) they preceded the quote with a line that has NO BASIS in the sources cited. Here's the sentence. Volkov's words are in blue; King and Wilson's in red:
'Through the open doors, the soldier leered at the grand duchesses, refusing, as Volkov later learned, to "leave them in peace". 91'
The arrangement of the words in red makes them appear as though they've been paraphrased from Volkov, as the citation number 91 indicates a reference to Volkov. But as Rob has pointed out, there is NOTHING in Volkov to suggest any sort of leering, or a refusal to leave the grand duchesses alone. Apparently, the citation and its corresponding source applies ONLY to the four words within the quotation marks which I've marked in blue.
Where then, did the rest of the sentence come from? ???
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Sarushka on February 08, 2006, 08:00:52 PM
Quote
FOTR states "The women, as Buxhoeveden recalled, had been ordered "to leave our cabin doors open all night.  No one undressesd.  Through the open doors, the soldiers leered at the grand duchesses.."

Forgive me, Rob, but there's a small error in your quote from FOTR. It has to do with the arrangement of quotation marks. As in my last post, I'll put King & Wilson's words in red, Buxhoeveden's in blue.
'The women, as Buxhoeveden recalled, had been ordered "to leave our cabin doors open all night. No one undressesd."90 Through the open doors, the soldiers leered at the grand duchesses[....]'

The bit about the leering is part of the next sentence, (which I nitpicked to death in my last post) and appears to be attributed to Volkov, which is not accurate. It's a very subtle thing, I'll admit, but it leaves an unpleasant taste in my mouth.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Forum Admin on February 08, 2006, 08:22:10 PM
Sarushka,
Thank you for being so precise. Though I stand behind my earlier statement that the bit about the guards leering through open doors at the GDs is clearly implied to be coming from Buxh. and/or Volkov, and certainly is NOT made clear to be the unsupported supposition of the author(s).
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Sarushka on February 08, 2006, 08:30:42 PM
Quote
Sarushka,
Thank you for being so precise.

Thank you for appreciating my compulsive tendancies!  ;)

Quote
Though I stand behind my earlier statement that the bit about the guards leering through open doors at the GDs is clearly implied to be coming from Buxh. and/or Volkov, and certainly is NOT made clear to be the unsupported supposition of the author(s).

Exactly right.

Quote
Greg King is our friend, yet it would be a dis service to not point out inaccuracies in the book.

What are the odds of us getting a response from Greg or Penny regarding these concerns? Is this something you'd be comfortable approaching Greg about?
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Belochka on February 09, 2006, 12:48:17 AM
on Feb 8th, 2006, 12:01pm, Robert_Hall wrote:
I also have my reasons to question their motive in the missing bodies debate.

Quote
IMO, it is because they wanted to "keep the door open" for Anna Anderson... but this is only my opinion.  8)
 

 
I agree with this conclusion.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Laura Mabee on February 09, 2006, 09:28:13 AM
Quote
What are the odds of us getting a response from Greg or Penny regarding these concerns? Is this something you'd be comfortable approaching Greg about?

I wish they were high, but it's unlikely on the boards. I would recommend emailing them, but it seems they don't check or just decide not to email back. I wish the odds were higher.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Forum Admin on February 09, 2006, 09:42:16 AM
Greg is focused on his new book due to released shortly. His priorites are there and with family matters just now, so I won't bother him with this at this time. He does check in on the forum occassionally, and if he cares to respond, probably will.

Penny only contacts us to threaten us with lawsuits for libel if she doesn't like what people have to say in here about her, so I will decline further comment on Penny.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on February 09, 2006, 10:34:01 AM
In my opinion, FOTR went too far in trying to be shocking and get away from the usual portrayals of Nicholas and Alexandra, but in doing so they strayed from the facts.  Hence we get the above misleading 'quote' basically implying that the GDs were raped, which there is no evidence to back up.

I now wonder just how much of FOTR is actually reliable.  The quote Sarushka used shows how easy it is for authors to misappropriate information and put it in different contexts, and so mislead a lot of readers.  Unless you stringently check the sources, which not a lot of people are going to do, you're not going to know which are Greg and Penny's words and which aren't.  I don't like to think how many people's first contact with the Romanovs was FOTR, because instead of 'debunking' the myths, as it claimed it was going to do, it has just created more.

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Laura Mabee on February 09, 2006, 05:06:47 PM
Quote
Greg is focused on his new book due to released shortly. His priorites are there and with family matters just now.... I will decline further comment on Penny.

Thanks FA, I appreciate the update.  :)
It explains the absence of Mr. King. I hope the best to him and his family.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Belochka on February 09, 2006, 06:43:19 PM
Quote
Penny only contacts us to threaten us with lawsuits for libel if she doesn't like what people have to say in here about her, so I will decline further comment on Penny.


This forum offers an opportunity to discuss the merits of any book. Importantly it offers an author feedback that they otherwise would not have received.

Authors should expect that as part of the continuum for their publications. To remain silent will neither benefit the author nor their target audience.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Robert_Hall on February 09, 2006, 08:57:42 PM
I understand the dis-agreement on the translations. That is a given here, it seems. However, it does not dis-credit the tome in my opinion. It is a far cry better than any of the worshipful volumes that usually come out. And the research is exceptionally thorough.
I think Greg actually said, somewhere on this forum that he did NOT believe any molestation took place, but I cannot find his quote using the search engine.
It seems to me that there are some real personality issues here. Not the merits of the book itself.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: azrael7171918 on February 09, 2006, 10:21:22 PM

Penny only contacts us to threaten us with lawsuits for libel if she doesn't like what people have to say in here about her, so I will decline further comment on Penny.
[/quote]


EXCUSE ME?

I have to tell you I left a review where it would do the most good. AMAZON!

Azrael
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: leushino on February 09, 2006, 10:25:44 PM
Quote
... It is a far cry better than any of the worshipful volumes that usually come out. And the research is exceptionally thorough.
....
It seems to me that there are some real personality issues here. Not the merits of the book itself.


I've not been around nearly as long as you, Robert, but from the little I've read it seems to me you've hit the proverbial nail on the head with your last comment here.

Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Belochka on February 10, 2006, 04:14:26 AM
Quote
It seems to me that there are some real personality issues here. Not the merits of the book itself.


With regret Robert, I must disagree with this statement. As readers who purchase an author's publication for either pleasure or for research etc., surely it is up to us to proffer the merits and/or the flaws of any publication?   :)
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Sarushka on February 10, 2006, 08:57:21 AM
Quote
It seems to me that there are some real personality issues here. Not the merits of the book itself.

That's exactly what I thought, Robert, until the issue or their presentation of the Rus incident came up. Variations in translation are one thing. Adding information that has no basis in the sources cited is quite another. This business about the soldiers 'leering' and 'refusing' to leave the girls alone changes the whole tenor of the incident. If King & Wilson believed the girls were unharmed, why did they include this seemingly unfounded information that steers readers to the opposite conclusion?

Quote
And the research is exceptionally thorough.
Again, it certainly seemed that way to me, too, until this came up.... :-/ I'm sure there is still plenty of valid information to be gleaned from FOTR. But how are we to be sure what information truly came from the sources cited, and what is the authors' unfounded opinion? That should be perfectly clear in any non-fiction work, and it's become evident that those lines are not as clear as they ought to be in FOTR.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Forum Admin on February 10, 2006, 09:12:34 AM
"'The women, as Buxhoeveden recalled, had been ordered "to leave our cabin doors open all night. No one undressed." Through the open doors, the soldiers leered at the grand duchesses refusing, as Volkov later learned, to "leave them in peace". The abuse reached a cresendo as the night wore on   Gibbes, locked away in his cabin, listened helplessly, as he later told his son George, as the drunken guards harassesd the grand duchesses, "It was dreadful, what they did,"  the former tutor recalled.  The "terrifed screams" of the girls, Gibbes said, haunted him, "to the end of his life."

"Almost certainly, the Grand Duchesses were subjected to taunts, and perhaps lewd advances at the hands of the drunken Latvian guards, how this progressed as the evening wore on is impossible to determine."

"no matter what took place, it is difficult not to believe that the experience had a profound traumatic effect on the young women, particularily grand Duchess Olga. Once she arrived in Ekaterinburg, Olga was withdrawn, silent, and did not mix with her sisters, perhaps indicating that she suffered some significant trauma. "  

"The near veil of silence surrounding the events of that night, however, is not difficult to understand, given the exalted position of the Grand Duchesses; ... to present them as paragons of all moral virtue

"Those on board the ship were unable (being locked up) or unwilling (through fear of reprisal ...) ...This may be the key to the events of that night: shame and humiliation at not being able to come to the defense of the helpless Grand Duchesses might well account for Gibbes' "worst memory.

-FOTR 140-141
***
Can anyone please reconcile for me, personally, the above text with the postion presented also herein that the authors "do not believe that rape or abuse occurred on board the Rus? I'm sorry, but I've read this over and over, and I just can't come to grips that the above was written by someone "who does not believe that rape or abuse occurred that night". PLEASE show me where in the text ITSELF the author(s) indicate that they are merely speculating.

I just don't get it. That text makes the unmistakeable implication, rather overtly, that "something very bad" happened on board, when the overwhelmed evidence indicated rather that, aside from a lot of gunfire from the deck, nothing else happened at all.  "The Grand Duchesses were left in peace" - Volkov.

???
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Forum Admin on February 10, 2006, 09:23:43 AM
An analysis of the text using the known evidence. (my additions in bold)
"'The women, as Buxhoeveden recalled, had been ordered "to leave our cabin doors open all night. No one undressed." [Through the open doors, the soldiers leered at the grand duchesses]this phrase added by the authors, there is NO factual evidence to support the statement, and it is asserted as FACT and not identified as speculation [refusing, as Volkov later learned, to "leave them in peace"]Completely false. Volkov stated the GDs WERE LEFT IN PEACE. The abuse reached a cresendo as the night wore on. exactly what abuse? again, abuse is stated as fact when there is no support in the evidence.   Gibbes, locked away in his cabin, listened helplessly, as he later told his son George, as the drunken guards harassesd the grand duchesses, "It was dreadful, what they did,"  the former tutor recalled.  The "terrifed screams" of the girls, Gibbes said, haunted him, "to the end of his life."When Gibbes was deposed by Sokolov within months of the event, HE SAID NOTHING about abuse or screams or anything else. This statement was made literally decades after the fact, and saliently in House of Special Purpose George Gibbes made NO MENTION of this event on the Rus. "Rodionov, who was in charge of the evil-looking detachment, insisted on padlocking Alexis and Nagorny into their cabin, even though it was made clear that the child might need a doctor. The girls, on the other hand, were forbidden to lock their cabin door." (HOSP, pp. 102-103)  

"Almost certainly, the Grand Duchesses were subjected to taunts, and perhaps lewd advances at the hands of the drunken Latvian guards, how this progressed as the evening wore on is impossible to determine." Saliently, there is no cited evidence to support this supposition at all, much less "almost certainly'. To the contrary, Buxhoeveden writes specifically that only the assigned guards came near them, the others stayed on their assigned part of the boat, see "Left Behind" - "The rest of the soldiers did not come near us and spent the day on their part of the deck, singing and playing the accordion.  Some had fine voices, and it carried us back to happier days,..."

"no matter what took place, it is difficult not to believe that the experience had a profound traumatic effect on the young women, particularily grand Duchess Olga. Once she arrived in Ekaterinburg, Olga was withdrawn, silent, and did not mix with her sisters, perhaps indicating that she suffered some significant trauma. "   Buxhoeveden says Olga N. was showing these syptoms in April, weeks BEFORE the voyage on the Rus: cf. Life & Tragedy..."Olga Nicholaevna was in a state of great anxiety. She longed to join her parents, for whose fate she trembled, and, on the other hand, she feared the move for her brother, both on account of his health and also for fear of what the move might lead to" at Ch. 31; or perhaps for myriad of other reasons including imprisonment itself under increasingly difficult circumstances. - cf: Gilliard Ch. 22 "The conditions of the imprisonment were much more severe than at Tobolsk. Avdiev was an inveterate drunkard, who gave rein to his coarse instincts, and, with the assistance of his subordinates, showed great ingenuity in daily inflicting fresh humiliations upon those in his charge. There was no alternative but to accept the privations, submit to the vexations, yield to the exactions and caprices of these low, vulgar scoundrels."

"The near veil of silence surrounding the events of that night, however, is not difficult to understand, given the exalted position of the Grand Duchesses; ... to present them as paragons of all moral virtue  or perhaps the "silence" is because NOTHING ACTUALLY HAPPENED so no one had anything to say. ie: the entire diary entry of Gilliard:
"Monday May 20th - At half-past eleven we left the house and went on board the Russ.  She is the boat which brought us with the Czar and Czarina eight months ago.  Baroness Buxhoeveden has been granted permission to rejoin us.  We left Tobolsk at five o'clock.  Commisar Rodionov has shut Alexei Nicholaievich in his cabin with Nagorny.  We protested: the child is ill and the doctor ought to have access to him at any time.
"Wednesday May 22nd - We reached Tiumen this morning."
or here is the ENTIRE discussion on the subject in the Sokolov investigation's report made AFTER interrogating all surviving passengers of the Rus(pg 146)
   "Here is how the journey of the imperial children went under the command of Rodionov:
    "From Gilliard's deposition: "Rodionov behaved very badly. He closed off from outside the cabin in which were found Alexei with Nagorny.  All of the other cabins, in particular those of the Grand Duchesses were not to be locked from inside, under his order."
    "The morning of May 22, the imperial children arrived in Tiumen."


"Those on board the ship were unable (being locked up) or unwilling (through fear of reprisal ...) again, suppostion without evidence, yet stated as fact...This may be the key to the events of that night: shame and humiliation at not being able to come to the defense of the helpless Grand Duchesses might well account for Gibbes' "worst memory.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Sarushka on February 10, 2006, 10:08:11 AM
THANK YOU, Rob!

This is what I'm driving at. It's not a matter of King & Wilson relaying unpleasant information. The only information I don't want to hear is false information, and until the authors explain otherwise, I can't come up with any other explanation for this.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: ConstanceMarie on February 10, 2006, 05:27:34 PM
Quote
In my opinion, FOTR went too far in trying to be shocking and get away from the usual portrayals of Nicholas and Alexandra, but in doing so they strayed from the facts.  Hence we get the above misleading 'quote' basically implying that the GDs were raped, which there is no evidence to back up.

I now wonder just how much of FOTR is actually reliable.  The quote Sarushka used shows how easy it is for authors to misappropriate information and put it in different contexts, and so mislead a lot of readers.  Unless you stringently check the sources, which not a lot of people are going to do, you're not going to know which are Greg and Penny's words and which aren't.  I don't like to think how many people's first contact with the Romanovs was FOTR, because instead of 'debunking' the myths, as it claimed it was going to do, it has just created more.

Rachel
xx



I have to agree. With so much doubt cast on the credibility of some of the book's details, it seems perhaps some things written are merely elaborated assumptions based on limited or incorrect information. A nonfiction book must be all fact and no guesswork or filler for excitement or it deserves to be relegated to the fiction shelf. I wonder how much of their 'new' information is accurate. or simply new ideas with no evidence.


Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Tania+ on February 10, 2006, 07:31:09 PM
Hello ConstanceMarie,

This is why some of us on the threads make inquiry as to the source(s), and any all information gathered. As you have written ConstanceMarie, to quote in particular of your statement, 'it seems perhaps some things are merely elaborated assumptions based on limited or incorrect information'.

That's the honest beauty of these threads, and where patience comes in on these threads. Sorting, sifting, discussing, we sometimes find a new way at looking at statements offered as facts. As you can see, we have people whom really go to the nth degree in helping to look at these issues in a new light.

Thanks for your thoughts and sharing.

Tatiana+

Quote


I have to agree. With so much doubt cast on the credibility of some of the book's details, it seems perhaps some things written are merely elaborated assumptions based on limited or incorrect information. A nonfiction book must be all fact and no guesswork or filler for excitement or it deserves to be relegated to the fiction shelf. I wonder how much of their 'new' information is accurate. or simply new ideas with no evidence.



Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Forum Admin on February 10, 2006, 08:05:09 PM
The original:
"'The women, as Buxhoeveden recalled, had been ordered "to leave our cabin doors open all night. No one undressed." Through the open doors, the soldiers leered at the grand duchesses refusing, as Volkov later learned, to "leave them in peace". The abuse reached a cresendo as the night wore on   Gibbes, locked away in his cabin, listened helplessly, as he later told his son George, as the drunken guards harassesd the grand duchesses, "It was dreadful, what they did,"  the former tutor recalled.  The "terrifed screams" of the girls, Gibbes said, haunted him, "to the end of his life."  

"Almost certainly, the Grand Duchesses were subjected to taunts, and perhaps lewd advances at the hands of the drunken Latvian guards, how this progressed as the evening wore on is impossible to determine."  

"no matter what took place, it is difficult not to believe that the experience had a profound traumatic effect on the young women, particularily grand Duchess Olga. Once she arrived in Ekaterinburg, Olga was withdrawn, silent, and did not mix with her sisters, perhaps indicating that she suffered some significant trauma. "  

"The near veil of silence surrounding the events of that night, however, is not difficult to understand, given the exalted position of the Grand Duchesses; ... to present them as paragons of all moral virtue  

"Those on board the ship were unable (being locked up) or unwilling (through fear of reprisal ...) ...This may be the key to the events of that night: shame and humiliation at not being able to come to the defense of the helpless Grand Duchesses might well account for Gibbes' "worst memory.

Now, my suggested re-write as a "responsible"alternative:
"'The women, as Buxhoeveden recalled, had been ordered "to leave our cabin doors open all night. No one undressed." One might imagin that through the open doors, the soldiers could have leered at the grand duchesses, yet as Volkov later learned, Rodionov "left them in peace". Things might have reached a cresendo as the night wore on, but the first hand sources are silent on the subject.   Gibbes was reported by his adopted son in 1989 as being locked away in his cabin, and  listened helplessly, as he later told his son George, as the possibly drunken guards harassed the grand duchesses, "It was dreadful, what they did,"  the former tutor recalled decades later.  The "terrifed screams" of the girls, Gibbes said, haunted him, "to the end of his life."  Interestingly, the book written by George Gibbes, House of Special Purpose, makes no mention of this report. Also, Sokolov interviewed Gibbes just months afterward for his Investigation, yet Gibbes said nothing of the sort to him at that time.

"We could imagine that during the night, the Grand Duchesses were subjected to taunts, and perhaps lewd advances at the hands of the assigned guards, yet how this may have unfolded as the evening wore on is impossible to determine."  

"no matter what took place, it is difficult not to believe that the experience of the trip may have had a profound traumatic effect on the young women, particularily grand Duchess Olga. We know she was exhibiting signs of trauma after her parents left Tobolsk.  We also know that once she arrived in Ekaterinburg, Olga was withdrawn, silent, and did not mix with her sisters, perhaps indicating that she suffered from some additional significant trauma. However, we know that captivity in Ekaterinburg was far more difficult and severe for the Grand Duchesses than it had been in Toblosk, as they did not even have beds at first, and were forced to sleep on the floor, and the Ekaterinburg guards  were often drunk and often quite cruel to them."  

"The near veil of silence surrounding the events of that night, however, is either due to the fact that nothing of significance actually happened during the trip, although it is also not difficult to imagine that , given the exalted position of the Grand Duchesses; something untoward, if it happened,  might not have been discussed to continue to  present them as paragons of all moral virtue  

"Those on board the ship who survived said nothing substantial to indicate what might have occurred. Thus we may never be able to know the actual key to the events of that night, if any: or pehaps confusion in later life of some past events might well account for Gibbes' "worst memory".

Which version makes the more populist and thus more lucrative read?
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on February 11, 2006, 04:47:58 AM
Quote

Which version makes the more populist and thus more lucrative read?


Exactly, FA!

It's a shame, because that section of FOTR is now probably going to spawn even more myths about the family.  I won't be surprised if it becomes a Marfa Mouchanow and starts getting quoted in future Romanov publications as the truth.

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Rachael89 on February 11, 2006, 06:46:59 AM
I brought this last week - and to be totally honest I'm finding it a real struggle to read. IMHO it's far to dense and all the quotes make my eyes hurt!

Whilst the info on the guards and servants is all interesting I find it detracts from the main focus of the book, and for me makes it even more muddled and confusing. Really it could of been spilt into at least two books and I'm only 60 pages in!

I will try to finish it, but maybe it's just too deep for me....

Rachael

P.S. I mean no offence to Greg and Penny, it's very VERY definitive, it could use better editing at the stage I'm at...
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Eddie_uk on February 11, 2006, 06:58:38 AM
I know what you mean Rachel!!
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Rachael89 on February 11, 2006, 07:36:15 AM
Yeah, I'm a little miffed cos I paid full price for the paperback (£13 is a lot for a college student!) but hopefully it will get better as I progress  ;).

Rachael
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Eddie_uk on February 11, 2006, 07:49:57 AM
yes, tell me about it, the joys of being a student!  ;D
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Ortino on February 11, 2006, 08:34:09 AM
Quote
I have to agree. With so much doubt cast on the credibility of some of the book's details, it seems perhaps some things written are merely elaborated assumptions based on limited or incorrect information. A nonfiction book must be all fact and no guesswork or filler for excitement or it deserves to be relegated to the fiction shelf. I wonder how much of their 'new' information is accurate. or simply new ideas with no evidence.  


I see nothing wrong with an author making guesses or assumptions about why something happened or why a person acted a certain way so long as they have some historical basis behind their speculation and clearly distinguish between their own ideas and fact. The situation you propose above for nonfiction works is frankly impossible. There are always gaps in history that cannot be filled with certainty. Therefore an author will often speculate the reasons for something when a fully factual answer cannot be provided. There is obviously a difference with this book. The authors have made no real distinction between fact and assumption as well as inserted information that has no factual support. There is clearly something wrong with this, but not the inclusion of guesses.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: leushino on February 11, 2006, 09:45:21 AM
Although (in my humble opinion) the book was 200 pages longer than it should have been, I personally enjoyed reading it and learned a great deal from their thorough research. The only legitimate way we will ever know why they made these assumptions in that chapter relating to the transfer of the remaining children on the Rus, is by having King and Wilson give an explanation. Otherwise, it's all speculation and assumption on our part. And frankly, if Wilson and King never return to the Alexander forums at this juncture, it wouldn't really surprise me. It's one thing to ask questions of authors regarding why they drew certain conclusions and quite another to sit in judgment... particularly given the fact that most of us have never produced anything more than a few posts on an internet forum. I think this thread should be mercifully put to rest.  :P
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Forum Admin on February 11, 2006, 09:54:44 AM
Quote
And frankly, if Wilson and King never return to the Alexander forums at this juncture, it wouldn't really surprise me. It's one thing to ask questions of authors regarding why they drew certain conclusions and quite another to sit in judgment... particularly given the fact that most of us have never produced anything more than a few posts on an internet forum. I think this thread should be mercifully put to rest.  :P


I disagree. The fact that some readers of the book "have never produced anything more than a few posts..." in NO WAY makes them less qualified to judge a work purporting to be accurate history. and by the way, Please go check out the "Books by AP members" thread and find out that many posters here are published authors and scholars.  I'm sorry, but if one holds oneself out to be an "expert" on a subject by means of writing a book then one must take the legitimate criticism that comes with it. It is childish to avoid that criticism, in my opinion.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Sarushka on February 11, 2006, 11:00:41 AM
Quote
The only legitimate way we will ever know why they made these assumptions in that chapter relating to the transfer of the remaining children on the Rus, is by having King and Wilson give an explanation. Otherwise, it's all speculation and assumption on our part.

This is exactly the issue that's got me so bent out of shape -- we, as readers of a non-ficiton work, shouldn't have to speculate on or make assumptions about the sources of authors' conclusions! The book itself should have been the place to make explanations.

And what, by the way, would be a reasonable explanation for including information that has no basis in the sources cited?

Quote
I personally enjoyed reading it and learned a great deal from their thorough research.

I did, too. Up to now, this book has been one of the cornerstones of my research (another reason for the level of my irritation!). But after seeing this example, how are we to know what is fact and what is opinion masquerading as fact? This isn't a docu-drama, after all, and it wasn't written by Radzinsky. I'd love to be able to believe that this is a completely isolated instance within FOTR, but the more we examine the book, the more I doubt that's a safe assumption to make. Considering all the fuss in the US right now about A Million Little Pieces, I don't understand why people don't see the problem with this issue.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Forum Admin on February 11, 2006, 12:10:55 PM
I think when it comes to history, we tend to be "sloppy" about what we accept as "truth".  This sort of speculation being discussed, passed of as "truth" really reminds me of the "Discovery Channel" "history" show, you know the ones with the alleged reinactments, where Bob and I look at each other and laughingly say "Oh, wow look, they have video tape footage of Julius Caesar!" or "Gee, I didn't know they took video of Cleopatra, she looks great"
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Arleen on February 11, 2006, 01:54:29 PM
I for one, get really tired of the people on the AP who seem to make it their life work making fun of or condeming every author and every book written.

Whenever a new topic is started I just wait.....its only a matter of time that someone doesn't start their condeming and it seems to really catch on fast and everyone jumps on the bandwagon to distroy the subject, no matter what it may be.  But authors and books seem to be the worst.

I know enough not to believe everything that I read in any book, because I don't believe there is an author on earth who is perfect in every way.  But I hate to see them condemed and brought down.....writing is the HARDEST occupation anyone can have, I know.

I think FOTR is on the whole marvelous!

..Arleen
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Elisabeth on February 11, 2006, 02:59:22 PM
I understand how tempting it is for authors who have discovered new and unexpected information to favor that source of information over all the old tried and true sources. But the FA has demonstrated how easy it would have been for King and Wilson to include the new story about the Rus trip from George Gibbes, Charles Sydney Gibbes' adopted son, whilst at the same time not sacrificing the truth, that is, that no other existing contemporary source (including C.S. Gibbes' own) backs up the new claims.

I agree, this, or a version thereof, is what King and Wilson should have published instead of what they did:

Quote
Now, my suggested re-write as a "responsible"alternative:
"'The women, as Buxhoeveden recalled, had been ordered "to leave our cabin doors open all night. No one undressed." One might imagin that through the open doors, the soldiers could have leered at the grand duchesses, yet as Volkov later learned, Rodionov "left them in peace". Things might have reached a cresendo as the night wore on, but the first hand sources are silent on the subject.   Gibbes was reported by his adopted son in 1989 as being locked away in his cabin, and  listened helplessly, as he later told his son George, as the possibly drunken guards harassed the grand duchesses, "It was dreadful, what they did,"  the former tutor recalled decades later.  The "terrifed screams" of the girls, Gibbes said, haunted him, "to the end of his life."  Interestingly, the book written by George Gibbes, House of Special Purpose, makes no mention of this report. Also, Sokolov interviewed Gibbes just months afterward for his Investigation, yet Gibbes said nothing of the sort to him at that time.
 
"We could imagine that during the night, the Grand Duchesses were subjected to taunts, and perhaps lewd advances at the hands of the assigned guards, yet how this may have unfolded as the evening wore on is impossible to determine."  
 
"no matter what took place, it is difficult not to believe that the experience of the trip may have had a profound traumatic effect on the young women, particularily grand Duchess Olga. We know she was exhibiting signs of trauma after her parents left Tobolsk.  We also know that once she arrived in Ekaterinburg, Olga was withdrawn, silent, and did not mix with her sisters, perhaps indicating that she suffered from some additional significant trauma. However, we know that captivity in Ekaterinburg was far more difficult and severe for the Grand Duchesses than it had been in Toblosk, as they did not even have beds at first, and were forced to sleep on the floor, and the Ekaterinburg guards  were often drunk and often quite cruel to them."  
 
"The near veil of silence surrounding the events of that night, however, is either due to the fact that nothing of significance actually happened during the trip, although it is also not difficult to imagine that , given the exalted position of the Grand Duchesses; something untoward, if it happened,  might not have been discussed to continue to  present them as paragons of all moral virtue  
 
"Those on board the ship who survived said nothing substantial to indicate what might have occurred. Thus we may never be able to know the actual key to the events of that night, if any: or pehaps confusion in later life of some past events might well account for Gibbes' "worst memory".


See, if the authors of FOTR had simply rephrased their new theory in this way, making it clear that it was only a theory, not backed up by the other sources, then I would have had no problem with this section of their book. It's the fact that instead they misused their other sources, implying and even stating that these sources said things that they did not, which has me and other members here so upset with King and Wilson.

Let's make this clear, I have nothing against non-academics writing books on history. There is no earthly reason why non-academic historical works can't meet the same high standards as scholarly works on the same subject. Indeed, what initially impressed me about FOTR (and still impresses me) was the sheer amount of research that went into its composition. The authors consulted the original sources in Russian, most of them still unpublished, either in Russian or English. They managed to transpose these many sources into a pretty seamless narrative. I for one didn't find it too long. In fact I found myself yearning for an even lengthier appendix which included translations of all the unpublished guards' accounts of the last days of the Romanovs and their murder. But therein lies the problem I now have with FOTR. Many - even most - of their sources are still unpublished. There is no way we as readers can check their interpretations of these sources against the sources themselves. Given King and Wilson's obvious misinterpretations of Volkov and Buxhoeveden's testimony about the trip on the Rus, where does that leave us? High and dry and - doubting their credibility. Very much.

It now seems to me that the authors of FOTR would have been far better served if they had indeed published lengthy extracts of the Ipatiev House guards' accounts, rather than interspersing the text with selected quotes from them. As it is, King and Wilson provide the reader with no ready frame of reference for the conclusions they are drawing. How are we really supposed to know if Maria Nikolaevna had a flirtation with the guard named Ivan Skorokhodov? Isn't it possible that some of the primary sources the authors consulted actually said the opposite, that nothing had happened between these two young people? Isn't it possible that King and Wilson took one or two sources and favored them over all the other sources, purely for the sake of making a sensational new argument?
 




Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Sarushka on February 11, 2006, 03:46:07 PM
I absolutely agree, Elisabeth.

Quote
I for one, get really tired of the people on the AP who seem to make it their life work making fun of or condeming every author and every book written.

Whenever a new topic is started I just wait.....its only a matter of time that someone doesn't start their condeming and it seems to really catch on fast and everyone jumps on the bandwagon to distroy the subject, no matter what it may be.  But authors and books seem to be the worst.

I know enough not to believe everything that I read in any book, because I don't believe there is an author on earth who is perfect in every way.  But I hate to see them condemed and brought down.....

Look, I'm not out to condemn anyone. I'm not saying King & Wilson are bad people, or that FOTR is a bad book. I loved this book the first time I read it. There are a lot of interpretations I don't agree with, but that's ok. It doesn't bother me that King & Wilson think the Imperial family was more than a bit disfunctional. It doesn't bother me if they want to believe that Anastasia and/or Aleksei could have survived.

All I'm trying to get across is that we've discovered a significant discrepancy in the purported facts. This has disappointed me significantly, and suddenly made me uneasy about trusting the rest of King & Wilson's research. Yes, it's just one instance in an enormous book. But as Elisabeth said, this one instance makes me wonder what we'd uncover if we had access to King & Wilson's other sources. I've been hoping an explanation would arise from this discussion, but it hasn't, and that furthers my discomfort.

Quote
writing is the HARDEST occupation anyone can have, I know.

You're not the only one who knows that, Arleen -- I'm a writer, too. I'm only trying to hold King & Wilson to the same standards and degree of accountability & accuracy that I hold myself to.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Elisabeth on February 11, 2006, 04:30:42 PM
Quote
Look, I'm not out to condemn anyone. I'm not saying King & Wilson are bad people, or that FOTR is a bad book. I loved this book the first time I read it. There are a lot of interpretations I don't agree with, but that's ok. It doesn't bother me that King & Wilson think the Imperial family was more than a bit disfunctional.


I am in total agreement with Sarushka here. As this very thread testifies, I loved and praised this book repeatedly. I recommended it to friends; I defended it repeatedly to professionals.

Quote
It doesn't bother me if they want to believe that Anastasia and/or Aleksei could have survived.


This bothered me, actually, because initially I took their word on faith. It was only after joining this forum and reading what others had to say (especially the DNA evidence) that I reread FOTR and realized how blatantly it had led myself (and potentially others) to the conclusion that if Anastasia survived, Anna Anderson must somehow have been Anastasia. What a disillusionment. But I still maintained my faith in the book as a whole. I ultimately decided that the part about Anastasia and Alexei surviving was just an afterthought on the part of the authors, not to be taken seriously (as it is not taken seriously by professional historians).

Quote
All I'm trying to get across is that we've discovered a significant discrepancy in the purported facts. This has disappointed me significantly, and suddenly made me uneasy about trusting the rest of King & Wilson's research. Yes, it's just one instance in an enormous book. But as Elisabeth said, this one instance makes me wonder what we'd uncover if we had access to King & Wilson's other sources. I've been hoping an explanation would arise from this discussion, but it hasn't, and that furthers my discomfort.


Yes, I wish Greg King would give us some explanation for the discrepancies. I have always regarded him as a responsible biographer and I am a bit disappointed that he has not spoken out on this issue yet. It seems a pity. After all, in his biography of Sharon Tate he goes out of his way to inform the reader that the caretaker of the Polanski estate has changed his account of the murders several times over the years. I'm inclined to take Greg King at his word; so if he says that he and Penny simply mixed up their notes, and that colored the rest of their interpretation, I think I'll probably believe him.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: leushino on February 11, 2006, 05:17:00 PM
Quote
I for one, get really tired of the people on the AP who seem to make it their life work making fun of or condeming every author and every book written.

Whenever a new topic is started I just wait.....its only a matter of time that someone doesn't start their condeming and it seems to really catch on fast and everyone jumps on the bandwagon to distroy the subject, no matter what it may be.  But authors and books seem to be the worst.

I know enough not to believe everything that I read in any book, because I don't believe there is an author on earth who is perfect in every way.  But I hate to see them condemed and brought down.....writing is the HARDEST occupation anyone can have, I know.

I think FOTR is on the whole marvelous!

..Arleen



Thanks, Arleen. I couldn't agree more. Perhaps these self-appointed experts would do well in writing their own version of Romanov history. Then we can sit back and tear it apart.. .chapter, verse and line.

Seriously, I've noticed this pattern to which you allude. First the book is mentioned and several commend it. Then a sole poster finds disagreement with such and such a passage and the first thing you know it's gang-bang time in the forum. I've grown to pretty much disregard the opinions here. Rather, I read the books and form my own opinions (which I consider to be just as valid as the next person's).  ;) ;)
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Sarushka on February 11, 2006, 05:25:43 PM
Oh cripes --- does this mean you all think I've turned into a book-Nazi?
:(
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: leushino on February 11, 2006, 05:44:07 PM
No...not really. I'm not that sort of person, Sarushka. Let's just say... I don't necessarily get "on board" the wagon but like to remain an "out-rider" forming my own opinions on things. That's why I'm probably viewed less favorably around the forum for not worshiping the Romanovs the way so many others do. You're free to form your own opinions and I'll respect you for that. But I won't necessarily agree on the King/Wilson book in spite of the fact that it would appear the majority here have pretty much panned it now (or at least, that is the impression that is being put forward).

And I stand by my original contention that I wouldn't really find it out of the ordinary if King and Wilson decided to stay away from the forum. While the forum contains many firm Romanov fans, it's an extremely small sampling of those who have obviously put out their hard-earned roubles for the book. In other words, King and Wilson are pretty much free to read and then ignore the opinions put forward here. If they choose to refute them or to explain why they said such-and-such... fine. But I've a hunch they won't bother.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Annie on February 11, 2006, 05:47:50 PM
Quote
Oh cripes --- does this mean you all think I've turned into a book-Nazi?
 :(


Not me :D

Because I have been able to read posts by an author for myself, and have seen this person's attitude, tendancies and personality first hand in personal interaction, it makes me even more likely to feel the way I do about my questions I have about things. I don't 'trash everyone who has ever written a book.'
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on February 12, 2006, 04:40:38 AM
Quote


Thanks, Arleen. I couldn't agree more. Perhaps these self-appointed experts would do well in writing their own version of Romanov history. Then we can sit back and tear it apart.. .chapter, verse and line.

Seriously, I've noticed this pattern to which you allude. First the book is mentioned and several commend it. Then a sole poster finds disagreement with such and such a passage and the first thing you know it's gang-bang time in the forum. I've grown to pretty much disregard the opinions here. Rather, I read the books and form my own opinions (which I consider to be just as valid as the next person's).  ;) ;)


I think we all read books and form our own opinions, don't we? I certainly don't rely on others to form an opinion on something for me.

The issue here is that writers on the Romanovs are writing works of NON FICTION that purport to be TRUE FACT.  For those of us who do not read Russian, don't have access to original sources, and have an interest in the Romanovs that is amateur rather than professional have to rely on these books as being true in order to form our own understandings of history.  Therefore, when someone finds that a passage of a book being discussed ISN'T true, they point it out to the rest of us, and then more passages are usually found that follow the same trend.  

This isn't about mocking authors or purposely setting about to discredit them.  It's about making sure what we're reading is accurate and reliable, the claims of which in FOTR's case, have been discovered by some of the so called 'self appointed experts' on here, as you so kindly put it, to be more than a little suspect.

I agree that some people on here are a little blind to the faults of the Romanovs and their interest heads towards fanaticism sometimes, but that doesn't mean they're any less discerning as readers.  If we're reading something that claims to be the truth about the Romanovs, we want to be able to rely on it being the truth.  As I said, the vast majority of us on here will never have access to the original sources consulted in these non fiction works, so I for one am incredibly grateful when those who are more knowledgeable than I am can point out where fact is merging more into fiction.  This means I am not misled into believing a version of 'fact' that has more basis in the author's imagination than in history.  I would imagine everyone on this site would not want to be misled?

Besides, when it comes down to it, we all have a right to an opinion, and this is true of fiction as well as non fiction.   Have YOU never criticised a book to a friend? If I don't like a book and say so, it's not because I'm claiming to be an expert on the subject or because I have some vendetta against the author, it's because I don't like the writing style, or I don't find it entertaining, or whatever.  It's called having an independent opinion, no matter if it is negative or positive.   Nothing and nobody is perfect, and it would be ridiculous to suggest that nobody is going to find a fault with a work of art, be it fiction, non fiction, a painting or so on.  I don't think you have to be an expert on a subject to express an opinion on it.  That would be absurd.

Rachel
xx


Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Annie on February 12, 2006, 06:55:42 AM
Quote


The issue here is that writers on the Romanovs are writing works of NON FICTION that purport to be TRUE FACT.  

It's about making sure what we're reading is accurate and reliable, the claims of which in FOTR's case, have been discovered by some of the so called 'self appointed experts' on here, as you so kindly put it, to be more than a little suspect.


Very true!


Quote
 Therefore, when someone finds that a passage of a book being discussed ISN'T true, they point it out to the rest of us, and then more passages are usually found that follow the same trend.  


 


This is very true not only of books but of everyone. I'm sure we have all known a person who has come up with 'whoppers' that were obviously lies meant to impress, or even things that were not really lies but exaggerations and misinformation based on a little bit of information, but turned into something more that wasn't completely true. Most of us could probably name a friend or even relative on the spot who is known for such things. Once they get that reputation, almost everything they tell then becomes suspect, and in doubt. People will say, "well, yeah, but it was TONY, and you know how he is...."  If you have been given reason to doubt a source, you will naturally doubt and question everything they say. While much of what they say may well be true, 'considering the source' will make you wonder, is this the way it is, or is this just more of his/her bull? That's the way it is with books too, once one thing is shown to be this way, you can't really take everything else it says on faith, especially when the information has never been reported anywhere else and claims to be 'new'.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on February 12, 2006, 08:18:13 AM
Quote

 Most of us could probably name a friend or even relative on the spot who is known for such things. Once they get that reputation, almost everything they tell then becomes suspect, and in doubt. People will say, "well, yeah, but it was TONY, and you know how he is...."  


SO true, Annie!

I do that all the time.  Now it's going to be 'Well, it was Greg and Penny, so...'

Now Greg King has been proven to, shall we say, stretch the truth a little, I shall certainly view all of his works in a new light.  A leopard never changes its spots, as the saying goes!! I shan't be prejudiced against him, but I will read more carefully and not be fooled by the strategically placed quotation marks.

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Forum Admin on February 12, 2006, 09:12:10 AM
Hi,
I think we should be a little careful about the interpretations we make of the inaccuracies we have discovered in FOTR. I have never known Greg to intentionally 'stretch the truth'.  Quite the opposite. Greg sent a pre-publication copy of his new court book to Bob and me last year to proof read for accuracy for him, so that he would NOT make such mistakes.  I found one error about Imperial Security and he wrote immediately to thank me and let me know it would be changed. So, please, lets not judge their motives and stick to our own facts.

We are not out to trash ANY author. Rather, the problem is this. This section of FOTR was being used and cited specifically in two different threads AS A SOURCE OF ACCURATE FACTS about the events on the Rus. As the discussion progressed it turned out upon investigation that this passage is NOT accurate and the authors' speculation was being stated as FACT.

THAT is the crux of the problem. ANY author writing what purports to be accurate historical non-fiction must keep what they know "for sure from the evidence" separate from their speculation and imagination based on that evidence. FOTR seems to have failed in that regard. We now have discovered direct evidence that speculation in the book is stated as absolute fact. Does that "trash" the authors, or the enormous amount of research and effort which went into the book. NOT AT ALL. Does that mean a caveat when reading the book is in order? ABSOLUTELY.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on February 12, 2006, 11:23:52 AM
Quote
Hi,
I think we should be a little careful about the interpretations we make of the inaccuracies we have discovered in FOTR. I have never known Greg to intentionally 'stretch the truth.


I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you here, FA. :)

Greg and Penny both knew FULL WELL what they were writing.  Everything that went into that book was intentional.  So, if something has been made out to be fact when it's opinion, and if something has been misquoted, that was intentional, and that IS, as I said, 'stretching the truth'.  There's no other way of interpreting it, I'm afraid.  You've even analysed the passages yourself.  There's no way you can claim that Greg made an honest, unintentional mistake with what was written.  There was at least one example of a blatant misquote.  No one accidentally does that, and if they did, it would be picked up during proof reading.

I'm not speculating as to why or making any judgements about the authors because of this.  I'm sure they had perfectly good and justifiable reasons for writing it the way they did, and that's fine.  But it was still stretching the truth.

Rachel
xx  
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Annie on February 12, 2006, 12:10:26 PM
Good way to put it, Ra Ra.

For the record, Greg wasn't the author I was referring to in my previous post  :-X and I never had any problem with previous work done alone.  :-X
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Tania+ on February 12, 2006, 01:55:38 PM
Thank you FA, this is just what I have offered to the members since I came onboard. Your quote in particular is what I believe to be of infinite importance.

Quote:
ANY author writing what purports to be accurate historical non-fiction must keep what they know "for sure from the evidence" separate from their speculation and imagination based on that evidence.
End Quote/

What was more upsetting, that some posters continued to use the speculative info rather than accurate facts. Then some discussions went on and on, based on these inaccurate statements. This was my only bone of contention. Now that you have shared your thoughts as well, perhaps we can continue to view and disscuss on accurate facts. I am not judging the writers, just asking for accuracy when offering a book to its readers.

I think it most relevant when posters do find info to please state where, from what source and date it was written. Also, state if it is only their opinion.  There is a real difference from 'hearing something' and something that is 'valid documented information'. I know some posters think its uppety to ask, but it's not being rude at all to make this inquiry. After all, it's one of the main reasons in our discussions we came to this final statement you have shared with all posters. Thank you again for your care to help us look at how we take in information, and how to view writers, [known, unknown] as well their specific subject matters they write on.

Tatiana+


Quote
Hi,
I think we should be a little careful about the interpretations we make of the inaccuracies we have discovered in FOTR. I have never known Greg to intentionally 'stretch the truth'.  Quite the opposite. Greg sent a pre-publication copy of his new court book to Bob and me last year to proof read for accuracy for him, so that he would NOT make such mistakes.  I found one error about Imperial Security and he wrote immediately to thank me and let me know it would be changed. So, please, lets not judge their motives and stick to our own facts.

We are not out to trash ANY author. Rather, the problem is this. This section of FOTR was being used and cited specifically in two different threads AS A SOURCE OF ACCURATE FACTS about the events on the Rus. As the discussion progressed it turned out upon investigation that this passage is NOT accurate and the authors' speculation was being stated as FACT.

THAT is the crux of the problem. ANY author writing what purports to be accurate historical non-fiction must keep what they know "for sure from the evidence" separate from their speculation and imagination based on that evidence. FOTR seems to have failed in that regard. We now have discovered direct evidence that speculation in the book is stated as absolute fact. Does that "trash" the authors, or the enormous amount of research and effort which went into the book. NOT AT ALL. Does that mean a caveat when reading the book is in order? ABSOLUTELY.

Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Robert_Hall on February 13, 2006, 10:51:18 AM
Why do you not just go ahead and lock this thread, as it is no longer a discussion ?
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Forum Admin on February 13, 2006, 01:22:32 PM
Of course it is a discussion. What I will not permit it to become is full of unsubstantiated generalizations used to trash other users nor will I allow it to become an arena for personal attacks - all of which were removed for what should be obvious reasons.

What I still await is a reasonable and documented rebuttal to the above analysis. So far, I have not seen anyone bring first hand evidence to bear to support the original text of FOTR in question. All of DID see was vague aspersions cast about the abilities of those who questioned the text in the first place.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Sarushka on February 13, 2006, 02:46:47 PM
Thank you, Annie, Leushino, Elisabeth, and Rob.
:)
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Robert_Hall on February 13, 2006, 08:21:45 PM
I find it odd that trashing reputabtle authors is considered a valid discussion, yet banning disagreement with that is not.
Some of you call yourselves "good friends" of Greg, yet he has NOT heard directly from any of you.
I fully understand their reluctance to respond on this forum as they will probably not be fully heard. I sincerely hope they answer these  unwarranted charges on their own forum [ATLANTIS]
I am quite aware that I am at "RISK" of being banished like Leushino. but if one allows others to disparage why so selective ?
I will also have you know I am not their mouthpiece. I do not even agree with some of their conclusions. Nor am I at all sympathetic to some of Greg's subjects.
My point is that I feel the criticism is unreasonable.  However, when it comes to the bloody Romanovs, nothing is reasonable.
Cheers,
Robert
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Forum Admin on February 13, 2006, 09:07:51 PM
"Some of you call yourselves "good friends" of Greg, yet he has NOT heard directly from any of you. "
Quote
Greg is focused on his new book due to released shortly. His priorites are there and with family matters just now, so I won't bother him with this at this time. He does check in on the forum occassionally, and if he cares to respond, probably will.


"I find it odd that trashing reputabtle authors is considered a valid discussion, yet banning disagreement with that is not.  "
Quote

We are not out to trash ANY author. Rather, the problem is this. This section of FOTR was being used and cited specifically in two different threads AS A SOURCE OF ACCURATE FACTS about the events on the Rus. As the discussion progressed it turned out upon investigation that this passage is NOT accurate and the authors' speculation was being stated as FACT.

THAT is the crux of the problem. ANY author writing what purports to be accurate historical non-fiction must keep what they know "for sure from the evidence" separate from their speculation and imagination based on that evidence. FOTR seems to have failed in that regard. We now have discovered direct evidence that speculation in the book is stated as absolute fact. Does that "trash" the authors, or the enormous amount of research and effort which went into the book. NOT AT ALL. Does that mean a caveat when reading the book is in order? ABSOLUTELY.


"My point is that I feel the criticism is unreasonable"

Quote
What I still await is a reasonable and documented rebuttal to the above analysis. So far, I have not seen anyone bring first hand evidence to bear to support the original text of FOTR in question.

Quote
An analysis of the text using the known evidence. (my additions in bold)
"'The women, as Buxhoeveden recalled, had been ordered "to leave our cabin doors open all night. No one undressed." [Through the open doors, the soldiers leered at the grand duchesses]this phrase added by the authors, there is NO factual evidence to support the statement, and it is asserted as FACT and not identified as speculation [refusing, as Volkov later learned, to "leave them in peace"]Completely false. Volkov stated the GDs WERE LEFT IN PEACE. The abuse reached a cresendo as the night wore on. exactly what abuse? again, abuse is stated as fact when there is no support in the evidence.   "Almost certainly, the Grand Duchesses were subjected to taunts, and perhaps lewd advances at the hands of the drunken Latvian guards, how this progressed as the evening wore on is impossible to determine." Saliently, there is no cited evidence to support this supposition at all, much less "almost certainly'. To the contrary, Buxhoeveden writes specifically that only the assigned guards came near them, the others stayed on their assigned part of the boat, see "Left Behind" - "The rest of the soldiers did not come near us and spent the day on their part of the deck, singing and playing the accordion.  Some had fine voices, and it carried us back to happier days,..."
 
"no matter what took place, it is difficult not to believe that the experience had a profound traumatic effect on the young women, particularily grand Duchess Olga. Once she arrived in Ekaterinburg, Olga was withdrawn, silent, and did not mix with her sisters, perhaps indicating that she suffered some significant trauma. "   Buxhoeveden says Olga N. was showing these syptoms in April, weeks BEFORE the voyage on the Rus: cf. Life & Tragedy..."Olga Nicholaevna was in a state of great anxiety. She longed to join her parents, for whose fate she trembled, and, on the other hand, she feared the move for her brother, both on account of his health and also for fear of what the move might lead to" at Ch. 31; or perhaps for myriad of other reasons including imprisonment itself under increasingly difficult circumstances. - cf: Gilliard Ch. 22 "The conditions of the imprisonment were much more severe than at Tobolsk. Avdiev was an inveterate drunkard, who gave rein to his coarse instincts, and, with the assistance of his subordinates, showed great ingenuity in daily inflicting fresh humiliations upon those in his charge. There was no alternative but to accept the privations, submit to the vexations, yield to the exactions and caprices of these low, vulgar scoundrels."
 
"The near veil of silence surrounding the events of that night, however, is not difficult to understand, given the exalted position of the Grand Duchesses; ... to present them as paragons of all moral virtue  or perhaps the "silence" is because NOTHING ACTUALLY HAPPENED so no one had anything to say. ie: the entire diary entry of Gilliard:
"Monday May 20th - At half-past eleven we left the house and went on board the Russ.  She is the boat which brought us with the Czar and Czarina eight months ago.  Baroness Buxhoeveden has been granted permission to rejoin us.  We left Tobolsk at five o'clock.  Commisar Rodionov has shut Alexei Nicholaievich in his cabin with Nagorny.  We protested: the child is ill and the doctor ought to have access to him at any time.
"Wednesday May 22nd - We reached Tiumen this morning."
or here is the ENTIRE discussion on the subject in the Sokolov investigation's report made AFTER interrogating all surviving passengers of the Rus(pg 146)
    "Here is how the journey of the imperial children went under the command of Rodionov:
     "From Gilliard's deposition: "Rodionov behaved very badly. He closed off from outside the cabin in which were found Alexei with Nagorny.  All of the other cabins, in particular those of the Grand Duchesses were not to be locked from inside, under his order."
     "The morning of May 22, the imperial children arrived in Tiumen."

 
"Those on board the ship were unable (being locked up) or unwilling (through fear of reprisal ...) again, suppostion without evidence, yet stated as fact...This may be the key to the events of that night: shame and humiliation at not being able to come to the defense of the helpless Grand Duchesses might well account for Gibbes' "worst memory.


Robert,please demonstrate using genuine evidence WHY criticism of a passage of a book using obviously flawed evidence is unreasonable. FOTR cites Volkov as saying something that without question HE NEVER SAID...
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Robert_Hall on February 13, 2006, 09:48:48 PM
Please, I am not Greg & Penny's research assistant.  The book stands on it's own merits as far as I am concerned.  
I do not read Russian and neither do I have the resources to get any translations from the original sources [yet] .THEY DID ! I trust their judgement.  Obviously many seem to disagree here with their translations & intrepretations. So be it. Any author is subject to valid criticism.
MY issue is the  blatant disparaging of their work. The references to  not believing this passage leads to not believing anything they say is one point I would bring out. Because some see that one trivial issue so suspect as to put their whole effort in disrespute is, in my opinion, uncalled for.

Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Sarushka on February 13, 2006, 10:52:18 PM
Quote
MY issue is the  blatant disparaging of their work. The references to  not believing this passage leads to not believing anything they say is one point I would bring out. Because some see that one trivial issue so suspect as to put their whole effort in disrespute is, in my opinion, uncalled for.

Perhaps I've come off as more intense than I intended.

I don't mean to suggest that this one issue negates the value of the entire work. I only think it demonstrates that it's wise to do a bit of investigation rather than to believe King & Wilson without question. I am concerned by the possibility that this isn't an isolated instance withn FOTR, but I'm certainly not ready to declare the entire volume worthless. If I gave that impression, I apologize. Much of the information in FOTR has been and will, I hope, continue to be valuable to me. But with respect, I don't see the incorrect reporting of a possible sexual assault as a 'trivial issue'.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on February 14, 2006, 02:40:20 AM
Quote
Perhaps I've come off as more intense than I intended.
 
I don't mean to suggest that this one issue negates the value of the entire work. I only think it demonstrates that it's wise to do a bit of investigation rather than to believe King & Wilson without question. I am concerned by the possibility that this isn't an isolated instance withn FOTR, but I'm certainly not ready to declare the entire volume worthless. If I gave that impression, I apologize. Much of the information in FOTR has been and will, I hope, continue to be valuable to me. But with respect, I don't see the incorrect reporting of a possible sexual assault as a 'trivial issue'.



I am in complete agreement with this.  

No one is saying that the entire book is now worthless.  I still find it an incredibly useful source.  However, because of the anomalies some people on here have uncovered, we can now see that it's not a great idea to fall hook, line and sinker for everything Greg and Penny wrote without question, which some people were doing.  People were posting on this forum, based on the 'evidence' in FOTR, that the Grand Duchesses had been raped, for heaven's sake!  This is completely unsubstantiated, and yet FOTR makes it look like, through misquoting, an almost certainty.  As Sarushka has said, that is not a 'trivial issue', it's a fairly major one from where I'm standing.  

I think we need to make a clear separation here. This is NOT ABOUT GREG AND PENNY AS PEOPLE. It's not personal.  No one has said Greg and Penny are bad people for doing this.  It's simply about the book that they wrote.  Some of it is not accurate, and we have a right to criticise that if we want to. They wrote a book, some of it isn't entirely accurate, and by doing so, they've opened what they wrote up to criticism.  Note: what they wrote up to criticism.  Not themselves.  The writer and their work are two distinct entities, and nobody on here has levelled any personal criticism at Greg and Penny, only criticism of their work.
 
Rachel
xx
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Belochka on February 14, 2006, 07:33:11 AM
No matter how labor intensive the research may have been to facilitate writing this book, it will not necessarily reflect towards a favorable finished product acceptable to all readers.

How the research material was used, what was deemed relevant to incorporate or omit, including which interterpretations are to be drawn from the sources used - are criteria that are very relevant for public discussion.

No book should be immunized from public scrutiny.

Authorship is not about making or breaking friendships. If any author is unable to accept that there are flaws in their method of interpretation, then that attitude is most unfortunate. Similarily, it would be a nonsense to maintain the belief that the book should stand on its own in silence.

If there are readers who are unable to accept valid critical analysis about this book, which are offered in good faith, then we are at a stalemate.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Forum Admin on February 14, 2006, 09:18:05 AM
I believe this is worth making crystal clear here:

We need to make a clear separation here. This is NOT ABOUT GREG AND PENNY AS PEOPLE. It's not personal.  No one has said Greg and Penny are bad people for doing this.  It's simply about the book that they wrote.  Some of what they wrote AS FACT is simply not accurate, and their UNSUPPORTED THEORIES are not made clear to be just speculation, but rather clearly implied as other FACTS. Any author writing a book invites what they wrote be held up to criticism.  Note: what they wrote up to criticism.  Not themselves.  The writer and their work are two distinct entities, and nobody on here has levelled any personal criticism at Greg and Penny, only criticism of their work.

IF some people choose to look at the entire work more scepticly now, that is their right. Just as others may wish to ignore this issue and believe every word of the book as written to be accurate regardless, also their right. NO ONE here is suggesting that the entire work is worthless. NO ONE is saying that the authors are BAD authors. Rather, there is a legitimate issue about some things they wrote. period.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: imperial angel on February 14, 2006, 11:39:58 AM
My two cents goes as follows: The Author's are trying to be sensational, and that's all. When I read this, I knew as clear as day that was what they were aiming for; that either they were interpreting the evidence more overtly than was called for, or it didn't agree with the evidence. They were trying to being sensational for the purpose of selling the book, or of arousing controversy, because evidently, they like that. But that is just my opinion. Anyone reading that coudn't but help to know that wasn't literal historical truth, if they had commonsense! I have read enough books to know that.

Anyway, I don't think because of this people reading their books should take a harsher eye to them than before, because the the whole tone of Fotr is sensation, and their other books are npt so much, so should be trusted, accordibg to the discretion that everyone has in reading history. I don't think they are liars  just because they decided to spice something up, that they aren't calm, competent historians everywhere else. As for the rest of the book, it's a lot of research, and it is impressive anyone even tried to do this, of course the whole thing isn't perfect. I am not saying the rest is completely accurate- who knows? I don't think any history book is completely accurate because we weren't there, and didn't see it, and eyewitness stuff isn't always accurate either. And when the actual people involved in history write things, who is to know if they ate censoring themselves, or lying to themselves, in writing something, even in a diary? No words can be compltely trusted, so everyone reading history, biography, etc, should read as much as possible form their own conclusions, and never take any word any author writes as literal truth. It could be it is, but all of history is subjective, someone's opinions, except names, dates, facts, like marriages, births, and deaths, and even then we don't know.

These authors will most likely not defend themselves here, because who can blame them? They try to be accurate, I believe. I certainly enjoyed reading their work, and I wonder how many other people would even try to write a book that long, and that full of research. I don't think we should attack them personally, but rather write the truth about their work-if that it is unaccurate is the truth, then tha's the truth. And turn a discriminating eye towards all history books, not just these author's work. I feel that they are human, and made a mistake, but anyone with common sense knows that passage was aimed at sensation. I certainly did; unless the real history was sensation, sensation doesn't belong in history. And, for the moment, that's all I have to say. :)
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Arleen on February 14, 2006, 02:14:33 PM
Thank you Robert Hall....you are my hero!

Arleen
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: AGRBear on February 24, 2006, 07:36:24 PM
'Tis true, a person's desire of gaining perfection is the worst disease that ever afflicted a person's mind because perfection is an impossible task after our first breath to our last.

AGRBear
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Elisabeth on February 25, 2006, 04:09:59 PM
It's perfectly within the scholarly tradition to correct the mistakes of other scholars. King and Wilson do this themselves over and over again in FOTR. Just to give one example, on p. 207 they list all the people, at least one of them a professional historian of some renown, who got the death date or other details about the death of Grand Duke Mikhail Aleksandrovich wrong: Nicholas Sokolov, Robert Massie, Maylunas and Mironenko, Bulygin, and Richard Pipes. This is just one example of many throughout FOTR (even in the footnotes) in which King and Wilson correct the work done by previous scholars. So they can hardly get upset if members here in the Alexander Palace Forum happen to come across mistakes in their own work and wish to correct them.    
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: imperial angel on February 27, 2006, 10:46:13 AM
Yes, being able to correct mistakes of previous historians is an important task, and nobody need get upset as long as all corrections are accurate.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 27, 2006, 11:43:27 AM
Quote
It's perfectly within the scholarly tradition to correct the mistakes of other scholars. King and Wilson do this themselves over and over again in FOTR. Just to give one example, on p. 207 they list all the people, at least one of them a professional historian of some renown, who got the death date or other details about the death of Grand Duke Mikhail Aleksandrovich wrong: Nicholas Sokolov, Robert Massie, Maylunas and Mironenko, Bulygin, and Richard Pipes. This is just one example of many throughout FOTR (even in the footnotes) in which King and Wilson correct the work done by previous scholars. So they can hardly get upset if members here in the Alexander Palace Forum happen to come across mistakes in their own work and wish to correct them.    


Elisabeth, you are absolutely right. I had often tried to make this same point many times when Penny Wilson would take any challege to her statements as a personal attack. I could never understand why this was the case, but it often was, and not just with me.  In academic world, challenges are the norm, not the exception, this is done all the time to test the veracity of information published or presented, and should not be taken as a personal affront. But for some reason it often was seen as such by the authors of FOTR, Penny Wilson in particular. She even accused me once of "sabotaging her research" when I questioned something she said that was blatantly wrong. Perhaps people who don't come from academic environment tend to see these challenges and questions as a personal thing...

In any case, as you say, constructive criticism or challenges should be welcomed and not lashed out at, IMO, because it gives the author an opportunity to correct his or her mistakes, in order not make the same ones again in the future, as well as to grow intellectually.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Belochka on February 27, 2006, 06:07:40 PM
Quote
... How the research material was used, what was deemed relevant to incorporate or omit, including which interterpretations are to be drawn from the sources used - are criteria that are very relevant for public discussion.

No book should be immunized from public scrutiny.

... If any author is unable to accept that there are flaws in their method of interpretation, then that attitude is most unfortunate. Similarily, it would be a nonsense to maintain the belief that the book should stand on its own in silence.


Quote
constructive criticism or challenges should be welcomed and not lashed out at, IMO, because it gives the author an opportunity to correct his or her mistakes, in order not make the same ones again in the future, as well as to grow intellectually.


Indeed if an author cares enough to address the errors that were generously and in good faith brought to their attention after publication, the opportunity to re-appraise the contentious issues is always available.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Annie on February 27, 2006, 07:21:01 PM
Quote

Elisabeth, you are absolutely right. I had often tried to make this same point many times when Penny Wilson would take any challege to her statements as a personal attack. I could never understand why this was the case, but it often was, and not just with me.  In academic world, challenges are the norm, not the exception, this is done all the time to test the veracity of information published or presented, and should not be taken as a personal affront. But for some reason it often was seen as such by the authors of FOTR, Penny Wilson in particular. She even accused me once of "sabotaging her research" when I questioned something she said that was blatantly wrong. Perhaps people who don't come from academic environment tend to see these challenges and questions as a personal thing...

In any case, as you say, constructive criticism or challenges should be welcomed and not lashed out at, IMO, because it gives the author an opportunity to correct his or her mistakes, in order not make the same ones again in the future, as well as to grow intellectually.


This is very true. I tried to challenge some of the 'new' info she was giving us, but she only became very defensive, took it personally and bashed me personally, and deleted posts in question. I never did get my answer. I can assume if the info was as valid as it was touted to be, it wouldn't have been deleted, she'd have answered in a rational way. Or maybe that's just how it looks to me.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Janet_W. on February 27, 2006, 07:29:47 PM
Both Greg and Penny spent a considerable portion of their time on this website after FOTR was published. As time went by, however, Greg spent less time when it became apparent that some posters were not so much interested in discussion as they were in vivisection. Penny stayed on and dealt with the attacks, sometimes ending up the worse for wear due in large part to the relentless combativeness of certain posters.

Even before FOTR became available in bookstores and online, the word was out that the book would shake up the status quo images held by many Romanov aficienados. Once those who had put their hands on a copy of the book began sharing certain passages with others via the Internet, the demolition derby began.

During the course of private emailing I heard some of these opinions. They often came from people who presented themselves as being unsettled by having their own personal images of the Romanov family challenged. Some of these people seemed threatened by the mere thought that Alexandra, for example, might have been anything less everyone's favorite romantic icon. Or that the family itself, both before and after the Revolution, might have been less than a 24/7 cohesive unit. Perhaps it is because these folks consider themselves to have perfectly harmonious families and want to see their families in a Romanov mirror image. Perhaps it is because they don't like to deal with anything that goes beyond broad statements of good and bad, black and white. I can understand the spiritual investment of those who are Russian Orothodox, and as for the emotional investment--well, I am culpable of that myself. But to turn up one's nose about something because it hurts your own long-held feelings and notions is unworthy of anyone past the age of adolescence who considers themselves a thinking, sentient human being.

I appreciate FOTR, and likewise I appreciate the carefully thought out revision of a controversial FOTR passage by one of our FAs.

Even if we had been there, with the Romanovs--even if we had been one of the Romanovs--we would not know the entire story, nor would we report it without bias or exactly, fact by fact, as it evolved. Sensibility is always undermining sense, and the old question of "What is Truth?" is one that continually challenges mere mortals such as you and I.

For those who want every answer in concrete and wish to see all situations in black and white, please rent the fine Japanese film Rashoman, then ponder the subtleties of the human experience.  
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 27, 2006, 08:01:18 PM
When I first read FOTR, I actually liked it a lot, particularly for the fact that it presented a different view of the events from what we always read. All anyone needs to do to see that this was the case, is to read my early comments about this book on this very thread. But at that time, 2+ years ago, I did not know enough about this  subject to question or challenge what the authors presented in this book, it all sounded legitimate and well documented, even though I did not agree with some of the authors' views.

What bothers me now is that once some of the FOTR references were closer scrutinized (which was not done until recently), it became apparent that these references were "tweaked", seemingly to set up a certain scenario. This is why now I, as some others, am questioning the rest of the information in this book. To be honest, based on some past incidents as well as these recent developments, I am no longer able to unquestioningly accept what these authors present, as I used to as recently as two years ago, without confirming their references. To me, they have shown themselves to be unreliable... Of course everyone else has a right to their own opinion, as we all form ours based on individual experiences.

BTW, I have seen Rashomon, it is a great movie about the nature of human perception, but the characters in the film each told their own truth as they saw it first hand, and they did it without twisting other people's words, only by "adjusting" their own perception of the events... This is very different.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Belochka on February 27, 2006, 08:28:25 PM
Quote
Sensibility is always undermining sense, and the old question of "What is Truth?" is one that continually challenges mere mortals such as you and I.   


The truth is there ... it is knowing how and where to find it without the need to offer alarming speculations based on misinterpretation or misunderstanding of the issues that will quite justifiably cause concern.

The length of time spent in researching does not equate to the quality of the final product.

Quote
....and want to see their families in a Romanov mirror image. Perhaps it is because they don't like to deal with anything that goes beyond broad statements of good and bad, black and white. I can understand the spiritual investment of those who are Russian Orothodox ...


Your presumption that because some may view the Romanov Family in a spiritual way ...  may easily provide a misguided weak excuse why there are posters who support the I. F. and what they represented. It is not a "spiritual investment" as you have proposed, but it is a foundered on respect.

There is a diffference when one chooses to present the available facts, or to color the Russian Imperial Family members in a creative manner which stretch the limits of logic and credibility.



Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Belochka on February 27, 2006, 08:58:23 PM
Quote
Once those who had put their hands on a copy of the book began sharing certain passages with others via the Internet, the demolition derby began.


"The fact the book has been embraced as one worthy of our discussion here does not imply that there a "demolition derby" is underway. Any author should be delighted that their publication is under public review.  

There are a number of concerns with some of the issues as they were presented in the publication. If we, the readers and those who have purchased the book, are unable to break down the points of contention in a constructive manner, but only remain silent, and merely sit back and praise the book as the best ever written in the English language, then it will not serve the reader nor the the author well.

If an author prefers not to participate and interact with his readers with their concerns, that is the choice they make to the misfortune of all.

Under such a consideration, the English expression "ignorance is bliss" may then be justified.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Janet_W. on February 27, 2006, 09:10:14 PM
Hi Helen--

First, I do want to mention that I wasn't referring to or even thinking of your own posts! In fact, isn't you who has library training? Anyone who has a background in research can appreciate the problems inherent in writing a book based on a variety of accounts. I was addressing visceral reactions to the book, and not those that have been carefully considered and stated.

I have not reread FOTR, but soon after purchasing the book I went back and forth through the references and notes. As someone who does not have access to most of the sources they used, and who wouldn't be able to read many of them anyway since I do not speak or read Russian, I am not in the position to challenge some of their work. As to other FOTR matters of contention--and right now I do not have the book at my side--I would say that a few of the issues discussed might turn on word choice. Language is highly subtle, and it could be that Greg and/or Penny might wish to rewrite some of their copy . . . or that their editor(s) altered some of their copy. Or . . . perhaps not.  ::)

Tweaking one's references in order to have them fit one's objective is, of course, irresponsible . . . . if not in a court of law, then in writing an academic book.  What I do remember (Rashoman territory here) is that Greg and Penny couched their theories carefully, using words such as "if," "could," "possibly" and so forth.

I also had a few private exchanges with both Greg and Penny via email. In particular I questioned Penny about that episode that has ignited so much furor, i.e., what went on onboard the Rus with regards to Olga, Tatiana and Anastasia. I have saved our exchanges but do not have them currently accessible to quote. What I can tell you is that while FOTR did reference the comment made by the adopted son of Sidney Gibbes--and why not, tho' we can all question the viability of that comment (or any comment) should we wish to do so--Penny did state, to me, that it was her conclusion that whatever occurred--IF it did occur--was something that greatly frightened one or more of the three sisters but DID NOT involve rape.

(Even in what I have just recounted, I am wondering if I have accurately represented both my own thoughts and what Penny messaged to me almost two years ago. Memory plays tricks with the best of us, wording is a precise art, and I am rushed for time as I type this.)

I have read a number of books about the Romanovs. I cannot think of a single book dealing with this subject that does not, in some way, have a viewpoint--however mild, accademic, or controversial--to get across. The supportive facts and references, of course, are a huge part of the equation.  Perhaps this thread will inspire someone who can access Russian source materials to research and write a rebuttal to FOTR.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Janet_W. on February 27, 2006, 09:27:25 PM
Hi Belochka,

I see that while I was preparing a response to Helen, you were preparing a response to me!

Right now I can not take any more time to prepare yet another reply as I am at work and no longer on break. However, I am flattered that you would think it important enough to quote my words as you rebut them, and I appreciate your obvious thought and consideration in preparing that rebuttal.

Quickly I will mention that I did not have you and your responses in mind either when I wrote my defense--if that is what it is--of Greg and Penny's work. You, and Helen, and many others, have contributed intelligent posts. What I do need is to take out my copy of FOTR, go through it line by line, and then reply as is appropriate. I am sorry; I must get back to earning my mundane living with the hope that one day be able to spend more time writing and researching, not to mention trading ideas, thoughts, and opinions back and forth, rather than working hourly jobs to keep my life afloat!  ::)

I will make a printout of your response and, as time permits, get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to comment.

I realize this message smacks more of a private message than a public post, but I did want to let you know that I appreciate your post and others by people who, like you, respond with respect and intelligence.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: jeremygaleaz on February 28, 2006, 02:40:15 AM
Quote
When I first read FOTR, I actually liked it a lot, particularly for the fact that it presented a different view of the events from what we always read. All anyone needs to do to see that this was the case, is to read my early comments about this book on this very thread. But at that time, 2+ years ago, I did not know enough about this  subject to question or challenge what the authors presented in this book, it all sounded legitimate and well documented, even though I did not agree with some of the authors' views.

What bothers me now is that once some of the FOTR references were closer scrutinized (which was not done until recently), it became apparent that these references were "tweaked", seemingly to set up a certain scenario. This is why now I, as some others, am questioning the rest of the information in this book. To be honest, based on some past incidents as well as these recent developments, I am no longer able to unquestioningly accept what these authors present, as I used to as recently as two years ago, without confirming their references. To me, they have shown themselves to be unreliable...  

 


That's just it. Penny Wilson claimed to have not one, but two scientific ireferences for Greg's statement regarding "10 percent of all mtDNA tests being wrong". (These statements are now all over the internet)

To my question she replied that she could not share such information with me, as it would compromise their upcoming "pretenders" book. Now how exactly would this compromise the "pretenders" book as the two issues aren't mutually exclusive.  

If a respectable scientist actually made such a statement regarding discovery of 10 percent of all mtDNA tests being wrong, wouldn't it be all over Universities, as well as scientific journals? Yet, no one I spoke to at Tulane and UCLA had ever heard of this idea before. Frankly, one person called it "tabloid science" which I agree with.  
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Belochka on February 28, 2006, 03:44:38 AM
Quote
Penny Wilson claimed to have not one, but two scientific ireferences for Greg's statement regarding "10 percent of all mtDNA tests being wrong". (These statements are now all over the internet)

To my question she replied that she could not share such information with me, as it would compromise their upcoming "pretenders" book. Now how exactly would this compromise the "pretenders" book as the two issues aren't mutually exclusive.  

If a respectable scientist actually made such a statement regarding discovery of 10 percent of all mtDNA tests being wrong, wouldn't it be all over Universities, as well as scientific journals? Yet, no one I spoke to at Tulane and UCLA had ever heard of this idea before. Frankly, one person called it "tabloid science" which I agree with.  



Quality assurance standards ensure that that forensic and medical laboratories provide that DNA profiles are accurate.

mtDNA sequencing is both an investigative tool and method of identification. Investigative laboratories use mtDNA analysis where minute qualtities of samples are available at the crime scene (hair strand) or where the DNA may be highly degraded.

The results obtained can be legally binding.    

If there was any suggestion of a "10% discrepancy" between test samples then the results could not be relied upon.

It should be recalled that mtDNA sequencing was used to help identify some of the WTC victims. This was the largest identification effort conducted in the world. Those results went to the authorities who was able to issue a death certificate to the family.

Laboratories with trained expert staff will confidently ensure  accuracy of the results.

For a non scientist to suggest that there is a 10% failure rate, only indicates a complete lack of understanding as to how these tests are performed.  

Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Forum Admin on February 28, 2006, 09:19:42 AM
Quote

That's just it. Penny Wilson claimed to have not one, but two scientific ireferences for Greg's statement regarding "10 percent of all mtDNA tests being wrong". (These statements are now all over the internet)

To my question she replied that she could not share such information with me, as it would compromise their upcoming "pretenders" book. Now how exactly would this compromise the "pretenders" book as the two issues aren't mutually exclusive.  

If a respectable scientist actually made such a statement regarding discovery of 10 percent of all mtDNA tests being wrong, wouldn't it be all over Universities, as well as scientific journals? Yet, no one I spoke to at Tulane and UCLA had ever heard of this idea before. Frankly, one person called it "tabloid science" which I agree with.  


In addition to Tulane and UCLA, please add 1. Dr. Teri Melton, (who DID the original work and now heads Mitotyping Technologies); and 2. the largest DNA testing lab in Texas, Cenetron Diagnostics. Both of these sources confirm Zack's sources statements as well.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 28, 2006, 12:17:12 PM
Unfortunately it's the irresponsible statements like the one about the mtDNA, and others made in the past by both authors of FOTR, statements that are not backed up by legitimate references (or backed up by sources which have been "adjusted" for the occasion), that have made me, personally, now question everything that originates from them, including information published in this book.

I think it is irresponsible because many people who don't know better take their words very seriously and accept these sorts of statements as credible, particularly because they are generally well written and sound convincing. IMO, this is an example of unethical misuse of information, which is unfair and wrong.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Eddie_uk on February 28, 2006, 12:21:59 PM
I second that Helen. No offence to the authors but i would question 90% of the accuracy in FOTR....

Sorry to sound negative!! :)
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Arleen on February 28, 2006, 02:16:00 PM
Don't you people ever just quit?

A
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Belochka on February 28, 2006, 05:15:15 PM
Quote
Don't you people ever just quit?

A


I believe that we are at liberty to discuss our concerns about the contents of this publication or any other for that matter, on a discussion forum such as this one.

Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Annie on February 28, 2006, 07:06:11 PM
Quote
I think it is irresponsible because many people who don't know better take their words very seriously and accept these sorts of statements as credible, particularly because they are generally well written and sound convincing. IMO, this is an example of unethical misuse of information, which is unfair and wrong.


This is one reason it bothers me so much, and why I fight so hard against wild theories on the "Survivors" forum. Not everyone knows all we know, some may be young, and/or just getting interested in the subject, and they really don't know any better. They see something in a book marked nonfiction and they assume it to be true. This is why every author has an obligation to make sure everything is true, even if the truth is not quite as exciting.

When Ms. Wilson posted of chimeras and questionable 'new' info on Franziska Schanskowka that didn't seem to make sense, and she was questioned on it, she became very defensive and aggressive. Quite honestly, her unprofessional behavior, her temper, and her failure to explain ideas she presented as true made me strongly doubt her credibility and devotion to accuracy. Because of my personal experiences in speaking to her on this forum, I have reason to see things this way when I see glitches in the way the truth is presented in FOTR.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Belochka on February 28, 2006, 08:50:17 PM
Quote
They see something in a book marked nonfiction and they assume it to be true. This is why every author has an obligation to make sure everything is true, even if the truth is not quite as exciting.


Indeed the categorization of this publication falls under nonfiction, but a number of issues that were effectively discussed here indicate that the truth appears to be stretched to the furtherest end of sensibility. Their unsubstantiated inferences (notably by careful use of the English language) have no place in quality historic interpretations.

Agreeably the truth of any events, such as the Rus journey, or the alleged interaction of Grand Duchess Mariya in the Ipatiev house, can be constructed in a number of ways. The author selects which path to follow, but it is the reader who can close the door to that path because that path extended beyond rational credibility and decency.

Possible suggestions and probable scenarios do not describe history - they create it. Such inferences based on fundamentally flawed interpretation belong to fiction.

What is more repulsive to many in the Russian community is the authors chose to draw the Grand Duchesses into such suggestive scenarios in the first place.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: jeremygaleaz on March 01, 2006, 12:34:49 AM
Quote


When Ms. Wilson posted of chimeras and questionable 'new' info on Franziska Schanskowka that didn't seem to make sense, and she was questioned on it, she became very defensive and aggressive. Quite honestly, her unprofessional behavior, her temper, and her failure to explain ideas she presented as true made me strongly doubt her credibility and devotion to accuracy. Because of my personal experiences in speaking to her on this forum, I have reason to see things this way when I see glitches in the way the truth is presented in FOTR.


Same here. During my own research into FS's background, I personally forewarded Penny Wilson's posts on the "half sister" relationship issue between FS and Gertrude S to John Klier and Helen Mingay, husband and wife authors of "The Quest for Anastasia." after Helen A's intitial meeting with them.

Ms. Wilson claimed that she first heard of this issue through them, and that  "they  speculated " that GS and FS may have been "half sisters" due to "several items of interest" which they did not include in their book. Ms. Wilson even referred to the Kliers on a first name basis.

Well, Mr. Klier repeated to me what he had told Helen. (and yes, I did save the email he sent me in case there are any questions) He was amazed at the whole thing as he had no idea who Penny WIlson was, (his wife may have had a vague  recollection of talking to Greg King) never heard of FOTR, and certainly, and this is the most important, never heard of this "half sister" issue before. He only had info that FS's father had two marriages, but no evidence as to what child went where.  

In my opinion, the tone of the research into FOTR and FS sounds more like a religious crusade than objective research.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Eddie_uk on March 01, 2006, 07:49:53 AM
Quote
Don't you people ever just quit?

A


Is this not the Alexander Palace Discussion Board?  :) :)

As Annie pointed out, for the sake of historical accuracy it is imperative that every author has an obligation to ensure everything they write is accurate and true. That makes a good author!!!

Personally I found Robert Massies "Nicholas and Alexandra" much more to my taste :)
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Sarushka on March 01, 2006, 07:53:35 AM
Quote

I believe that we are at liberty to discuss our concerns about the contents of this publication or any other for that matter, on a discussion forum such as this one.


I agree. Thank you, Belochka.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Forum Admin on March 01, 2006, 08:35:56 AM
To be certain this forum is dedicated to such discussions. No need to even speculate.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 01, 2006, 01:35:12 PM
Quote

Same here. During my own research into FS's background, I personally forewarded Penny Wilson's posts on the "half sister" relationship issue between FS and Gertrude S to John Klier and Helen Mingay, husband and wife authors of "The Quest for Anastasia." after Helen A's intitial meeting with them.

Ms. Wilson claimed that she first heard of this issue through them, and that  "they  speculated " that GS and FS may have been "half sisters" due to "several items of interest" which they did not include in their book. Ms. Wilson even referred to the Kliers on a first name basis.

Well, Mr. Klier repeated to me what he had told Helen. (and yes, I did save the email he sent me in case there are any questions) He was amazed at the whole thing as he had no idea who Penny WIlson was, (his wife may have had a vague  recollection of talking to Greg King) never heard of FOTR, and certainly, and this is the most important, never heard of this "half sister" issue before. He only had info that FS's father had two marriages, but no evidence as to what child went where.  
 


Yes, I did meet with Dr Klier in person last summer in his office at the University of London. One of the things that came up in our long discussion was the question of Wilson's and King's research into Anna Anderson/Franciska Schanzkowska.

What Zackattack said here is correct, when I asked him about it, Dr Klier had absolutely no idea who Penny Wilson or Greg King were, never heard of their book, and definitely never heard of the "half sister theory" as far as the Schankowskas were concerned. I was surprised to hear this (even asked him several times to make sure I understood him correctly) because prior to this, Penny Wilson had insisted  that it was the Kliers who were open to this theory and accepted it after their book was complete. In fact, Dr Klier stated that this was the first time he heard about this and that he thought this theory was completely ridiculous.  He said that he would never take anything like this seriously, and would not even agree to talk to anyone who seriously considered it.

So what does this have to do with this FOTR discussion, you may ask?  This incident is just another reason why I now question any and all information that originates from the authors of FOTR.  To me, this is another example of information being "tweaked" to suit a certain purpose. This is yet another reason why I now feel that the work of FOTR authors is unreliable, and therefore I now take any information included in this book with a grain of salt, until I can personally confirm their references (if I am really interested in doing that).

P.S. I am glad to hear that Zackattack has saved John Klier's email about this as proof, because when I initially confronted Penny Wilson with this information, I was called "a liar" and some other choice words I would rather not repeat here. I was also told that Dr Klier was not very happy with me for telling such lies, implying that he said this to her directly (while evidently he still does not know who she is).

Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Alixz on March 01, 2006, 04:00:38 PM
The "atrocities" that Gibbes spoke of could have been anything.

Remember that he could only hear and not see what was going on.

Gibbes was a proper Victorian soul.  In that time, "abduction" was also called "rape".  Even if nothing physical occured.  Just the lewed harrassment of the Grand Duchesses probably sounded like "rape" to his gentle ears.

I am only guessing here.  I have not yet read the book so I am treading on both sides until I do.

I am only so surprised that some posters so firmly believe that "nothing of the sort" could have happened.  Personally, I believe that ANYTHING could have happened.

Without proof either way, I withhold judgement but I keep in mind how inhumane man can to man (and to women).

Also, I miss leushino.  I believe with his banishment that the forum has lost, yet again.

Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Annie on March 01, 2006, 04:05:17 PM
I agree, Zack and Helen. One of the things I had a problem with her on was the half sister thing. She got some people on the forum talking about it like it was true while there was no evidence at all, it was all her own guess presented as fact. Surely the scientists made certain they were testing a maternal relative!

When asked how they were half, she posted scenarios of parenthood that conflicted! It started with her saying that FS's mother had denied AA was her daughter. I said, I thought her mother was dead before the trial? She said, I mean the father's new wife! I said, hold on, the father died before the mother! She said, he left the family, got a divorce and married somebody else, then died. Not only is this not true, how would she have been an expert on FS? Then she had some other setup  for the family saying Franziska and Felix were the youngest, by a different mother. I said, no, they are the two oldest! She had to put them younger to fit her scenario of the being by a second wife, but it wasn't accurate and I told her so! She had so many different untrue descriptions of the family I lost track of what she said, but they all conflicted and the inconsistencies were so glaring and couldn't be proven because they were wrong, and she knew she had been caught in it. When I confronted her on this she became irate, had one of her tantrums and deleted many posts. It made me wonder why the posts needed to be deleted if they were fact, and there was nothing to hide?

Sadly, because of this, the incorrect, baseless half sister theory perpetuates to this day on the Survivor forum, and it's hard to explain to people why it was never real to begin with. (a certain sentence in the Klier and Mingay book was misenterpreted into a myth) This is yet another example of why those in the field of writing nonfiction have an obligation to stand by reality and accuracy over pet theories, sensational stories that seem more interesting, or science fiction.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Forum Admin on March 01, 2006, 04:09:59 PM
Quote
I am only so surprised that some posters so firmly believe that "nothing of the sort" could have happened.  Personally, I believe that ANYTHING could have happened.

Without proof either way, I withhold judgement but I keep in mind how inhumane man can to man (and to women).

Also, I miss leuchino.  I believe with his banishment that the forum has lost, yet again.


Some of us "posters"who believe nothing actually happened have READ all the first hand accounts for ourselves. Please remember that the Gibbes "allegation" was not a first hand account, but rather a SECOND hand statement.

There is no proof that anything DID happen. To want proof otherwise is to try to prove a negative. (ie: prove to me that you didn't just murder someone and dispose of the body totally).  

I am SICK of people "lamenting" the fact that some posters are given "time out" for continually violating the clear and obvious rules of Forum behavior. Leushino was given a time out for grossly inappropriate behavior. No one but Leushino is to blame. Warnings were given, the behavior continued.  No one should lament such a loss.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Belochka on March 01, 2006, 06:35:49 PM
Let us turn to another concern of mine:

@ p 18 of FOTR it states at para. 1:

(My emphasis)

"Deterikhs' book, however, languished in obscurity. When he tried to have it produced in Great Britain, he found it condemned as too anti-Semitic; no publisher was willing to stand behind his incendiary rhetoric. Today it holds the questionable distinction of being the only major work by an important participant in the murder investigation never to have been translated or republished in any other form or language.[/i]"

FOTR was published in 2003.

The reference they cite @ 621 is the 1922 Vladivostock edition.

BUT:

In my hands I am holding the Russian language edition that was re-published by Terra Publications in 1996 in Moscow.

A comprehensive book titled "General Deterikhs" that includes passages from the original publication + relevant Prikazi (Orders) of the period and photographs, was published by Possev in 2004 (as part of the Military History series). To be fair, this was published after FOTR, but it is introduced here because it clearly indicates that there is an ongoing interest about General Deterikhs and his accomplishments.

My question is:

How can the authors' explain this anomaly? ???
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Alixz on March 01, 2006, 06:38:39 PM
I was actually defending the anti "rape" posters when I said that Gibbes might construe greater danger from the sounds he heard (supposed to have heard).  Since he was a gentle Victorian soul, he would most likely construe the worst from hearing screams.  (If he did indeed hear screams).

But why (in Baroness Buxhoeveden's account) would the guards lock up Alexis and insist that the girls' door remain open unless they were trying to humiliate them?

If there was no evil intent, then all of the doors would have been allowed to be locked and no controversy would exit.

However, again, I have no way of reading the material in the original and have had second thoughts about buying the book, (I may get it from the library first) because of the thoughts posted on this site.

Learned posters have made a great deal of sense in their critiques.  So I approach with caution.

FA, I meant no disrespect to you or to anyone.  I simply can not see the guards in that rough and basically lawless time behaving as "gentlemen" just because their captives were the Imperial Family.

On that note, I will let this go.  I am not qualified to make a judgement on the book since I have not yet read it.  My judgement is of the conditions at the time and made with the knowledge of other equally horrible crimes committed against the Romanovs during that time.  i.e. the murders of the men without provocation and the explosions in the mines with people still alive.

But I do have to admit that even in the case of Ella and the group that was murdered with her, no woman seems to have been violated.

And even with Anna Vyrubova in custody at STS Peter and Paul, there is no mention of violating her either.

Terror was the tool of the revolution, but pehaps not rape.








Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Georgiy on March 02, 2006, 02:00:17 AM
I have recently re-read this book. The way that certain passages have been reworded and presented is deliberately provocative. The whole thing about the cakes for example is quite a good example of that. Ho they got from a guard bringing in cakes to a guard bringing in a cake and then disappearing with Maria is beyond me. This along with the other deliberate misinterpretations makes me wonder how much of the book is reliable at all.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 02, 2006, 07:32:02 AM
Quote
[size=16]I read about Sophie B being a "traitor" in FOTR. Does anyone know King and Wilson's source/sources?[/size]


I would also be interested to hear the answer to this question (I don't own a copy of FOTR so I can't look it up).  I believe that FOTR is the only book that ever claimed that Buxhoveden was a "traitor" to the IF [?] (I believe that they said that she stole money that was supposed to be for their rescue, etc. ?), but I can't remember what the sources for this were and how these conclusions were made. Does anyone know or can look it up?
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on March 02, 2006, 08:05:27 AM
Quote

I would also be interested to hear the answer to this question (I don't own a copy of FOTR so I can't look it up).  I believe that FOTR is the only book that ever claimed that Buxhoveden was a "traitor" to the IF [?] (I believe that they said that she stole money that was supposed to be for their rescue, etc. ?), but I can't remember what the sources for this were and how these conclusions were made. Does anyone know or can look it up?



I will go and get my FOTR and see what source they use for traitor claims.  

Ok, they get the source from 'Markov' who I believe was the leader of the emigre monarchist movement in Berlin? Apparently Soloviev gave money to Sophie B who then claimed she gave the money to Volkov for the IF but it was never given to him.  Soloviev, Markov, Maria Rasputin and a Staff Captain all testified that the money had been given to Sophie B but Volkov apparently never received it and then a week later the family were put on soldier's rations because the money for their upkeep had run out.  The source for that info is Kobylinsky and it's on pg 69.

Later on, it appears that Sophie B told Rodionov about the family's jewels hidden in their clothes to secure her freedom at Ekaterinburg.  The source for that is TsDOOSO. and it's on pgs 142 and 148.  

Anna Anderson also said that Sophie B was a traitor, though she said it was because she had told of a rescue plan to the Bolsheviks.  This isn't in FOTR as far as I can see and AA is hardly a reliable source, is she? :)

Hope that helps.

Rachel
xx



Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Eddie_uk on March 02, 2006, 08:19:49 AM
According to FOTR Sophie B also disclosed information on the location of the hidden jewels?

Correct me if i'm wrong but the book also claims Grand Duchess Xenia hated Sophie B for this alleged "double crossing"

I do find it interesting though that Xenia was remembered in Sophie B's will.  :-/
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Forum Admin on March 02, 2006, 08:56:16 AM
Quote


I will go and get my FOTR and see what source they use for traitor claims.  

Ok, they get the source from 'Markov' who I believe was the leader of the emigre monarchist movement in Berlin? Apparently Soloviev gave money to Sophie B who then claimed she gave the money to Volkov for the IF but it was never given to him.  Soloviev, Markov, Maria Rasputin and a Staff Captain all testified that the money had been given to Sophie B but Volkov apparently never received it and then a week later the family were put on soldier's rations because the money for their upkeep had run out.  The source for that info is Kobylinsky and it's on pg 69.

Later on, it appears that Sophie B told Rodionov about the family's jewels hidden in their clothes to secure her freedom at Ekaterinburg.  The source for that is TsDOOSO. and it's on pgs 142 and 148.  

Anna Anderson also said that Sophie B was a traitor, though she said it was because she had told of a rescue plan to the Bolsheviks.  This isn't in FOTR as far as I can see and AA is hardly a reliable source, is she? :)

Hope that helps.

Rachel
xx




What I find odd is that Volkov's own words make no mention of this. Ch. 17:
The Bolshevik coup d'etat was felt in Tobolsk and gradually changed the condition of our lives.

In Spring 1918 the Imperial Family and entire suite were put on a diet of soldiers' rations. So, we found ourselves going from day to day in a set of conditions that we were not used to. We then found ourselves required to buy all the necessary provisions ourselves from the outside and have them sent to the house. Col. Kobylinski had access to private credit after the advance of credit from the government stopped with the fall of the Provisional government. Little by little, though, it became increasingly difficult to find credit with private people after early 1918.

So it was that Prince Dologoruki, Gen. Tatischev, Gilliard and I all met together to look at the new circumstances which had arisen. We decided we had to reduce the number of servants. We dismissed some of the servants, paid them two months wages and their train fare. Then we met with the remaining staff and suggested to them that we all reduce our wages by a certain amount. Everyone agreed without exception. Some gave up their entire salary, others gave up half. Two days later those who we had dismissed left Tobolsk, the others stayed on for some time.


AS FOR SOLOVIEV!! Read what Volkov wrote about him, Ch. 16:
As a result of this confidence, the priest began to spread rumors that he had set up an organisation to save the Imperial Family and help them escape. One one hand he inspired the utmost confidence in the Emperor and Empress and on the other he spread even more rumors in town about the "group that was going to rescue the Imperial Family." The Bolseviks, who knew the truth of it themselves, used the rumors to create an atmosphere of mistrust and paranoia around the Imperial Family. Eventually this was the reason and provacation for the eventual murder of the Imperial Family, and served as the justification for the assassinations in Ekaterinburg and Alpaievsk by their deceived and fanaticsized comrades. The truth was really much more simple. Father Alexei did not have any group behind him. He was merely close to Lt. Soloviev who had married Rasputin's daughter and who had, as a result of that marriage, managed to ingratiate himself into the ranks of the monarchists. The genuine motive they had was to extort money from the monarchists by creating an alleged "rescue" of the Their Majesties from Tobolsk. In reality, they had no plan to save them and never did rescue anyone. (Mme. Tatiana Melnik-Botkin in her "Memoirs" on pg 44 catagorically accused Soloviev and Father Vassiliev of losing valuable time and betraying the Imperial Family as there was then still time and many monarchists who truly did want to save and rescue the Imperial Family. Soloviev as "head" of this fictional group made all the monarchists come to him, officers and others, and defrauded them by making them wait on the hook for long months. Those who disobeyed him were betrayed to the Bolsheviks and paid for that disobedience with their lives in Siberia in 1918.

SO, "Soloviev, Markov, Maria Rasputin and a Staff Captain all testified that the money had been given to Sophie B but Volkov apparently never received it" well, now we can see that FOTR relies on this "testimony" as FACT, when there is actually substantial reason to question its accuracy. OF COURSE they said "oh we GAVE the money to Sophie B., but Volkov never got it..." when in fact they were covering  up the fact that THEY THEMSELVES stole the money and Sophie never got it.
Poor Baroness B. takes the fall in FOTR, when in fact the real traitors were Soloviev, Markov and Maria Rasputina and Father Alexei, who were taking money from loyal monarchists to support and rescue the IF, and simply keeping the money for themselves.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on March 02, 2006, 09:10:17 AM
Interesting, FA.  Very interesting.

I personally don't believe the Sophie B betrayal stuff anyway.

Why would she steal money intended for the IF? She had no motive.

Also, if she betrayed the 'secret' of the hidden jewels to Rodionov, why was a search for the jewels not conducted and the jewels confiscated? SURELY if the 'exact location' of the jewels had been divulged to the authorities by Sophie B, they would have done something about it.  'Yeah, we know they've got thousands of roubles worth of jewellery hidden in their clothes, but we'll let them keep them.'  Yeah right! Also, would that have been sufficiently useful information for the Bolshies to justify doing Sophie B the favour of releasing her as a consequence? I don't think so.

It just doesn't add up to me.  I think Sophie B has been made a scapegoat all because she had the good fortune of being set free.  From everything we know about Sophie and her devotion to the family, it seems very at odds with her character for her to be the heartless betrayer FOTR makes her out to be.  

Rachel
xx

Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on March 02, 2006, 09:15:00 AM
Quote
SO, "Soloviev, Markov, Maria Rasputin and a Staff Captain all testified that the money had been given to Sophie B but Volkov apparently never received it" well, now we can see that FOTR relies on this "testimony" as FACT, when there is actually substantial reason to question its accuracy. OF COURSE they said "oh we GAVE the money to Sophie B., but Volkov never got it..." when in fact they were covering  up the fact that THEY THEMSELVES stole the money and Sophie never got it.
Poor Baroness B. takes the fall in FOTR, when in fact the real traitors were Soloviev, Markov and Maria Rasputina and Father Alexei, who were taking money from loyal monarchists to support and rescue the IF, and simply keeping the money for themselves.


You added this after I posted!

That sounds much more like the real story.  Soloviev, Markov, Maria and Father Alexei are certainly more likely suspects for betrayal than Sophie.

Sometimes I wonder whether I should just put my copy of FOTR into the recycling bin.  I don't know whether to trust any of it anymore.  

Rachel
xx


Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Annie on March 02, 2006, 09:30:18 AM
Oh, very interesting, they took it and set her up! That makes a lot of sense! I never believed she'd betray them. As I said on the Survivor forum, I wouldn't have been surprised if AA wasn't considered a source for FOTR, since PW has publically expressed opinion that AA was AN. Thanks for straightening this out!
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: imperial angel on March 02, 2006, 10:43:01 AM
I don't think we should lament the banishment of certain posters  ;) who violate reasonable behaviour. I thank the FA for the achievement of giving certain posters a time out. And of course anything could have happened, yes, but is there proof, and was it true? I think those guards were not gentlemen, but still?

I think this book is worth reading, but I would defintely try the library first. Anyone who writes such a comprehensive work, and sensationlizes things is going to have errors in the book. It's best to write history, if that is what you are writing, not sensation if that is what you are not writing. And never believe anything in most books completely.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 02, 2006, 10:58:37 AM
Quote
Anyone who writes such a comprehensive work, and sensationlizes things is going to have errors in the book. It's best to write history, if that is what you are writing, not sensation if that is what you are not writing. And never believe anything in most books completely.


Angel, not all research is created equal  ;). The validity of the information interpretation usually reflects the researcher who presents it. After a while, you can learn fairly quickly whom to trust and whom not to trust, based on their track record... and your own judgment!
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: imperial angel on March 02, 2006, 11:14:08 AM
That is true, Helen A.  :)
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: AGRBear on March 02, 2006, 01:02:16 PM
Quote

We have discussed this on other threads some time ago.  


King and Wilson  didn't invent the facts which surrounded Buxhoeveden:
1) She was one of the surviving members of the Romanov group
2) It was said that she didn't hand over a sum of money to Volkov meant for an escaped in Tobolsk but we, now, know that Soloviev was working with the Bolsheviks so this story is in great doubt
3) The CHEKA searched Buxhoeveden and Miss Annie Mather's small apartment and carried away "all kinds of murderous weapons" so they were under the watchful eye of the CHEKA...
4) The Ural Soviet commissar Rodionov later said that while they were on the boat Russ headed to Ekaterinburg that Buxoveden revealed to him about the jewels concelaed beneath the clothing of the IF women but we really don't know the truth of this; Rodinov also questioned Countess Hendrikova, Alexandrine Nikolaeva and Anna Romanova who would have known about the jewels, too, so who know who said what under the Bolshevik interogations... Just as we don't know what kind of humilations and threats they suffered in this Bolshvik's control.
5) Buxhoeveden  refused to be interviewed by Sokolov and it was he who voiced, "It is obvious that her conscience in regards to that period is not entiredly clear." To me,  this sounds like someone who did not like being turned away and was lashing out at the person who had rebuffed him.
6) Grand Duchess Xenia was very friendly and then seem to become angry at her....

p. 505 FATE OF THE ROMANOVS:
>>Surviving members of the Romanov family, however, were deeply suspicious of her behvaior in Siberia.<<

Perhpas these were the ones who believed in gossip rather than understand what happen in Tobolsk and Ekaterinburg.  Perhaps they thought she had saved more jewels and wasn't giving them to them.  Perhaps they thought she had worked with the Reds to save her own skin.  Who knows.

I have not read her book but from what others have said on earlier on other threads,  apparently Buxhoeveden did not write about what occured and for some the silence seems to tell them of her guilt.  How rediculous.  Here is a woman who stood by the family up to almost the end and probably would have died with the family if she hadn't been separated from them by the Bolshviks.  That is more than all the other Romanovs who were gossiping about her had done.  So,  I give her credit for being loyal.

If she had revealed anything to the Bolsheviks,  I hardly think she was in a position to deny them some kind of information.  But, in fact, we don't know what she had told them.  And,  it was one of the tricks of the Bolsheviks to make other people think the others had already told which placed doubt among those they were questioning.  It's called "divide and conquer".  

All this can be found in bites and pieces in other books, as well.

 


Evidently AA picked up on the piece of gossip and fanned the fires.

AGRBear

Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Eddie_uk on March 02, 2006, 01:02:32 PM
Quote



Sometimes I wonder whether I should just put my copy of FOTR into the recycling bin.  I don't know whether to trust any of it anymore.  



Yours and mine both Rach!  ;D ;D

Thank you for the post Bear. Im intrigued, was Xenia angry at Sophie B as i believe was stated in FOTR? I don't have my copy to hand.

I know of correspondence between Sophie B and Xenia mentioned in Xenias bio. Why would Sophie B remember Xenia in her will if their were issues between the two of them?
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: AGRBear on March 02, 2006, 01:14:45 PM
Quote

Yes, I did meet with Dr Klier in person last summer in his office at the University of London. One of the things that came up in our long discussion was the question of Wilson's and King's research into Anna Anderson/Franciska Schanzkowska.

What Zackattack said here is correct, when I asked him about it, Dr Klier had absolutely no idea who Penny Wilson or Greg King were, never heard of their book, and definitely never heard of the "half sister theory" as far as the Schankowskas were concerned. I was surprised to hear this (even asked him several times to make sure I understood him correctly) because prior to this, Penny Wilson had insisted  that it was the Kliers who were open to this theory and accepted it after their book was complete. In fact, Dr Klier stated that this was the first time he heard about this and that he thought this theory was completely ridiculous.  He said that he would never take anything like this seriously, and would not even agree to talk to anyone who seriously considered it.

So what does this have to do with this FOTR discussion, you may ask?  This incident is just another reason why I now question any and all information that originates from the authors of FOTR.  To me, this is another example of information being "tweaked" to suit a certain purpose. This is yet another reason why I now feel that the work of FOTR authors is unreliable, and therefore I now take any information included in this book with a grain of salt, until I can personally confirm their references (if I am really interested in doing that).

P.S. I am glad to hear that Zackattack has saved John Klier's email about this as proof, because when I initially confronted Penny Wilson with this information, I was called "a liar" and some other choice words I would rather not repeat here. I was also told that Dr Klier was not very happy with me for telling such lies, implying that he said this to her directly (while evidently he still does not know who she is).



I believe it was Penny who posted about this many moons ago about this accusation.  Or, maybe, it was Greg.  Probably both.  Anyway, they have proof that they spoke with Dr. Klier.  Evidently, Dr. Klier just doesn't recall the conversation/ conversations.

You've said this several times and was confronted, now,  that Penny nor Greg are posting,  you've stated this, again.

This is what I call half truths being presented by telling us only one side which is Dr. Klier's side..  

Dr.  Klier doesn't remember.  That's fine.  I certainly don't recall everyone who has ever called me.  That happens.  The caller will remember calling me and has reason to remember calling me and when and why.  Penny and Greg remember and have proof of their call/calls.

There is no reason to blow this out of proportion and make it into something it isn't.  


As I've said before, history isn't  a collection of perfect facts from a perfect world by perfect people.

Quote

I have no problem in having our research and conclusions challenged-it is, after all, how we learn things.  But, having given our evidence, I think if you want to responsibly challenge it you need to be more forthcoming.  Without hard evidence to the contrary, I'm not inclined to dismiss what we learned based on an unknown assertion.  So please share so we can assess which version is correct.

Greg King




AGRBear


Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: AGRBear on March 02, 2006, 01:23:23 PM
You can follow this quote to the thread which talks about Buxoveden:


Quote
Do Penny and Greg really say this?  Did they find specific evidence to prove it or was it just conjecture.

It is a possibility but I find it hard to be sure.  There are a number of people that knew about the jewels and valuables in Tobolsk.  I have not found Isa's name mentioned - but perhaps Greg and Penny found something.

It seems unlikely to me that she knew anything specific, since she couldn't come and go into the house like others did.  Also, there were only a few transfers it appears out of the house.  Had she known and told the Bolsheviks or the Guards I am sure they would have STOPPED the transfers, arrested those who did them and searched the house.  Again maybe something has turned up that I haven't seen.

I am not saying that Isa said nothing to the Bolsheviks - she may have to save her life.  It's very odd that she was let go and that makes no sense to me,

Later I know Isa had problems with Gibbes about and a joint bank account in Siberia that they had which she withdrew money out of  without Gibbes's permission.  This put him in a terrible situation and he told her so.  Copies of these letters were at Luton Hoo when I was there.

I don't think the whole story on the jewels has been told yet - there is much that doesn't make sense to me.  The whole question of who knew about them within and outside the entourage is unclear.  I don't know if the Provisional Government knew very much about the jewels they took with them.  There were no inventories they had of the personal jewels and it wiould have taken a long time and the cooperation of people like Gheringer to reconstruct what Alix had with her.  It seems to me the Provisional Government had too many problems of their own to deal with and may not have seen any jewel inquiries through.  perhaps they didn't have an idea of how big her personal collection was.  Very few people knew anything about it, even close friends and family.

What the Bolsheviks knew - well, it should be in an archive somewhere and I haven't seen anything yet that says they knew anything specific.  They might have suspected something in Yekaterinburg, but if they had known about the double camasoles and such they would have immediately searched the bodies for these before taking them to the truck.  Also, they would have throughly searched the rooms immediately after the murder and they didn't do this either (it appears).

So I think the Bolsheviks didn't know about them and it is unlikely Isa said anything that roused any great interest in jewels.

Bob



You can read Buxhoeveden's story: http://alexanderpalace.org/leftbehind/
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 02, 2006, 01:48:28 PM
Quote

I believe it was Penny who posted about this many moons ago about this accusation.  Or, maybe, it was Greg.  Probably both.  Anyway, they have proof that they spoke with Dr. Klier.  Evidently, Dr. Klier just doesn't recall the conversation/ conversations.

You've said this several times and was confronted, now,  that Penny nor Greg are posting,  you've stated this, again.

This is what I call half truths being presented by telling us only one side which is Dr. Klier's side..  

Dr.  Klier doesn't remember.  That's fine.  I certainly don't recall everyone who has ever called me.  That happens.  The caller will remember calling me and has reason to remember calling me and when and why.  Penny and Greg remember and have proof of their call/calls.

There is no reason to blow this out of proportion and make it into something it isn't.  
As I've said before, history isn't  a collection of perfect facts from a perfect world by perfect people.



No, Dr Klier does not "not remember". Dr Klier specifically and adamantly stated that he never heard of either Penny Wilson or Greg King, nor of their book, nor of their theories about Anna Anderson. At one point he got so exasperated that he almost wanted to end our conversation - when I brought up some of the other theories that came from Penny Wilson, such as the serial killer one. He said, and I quote, that anyone who would come up with these kinds of theories instead of accepting the DNA results is a "nutter", and that he would not even discuss anything further if he heard something like this from someone. Dr Klier is a serious researcher and a professor who teaches at the  London University. He says that he would never entertain sensationalized tabloid-like "research", as was claimed by Penny Wilson, and I believe him. He did not say "it is possible that I talked to them and forgot" or "I can't recall", he had absolutely no idea what I was talking about, and said that this was the first time he ever heard this.

Dr Klier stated that he believes in the DNA results, always believed in the DNA results, and he is absolutely convinced that Anna Anderson and Francizka Schankowska are one and the same person, so he would never "forget" that he spoke to Penny Wilson or Greg King a few years ago and then changed his mind, but later changed his mind again. This is ludicrous to even speculate about.  
And now apparently we have some of his statments in writing in a form of an email to Zackattack, so Penny Wilson can no longer accuse anyone of being a liar, or claim that Dr Klier denied saying this.

So far none of us have seen this so-called "proof", and probably won't. I for one, have many more reasons to  trust what John Klier says than what Penny Wilson says.  In fact, I no longer have any reason to trust what PW says at all about anything, based on her track record.

So please, AGR, give it up and don't try to project your own modus operendi on me and twist things around in order to discredit me, and even John Klier, as you normally love to do with everything else.  

Quote
It appears that this cnversation is occuring in more than one place these last few days.
Evidently AA picked up on the piece of gossip and fanned the fires.

AGRBear


You are the one who is making this conversation occur in more than one place, as you so much love to do all the time. And you would certainly know about picking up on gossip and "fanning fires", wouldn't you?   8)

Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: AGRBear on March 02, 2006, 02:26:39 PM
Quote

...[in part]...

....So far none of us have seen this so-called "proof", and probably won't. I for one, have many more reasons to  trust what John Klier says than what Penny Wilson says.  In fact, I no longer have any reason to trust what PW says at all about anything, based on her track record.

So please, AGR, give it up and don't try to project your own modus operendi on me and twist things around, as you normally love to do with everything else.
 

This is your opinion.  

I've gotten to know Greg and Penny by reading their posts.  I have never read a post or spoken to Kleir. I have read THE QUEST FOR ANASTASIA by Klier and Mingay.   To me, it appears that all have accomplished writing what they have discovered about AA and the IF.  I thank them all for their contrubutions.

Meanwhile I  still don't know if Kleir  forgot and I don't know if Greg and Penny do have phone records.  


All I have to go by is what Penny and Greg have openingly stated on this forum.


Quote
You are the one who is making this conversation occur in more than one place, as you so much love to do all the time....


Yes, I have shown it's being discussed in more than one place at the same time.   These frequent cross discussions are not foreign to anyone who's been posting for a time.  So,  I'm not sure what your point is.

AGRBear
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Forum Admin on March 02, 2006, 03:22:18 PM
Grabbed my Sokolov Report, did some quick translation. There is a whole section where he investigated Soloviev thoroughly. Turns out, folks, that Soloviev was arrested in Vladivostok in December 1919 and charged with being a Bolshevik agent. Both he and his wife Matrona (not Maria) Rasputina were convicted based on the overwhelming evidence produced at trial. Here's what Soloviev did:

They used the Rasputin name/connection with Vyroubova and Lili Dehn, and with their unwitting help, set up a network of monarchists in Petrograd and Moscow, headed by Nicholas Evgeneivich Markov, who still had money to help the Imperial Family. They went around telling them the grand tale that they had 300 loyal Russian soldiers in the Ekaterinburg region.  Tatiana Botkina later testified that this was "a crock", that there was not organization of any one at all under Soloviev in Ekaterinburg. Meanwhile, old Mr. S. set up residence in January 1918, exactly at the junction of the railway between Tiumen and Tobolsk. So, he sets himself up as the ONLY central contact point for all assistance and rescue efforts for the Imperial Family, and of course, all these people who are sent out from Petrograd/Moscow are forced by the railway to stop in Tiumen, and of course to see Mr. S. Mr. S selectively filters the people who are permitted to journey to Tobolsk and later Ekaterinburg. Those who he does permit to go are only given permission to go for one day ONLY. Anyone who does not give in to Soloviev's demands is conveniently denounced immediately by Mr. S. and delivered up to the local Bolsheviks for arrest. To Dehn's credit, once she went to Tiumen and met Soloviev in person, she returned "with little confidence in him.  His having left her with the impression of a young man who was audacious to excess and demonstrably avaricious in questions of money."  Soloviev is collecting all the money for the Imperial Family, and not a kopek is actually getting through. Anyone who comes out to investigate is told the "tale", and if they don't accept it, they too are conveniently denounced and handed over to the local Soviet for arrest.

Sokolov upon further background check found out that Soloviev had been involved with the Bolshevik movement from the very first days of the Revolution. Soloviev's own diary revealed that he only married Matrona Rasputin in order to take advantage of the name. Furthermore, Soloviev's diary revealed that fifteen days BEFORE the transfer of the Emperor from Tobolsk, Yakovlev told Soloviev of the exact date: April 12, 1918.

This, then, is the person who's statements are relied upon as "accurate".
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: jeremygaleaz on March 02, 2006, 04:02:21 PM
Quote
 

This is your opinion.  

I've gotten to know Greg and Penny by reading their posts.  I have never read a post or spoken to Kleir. I have read THE QUEST FOR ANASTASIA by Klier and Mingay.   To me, it appears that all have accomplished writing what they have discovered about AA and the IF.  I thank them all for their contrubutions.

Meanwhile I  still don't know if Kleir  forgot and I don't know if Greg and Penny do have phone records.  


All I have to go by is what Penny and Greg have openingly stated on this forum.



Yes, I have shown it's being discussed in more than one place at the same time.   These frequent cross discussions are not foreign to anyone who's been posting for a time.  So,  I'm not sure what your point is.

AGRBear



Wrong again. This isn't an opinion,  and is not open to interpretation. Dr. Klier stated, quite plainly in his email to me, his views on the AA "half sister" subject among others. Phone records do not provide transcripts of conversations (but you already knew that.)  unless the conversation was recorded, which apparently did not happen.  

Bear, I'm quite  convinced now that you write what you do in order to get a reaction out of people, and that this is your idea of fun.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Tania+ on March 02, 2006, 04:59:04 PM
Thanks FA for your translations. First, can you tell us what happened to these horrible scoundrals after the trial? Were they shot, exiled what? You know no secrets really stay secrets. So much for family, neighbor, or priest taking advantage of others for self gain or whatever their wild schemes they were chasing. Just goes to prove that bad deeds are always found out sooner or later. One always will have to pay the piper, sooner or later !!! ;) Such unhealthy people, really.

Tatiana+




Quote
Grabbed my Sokolov Report, did some quick translation. There is a whole section where he investigated Soloviev thoroughly. Turns out, folks, that Soloviev was arrested in Vladivostok in December 1919 and charged with being a Bolshevik agent. Both he and his wife Matrona (not Maria) Rasputina were convicted based on the overwhelming evidence produced at trial. Here's what Soloviev did:

They used the Rasputin name/connection with Vyroubova and Lili Dehn, and with their unwitting help, set up a network of monarchists in Petrograd and Moscow, headed by Nicholas Evgeneivich Markov, who still had money to help the Imperial Family. They went around telling them the grand tale that they had 300 loyal Russian soldiers in the Ekaterinburg region.  Tatiana Botkina later testified that this was "a crock", that there was not organization of any one at all under Soloviev in Ekaterinburg. Meanwhile, old Mr. S. set up residence in January 1918, exactly at the junction of the railway between Tiumen and Tobolsk. So, he sets himself up as the ONLY central contact point for all assistance and rescue efforts for the Imperial Family, and of course, all these people who are sent out from Petrograd/Moscow are forced by the railway to stop in Tiumen, and of course to see Mr. S. Mr. S selectively filters the people who are permitted to journey to Tobolsk and later Ekaterinburg. Those who he does permit to go are only given permission to go for one day ONLY. Anyone who does not give in to Soloviev's demands is conveniently denounced immediately by Mr. S. and delivered up to the local Bolsheviks for arrest. To Dehn's credit, once she went to Tiumen and met Soloviev in person, she returned "with little confidence in him.  His having left her with the impression of a young man who was audacious to excess and demonstrably avaricious in questions of money."  Soloviev is collecting all the money for the Imperial Family, and not a kopek is actually getting through. Anyone who comes out to investigate is told the "tale", and if they don't accept it, they too are conveniently denounced and handed over to the local Soviet for arrest.

Sokolov upon further background check found out that Soloviev had been involved with the Bolshevik movement from the very first days of the Revolution. Soloviev's own diary revealed that he only married Matrona Rasputin in order to take advantage of the name. Furthermore, Soloviev's diary revealed that fifteen days BEFORE the transfer of the Emperor from Tobolsk, Yakovlev told Soloviev of the exact date: April 12, 1918.

This, then, is the person who's statements are relied upon as "accurate".

Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: AGRBear on March 02, 2006, 05:41:23 PM
Quote
Grabbed my Sokolov Report, did some quick translation. There is a whole section where he investigated Soloviev thoroughly. Turns out, folks, that Soloviev was arrested in Vladivostok in December 1919 and charged with being a Bolshevik agent. Both he and his wife Matrona (not Maria) Rasputina were convicted based on the overwhelming evidence produced at trial. Here's what Soloviev did:

They used the Rasputin name/connection with Vyroubova and Lili Dehn, and with their unwitting help, set up a network of monarchists in Petrograd and Moscow, headed by Nicholas Evgeneivich Markov, who still had money to help the Imperial Family. They went around telling them the grand tale that they had 300 loyal Russian soldiers in the Ekaterinburg region.  Tatiana Botkina later testified that this was "a crock", that there was not organization of any one at all under Soloviev in Ekaterinburg. Meanwhile, old Mr. S. set up residence in January 1918, exactly at the junction of the railway between Tiumen and Tobolsk. So, he sets himself up as the ONLY central contact point for all assistance and rescue efforts for the Imperial Family, and of course, all these people who are sent out from Petrograd/Moscow are forced by the railway to stop in Tiumen, and of course to see Mr. S. Mr. S selectively filters the people who are permitted to journey to Tobolsk and later Ekaterinburg. Those who he does permit to go are only given permission to go for one day ONLY. Anyone who does not give in to Soloviev's demands is conveniently denounced immediately by Mr. S. and delivered up to the local Bolsheviks for arrest. To Dehn's credit, once she went to Tiumen and met Soloviev in person, she returned "with little confidence in him.  His having left her with the impression of a young man who was audacious to excess and demonstrably avaricious in questions of money."  Soloviev is collecting all the money for the Imperial Family, and not a kopek is actually getting through. Anyone who comes out to investigate is told the "tale", and if they don't accept it, they too are conveniently denounced and handed over to the local Soviet for arrest.

Sokolov upon further background check found out that Soloviev had been involved with the Bolshevik movement from the very first days of the Revolution. Soloviev's own diary revealed that he only married Matrona Rasputin in order to take advantage of the name. Furthermore, Soloviev's diary revealed that fifteen days BEFORE the transfer of the Emperor from Tobolsk, Yakovlev told Soloviev of the exact date: April 12, 1918.

This, then, is the person who's statements are relied upon as "accurate".


This helps prove that the Bolsheviks were quite clever fellows and gals who had no intentions of letting Nicholas II and  his family be rescued.

Once Soloviev's was discovered,  he was side stepped by the new hopefuls who wanted Nicholas II rescued.  We're talking about that on another thread.

Thanks FA for the additional information.

AGRBear
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Alixz on March 02, 2006, 05:59:44 PM
It is really too bad that the IF were taken in by Soloviev simply beacuse of his connection (by marriage) to Rasputin.

I wonder about his wife.  It would seem she was as corrupt as her father.  Using poor defenseless prisoners for money.

But that would be Alix to a "T".  She never could see past what Rasputin "did" for Alexis and would believe anyone with any connection to him.

That man (Rasputin) was still hurting the the IF from beyond the grave.

I hope, as Tania does, that these traitors did get their "just desserts" at some time.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Tania+ on March 02, 2006, 06:05:25 PM
Now your comments below are open to interpretation  ;)
My'n are of course objective, most certainly.

All of us whom post here or anywhere, to anyone, write because we wish to receive reaction, or understanding, or just a one word respond, if not confirmation.

Precisely though, it is to gain reaction ! I'm sure every time you post, you await reaction as well, don't you?  :D

How posts are received is always up to the reader, of course. But I would say when the subject matter is that of such serious matters as we discuss here, I doubt most posters stay just to whittle away their time, or offer endless prattle just 'in fun'. I don't think that these thoughts are Bear's thought's at all, to be fair...and that's all that's asked of posters, not attacks...zack

Tatiana+

Quote

Wrong again. This isn't an opinion,  and is not open to interpretation. Dr. Klier stated, quite plainly in his email to me, his views on the AA "half sister" subject among others. Phone records do not provide transcripts of conversations (but you already knew that.)  unless the conversation was recorded, which apparently did not happen.  

Bear, I'm quite  convinced now that you write what you do in order to get a reaction out of people, and that this is your idea of fun.

Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Tania+ on March 02, 2006, 06:21:03 PM
Alixz,
Sometimes, many times, people will use any guise to gain confidences. In terms of the outcome of IF, and others, there was no concern whatsoever. Past or presently people as they, would sell their own mother's soul, as the saying goes to gain that last glitter of gold.I know this from personal actions of supposed 'family members'. These type of scoundrals are anything but family, let alone decent human beings. The IF were far from fools ! That is what determines trust, and who real family, and friends are.

As a christian, I cannot think of hurting another, but in my learning experience of and in my long journey of life, I know for a fact, karma does not forget their evil, or on going transgressions. One day that confrontation in front of the real King will come to pass. I understand that those questions we have will be answered accordingly, most assuredly. Corruption never wins, trust me !

What we must do is move on with our lives, and continue to fight the good fight for all lives past, present, future !

Tatiana+

Quote
It is really too bad that the IF were taken in by Soloviev simply beacuse of his connection (by marriage) to Rasputin.

I wonder about his wife.  It would seem she was as corrupt as her father.  Using poor defenseless prisoners for money.

But that would be Alix to a "T".  She never could see past what Rasputin "did" for Alexis and would believe anyone with any connection to him.

That man (Rasputin) was still hurting the the IF from beyond the grave.

I hope, as Tania does, that these traitors did get their "just desserts" at some time.

Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Annie on March 02, 2006, 07:34:55 PM
That Soloviev was a rotten character >:( I wonder if they might have been saved if someone honest had been in charge! Did Maria stay with him after she found out what kind of person he was?
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Belochka on March 02, 2006, 08:45:16 PM
Quote
Grabbed my Sokolov Report, did some quick translation. There is a whole section where he investigated Soloviev thoroughly. Turns out, folks, that Soloviev was arrested in Vladivostok in December 1919 and charged with being a Bolshevik agent.  ....

... This, then, is the person who's statements are relied upon as "accurate".


In Tat'yana Mel'nik-Botkina's own memoir, first published in 1921 Vospominaniya o Tsarskoi Sem'e" @ p 90 (Russian edition):

Botkina noted that Soloviev and Vasiliev received large sums of money on behalf of the Imperial family, of which no more  than one quarter of that amount reached its intended destination. The residue (3/4) was held back by these individuals.  

The author stated that the Imperial Family would have been unaware of the amount that was intended for their use, particularly in view of the fact that the sum involved 10's of thousands (rubles).  

The pretence that these two individuals were actually faithful friends and assisting the Imperial Family was the illusion they created.

The FOTR authors cited a 1980 French publication of her memoir, (see p 620) therefore it does appear rather strange that the revealing statements written by Botkina were apparently overlooked.

The relevant passages of the Soloviev Report, highlighted by FA today with thanks, was another reference (French language: see p 626) also cited by the authors, but the pertinent passages were apparently also overlooked.  

Why Baroness Buxhoeveden was accused of any impropriety by the authors of FOTR is indeed a mystery that waits their learned response.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: jeremygaleaz on March 02, 2006, 09:41:30 PM
Quote
Now your comments below are open to interpretation  ;)
My'n are of course objective, most certainly.

All of us whom post here or anywhere, to anyone, write because we wish to receive reaction, or understanding, or just a one word respond, if not confirmation.

Precisely though, it is to gain reaction ! I'm sure every time you post, you await reaction as well, don't you?  :D

How posts are received is always up to the reader, of course. But I would say when the subject matter is that of such serious matters as we discuss here, I doubt most posters stay just to whittle away their time, or offer endless prattle just 'in fun'. I don't think that these thoughts are Bear's thought's at all, to be fair...and that's all that's asked of posters, not attacks...zack

Tatiana+



Dr. Klier's statement about never having started the "half sister" theory is open to interpretation. Right.... ::)

As if I have to tell you this, there is a difference between wanting a reaction that leads to intelligent debate, and one that leads to arguments. I suspect bear's  fall into the latter category.

 Perhaps you haven't been here that long but  " stay ing just to whittle away their time, or offer endless prattle just 'in fun' " seems to describe Bear's posts quite well.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Belochka on March 02, 2006, 10:09:46 PM
Baroness Buxhoeveden alleged "treachery" are deeply concerning and warrant mention.

@ p 69 FOTR, the authors allege:

"... Buxhoeveden's behavior in swindling the Romanovs are starkly at odds with the devoted young woman who acted as confidante to the grand duchesses."

It may be tendered that Buxhoeveden chose to travel to Tobolsk after her health crisis passed, does demonstrate her faithful service to the Imperial Family.

@ p 69 they assert that "Soloviev gave Buxhoeveden the packages ..." and with one sweeping statement proceed without evidence to accuse her of "swindling the Romanovs."

We are aware why there was a discrepency in the amount given by Soloviev to Buxhoeveden. Therefore the FOTR accusation has no basis in fact.

Why must then must the authors employ such strong accusatory language without providing any first-hand direct evidence that the possibility that such an act did take place?

With the authors continuing misapprehension, they later assert:

@ p 69 "Yet this would not be her only act of treachery."

To maintain the myth the authors continue:

@ p 142 "Perhaps in an effort to spare herself from the same fate , or to guarantee her later safety, .... "

STOP ... how could Buxhoeveden know what "the same fate" may be?

Why would she contemplate only her own safety above her charges, as a prisoner of the bolsheviks, and request an alleged "guarantee"? What nonsense!

If we are to believe this suggestion for one second, then it must be remembered that it is inconceivable to trust your captors for the possible eventuality of an act at some later date, would it not? The very real possibility that the captors could swap their personnel would make the alleged "guarantee" void.

Now let us continue with that sentence:

" ... she found Rodionov, telling him not only of the fortune in jewels concealed ... but also where  the items could be found."

AND to tie the previous sentence to this next assertion:

@ p 148 "Buxhoeveden repeated her knowledge of the imperial family's hidden jewelry, a final betrayal that guaranteed her freedom AND HELPED SEAL THE FATE OF THE PRISONERS."

It is noted that the two preceeding assertions were made using Bykov as the source. (see reference @ p 620).

I wound submit that placing reliance upon soviet secondhand accounts is an unsafe exercise. It is a known fact that the soviets used the political technique of disinformation to defame. Knowing that such a practice was employed, how could any person then use Bykov as if it was a credible document?

I would like to understand how the authors were able to determine that it was Buxhoeveden who "helped seal the fate of the Romanovs".

Furthermore I would also like to understand why the authors prefered to use soviet references in order to tarnish the good name of a faithful member of the Imperial Suite. What is the motive for such unsubstantiated accusations?

The first perceived act of "treachery" has been shown to be a myth, not based on fact,  therefore it would not be inconceivable that the second alleged act of "treachery" equally falls under the same cloud of disinformation.

It seems rather appropriate here to paraphrase the authors' own chapter title:

"It Was Dreadful, What They Did."
[/color]
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Sarushka on March 02, 2006, 10:21:35 PM
Quote
It seems rather appropriate here to paraphrase the authors' own chapter title:

"It Was Dreadful, What They Did."
[/color]

LOL!! Plus a significant level of hooting and howling.

I will join the debate again soon. I'm currently scanning the relevant chapters of Halliburton's book, Seven League Boots, so we can examine the source of dubious incident regarding Maria & the guard so vividly chronicled in FOTR.  ;)
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Belochka on March 02, 2006, 10:40:54 PM
Quote
...  I'm currently scanning the relevant chapters of Halliburton's book, Seven League Boots, so we can examine the source of dubious incident regarding Maria & the guard so vividly chronicled in FOTR.  ;)


Thank you for your generosity Sarushka. I would be interested to discuss that contentious issue further. Not all posters here would have Halliburton.  ;)
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Forum Admin on March 03, 2006, 08:35:18 AM
Quote

I have no problem in having our research and conclusions challenged-it is, after all, how we learn things.  But, having given our evidence, I think if you want to responsibly challenge it you need to be more forthcoming.  Without hard evidence to the contrary, I'm not inclined to dismiss what we learned based on an unknown assertion.  So please share so we can assess which version is correct.

Greg King
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Sarushka on March 03, 2006, 09:16:23 AM
Well, if Greg can handle a challenge (so long as we provide evidence), what's all the fuss about?? ;)
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Sarushka on March 03, 2006, 09:19:11 AM
I've finished scanning & correcting Halliburton's account of Ermakov's death-bed confession from Seven League Boots. It's listed in FOTR as the only source for the supposed incident between Maria & a member of the guard.

Anyone who'd like to read it, please PM me with your email address.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Forum Admin on March 03, 2006, 09:43:18 AM
Thats why I brought this over here, since many people seem disturbed by challenges to the text, I thought all question would be laid to rest by Greg's own words.

With that, here is my general concern. Over in the Buxhoeveden thread this was discussed.
FOTR page 141. Talking about what happened on the Rus
"Even as these horrors unfolded, another ominous and, in the end, brutally personal situation played itself out. Unknown to the terrified grand duchesses, a previously trusted member of their father's suite willingly betrayed their secrets. On learning that she ha apparently kept Soloviev's money, Baroness Buxhoeveden had come under the penetrating gaze of the Bolsheviks, who suspected her in some unkown plot. Two searches of her apartment early on the morning of April 25 presumably failed to disclose the hidden funds, but the increased presure left Buxhoeveden in feat for her own welfare.
"As the grand duchesses' terrified screams filled the decks of the Rus, echoing across the placid waters to the darkness beyond, Buxhoeveden acted. Perhaps in an effort to spare herself from the same fate, or to guarantee her later safety, she found Rodionov, telling him not only of the fortune in jewels concealed beneath the clothing of hte three young women, but where the items could be found. 'The buttons on her coat aren't buttons,' she revealed, 'they are diamonds'; 'the aigrette of the hat conceals a diamond from the shah of Persia.' and; that belt there -- underneath it are ropes of pearls."
The source King and Wilson cite for this is: Bykov, October 17, 1927,

1. So, the whole crux lies in the "horrors on the Rus". I won't re-hash the above aruguments, suffice it to say that the ONLY SINGLE shred of "horrors on the Rus" lies in a remembered second hand statement by George Gibbes, made seventy years after the fact. I re-direct attention to the UTTER lack of any such statments made to Sokolov by all surviving members who were on board that night.
2. On learning that she had apparently kept Soloviev's money, Baroness Buxhoeveden had come under the penetrating gaze of the Bolsheviks, who suspected her in some unkown plot.  Well, we now understand that this is NOT the truth. The Bolsheviks were the ones orchestrating the entire "plot". The only evidence to support the "theft" of Soloviev's money is from Soloviev himself. Soloviev was the one who kept some 75% of the funds being sent for aide to the IF for himself.
3. Yurovsky "knew" that they had the jewels?? in 1934 he said: "Only in the forest did I finally discover the reason why it had been so hard to kill the daughters and Alexandra Feodorovna.... (when the first valuables are found...)then I understood that evidentely there had been valuables in the things they brought with them." THEN he threatens looters with being shot. Is this the statement of someone who knew before the fact that they were hiding jewels?
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Forum Admin on March 03, 2006, 10:02:56 AM
4.  "Kudrin"/Medvedev said "We could think of nothing. Maybe bombard the rooms with grenades while they were asleep? But that is no good at all because the explosion would be heard all over town...." What?? and risk destroying the very valuables they "knew" were there?

5. re: Bykov. Here is what the Russian authors of "Last Act of a Tragedy" have to say."However, not all of his conclusions and assessments of events can be taken as credible, primarily because they were based on the class approach, universally prevalent in those years. "  "His treatment of real facts is given in the light of ideas typical of the first post-revolutionary years.  What seemed to flaw it even more was absolutization of the class approach and certain factual errors.  
NOW, go back and re-read what was written about an aristocrat committing treason against the Imperial Family...

Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Raegan on March 03, 2006, 01:22:56 PM
Quote
I will join the debate again soon. I'm currently scanning the relevant chapters of Halliburton's book, Seven League Boots, so we can examine the source of dubious incident regarding Maria & the guard so vividly chronicled in FOTR.  ;)


I went to Russia last year to conduct research on Tsar Nicholas II and his family. I spent some time in the archives trying to find information on the "Maria and the guard incident," but I didn't find anything to support it.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on March 03, 2006, 01:35:16 PM
Quote


It seems rather appropriate here to paraphrase the authors' own chapter title:

"It Was Dreadful, What They Did."
[/color]


I just did a proper snort when I read that! ;D

Ah, the irony...

I think we could set up a free press reprinting hard to find Romanov books if everyone gave up their copies of FOTR for recycling.  At least then FOTR could be put to some helpful use in the field of Romanov studies instead of leading us all down the garden path.

Anyone up for it? I think I am...

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 03, 2006, 01:35:59 PM
Thanks everyone for the info about Buxhoveden. To me this once again sounds like the authors used selected sources that fit into a specific theory and ignored those that didn't. I wonder how many more examples of this there are in this book....

Quote

I went to Russia last year to conduct research on Tsar Nicholas II and his family. I spent some time in the archives trying to find information on the "Maria and the guard incident," but I didn't find anything to support it.


Hi Raegan,

I don't own a copy of FOTR and my library doesn't carry it (and I don't feel like purchasing it), so would you or someone else tell me (the answer may be in the appropriate thread, but I don't know if I can find it), what were the exact references for the Marie/guard tale, and were all of them from GARF primary archives, or  did someone else ever mention it in some secondary source? And if the answer is GARF only, is there a way to trace down at GARF the exact reference that was given in the book, and is this what you tried to do, or did you just look sort of randomly? Does the fact that you couldn't find it there mean that it doesn't exist, or just that perhaps you didn't find it? There must be some system that they use to catalogue their archives, so that primary references can be followed up on. Thanks!
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Raegan on March 03, 2006, 01:48:35 PM
Quote
I don't own a copy of FOTR and my library doesn't carry it (and I don't feel like purchasing it), so would you or someone else tell me (the answer may be in the appropriate thread, but I don't know if I can find it), what were the exact references for the Marie/guard tale, and were all of them from GARF primary archives, or  did someone else ever mention it in some secondary source? And if the answer is GARF only, is there a way to trace down at GARF the exact reference that was given in the book, and is this what you tried to do, or did you just look sort of randomly? Does the fact that you couldn't find it there mean that it doesn't exist, or just that perhaps you didn't find it? There must be some system that they use to catalogue their archives, so that primary references can be followed up on. Thanks!


I just looked randomly when I was there. My main area of research was something somewhat unrelated. However, if someone can provide a GARF source for this, I can probably check up on it.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 03, 2006, 01:51:42 PM
Quote
.. if someone can provide a GARF source for this, I can probably check up on it.


Thanks, Raegan. If someone can please post the exact reference for this information, it should be fairly easy to find and check (if it indeed exists, which for now lets assume it does)... I am presuming that it was something that was translated from Russian, was it not?
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Margarita Markovna on March 03, 2006, 02:21:07 PM
Quote

I went to Russia last year to conduct research on Tsar Nicholas II and his family. I spent some time in the archives trying to find information on the "Maria and the guard incident," but I didn't find anything to support it.

Where were you looking? GARF or somewhere else in Russia?
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Forum Admin on March 03, 2006, 03:23:29 PM
One more discrepency about the Buxhoeveden story that doesn't ring true.
"The buttons on her coat aren't buttons,' she revealed, 'they are diamonds'; 'the aigrette of the hat conceals a diamond from the shah of Persia.' and; that belt there -- underneath it are ropes of pearls."  is what she supposedly said.
HOWEVER, they never found "ropes of pearls" on the bodies, nor in the possessions of the IF at Ekaterinburg. Go see the lists on the main AP website.

This detail was easy to check out. FOTR said Buxhoevden told them about "ropes of pearls" when there weren't any. Also, we know that the major caches of loose diamonds was sewn into the chemise/camisoles UNDER the corsets. Why didn't Sophie B. mention them??

Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 03, 2006, 03:36:55 PM
Quote
Where were you looking? GARF or somewhere else in Russia?


I believe that Raegan meant GARF.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Raegan on March 03, 2006, 03:41:22 PM
Quote

I believe that Raegan meant GARF.


Yes, GARF. Sorry I didn't make that clear, Margarita.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Elisabeth on March 03, 2006, 04:18:31 PM
Quote
One more discrepency about the Buxhoeveden story that doesn't ring true.
"The buttons on her coat aren't buttons,' she revealed, 'they are diamonds'; 'the aigrette of the hat conceals a diamond from the shah of Persia.' and; that belt there -- underneath it are ropes of pearls."  is what she supposedly said.
HOWEVER, they never found "ropes of pearls" on the bodies, nor in the possessions of the IF at Ekaterinburg. Go see the lists on the main AP website.

This detail was easy to check out. FOTR said Buxhoevden told them about "ropes of pearls" when there weren't any. Also, we know that the major caches of loose diamonds was sewn into the chemise/camisoles UNDER the corsets. Why didn't Sophie B. mention them??


Were there really no pearl necklaces in the Ekaterinburg list of valuables? Because in his 1920 statement, Yurovsky does mention finding ropes of pearls on Alexandra’s body: "A.F. was wearing a whole pearl belt made of several strands and sewn into cloth." (p. 354, Steinberg and Khrustalev, The Fall of the Romanovs)

And this is what Kudrin has to say about the pearls they found:

When the men started looting the bodies at the Ipatiev House, Yurovsky demanded they turn the valuables over: "In a flash on the table there appeared a little heap of gold things: diamond brooches, pearl necklaces, wedding rings, diamond pins, the golden pocket watches of Nicholas II and Dr. Botkin, and other objects." (p. 127, Alekseev, Russian edition)

When they undressed the bodies at the Four Brothers: "Suddenly from one of the women’s bodices [lifchiks] a stream of diamonds sparkled. .. Sewn into the lining of two more bodices we found brilliants, pearls, some sort of colored precious stones." (p. 128, Alekseev)

I also remember reading somewhere (the Sokolov Report? Alekseev?) that while still in Tobolsk Olga wore ropes of pearls concealed beneath her blouse. These must have been Alexandra's.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Sarushka on March 03, 2006, 04:28:36 PM
Quote
I don't own a copy of FOTR and my library doesn't carry it (and I don't feel like purchasing it), so would you or someone else tell me (the answer may be in the appropriate thread, but I don't know if I can find it), what were the exact references for the Marie/guard tale, and were all of them from GARF primary archives, or  did someone else ever mention it in some secondary source?

I will be happy to do this when I get home from work this evening, if no one beats me to it!
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Forum Admin on March 03, 2006, 06:08:43 PM
As I suggested, go read the detailed reports on what Yurovksy found and turned over to the Bosheviks on the main AP site. Yes there were several single strand pearl necklaces. That is beside the point. There were NO ROPES OF PEARLS found according to the specific reports as published in Last Act of a Tragedy who finally got into the old Soviet archives on the matter.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Belochka on March 03, 2006, 08:10:48 PM
Quote
5. re: Bykov. Here is what the Russian authors of "Last Act of a Tragedy" have to say."However, not all of his conclusions and assessments of events can be taken as credible, primarily because they were based on the class approach, universally prevalent in those years. "  "His treatment of real facts is given in the light of ideas typical of the first post-revolutionary years.  What seemed to flaw it even more was absolutization of the class approach and certain factual errors.  


If you have the opportunity to read Bykov's "account" it becomes readily apparent how politically correct that publication was.

From the very first paragraphs the soviet orientation is apparent.

Chapter XIII deals with the "Execution of Nikolai Romanov and his Family."  After offering his version of the event the chapter ends with these words @ p 92:

"Long live Soviet power!
Long live the International workers revolution
!"

Bykov's deliberate attempt to connect the murder of the Imperial Family in the same breath while employing his "required" politically charged rhetoric is disgusting at the very least.

... and this was the junk the authors chose to support as a credible reference against a devoted noble woman? :-X



Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Forum Admin on March 03, 2006, 08:39:11 PM
What really seems apparant Belochka is this. Two single lines in accounts are taken at face value. The authors do NO investigation into the veracity of the statements. One statement, Soloviev's, is made by a thief covering his "butt" and the other, Bykov's, is made by a Bolshevik/soviet propogandist. THEN, they layer on suppostion of events on the Rus, based on one second hand statement made seventy years after the fact, and assert these suppositions as fact, and take these unreliable statements to further suppose events,and then assert THESE suppositions as fact.

Suppositions woven out of whole cloth are laid out portraying Baroness Buxhoeveden as a traitor. This is NOT labelled theory, rather stated as fact.  Can anyone tell me, please, IF Gibbes found Baroness B. to be such an awful traitor to the IF, WHY did he, nor anyone else actually denounce her to Sokolov at the time? Sokolov himself says only that he thought her story important but that she avoided coming to him. NO ONE but NO ONE mentioned anything in their depositions at the time. Sokolov went into ad nauseum detail about Soloviev's involvement, but there is NO MENTION of Buxhoeveden's "treason"?. [see Sokolov's Investigation Report] SALIENTLY to me, how did Baroness B. leave Russia? Well, it was aboard the British Mission train. and HOW praytell, did good Baroness B. get ON the British Mission Train to Harbin? Well, by the assistance of good Mr. Gibbes! the very man who after sharing quarters with her during the worst days of the Civil War, loaning her money, and then helps her out of the country and then STAYS IN CONSTANT CONTACT with her until 1956![See "Left Behind" by Buxhoeveden]  ARE THESE the actions of a man who hated the awful traitor who betrayed the Imperial Family to the Bolsheviks?? This is simple fact available to most interested persons. Why did the authors avoid these facts? I have no answer.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Sarushka on March 03, 2006, 10:46:28 PM
Excerpts and their references from FOTR concerning the incident between Maria Nikolaevna & Ivan Skorokhodov:
(quotations of the source notes appear in red)





More info on the sources mentioned above:
Rathlef-Keilmann -- Anastasia: The Survivor of Ekaterinburg New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1928.
RTsKhIDNI -- Russkia tsentr dokumentatsii Istorii, Moscow.
APRF -- Arkhiv Presidentsii Rossiya Federatsii, Moscow.


These are the passages that deal directly with the alleged incident. Other adjacent sections give information on the general relations between OTMA and the guards, on Ivan Skorokhodov himself, and speculation/interpretation on the incident by the authors (clearly labeled as such).
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Sarushka on March 03, 2006, 11:01:41 PM
Now, for a bit of comparison....

Here is page 128 of Seven League Boots in its entirety, plus a little of 127 and 129 for context (text from the adjoining pages appears in blue).

*******************************

Ermakov fell back on his pillow, seized with a paroxysm of coughing. I felt sure I'd hear no more. But no -- he roused himself again, wiped the trickle of blood [128] from his beard with the back of his fist, and seemed to be determined to tell every detail he could drag from his memory.

"Princesses," I whispered to my interpreter. "Ask him about the Princesses."

The interpreter asked how the four girls passed the day. Ermakov understood.

"Oh, they had a lot of games. They played dominoes with the Czar. And they read a lot and talked a lot -- I don't know about what -- wasn't important. They all seemed to love Alexis. Some one of the girls was with him all the time -- handsome little fellow. . . but a hopeless invalid. . . no sort of Czar for Russia.

"Olga was the oldest daughter-nothing special. About twenty-two; maybe twenty-three. I remember Maria had her nineteenth birthday party in the prison house -- one of the guards took her some cakes. She seemed to be the Czar's favorite. They always walked in the garden together. Anastasia still had her hair down her back. She wasn't more than seventeen, maybe younger. Tatiana came between Olga and Maria. I thought she was the prettiest of the four. She had lots of dignity too, and was always looking after the others. We all liked her the best."

Tatiana! Waiting for Ermakov to recover sufficient breath to speak again, I remembered the beautiful and moving chapter about this particular Princess in From[129] Double Eagle to Red Flag.

************************
So, yes, there was a cake on Maria's birthday. But where does this business about the two fo them disappearing come from? Clearly not Ermakov...
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Belochka on March 03, 2006, 11:40:23 PM
Quote
What really seems apparant Belochka is this. Two single lines in accounts are taken at face value. The authors do NO investigation into the veracity of the statements. One statement, Soloviev's, is made by a thief covering his "butt" and the other, Bykov's, is made by a Bolshevik/soviet propogandist. THEN, they layer on suppostion of events on the Rus, based on one second hand statement made seventy years after the fact, and assert these suppositions as fact, and take these unreliable statements to further suppose events,and then assert THESE suppositions as fact.


It is most unfortunate that when authors choose to present a new sensationalistic idea, that those issues are not taken to any conclusion.

Indeed, it would have been prudent to investigate the circumstances that followed Baroness Buxhoeveden, after her alleged "treachery" was suggested to have occurred.  To investigate her journey out of Russia with Mr Gibbes and examine her life as an émigré would have been only a fair and reasonable approach to pursue especially when such a public allegation against her is published. Perhaps an enquiry to examine whether she was shunned by the Russian community, or was she held in high esteem may have offered the real answers?

But to villify Baroness Sophia Buxhoeveden without cause is a  travesty.  
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Belochka on March 04, 2006, 03:51:02 AM
Quote
Excerpts and their references from FOTR concerning the incident between Maria Nikolaevna & Ivan Skorokhodov:


Following on from Sarushka generous task in bringing the relevant paragraphs together, the following considerations can be deduced:

What we have is:

1.  The absence of any direct reference to the alleged incident in Halliburton. (p 244)

2.   A second-hand account that can not be substantiated, but allegedly offered by a former prisoner of war, on Russian soil, Alois Hochleitner, who was "told a story".  (p 244)

[Remembering that Hochleitner fought against Russia during an act of war, as her enemy. While his political allegience is not specified, his credibility as a reliable person, would have to remain suspect.]

3. A bolshevik party man belonging to the Ekaterinburg Cheka, an Isai Rodzinsky, who made an indistinct inference "hinted" to an alleged incident that is open to interpretation. (p 244)

4. Yakov Yurovsky's unpublished memoirs, that offered "no actual reference to the event in question".

BUT,

"he recounted a conversation with Father Ioann Storozhev" (p 245) that was alleged to have taken place.

Thus we are urged to accept the words of a bolshevik assassin, who is refuted to have heard an indirect inference to what exactly?

From this panel of references the authors used it does appear that an alleged "incident" was created that appears to have no proven relationship to the truth.

The authors were however correct in one matter: "These accounts are problematic ... " (p 244)

Yet in their estimation "  ... the convergence of detail make it impossible for them to be simply dismissed." (p 244)

Could that convergence actually be the consequence of soviet disinformation?

How can the author's assertion possibly be considered to be persuasive in that "there are solid reasons to believe that, in some form, it did take place." (p 245)

What exactly was "it"?

It seems that the authors have prefered instead to tarnish the eternal memory of Grand Duchess Mariya by their use of suspect interpretations and oblique remarks.

In this light, the chapter's title "A happy Hour with the the Grandest People in the World" appears to be more than innappropriate.

Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Eddie_uk on March 04, 2006, 03:59:13 AM
Quote



Indeed, it would have been prudent to investigate the circumstances that followed Baroness Buxhoeveden, after her alleged "treachery" was suggested to have occurred.  To investigate her journey out of Russia with Mr Gibbes and examine her life as an émigré would have been only a fair and reasonable approach to pursue especially when such a public allegation against her is published. Perhaps an enquiry to examine whether she was shunned by the Russian community, or was she held in high esteem may have offered the real answers?

But to villify Baroness Sophia Buxhoeveden without cause is a  travesty.  


I completely agree. Was she shunned by Xenia??
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Belochka on March 04, 2006, 05:19:19 AM
Quote
3. Yurovsky "knew" that they had the jewels?? in 1934 he said: "Only in the forest did I finally discover the reason why it had been so hard to kill the daughters and Alexandra Feodorovna.... (when the first valuables are found...)then I understood that evidentely there had been valuables in the things they brought with them." THEN he threatens looters with being shot. Is this the statement of someone who knew before the fact that they were hiding jewels?


Yurovsky's apparent surprise about the discovery of jewelry after the murders, exposes a fundamental issue that contradicts the FOTR authors' claims of perceived "treachery" by Baroness Buxhoeveden.

If Baroness' Buxhoeveden's alleged "revelation"  had taken place as claimed by the authors of FOTR, then would not the captors have ensured that a full search of all the Imperial Family possessions would have been undertaken?

Since there was no such search, then it would imply that the alleged "revelation" had NEVER taken place.

This contention is supported by Yurovsky's self discovery of the presence of jewels at the crime scene.

Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Belochka on March 04, 2006, 05:52:44 AM
Quote

I completely agree. Was she shunned by Xenia??


Thanks Eddieboy_uk.

Regretfully I do not know what the real relationship was between Baroness Buxhoeveden and Grand Duchess Ksenya was.

Perhaps someone may be able to provide an honest assessment?
:)
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Annie on March 04, 2006, 07:40:13 AM
Thank you all for the interesting info on the Buxhoevedon story! This really straightens out a lot and makes more sense. Sorry, but I can't ignore the possibility that PW considered AA's comment about Sophie B. when branding her 'traitorous', and perhaps elaborated on this to possibly tie in with the upcoming AA book? Leaving little hints that turn out to be 'true' would help the AA case, eh?;) Either that, or the cheap thrilll of the scandal and the excitement of 'new' information over-rode all reason and discouraged a more thorough search for facts. I also believe my last statement is likely what happened with the Maria/guard story too. How terrible to tarnish the memory of a tragically killed young girl for a 'scoop' that was never really there:(
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Sarushka on March 04, 2006, 08:12:09 AM
Quote


How can the author's assertion possibly be considered to be persuasive in that "there are solid reasons to believe that, in some form, it did take place." (p 245)

What exactly was "it"?



IMO, "it" seems to be little more than a birthday cake.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Forum Admin on March 04, 2006, 09:05:27 AM
 As for how Buxhoeveden was apparantly so "un-trustworthy", Bob has seen letters at Lutton Hoo indicating that Gibbes and Buxhoeveden shared a bank account in Siberia (though to be fair, Gibbes said she took out more than here share of the money - perhaps THIS is the source of his mistrust), then  after Baroness B. reached England, Victoria Milford-Haven took her in to her retinue, and arranged a grace-and-favor apartment for her live in...and Gibbes letters indicate that he kept up a regular correspondence with Buxh. right up until her death in 1956.

I believe our VMH expert Ilana may have some information to shead light on this?
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Annie on March 04, 2006, 09:27:39 AM
Quote
Gibbes and Buxhoeveden shared a bank account in Siberia (though to be fair, Gibbes said she took out more than her share of the money



I couldn't help but laugh! This is a common problem with about every married couple I've ever known  (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/WuvDaNick/giggle.gif) so unless all those people are untrustworthy and 'traitorous' I don't think it means a thing ;)
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Belochka on March 04, 2006, 08:33:24 PM
Quote
IMO, "it" seems to be little more than a birthday cake.


"it" could be a simple gesture of kindness and compassion!
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Sarushka on March 05, 2006, 09:05:51 AM
I think we ought to take a look at how FOTR presents the Romanovs' treatment at the hands of the guard in the Ipatiev house. There are many stories of mistreatment & humilitaion in circulation, which FOTR attempts to debunk.
Is it true that the Romanovs were treated decently, or is FOTR's portrayal of the Romanovs' last 78 days an example of reverse sensationalism, so-to-speak?

Here are some of the relevant subject and their page numbers in FOTR:
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: AGRBear on March 05, 2006, 11:45:25 AM
THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS p. 19-20:

>>"Halliburton's interview was published twice, first in an American magazine, and then in his book Seven League Boots.  Like much of what he wrote, it drew a mixed reaction.  "Nobody, wrote Halliburton's biographer, "believed the Ermakov yarn-- accept most of the Richard's readers.  In fact, Soviet authorities had carefully managed the entire Ermakov "confussion".  His translator, the mysterious Walter, was later discovered to have been an agent of the GPU, successor to the Cheka.  Many years later, Stoneman speculated that the entire affair had been designed to "feed" Halliburton, as an unspecting dupe, "with Moscow's pre-pacaged 'facts'".<<

Wonder what other "orchestrated" "confussions"/ testimonies the CHEKA, GPU and later the KGB managed to arrange to "dupe"  the world?

AGRBear
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Forum Admin on March 05, 2006, 11:59:20 AM
Deposition of Tchemoderov to Sokolov:
"At the moment Their Majesties arrived (at the Ipatiev House) they were submitted to complete searches, minute and vulgar, under the direction of one Didkovski and the Commandant of the House, Adveyev. One of them grabbed the Empress' handbag from her hands, and this act attracted this remark directly from the Emperor "Up until now I have been dealing with honest men, well raised." Didkovsky responded "I ask you to not forget that you are under threat of legal prosecution and are under arrest." The daily regime of their detention was extremely hard and the attitude of the guards was revolting.   ... The day passed usually thusly: in the morning the family gathered for tea, served with black bread left over from the night before. At 2pm, they took lunch which was always all prepared by the local Soviet, comprised of meat broth and a roast, or sometimes cutlets. As we had neither napkins nor table linens, and no one would give us any, we ate without any cloths. The plates and tableware were in general extremely poor.  We all ate at the same table, under the Emperor's order.  Often, for the six of us, we would only have five spoons. Dinner was the same as lunch. Walks in the yard were allowed only once a day, for only 15-20 minutes.  During the walks the yard was surrounded by guards. Often, the Emperor would ask one of them some insignifcant question, with no connection to the established order of the house; every response was either total silence or a vulgarity...Day and night, three red-guards were stationed on the second floor, one at the entry door, one in the vestibule, the third next to the toilet.  The behavior and appearance of thise men was indecent: they were vulgar, slovenly, cigarettes in their lips; their gestures and manners caused fear and disgust."
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Eddie_uk on March 05, 2006, 12:04:14 PM
I think FOTR attempted to downplay the rude and insolent behaviour that the IF was subjected too.

Makes me so angry to think they were treated like that!!
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Sarushka on March 05, 2006, 12:06:46 PM
Quote
 In fact, Soviet authorities had carefully managed the entire Ermakov "confussion".  His translator, the mysterious Walter, was later discovered to have been an agent of the GPU, successor to the Cheka.  Many years later, Stoneman speculated that the entire affair had been designed to "feed" Halliburton, as an unspecting dupe, "with Moscow's pre-pacaged 'facts'".<<

These statements are attributed to Jonathan Root's book, Halliburton: The Magnificent Myth, published by Longman in 1965; and The File on the Tsar, written by Summers & Mangold in 1976. I've read neither of them. Are they reliable sources?

Quote
Wonder what other "orchestrated" "confussions"/ testimonies the CHEKA, GPU and later the KGB managed to arrange to "dupe"  the world?

Unless this issue is discussed elsewhere in FOTR, I think this question would be better placed in its own thread.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Sarushka on March 05, 2006, 12:12:38 PM
Quote
Deposition of Tchemoderov to Sokolov:
"At the moment Their Majesties arrived (at the Ipatiev House) they were submitted to complete searches, minute and vulgar, under the direction of one Didkovski and the Commandant of the House, Adveyev. One of them grabbed the Empress' handbag from her hands, and this act attracted this remark directly from the Emperor "Up until now I have been dealing with honest men, well raised." Didkovsky responded "I ask you to not forget that you are under threat of legal prosecution and are under arrest." The daily regime of their detention was extremely hard and the attitude of the guards was revolting.   ... The day passed usually thusly: in the morning the family gathered for tea, served with black bread left over from the night before. At 2pm, they took lunch which was always all prepared by the local Soviet, comprised of meat broth and a roast, or sometimes cutlets. As we had neither napkins nor table linens, and no one would give us any, we ate without any cloths. The plates and tableware were in general extremely poor.  We all ate at the same table, under the Emperor's order.  Often, for the six of us, we would only have five spoons. Dinner was the same as lunch. Walks in the yard were allowed only once a day, for only 15-20 minutes.  During the walks the yard was surrounded by guards. Often, the Emperor would ask one of them some insignifcant question, with no connection to the established order of the house; every response was either total silence or a vulgarity...Day and night, three red-guards were stationed on the second floor, one at the entry door, one in the vestibule, the third next to the toilet.  The behavior and appearance of thise men was indecent: they were vulgar, slovenly, cigarettes in their lips; their gestures and manners caused fear and disgust."


FOTR pg 64:
"During their Siberian exile Chemodurov became increasingly senile, and was finally removed from the Ipatiev House to a local hospital just three weeks after the Romanovs arrived in Ekaterinburg."

That statement would lead me to question Chemodurov's testimony. The reference for the information is Sokolov, Enquette, pg 33. Is it an accurate reporting of Sokolov?
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Elisabeth on March 05, 2006, 12:16:01 PM
Quote
I think we ought to take a look at how FOTR presents the Romanovs' treatment at the hands of the guard in the Ipatiev house. There are many stories of mistreatment & humilitaion in circulation, which FOTR attempts to debunk.
Is it true that the Romanovs were treated decently, or is FOTR's portrayal of the Romanovs' last 78 days an example of reverse sensationalism, so-to-speak?

Here are some of the relevant subject and their page numbers in FOTR:
  • the removal of Nagorny (157-9)
  • treatment at meals, & lack of cutlery, etc.  (160-1)
  • guards' harrassment of the prisoners (161-4)
  • Avdayev's supposed drunkenness & humiliation of his prisoners (164-7)


Removal of Nagorny:
King and Wilson claim that Nagorny was removed from the Ipatiev House on May 14/27 for the ostensible reason that on the previous day he had “apparently got into an argument with the men” searching the children’s luggage from Tobolsk (p. 157). But this statement isn’t footnoted and in my opinion it’s yet another example of King and Wilson arriving at a conclusion based on little or no supporting evidence. If you check, the only citations in this paragraph of FOTR are to the diaries of Nicholas and Alexandra. But in fact neither Nicholas nor Alexandra states the reason that Nagorny and Sednev were taken away to the Regional Soviet for interrogation. Alexandra even writes, “don’t know why” (AF’s diary, May 14/27, 1918). Surely if Nagorny had gotten into a quarrel with the guards, either Alexandra or Nicholas would have mentioned it (for example, later that summer Alexandra would note that Yurovsky and Kharitonov had had an altercation, leaving Kharitonov very upset). It also begs the question, why was Sednev arrested at the same time as Nagorny? Did he also have a quarrel with the guards?

The traditional story about Nagorny’s removal, repeated in many books about the Romanovs, has him being arrested because he protested the theft of Alexei’s gold cross by one of the guards. King and Wilson utterly dismiss this story because it originated with Prince Lvov, whom they consider a totally unreliable witness. I have to agree with them here. For example, Lvov made up various stories about the murder of the IF, asserting that they had been killed in the cell next to his own. I think we can safely ignore his testimony about Nagorny. And once again, if Nagorny really did get arrested because he got angry with one of the guards, why was Sednev arrested at the same time? And why don’t either Nicholas or Alexandra mention this incident in their diaries? Nicholas complains about the guards stealing the IF’s belongings from the storage shed – wouldn’t he complain about a theft taking place in his own son’s room?

In my opinion the most logical explanation for Nagorny’s removal is the one King and Wilson give on p. 159: “In all likelihood, Nagorny and Sednev were removed from the Ipatiev House precisely because they represented a threat to the power of the Special Detachment. Both were tall, well-built young men capable of protecting the Romanovs if necessary; with their removal, the only men who remained in the Ipatiev House were the middle-aged Nicholas, Botkin, Trupp, and Kharitonov, and the two young boys Alexei and Leonid Sednev.” But if that really was the reason, then it would also tend to suggest that the Ural Regional Soviet was already planning to kill the Romanovs.

Treatment at Meals, Guards’ Behavior, Avdeev’s Drunkenness:
I think this entire section of FOTR actually shows King and Wilson at their very best. Their treatment of all these topics is extremely evenhanded and, as far as I can make out, carefully footnoted to the relevant sources. They never claim that the guards were angels of good conduct – on the contrary, they say episodes of harassment likely did happen, and also give examples of the crude graffiti adorning the stairhall and lavatory. Nor do they say that the prisoners’ meals were luxurious, but they do cite Nicholas’ diary to good effect: “the food was excellent, plentiful and served on time” (p. 174), whilst also noting that in fact the food often wasn’t served on time, according to that same diary.

They agree that Avdeev was probably sometimes drunk on duty; they dismiss charges that he called Nicholas “Bloodthirsty” to his face or deliberately jostled him whilst reaching for food at the table. All the sources King and Wilson cite on these issues seem pretty reliable to me – especially Sister Agnes of the Novotikhvinsky Convent, who told Speranski that Avdeev drank, and initially came across as a bully, but that this first impression turned out to be false: Avdeev was all bluff and bluster; his true self was “accomodating” (FOTR, p. 166). Her statements are supported by those of the guards – some of whom apparently thought Avdeev was too sympathetic to the imperial prisoners. Sister Agnes also told Speranski that when the Ural Regional Soviet sentenced the family to death, Avdeev went straight over to the Hotel Amerika and publicly protested their decision, pleading for the family’s lives.

I think that, as usual with FOTR, it's a very mixed bag. Solid, reliable research on many points, with fairly solid conclusions; the occasional totally irresponsible conclusion, based on little or no evidence at all (e.g., Nagorny and the quarrel with the guards).
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Forum Admin on March 05, 2006, 12:50:48 PM
Deposition of Prince George E. Lvov to Sokolov:
"The guards began to steal, first gold or silver, then linens, shoes.  The Tsar could not stand this and got angry.  They responded to him vulgarly that he was a prisoner and no longer commanded anyone. Their Majesties were in general treated vulgarly.  Sednev and Nagorny decided the regime was "frightening."  Every day it got worse.  They gave them, at first, 20 minutes to walk, then this time was decreased by five minutes.  there were not permitted any physical exercise. The Tsarevich was sick...The attitude of the guards was particularly disgraceful with respect to the Grand Duchesses.  They were not permitted to use the toilet unless with permission, nor without being accompanied by a red-guard. In the evenings they forced them to play the piano.  ... "  The peasant Anna Bielozervoa lived with one of the guards of the Imperial Family at the Ipatiev House and in her deposition, she also confirmed that the guards told her they forced the Grand Duchesses to play the piano for them.

Depostion of the accused Philip Proskuriakov, "On Sundays a priest and a deacon from the Church of the Ascension came to say Mass...Benjamin Saphonov began to engage in ugly vulgarities.  They only had only toilet for the entire Imperial Family. All around on the walls of this toilet Saphonov had written obscenities...One time he jumped up onto the wall, just under their windows and began to loudly sing many obscene songs.  Andrew Strekotin also drew vulgar caricatures of them on the walls of the downstairs rooms. ..."

Deposition of Anatole Yakimov: "I don't directly know how Avdeyev behaved himself with the detainees. But I did observe him my self.  He was a drunk, vulgar and without culture; he had an evil soul.  If one of the detainees ever addressed themselves to Mochkine in his absence, they were always told that they would have to wait for Avdeyev to return.  When he did return, Mochkin would relay their request and every single time responded "They can all go to hell!" Every single time he left the rooms of the Imperial Family he went to Avdeyev with whatever request they had, but they were all refused. You could see that refusing their requests actually gave him pleasure, he spoke the refusals "gleefully". I remember one day, for example, they had asked permission to open the windows, and he told me he had refused.  I don't know how he addressed the Tsar in his presence. But in the Commandant's office he called all the detainees "them" and he called Nicholas "Nilochka".

All the men feasted with Avdeyev, and removed or stole everything belonging to the detainees.  One day, Avdeyev got so drunk to the point of rolling on the sidewalk, then went to see the Imperial Family in this state. The drunks raised a huge din in the Commandants office, shouting to raise the dead, sleeping any place the wanted, and made everything filthy. They sangs songs which could not be pleasing to the Tsar "You have fallen into the fatal struggle. Destroy the Old Regime! Arise Comrades!"  Also, knowing that Avdeyev was a vulgar, mean drunk, I think that he had to have behaved horribly when with the Imperial Family. When I saw his attitude after he left the rooms of the Imperial Family, he became insulting. I remember hearing him speak to his comrades about Rasputin, he said what everyone had been repeating and what the newspapers had written..."
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Arleen on March 05, 2006, 12:53:37 PM
What are you Alexander Palace members going to do when Bob's book comes out one of these days......tear every line apart like you do with everyone else's books?

Arleen
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Eddie_uk on March 05, 2006, 01:06:30 PM
Arleen, please. There are blatant mistakes within the book. I think out of respect for the IF and their memory these mistakes should be addressed and corrected where possible. It's only fair. Do you think it's fair that Marias' reputation has been tarnished??
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Forum Admin on March 05, 2006, 01:12:52 PM
Quote

FOTR pg 64:
"During their Siberian exile Chemodurov became increasingly senile, and was finally removed from the Ipatiev House to a local hospital just three weeks after the Romanovs arrived in Ekaterinburg."

That statement would lead me to question Chemodurov's testimony. The reference for the information is Sokolov, Enquette, pg 33. Is it an accurate reporting of Sokolov?


I'm holding Sokolov's "Enquette" in my hands. Pg 33 has nothing whatsoever to do with Tchemoderov or even the imprisonment. Now, on page 153, it says the following: "At the same time that Their Majesties and Grand Duchess Marie went into the Ipatiev House also all the members of their suite except Prince Dologoruky...
The arrival of the children was on 23 May. However the very next day the number of inhabitants of the Ipaitev House began to decrease. Old Tchemoderov was brought to the prison on May 24. He was sick. At the Emperor's request, Dr. Botkin informed the Commandant of the House. Everyone thought, even Tchemoderov himself, that he would be sent back to his family in Tobolsk.  "On 11/24 May" he deposed to me, "they led me from the Ipatiev House, not to the train station, but to the prison, where I remained locked up until 25 July, when the Czechs occupied Ekaterinburg and all the red-guards , commissars and soviets had fled."

Please note that the original says only this about Tchemoderov "Le vieux Tchemoderov fut emmene le 24 mai a la prison. Il etait malade."
"Il etait malade" can ONLY mean "he was sick" or "he was ill" The word for senile and senility are the same in French. I can find no reference in Sokolov anywhere that Tchemoderov was senile. There are two statments where Sokolov says that Tchemoderov's information and depositions are "very valuable".
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Forum Admin on March 05, 2006, 01:18:39 PM
Quote
What are you Alexander Palace members going to do when Bob's book comes out one of these days......tear every line apart like you do with everyone else's books?

Arleen


Bob is more concerned with accuracy than his ego. If evidence shows he made a mistake, he is the first to recognize it and be glad of the corrections. I've seen it a hundred times.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Sarushka on March 05, 2006, 01:22:20 PM
Quote
What are you Alexander Palace members going to do when Bob's book comes out one of these days......tear every line apart like you do with everyone else's books?


Fate of the Romanovs itself challenges many other books. Why is it so unreasonable for us to examine its sources and conclusions? And which of "everyone else's books" are you referring to that we have "torn every line apart" from?

I resent the accusation that we tear *every* book apart, and further, that we would tear Bob's book apart. We're members of a discussion forum, not a pack of wolves. Rob has posted more than once that these discussions are appropriate, and Greg King's own comments show without a doubt that he is open to challenges, so long as we provide evidence for our differing opinions. Examining sources is a part of that process, and is entirely different from defaming a book.

You've said yourself, Arleen, that you know enough not to belive everything you read. My participation in this discussion is a way of helping me decide what parts of FOTR *I* believe.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Sarushka on March 05, 2006, 01:35:49 PM
Quote

I'm holding Sokolov's "Enquette" in my hands. Pg 33 has nothing whatsoever to do with Tchemoderov or even the imprisonment.

How strange. I've checked the reference notes twice, and it does indeed cite page 33.

Quote
Please note that the original says only this about Tchemoderov "Le vieux Tchemoderov fut emmene le 24 mai a la prison. Il etait malade."
"Il etait malade" can ONLY mean "he was sick" or "he was ill" The word for senile and senility are the same in French. I can find no reference in Sokolov anywhere that Tchemoderov was senile. There are two statments where Sokolov says that Tchemoderov's information and depositions are "very valuable".

I was afraid of that. FOTR emphasizes in at least 3 other places that Chemodurov was becoming increasingly senile, and thus, unreliable. May I assume that in your opinion, Rob, Chemodurov should be considered reliable?
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Forum Admin on March 05, 2006, 01:46:47 PM
Pg 33 discusses the first day after the Tsar returned from Stavka after abdicating. Tchemoderov's name is not even mentioned.

As for Tchemoderov's reliability, Sokolov places equal weight on his depositions as he does those of Volkov, Gibbes, Gilliard, and Tutetelburg. So, I personally see no reason to view his testimony any less reliable than these others, unless someone can actually show evidence of his "increasing senility".
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Sarushka on March 05, 2006, 01:49:26 PM
Quote
Deposition of Anatole Yakimov: "I don't directly know how Avdeyev behaved himself with the detainees. But I did observe him my self.  He was a drunk, vulgar and without culture; he had an evil soul.  If one of the detainees ever addressed themselves to Mochkine in his absence, they were always told that they would have to wait for Avdeyev to return.  When he did return, Mochkin would relay their request and every single time responded "They can all go to hell!" Every single time he left the rooms of the Imperial Family he went to Avdeyev with whatever request they had, but they were all refused. You could see that refusing their requests actually gave him pleasure, he spoke the refusals "gleefully". I remember one day, for example, they had asked permission to open the windows, and he told me he had refused.  I don't know how he addressed the Tsar in his presence. But in the Commandant's office he called all the detainees "them" and he called Nicholas "Nilochka".

Thank you for quoting this in context. FOTR is at pains to point out that in Yakimov's full testimony, all first-hand incidences of Avdeyev's disrespectful language was made behind closed doors in reference to the prisoners, but never to the Romanovs' faces. It appears that Avdayev put on a tough-guy act among the guard, but was fairly decent in his treatment of the prisoners themselves.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Annie on March 05, 2006, 02:20:15 PM
Quote

Fate of the Romanovs itself challenges many other books. Why is it so unreasonable for us to examine its sources and conclusions?


Exactly! Must admit I was skeptical from the start that this book claimed to have 'new' info that nullified long held beliefs and info from other books written as far back as the 1920's. It seemed to me it was more likely that this book was the one that was incorrect, not all the rest, and if this was not true, they'd better prove it. I don't think they have.

Quote
And which of "everyone else's books" are you referring to that we have "torn every line apart" from?


Yeah, I wondered that too. What else has been 'torn apart?' I know some have disagreed with Radzinsky, but I've never heard of anything else even being questioned here.


Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Sarushka on March 05, 2006, 02:22:45 PM
Quote
Deposition of Prince George E. Lvov to Sokolov:
"The guards began to steal, first gold or silver, then linens, shoes.  The Tsar could not stand this and got angry.  They responded to him vulgarly that he was a prisoner and no longer commanded anyone. Their Majesties were in general treated vulgarly.  Sednev and Nagorny decided the regime was "frightening."  Every day it got worse.  They gave them, at first, 20 minutes to walk, then this time was decreased by five minutes.  there were not permitted any physical exercise. The Tsarevich was sick...The attitude of the guards was particularly disgraceful with respect to the Grand Duchesses.  They were not permitted to use the toilet unless with permission, nor without being accompanied by a red-guard. In the evenings they forced them to play the piano.  ... "  The peasant Anna Bielozervoa lived with one of the guards of the Imperial Family at the Ipatiev House and in her deposition, she also confirmed that the guards told her they forced the Grand Duchesses to play the piano for them.

What's the general consensus on Lvov's reliability? It appears that many of the stories of the Romanovs' mistreatment can be traced back to Lvov, whom FOTR dismisses as utterly untrustworthy.

For example, FOTR pg 158:
"Lvov, who was responsible for many of the questionable stories concerning events in the Ipatiev House, was scarcely a credible witness. In an October 1918 letter to U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, Lvov recounted that he had been imprisoned in Ekaterinburg at the end of February 1918; he escaped after three months, and spent five weeks fleeing across Siberia before fially reaching Vladivostok at the beginning of July. 23 Lvov's own timetable virtually eliminates any possibility that he heard firsthand information on what took place in the Ipatiev House from either Nagorny or Sednev, who were both imprisoned only on the evening of May 27. Other statements made by Lvov completely destroy his credibility as a witness. In the fall of 1918, he told both White investigators and Allied representatives looking into the murder of the Romanovs that the entire family, along with their retainers, had been killed in the cell next to his at the City Prison in Ekaterinburg. 'They brought them together into the one room,' the French foreign minister reported Lvov saying, 'and having made them sit down in a row, they spent the entire night inflicting bayonet blows on them before finishing them off next morning, one after the other, with revolver shots: the Emperor, Empress, the Grand Duchesses, the Tsesarevich, the lady-in-waiting [sic], the Empress's female companion, and all the people with the Imperial Family.'24 Although a freind of the former prime minister asserted that the foreign minister had 'obviously misunderstood' Lvov's meaning, the prince continued to repeat his lurid and patently false account, which was eventually picked up and printed by te U.S. media.25"

Sources cited in FOTR:.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Elisabeth on March 05, 2006, 02:33:43 PM
Quote
Thank you for quoting this in context. FOTR is at pains to point out that in Yakimov's full testimony, all first-hand incidences of Avdeyev's disrespectful language was made behind closed doors in reference to the prisoners, but never to the Romanovs' faces. It appears that Avdayev put on a tough-guy act among the guard, but was fairly decent in his treatment of the prisoners themselves.


Exactly. Which is why, it seems to me, we need to track down Valentin Speranski's book, La Maison à Destination Speciale. According to FOTR, Speranski visited Ekaterinburg in 1924. Whilst there, he apparently interviewed not only Sister Agnes of the Novotikhvensky Convent, but also several former guards of the Ipatiev House, and I suspect, from his description of the murder room given on p. 520 of FOTR, several of the assassins themselves (for how else could he have described the murders so accurately? gunsmoke, chaos, and the murderers losing their heads, shooting and stabbing wildly at still living bodies? It's all there, and he was writing in 1928!). In almost every case he's the independent source given by King and Wilson to corroborate their accounts of Avdeev's attitude and behavior towards the IF, as well as the visits of Maria and Anastasia with the Ipatiev House guards.

So I am asking, who was Speranski? Was he a Red? A White? Unaffiliated? Why was he visiting the Soviet Union in 1924 and why was his book published in France? Does anyone have any information about this writer or know anything more about this book?
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Forum Admin on March 05, 2006, 03:45:26 PM
V.V. Alexeyev in "Last Act of a Tragedy" says only this about Speransky, he was a Russian emigre living in Paris and his book: "["La Maison à Destination Speciale" and the other Russian emigre] publications were just Western variations on the basic theme, varying in quality and in no way enriched with new materials.  It was impossible to get them (new materials) out of Soviet Russia. The Western sources were almost exhausted."
They then go on to discuss the five most important and reliable "emigre books" of that period. Speransky's is not among them.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Forum Admin on March 05, 2006, 03:50:14 PM
I don't have a copy of FOTR (or Speransky). Do they name the specific guards Speransky allegedly interviewed?

Also, I'm confused. What would Sister Agnes of the Novotikvine convent know about life inside the Ipatiev House. Sisters Maria and Antonine and Mother Superior Augustine all testified to Sokolov. Sister Maria: "we brought cream, butter, cucumbers, different cakes, sometimes meat, ham and bread. Avdeyev or his aide took everything.  They let us enter the barricade and approach the front steps, the sentinal rang. Avdeyev or his aide would come out, and we left.  They behaved themselves very well with respect to us." "Enquiete" pg. 179

So, the sisters bringing supplies never went inside. HOW could "Sister Agnes" have any useful information about anything going on inside?
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: AGRBear on March 05, 2006, 04:21:09 PM
Quote
Excerpts and their references from FOTR concerning the incident between Maria Nikolaevna & Ivan Skorokhodov:
(quotations of the source notes appear in red)

  • FOTR pg 244: "On this particular day [June 27] he [Skorokhodov] had smuggled a cake into the Ipatiev House, to celebrate Marie's birthday. Apparently, he pulled her aside, and the pair disappeared."73
    FOTR pg 581: "Ermakov, in Halliburton, Seven League Boots, 128."
  • FOTR pg 244: "In 1926, Alois Hochleitner, a former prisoner of war, recalled what he had been told while incarcerated in Ekaterinburg City Prison in July 1918. According to Hochleitner, two of the imperial daughters 'apparently often spoke to the guards and held lengthy conversations with them. Flirtations even developed. In the course of an inspection, a sentry was discovered in a situation with one of the Grand Duchesses, whereupon  a drastic investigation was ordered and carried out.' "75
    FOTR pg 581: "75. Letter of Alois Hochleitner, March 6, 1926, in Rathlef-Keilmann, 199-200."
  • FOTR pg 244: "Hochleitner had this story secondhand, but others confirmed its basic details. In 1964 Isai Rodzinsky, the member of the Ekaterinburg Cheka who wrote the 'Officer' letters, remembered: 'The girls often made eyes at the guards at their posts. It once led to -- no, no -- I can't say this...No, but once it did lead to it."76
    FOTR pg 581: "76. Rodzinsky, May 13, 1964, in RTsKhIDNI, f. 588, op.3, d.14."
  • FOTR pg 245: "Further confirmation is found in the Yakov Yurovsky's unpublished memoirs. While he himself made no actual reference to the event in question, he recounted a conversation with Father Ioann Storozhev, who on July 14 came to the Ipatiev House to conduct a religious service for the prisoners. Apparently he had somehow learned of the alleged incident, for he commented: 'Before this all, we had never met such refined people. Of course, one changes one'sopinions, knowing what has happened. It is already a great scandal over the situation. But we at the Chruch are ready to forgive, and give pass to an Imperial soul.' "78
    FOTR pg 581: "78. Yurovsky, unpublished memoirs, 1922, in APRF, f.3, op.58, d.280."
More info on the sources mentioned above:
Rathlef-Keilmann -- Anastasia: The Survivor of Ekaterinburg New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1928.
RTsKhIDNI -- Russkia tsentr dokumentatsii Istorii, Moscow.
APRF -- Arkhiv Presidentsii Rossiya Federatsii, Moscow.


These are the passages that deal directly with the alleged incident. Other adjacent sections give information on the general relations between OTMA and the guards, on Ivan Skorokhodov himself, and speculation/interpretation on the incident by the authors (clearly labeled as such).


Quote

...[in part]...

The "cake" part is found in Hailburton's account,  and on p. 245 King and Wilson added:

>>Further confirmation is found in Yakob Yurovsky's unpublished memoirs.  Yurovsky heard some of the story from Father Ioann Storozhen.

I don't know if the editor of their book did or did not pull something out of that sentence  or added that sentence "Apparently he pulled her aside, and the pair disappeared" which left the footnote 73 in the wrong place or what.  These errors occur and are out of the control of the authors who will catch the error after the book is published.

You'd have to ask Greg or Penny about this before jumping up and down and shouting  they mislead us.

Of course,  telling us the error here is not wrong   but let's look at this from all angles.

 So,  I am assuming  #73  should have been placed before the sentence  >>Apparently he pulled her aside, and the pair disappeared"

What about the the part about the >>Apparently he pulled her aside, and the pair disappeared"?  Where did it come from?    King and Wilson's  explained  as you continue to read King and Wilson THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS.

p. 245:

>>Aparently he<<  Father Ioann Storozhev >> had somehow learned of the alleged incident, for he commented:  "Before this all, we had never met such refined people.  Of course, one changes one's opinion, knowing what has happened.  It is already a great scandal over the situation.  But we at the Church are read to gorgive, and give a pass to an Imperial soul." #78

#78:
1922 Yurovsky's unplublished memoirs.



....There is what I  call "string" of information and you have to pull on  all of that one string to make sure you are getting all the right information from all the right places.

In this case King and Wilson tell us te string invovled Halburton, Storozhev,  Yurovsky, Rodznsky and Netrebin...

Of course all errors should be discovered.  And, yes,  life would be nice if everything could be perfect.

This is another reason I stress sources.

AGRBear


From what I understand, the footnote was misplaced and should have been before the sentence:

>>Apparently he pulled her aside, and the pair disappeared"<<

The following is on based on all information on the "string" of people I mentioned above which King and Wilson had,  I think.



AGRBear
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Sarushka on March 05, 2006, 05:00:12 PM
Quote
From what I understand, the footnote was misplaced and should have been before the sentence:

>>Apparently he pulled her aside, and the pair disappeared"<<

We dealt with this on the thread you're quoting from, Bear, as well as earlier in this thread. I'm not sure why you think it needs to reappear here (again).  ???
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Sarushka on March 05, 2006, 05:08:58 PM
Quote
I don't have a copy of FOTR (or Speransky). Do they name the specific guards Speransky allegedly interviewed?

Very few names are mentioned:

Mostly, the guards are unidentified (ie. "a guard", "a sentry", "a soldier", "another guard", "a former factory-worker", etc.) which is unfortunate, because a significant amount of the information regarding the Grand Duchesses' contact with the guards is attributed to Speranski. I don't know if the men were unidentified in Speranski, or if King & Wilson simply chose not to name names.

I found the names by searching the 60+ pages of source notes in FOTR for citations of Speranski, then tracking them backward to their quotes in the text itself. It's was tedious process, so I might have missed a note or two -- feel free to add to what I've found.

Quote
HOW could "Sister Agnes" have any useful information about anything going on inside?

It appears that Sister Agnes knew Advayev, and was interviewed regarding his character, rather than the goings-on in the Ipatiev House itself.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: AGRBear on March 05, 2006, 05:48:28 PM
Quote

..[in part]....
Suppositions woven out of whole cloth are laid out portraying Baroness Buxhoeveden as a traitor. This is NOT labelled theory, rather stated as fact.   Sokolov himself says only that he thought her story important but that she avoided coming to him. NO ONE but NO ONE mentioned anything in their depositions at the time. Sokolov went into ad nauseum detail about Soloviev's involvement, but there is NO MENTION of Buxhoeveden's "treason"?. [see Sokolov's Investigation Report] .....

...


THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS p. 506:

>>"It is obvious," Sokolov commented, "that her conscience in regard to that period is not entirely clear."<<

Did Sokolov say this line?

Was this quote only in this book?

Source was  p. 616,  

>>7.  Private information to authors, September 2000.<<

I think  Sokolov seem to have been too one sided in his information.  

AGRBear
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Sarushka on March 05, 2006, 05:55:04 PM
Quote
Source was  p. 616,  

>>7.  Private information to authors, September 2000.<<

Actually, the source note for that quote is #6:
"6. Ian Lilburn to authors, July 2000."
:)
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: AGRBear on March 05, 2006, 06:03:24 PM
Quote
We dealt with this on the thread you're quoting from, Bear, as well as earlier in this thread. I'm not sure why you think it needs to reappear here (again).  ???


Because you wrote this here on this thread:

Quote

...[in part]...
Excerpts and their references from FOTR concerning the incident between Maria Nikolaevna & Ivan Skorokhodov:

(quotations of the source notes appear in red)

  • FOTR pg 244: "On this particular day [June 27] he [Skorokhodov] had smuggled a cake into the Ipatiev House, to celebrate Marie's birthday. Apparently, he pulled her aside, and the pair disappeared."73
    FOTR pg 581: "Ermakov, in Halliburton, Seven League Boots, 128."
...


And since then,  I've talked to Penny.

If I remember correctly, I  believe it should have read:
>> "On this particular day [June 27] he [Skorokhodov] had smuggled a cake into the Ipatiev House, to celebrate Marie's birthday. # 73  Apparently, he pulled her aside, and the pair disappeared."<<

AGRBear


Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Sarushka on March 05, 2006, 06:14:39 PM
Quote
And since then,  I've talked to Penny.

I assume you mean Penny Wilson?

Quote
If I remember correctly, I  believe it should have read:
>> "On this particular day [June 27] he [Skorokhodov] had smuggled a cake into the Ipatiev House, to celebrate Marie's birthday. # 73  Apparently, he pulled her aside, and the pair disappeared."<<

Is this what Penny said?

If so, why didn't you *say so* in the post I quoted? A comment from Penny on this subject is kind of important news, yes?
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: AGRBear on March 05, 2006, 06:18:28 PM
A footnote was placed in a wrong place.  No one caught it until after book was published.

AGRBear
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: AGRBear on March 05, 2006, 06:20:01 PM
Quote
I assume you mean Penny Wilson?

Is this what Penny said?

If so, why didn't you *say so* in the post I quoted? A comment from Penny on this subject is kind of important news, yes?


I just did,  I thought.

See post #414 & #419

AGRBear
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Sarushka on March 05, 2006, 06:24:43 PM
Quote

I just did,  I thought.

Post #414 doesn't mention your contact with Penny at all:
Quote
From what I understand, the footnote was misplaced and should have been before the sentence:  
 
>>Apparently he pulled her aside, and the pair disappeared"<<


Maybe I'm a nitpicker, you didn't actually say it in post #419, either. Your post only implied it. IMO, this is too sticky a topic not to be perfectly clear:
Quote
And since then,  I've talked to Penny.
 
If I remember correctly, I  believe it should have read:
>> "On this particular day [June 27] he [Skorokhodov] had smuggled a cake into the Ipatiev House, to celebrate Marie's birthday. # 73  Apparently, he pulled her aside, and the pair disappeared."<<

Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Forum Admin on March 05, 2006, 06:35:57 PM
Quote

Exactly. Which is why, it seems to me, we need to track down Valentin Speranski's book, La Maison à Destination Speciale. According to FOTR, Speranski visited Ekaterinburg in 1924. Whilst there, he apparently interviewed not only Sister Agnes of the Novotikhvensky Convent, but also several former guards of the Ipatiev House, [snip] In almost every case he's the independent source given by King and Wilson to corroborate their accounts of Avdeev's attitude and behavior towards the IF

Quote
Very few names are mentioned:
  • Nikita Tchernikin (describing Voikov)
  • Abbess Magdalena of Novotikhvinsky Convent (describing Advayev)
  • Sister Agnes (describing Avdayev and Yurovsky)
  • Anatoly Yakimov (describing Advayev)
  • Glafira Stepanova (a friend of Yakimova, in regard to the prisoners' effect on the guards)
  • Father Storozhov (regarding a conversation with Yurovsky after conducting the Romanovs' last liturgy)


It appears that Sister Agnes knew Advayev, and was interviewed regarding his character, rather than the goings-on in the Ipatiev House itself.


So, the only people in Speransky's book who discuss Avdeyev never actually SAW his personal interactions with the Imperial Family. Sister Agnes, the Abbess, and Yakimov. Sister Agnes and the Abbess, we know were never even inside the house, much less physically present to the IF and Avdeyev,  and Yakimov himself said "I don't directly know how Avdeyev behaved himself with the detainees. But I did observe him my self." So, how can Speransky's book shed any genuine light on what REALLY happened in the personal interactions between Avdeyev and the IF?
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Sarushka on March 05, 2006, 06:38:28 PM
Quote

So, the only people in Speransky's book who discuss Avdeyev never actually SAW his personal interactions with the Imperial Family. Sister Agnes and Yakimov. Sister Agnes, we know was never even inside the house and Yakimov himself said "I don't directly know how Avdeyev behaved himself with the detainees. But I did observe him my self." So, how can Speransky's book shed any genuine light on what REALLY happened in the personal interactions between Avdeyev and the IF?

You're right -- Speransky can't tell us anything about the *inside* of the Ipatiev House. His information seems to be only on the character of Avdayev and Yurovsky, forcing us to infer what we will about their conduct with their prisoners.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Forum Admin on March 05, 2006, 06:47:29 PM
Quote
You're right -- Speransky can't tell us anything about the *inside* of the Ipatiev House. His information seems to be only on the character of Avdayev and Yurovsky, forcing us to infer what we will about their conduct with their prisoners.

Then, what genuine value is this as an accurate assessment of how Avdeyev actually treated the Imperial Family? Yakimov was certain that he was a cruel anti-Monarchist. What does it mean the Avdayev was obviously well behaved toward Nuns? Does FOTR make it clear that these are again simply suppositions and speculations based on evidence by those who were never actually physically present? At least Tchemoderov was really there, even if only for a few days.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Sarushka on March 05, 2006, 06:51:35 PM
Quote
Thank you for quoting this in context. FOTR is at pains to point out that in Yakimov's full testimony, all first-hand incidences of Avdeyev's disrespectful language were made behind closed doors in reference to the prisoners, but never to the Romanovs' faces. It appears that Avdayev put on a tough-guy act among the guard, but was fairly decent in his treatment of the prisoners themselves.


After getting persnickety with Bear, I ought to clairify the above post of my own:
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Sarushka on March 05, 2006, 07:01:06 PM
Quote
Does FOTR make it clear that these are again simply suppositions and speculations based on evidence by those who were never actually physically present?

I don't think FOTR goes out of its way to point that out, but the information is there for a critical reader to put together. Sister Agnes's recollections are clearly presented as her own opinions, and she does not comment at all on how Avdayev might have conducted himself with the Romanovs.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Belochka on March 05, 2006, 10:13:13 PM
Quote
Arleen, please. There are blatant mistakes within the book. I think out of respect for the IF and their memory these mistakes should be addressed and corrected where possible. It's only fair. Do you think it's fair that Marias' reputation has been tarnished??


I concur with you Eddieboy_uk.

Except that it is not just Grand Duchess' eternal memory that was blackened in this publication, but the entire Imperial Family.

These are the words tendered by the authors @ p 246:

"Nor can the incident be dismissed as clumsy Bolshevik propagand designed to tarnish the reputation of the imperial family. Rumors of the flirtations betwen the grand duchesses and their guards have always been contoversial ..."

Note the use of the words "grand duchesses" ...

But where exactly was that controversy if:

"Yet if there was the intent of these stories, surely the allegations would have been made in the Soviet press ... instead the memoirs of Rodzinsky, Yurovsky and Netrebin remained hidden, with the last two never published." (p 246)

All that can be said here is that these authors have no intimate understanding how soviet politics and their media operated. The murder of the Imperial Family, how it was accomplished, and by whom, was NOT open to public discussion in the media or within the classroom for decades. Exactly as the authors have themselves asserted.

Who is it that weave that web of controversy I wonder?
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Belochka on March 05, 2006, 11:31:15 PM
Quote
Except that it is not just Grand Duchess' eternal memory that was blackened in this publication, but the entire Imperial Family.


It is very apparent that the authors have attempted to offer a different fate to the Romanov Family than that which we have accepted it to be.

@ p 528 they state:

1. "The inadequacies of Alexander III and Marie Fedorovna ..."

2. ".... have been washed away in lovingly painted portraits of a happy family."

3. "The marked immaturity and bad behavior of the tsesarevich fall away when compared to his horrible pain and suffering."

4. "The sad and thwarted lives of the four grand duchesses ... disappear in the haze of the revolver smoke."

5. "The resonance of the ultimate fate ... has stripped them of their humanity, shrouded them in mystical mantles, and washed from their faces that now adorn icons any trace of reality."

6. "Perversely, in death, the once despised emperor and his family have become all things to all people, embodying romance, sentiment, nostalgia, national pride, religion, and myth. This is the true fate of the Romanovs."

What may one ask is the authors' "thing"?

Perhaps their answer may be found in their words on the previous page (@ 527):

"Nicholas the inept ruler, the weak-willed husband, the brutal authoritarian dictator who ruthlessly crushed the 1905 Revolution, the virulent anto-semite, the passive observer of his empire's martydom  - all of these historic truths have been subsumed by the romantic nostalgia ... "

AND

"The Ekaterinburg massacre transformed Nicholas II and his family into powerful symbols, evoked to this day by elements ... the remnants of the Russian Communist Party to rabid monarchists and the Orthodox faithful in an eighty-five-year-old propaganda war[/u]."

AND

"As a result, rumor replaced fact, legend becomes enshrined as truth, and those involved in the final drama of the Romanovs are subsumed in a polarized mythology carefully crafted according to varied agends."

With these considerations the authors have clearly identified which path they prefered to take.

Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Elisabeth on March 06, 2006, 08:17:36 AM
Quote
So, how can Speransky's book shed any genuine light on what REALLY happened in the personal interactions between Avdeyev and the IF?


Well, I for one would like to know if it's true that, as Sister Agnes told Speranski, Avdeev pleaded for the IF's lives to the Ural Regional Soviet. This is the story as it appears in FOTR, p. 251, footnoted to Speranski, 135-9:

Word of this resolution [to kill the Romanovs] somehow got back to Avdayev, who stormed into the Hotel Amerika and, according to Sister Agnes from the Novotikhvensky Convent, "raised an outcry, created a scandal, stomped his foot, when he learned about plans to murder them." For several hours the commandant "courageously defended the interests of the poor prisoners to his superiors," but to no avail.

If Sister Agnes was telling the truth, then this sheds a great deal of light on Avdeev's feelings towards his prisoners. To my mind, it would certainly constitute important new information.
 
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Forum Admin on March 06, 2006, 09:21:31 AM
Quote
This is the story as it appears in FOTR, p. 251, footnoted to Speranski, 135-9:

Word of this resolution [to kill the Romanovs] somehow got back to Avdayev, who stormed into the Hotel Amerika and, according to Sister Agnes from the Novotikhvensky Convent, "raised an outcry, created a scandal, stomped his foot, when he learned about plans to murder them." For several hours the commandant "courageously defended the interests of the poor prisoners to his superiors," but to no avail.
  

Medvedev/"Kudrin" specifically recalls the details of this meeting of the Ural Regional Soviet at the Hotel America. He details most of the people there. Avdeyev is not named. As a member of the Ekaterinburg Cheka, he certainly would have known Avdeyev.  

"Having discussed all the circumstances, we decided to strike two blows that night (small snip) and to liquidate the royal family of Romanovs.
Yakov Yurovsky proposes having mercy on the boy.
'What a boy? The heir? I am against it" I retort.
'No, Mikhail, we must take away the kitchen boy Lyonya Sednev. Why must he be killed? He only played with Alexei'
'And what about the other servants?..."
'From the very beginning,we proposed they leave the Romanovs. Some of them went away and the others said they wished to share the monarch's fate. Let them share it...'
It was resolved to share the life of Lyonya Sednev only. [they then discuss who will participate in the murders]
The session ended. "

I find it very odd that Kudrin goes into huge detail about everything in the meeting, but somehow omits Avdeyev's "making a scene, stomping his foot and going on for hours pleading to save their lives".  

Further, he states that the meeting started in the evening, and was ended well before midnight. The timing seems awfully short for Avdeyev "going on for hours"...more especially so since there is no corroborative evidence that he was EVEN THERE.

Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: AGRBear on March 06, 2006, 10:24:21 AM
Quote

....[in part]...
Bear, please let go of your honeypot. The flow is not adding to this discussion.

...


So very very sorry because it seems that  my honey evidently must have gotten into your eyes and you couldn't read my posts with  any kind of accuracy.  Please, do go back and read them and you'll see the importance of what I wrote.
------

Quote

After getting persnickety with Bear, I ought to clairify the above post of my own:
  • There is no evidence of Avdayev using disrespectful language directly to the Romanovs.
  • Yakimov *did* hear Avdayev being disrespectful behind closed doors
  • Yakimov did not hear Avdayev speaking rudely to the Romanovs because he did not ever witness Avdayev speaking to the Romanovs in *any* way -- respectful or otherwise.


Being "persnickety" is often necessary to make sure posts are not being misinterupted  and so they do often times need clarification, so, please,  I don't mind posting a clarification.  Thanks for asking.

As to Avdayev,  I find him an important character in the lives of Nicholas II and the others.  If an escape could have been made, it should have occured under his watch.  The question is,  was he lossening the grip for a reason or was he just a drunk just as  the CHEKA, Ural Soviets and Moscow Soviets later made him out to be?

Added to all of this:  Was Avdayev at the meeting at the Hotel America?  Or was he not? After we've looked at the various testimonies,  who can we believe and who should we not believe?

AGRBear

Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: AGRBear on March 06, 2006, 11:02:30 AM
Quote
Medvedev/"Kudrin" specifically recalls the details of this meeting of the Ural Regional Soviet at the Hotel America. He details most of the people there. Avdeyev is not named. As a member of the Ekaterinburg Cheka, he certainly would have known Avdeyev.  

"Having discussed all the circumstances, we decided to strike two blows that night (small snip) and to liquidate the royal family of Romanovs.
Yakov Yurovsky proposes having mercy on the boy.
'What a boy? The heir? I am against it" I retort.
'No, Mikhail, we must take away the kitchen boy Lyonya Sednev. Why must he be killed? He only played with Alexei'
'And what about the other servants?..."
'From the very beginning,we proposed they leave the Romanovs. Some of them went away and the others said they wished to share the monarch's fate. Let them share it...'
It was resolved to share the life of Lyonya Sednev only. [they then discuss who will participate in the murders]
The session ended. "

I find it very odd that Kudrin goes into huge detail about everything in the meeting, but somehow omits Avdeyev's "making a scene, stomping his foot and going on for hours pleading to save their lives".  

Further, he states that the meeting started in the evening, and was ended well before midnight. The timing seems awfully short for Avdeyev "going on for hours"...more especially so since there is no corroborative evidence that he was EVEN THERE.




I have been to meeting and a person starts to talk and I loose interest and even though the person may have talked fifteen minutes, it seemed like hours and hours.  

I would say, probably,   this person, who had told Sister Agnes from the Novotikhvensky Convent the story,   must have   felt like Avdeyev's scene went on for hours when in real time it had not.

So, who was it who had told Sister Agnes that this scene occured?   Evidently, whomever he/she was,  she believed him/her.

AGRBear
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Elisabeth on March 06, 2006, 11:16:53 AM
Quote
Medvedev/"Kudrin" specifically recalls the details of this meeting of the Ural Regional Soviet at the Hotel America. He details most of the people there. Avdeyev is not named. As a member of the Ekaterinburg Cheka, he certainly would have known Avdeyev.  

"Having discussed all the circumstances, we decided to strike two blows that night (small snip) and to liquidate the royal family of Romanovs.
Yakov Yurovsky proposes having mercy on the boy.
'What a boy? The heir? I am against it" I retort.
'No, Mikhail, we must take away the kitchen boy Lyonya Sednev. Why must he be killed? He only played with Alexei'
'And what about the other servants?..."
'From the very beginning,we proposed they leave the Romanovs. Some of them went away and the others said they wished to share the monarch's fate. Let them share it...'
It was resolved to share the life of Lyonya Sednev only. [they then discuss who will participate in the murders]
The session ended. "

I find it very odd that Kudrin goes into huge detail about everything in the meeting, but somehow omits Avdeyev's "making a scene, stomping his foot and going on for hours pleading to save their lives".  

Further, he states that the meeting started in the evening, and was ended well before midnight. The timing seems awfully short for Avdeyev "going on for hours"...more especially so since there is no corroborative evidence that he was EVEN THERE.



To be fair to King and Wilson, they aren't claiming that Avdeev was present at the meeting when the resolution was passed. It's clear in FOTR that he was not even invited to this meeting: "somehow word of the resolution got back to Avdeev," and it was only at that unspecified point in time (the next day, the day after that?) that he went over to the Hotel Amerika and protested.
 
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: AGRBear on March 06, 2006, 11:57:18 AM
Quote

Well, I for one would like to know if it's true that, as Sister Agnes told Speranski, Avdeev pleaded for the IF's lives to the Ural Regional Soviet. This is the story as it appears in FOTR, p. 251, footnoted to Speranski, 135-9:

Word of this resolution [to kill the Romanovs] somehow got back to Avdayev, who stormed into the Hotel Amerika and, according to Sister Agnes from the Novotikhvensky Convent, "raised an outcry, created a scandal, stomped his foot, when he learned about plans to murder them." For several hours the commandant "courageously defended the interests of the poor prisoners to his superiors," but to no avail.

If Sister Agnes was telling the truth, then this sheds a great deal of light on Avdeev's feelings towards his prisoners. To my mind, it would certainly constitute important new information.
  


Quote

...[in part]
Medvedev/"Kudrin" specifically recalls the details of this meeting of the Ural Regional Soviet at the Hotel America. He details most of the people there. Avdeyev is not named. As a member of the Ekaterinburg Cheka, he certainly would have known Avdeyev.  



...


Quote

To be fair to King and Wilson, they aren't claiming that Avdeev was present at the meeting when the resolution was passed. It's clear in FOTR that he was not even invited to this meeting: "somehow word of the resolution got back to Avdeev," and it was only at that unspecified point in time (the next day, the day after that?) that he went over to the Hotel Amerika and protested.
  


Thanks Elisabeth and FA.

AGRBear
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Forum Admin on March 06, 2006, 01:42:22 PM
Quote

To be fair to King and Wilson, they aren't claiming that Avdeev was present at the meeting when the resolution was passed. It's clear in FOTR that he was not even invited to this meeting: "somehow word of the resolution got back to Avdeev," and it was only at that unspecified point in time (the next day, the day after that?) that he went over to the Hotel Amerika and protested.
  

Elisabeth, this suggestion makes no sense either. You see, the Imperial Family et al were murdered just after 3am that same night, only hours after this meeting ended.

Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Elisabeth on March 06, 2006, 02:59:30 PM
Quote
Elisabeth, this suggestion makes no sense either. You see, the Imperial Family et al were murdered just after 3am that same night, only hours after this meeting ended.


We're referring to different meetings. I'm talking about the one held on Saturday, June 16/29, 1918, at which the Presidium of the Ural Regional Soviet and the Ekaterinburg Cheka passed a resolution to "liquidate" the Romanovs "no later than July 15." It was also decided to kill the Alapaievsk prisoners. Goloshchekin left for Moscow the following day, June 30, with a copy of the resolution, in order to get Lenin's formal approval of it.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: AGRBear on March 07, 2006, 01:44:42 PM
Quote

We're referring to different meetings. I'm talking about the one held on Saturday, June 16/29, 1918, at which the Presidium of the Ural Regional Soviet and the Ekaterinburg Cheka passed a resolution to "liquidate" the Romanovs "no later than July 15." It was also decided to kill the Alapaievsk prisoners. Goloshchekin left for Moscow the following day, June 30, with a copy of the resolution, in order to get Lenin's formal approval of it.


Elisabeth,

Do you have a source for this meeting of 16/29 June 1918  and a source which tells us that Goloshchekin went to Moscow to get "Lenin's formal approval"?

AGRBear
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: rjt on March 08, 2006, 12:38:54 AM
I find it interesting, Belochka, that the quotes you have here presented as arguments to support your cause wind up, in fact, subverting it. As you went through the time to parse it out, so shall I.
Quote

]It is very apparent that the authors have attempted to offer a different fate to the Romanov Family than that which we have accepted it to be.

@ p 528 they state:

1. "The inadequacies of Alexander III and Marie Fedorovna ..."

The greatest inadequacy of Alexander III was his utter failure to train his son and Heir to become Emperor. Nicholas himself, from everything I've read, knew he was ill-equipped to assume that huge role. The entire tragic end of the Dynasty and the decades-long Soviet holocaust may have been prevented had Alexander simply been astute enough to provide his son the confidence, intelligence and astuteness borne of training.

Quote
2. ".... have been washed away in lovingly painted portraits of a happy family."

Take a look around this board. How many threads and posts are dedicated to the family life of the Emperor? We see thread after thread comparing smiles and tennis rackets and myriad other familial inconsequences. And yet, when someone (bravely) attempts to discuss the political realities of Nicholas II's reign, the discussion becomes heated and the "he was a good, religious family man with an ill son!" card gets played time and time again as a way to rationalize or justify the Emperor's actions and those of his regime.

Quote
3. "The marked immaturity and bad behavior of the tsesarevich fall away when compared to his horrible pain and suffering."

The boy was murdered at thirteen, for goodness sake. Of course he was immature. However, post after post here is dedicated to the horrors of his disease (and they were real and horrific). When his "bad behavior" was mentioned here months ago (or perhaps years, I can't remember), many members cast up their voices in denouncing the very possibility of such episodes because he had suffered so very much, how could he possibly wish for others to suffer. It is precisely because of his own pain, psychologically speaking, that he may have wished to inflict some on others from time to time. It is a very human thing to do. And let us not forget that none of us are nice and well-behaved 100 percent of the time.

Quote
4. "The sad and thwarted lives of the four grand duchesses ... disappear in the haze of the revolver smoke."

How has X affected your life? Have you seen that thread? The simple truth is she could not possibly have affected your life, yet testimonials rise like floodwaters. Their lives were sadly thwarted. The captivating thing about these young women is their glamourous lives and tragic deaths. Because of the astonishing brutality of their deaths, though, any truly human traits they may have exhibited or possessed are routinely downplayed or denied by legions of ardent fans who wish to cling to the saintly aura that surrounds these very real, very flawed, very human young women.

Quote
5. "The resonance of the ultimate fate ... has stripped them of their humanity, shrouded them in mystical mantles, and washed from their faces that now adorn icons any trace of reality."

See above, but also truly think about this from a detached perspective. I find them much more interesting as 3-dimensional human beings than as 1-dimensional saintly caricatures.

Quote
6. "Perversely, in death, the once despised emperor and his family have become all things to all people, embodying romance, sentiment, nostalgia, national pride, religion, and myth. This is the true fate of the Romanovs."

This may simply be the most brilliant comment I read in that book. It is undeniably true. The "things" you questioned in your original post, by the way, are those items listed after the word "people."

Quote
Perhaps their answer may be found in their words on the previous page (@ 527):

"Nicholas the inept ruler, the weak-willed husband, the brutal authoritarian dictator who ruthlessly crushed the 1905 Revolution, the virulent anto-semite, the passive observer of his empire's martydom  - all of these historic truths have been subsumed by the romantic nostalgia ... "

AND

"The Ekaterinburg massacre transformed Nicholas II and his family into powerful symbols, evoked to this day by elements ... the remnants of the Russian Communist Party to rabid monarchists and the Orthodox faithful in an eighty-five-year-old propaganda war[/u]."

AND

"As a result, rumor replaced fact, legend becomes enshrined as truth, and those involved in the final drama of the Romanovs are subsumed in a polarized mythology carefully crafted according to varied agends."

Once again, the very excerpts you provide do nothing but bolster the authors' position. You can argue the remainder of the book (the uncomfortable information provided, the verascity of the sources, etc.) all you want, but these that you have chosen are undeniable.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Belochka on March 08, 2006, 03:11:36 AM
Quote
I find it interesting, Belochka, that the quotes you have here presented as arguments to support your cause wind up, in fact, subverting it. ....
... the very excerpts you provide do nothing but bolster the authors' position. You can argue the remainder of the book (the uncomfortable information provided, the verascity of the sources, etc.) all you want, but these that you have chosen are undeniable.


Obviously your interpretation of the published words from the last two pages of FOTR are very different to my own interpretation.

Many of the words selectively employed by the authors are indeed very deniable.

Just to review a few examples ...

1. Nikolai II was not a "brutal authoritarian dictator" who was accused by the authors, of "ruthlessly" crushing the so called 1905 revoution (which by the ways was never a revolution) but an illegal gathering in a public place which compromised national security. As a leader, it was his sovereign right, through his representatives, to quell any perceived civil disturbance.

Are you suggesting that Nikolai should have allowed the disturbance to envelop the city because it had revolutionary overtones?

2. Nikolai cannot be described as a "passive observer of his empire's martydom" The connection postulated by the authors is nonsense.

3. Nikolai was not a "virulent" anti-semite. This is an unfair gross magnification of the facts.

Yet to suggest just these three identified "historic truths"  are actually "truths", only accords with their perception of Imperial events. Their actuality is difficult to prove. There will always be subtle nuances that will prevent the honesty of any "historic truth" to be ever evaluated with fairness and sincerity of mind.

Similarily, the authors' suggestion that the alleged "historic truths":

1. "... have been subsumed by the romantic nostalgia ... "

AND,  that "the Ekaterinburg massacre transformed Nicholas and his family as "symbols" evoked by "elements" such as:

2. "... rabid monarchists and the Orthodox faithful in an eighty-five-year-old propaganda war."

clearly indicates the authors' position from where to make their observations. The texture of the above two quoted inferences is particularily insulting.

It may be suggested that it is the authors themselves who were involved with their creative stream of literary characterizations that defined the "final drama of the Romanovs" with their "carefully crafted" agenda, not based entirely on "historic truth".   






Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Belochka on March 08, 2006, 03:39:58 AM
Quote


6. "Perversely, in death, the once despised emperor and his family have become all things to all people, embodying romance, sentiment, nostalgia, national pride, religion, and myth. This is the true fate of the Romanovs."

What may one ask is the authors' "thing"?


Should actually read:

Which may one ask is the authors' "thing"?    
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Elisabeth on March 08, 2006, 08:32:57 AM
Quote

Elisabeth,

Do you have a source for this meeting of 16/29 June 1918  and a source which tells us that Goloshchekin went to Moscow to get "Lenin's formal approval"?

AGRBear


The source is FOTR, p. 250. Sister Agnes' account of Avdeev's reaction to the decision to kill the Romanovs is on p. 251. Robert K. Massie also refers briefly to the Ural Regional Soviet's decision on p. 489 of Nicholas and Alexandra (although he does not give a date for the meeting); afterwards "they sent Goloshchekin to Moscow to learn the attitude of the central government."  
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Forum Admin on March 08, 2006, 09:46:58 AM
We do know, Bear, that Goloshchyokin went to see Sverdlov in Moscow asking permission to murder the IF. Sverdlov refused the permission saying that Lenin wanted to specifically make a show trial in Moscow. I have this in "Last Act of a Tragedy" in Medvedev/Kudrin's statement. That is when the second meeting took place in which the Ural Regional Soviet decided to kill them anyway.  There is still no corroborative evidence that Avdeyev opposed the first meeting in any other statements I can find.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Elisabeth on March 08, 2006, 10:02:58 AM
Quote
It may be suggested that it is the authors themselves who were involved with their creative stream of literary characterizations that defined the "final drama of the Romanovs" with their "carefully crafted" agenda, not based entirely on "historic truth".


Belochka, I don’t think that King and Wilson have a set political agenda in FOTR. I think their "agenda," such as it is, is merely to cause a sensation by making as many claims contrary to the established views of the IF and their fate as possible. Time and again the authors go out of their way to "correct" the historical interpretations of previous scholars (many of them, unlike themselves, professionals). Indeed, many readers might conclude from their generally negative view of the Romanovs and their generally sympathetic portrayal of the Bolsheviks (especially the soldiers guarding the family in the Ipatiev House) that the authors have unwittingly revealed their own political orientation. But I think this is an error. If King and Wilson were really anti-Romanov and pro-Bolshevik, they wouldn’t have accused the Red Guards who accompanied the children from Tobolsk to Ekaterinburg of sexually harassing the grand duchesses on board the Rus, a claim which has been utterly disproven by the FA and others here in this forum. So why did they make this outrageous claim in the first place? IMO, because they wanted first and foremost to be original and sensational, even if it meant bending the truth a little. It’s the same with reporters who have a "scoop" and can’t hold back from publishing it, even though the evidence they’re relying on is obviously faulty. They may know very well the evidence is faulty; or they may simply convince themselves that it is not, such is their overriding excitement with what they have "discovered" – but whatever their reasoning, they’re indulging in bad reporting, or, as in this case, in bad scholarship.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: AGRBear on March 08, 2006, 10:07:34 AM
Quote
We do know, Bear, that Goloshchyokin went to see Sverdlov in Moscow asking permission to murder the IF. Sverdlov refused the permission saying that Lenin wanted to specifically make a show trial in Moscow. I have this in "Last Act of a Tragedy" in Medvedev/Kudrin's statement. That is when the second meeting took place in which the Ural Regional Soviet decided to kill them anyway.  There is still no corroborative evidence that Avdeyev opposed the first meeting in any other statements I can find.


So, it is Kudrin who tells us that Goloshchyokin told him that Sverdlov refused permission to murder the IF.

Did Goloshchyokin or anyone else involved tell us this in any kind of testimony or telegram or _____?

By the way,  I find rjt's and  Belochka's interpretation of the same words interesting.  I can agree with both and I can disagree with both.  It all depends upon where the shadows fall, doesn't it?  "We read the past by the light of the present, and the forms vary as the shadows fall, or as the point of vision alters." J. A. Froude: Short studies on Great Subects.  

AGRBear  
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 08, 2006, 10:18:31 AM
Quote
I think their "agenda," such as it is, is merely to cause a sensation by making as many claims contrary to the established views of the IF and their fate as possible. Time and again the authors go out of their way to "correct" the historical interpretations of previous scholars (many of them, unlike themselves, professionals). ...IMO, because they wanted first and foremost to be original and sensational, even if it meant bending the truth a little. It’s the same with reporters who have a "scoop" and can’t hold back from publishing it, even though the evidence they’re relying on is obviously faulty. They may know very well the evidence is faulty; or they may simply convince themselves that it is not, such is their overriding excitement with what they have "discovered" – but whatever their reasoning, they’re indulging in bad reporting, or, as in this case, in bad scholarship.


Elisabeth, I very much agree with your assessment, and I have also said something to this affect more than once in the past, referring to things other than those in FOTR,  things that were posted here (or otherwise stated) by the same authors. This seems to be a pattern...
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Forum Admin on March 08, 2006, 03:36:14 PM
Quote

So, it is Kudrin who tells us that Goloshchyokin told him that Sverdlov refused permission to murder the IF.

Did Goloshchyokin or anyone else involved tell us this in any kind of testimony or telegram or _____?

AGRBear  


Kudrin says that G. announced this to the entire meeting, and actually said that it was Lenin who refused permission, through Sverdlov. There seems to be no telegram or deposition existing that anyone has yet found confirming the discussion. The only thing we know for sure is that G. WENT to Moscow, and met with Sverdlov. Of course, why would Kudrin bother to make up the detail about G. reporting Sverdlov's discussion and Lenin's exact words about wanting a public show trial of Nicholas?

Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Elisabeth on March 08, 2006, 04:14:09 PM
Quote
Kudrin says that G. announced this to the entire meeting, and actually said that it was Lenin who refused permission, through Sverdlov. There seems to be no telegram or deposition existing that anyone has yet found confirming the discussion. The only thing we know for sure is that G. WENT to Moscow, and met with Sverdlov. Of course, why would Kudrin bother to make up the detail about G. reporting Sverdlov's discussion and Lenin's exact words about wanting a public show trial of Nicholas?


The problem I have with Kudrin's testimony is that it was given in 1963, many decades after the event, and yet he quotes Lenin's supposedly exact words to Sverdlov at great length. And even if the gist of what Kudrin reported is true, that still doesn't mean that Moscow didn't approve a "contingency plan" to kill the former tsar and his family if Ekaterinburg couldn't be held. Professor Mark Steinberg is a leading expert on the Romanovs and he concludes in his book that this possibility cannot be ruled out:

"There is some indication that a contingency plan was discussed [with Lenin and Sverdlov]. Yurovsky stated that while Goloshchekin was in Moscow in early July 'the center' decided 'what to do if abandoning Ekaterinburg became unavoidable' - implying that this was a decision in favor of executing the former tsar... Yurovsky's assistant, Grigory Nikulin, also later claimed that Sverdlov had told Goloshchekin, 'If you can organize a trial, then organize it, but if not, well, you know what that means'" (Steinberg and Khrustalev, The Fall of the Romanovs, pp. 290-91).

Steinberg describes this and other evidence for Moscow's involvement as "ambiguous and contradictory" (p. 292). He further states that "any author - including myself - who concludes that the truth can be stated with certainty, is overconfident in his or her omniscience or overzealous in the desire to tell a good story. Every answer to the question of who gave the order - and indeed, a good many questions about the Romanovs' final days - is based on a fair measure of deduction and imaginative speculation" (my emphasis, p. 294).

By this definition, King and Wilson are being either "overconfident" or "overzealous" in asserting that the Ural Regional Soviet executed the Romanovs solely on their own authority.  
 
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Belochka on March 09, 2006, 12:31:19 AM
Quote
Belochka, I don’t think that King and Wilson have a set political agenda in FOTR. ... Indeed, many readers might conclude from their generally negative view of the Romanovs and their generally sympathetic portrayal of the Bolsheviks (especially the soldiers guarding the family in the Ipatiev House) that the authors have unwittingly revealed their own political orientation. But I think this is an error.


Might not there be a number of different agenda that were multilayered, to effect a common focal point of their displeasure against the Imperial regime? The authors by their conclusive remarks, attempted to discredit Emperor Nikolai II, and the Imperial government as their primary goal.

Please examine these few extracted expressions -

"If not the bloodthirsty tyrants used to invoke the country to discontent ..." (p 526)

"... nor were they paragons of all moral virtue." (p 526)

"inept" (p 526, p 527)

"naive "(p 526)

"clinging desperately to an archaic and inept religious autocracy" (p 526)

"... that swathed him in mysticism and allowed him to plead his conscience." (p 526)

"came to the imperial throne with a self-fulfilling sense of impending doom[/u] "(p 526)

"lacking the necessary vision or strength of will" (p 526)

" ... the last emperor of Russia played a game of captive rule, unwilling and unable to break free of the ponderous weight of the rotting dynasty." (p 526)

"... he inflicted his personal weakness on an entire empire ... " (p 527)

"... the weak-willed husband... " (p 527)

"... the brutal and authoritarian dictatator"

"... who ruthlesslessly crushed the 1905 Reveloution ..." (p 527)

"... "the virulent anti-semite..." (p 527)

"... the passive observer of his empire's martydom ..." (p 527)

"As shortsighted as he could be ..." (p 527)

"... was at the very least cunning ..." (p 528)

"... nor was he shy to use his family ..." (p 528)

Clearly these expressions that were offered in the last 3 pages of FOTR serve to portray Nikolai II in the worst possible terms. They certainly do not lend a sympathetic view. Thus, it might not be unreasonable to suggest that the authors intentions were very much political.

Quote
I think their "agenda," such as it is, is merely to cause a sensation by making as many claims contrary to the established views of the IF and their fate as possible.


I do agree with this statement, which IMHO forms part of a complexity of interweaving "agenda".

Quote
If King and Wilson were really anti-Romanov and pro-Bolshevik, they wouldn’t have accused the Red Guards who accompanied the children from Tobolsk to Ekaterinburg of sexually harassing the grand duchesses on board the Rus, a claim which has been utterly disproven by the FA and others here in this forum.

So why did they make this outrageous claim in the first place? IMO, because they wanted first and foremost to be original and sensational, even if it meant bending the truth a little.


Excellent point Elizabeth. That alleged event, was however approached by using negative referencing, that was intended to project that this alleged behavioral impropriety could bear the remnants of plausibility.

With considerable effort the authors chose to provide excerpts from very selective references that included:

"... she suffered reprimands, ... accompanied by ...
severe and angry whispers indicating she was too friendly with members of the guard
." (p 238 - Speranski, a sentry),

"... the girls whispered flirtatiously with us." (Strekotin, sentry),

"... she spent most of her time flirting with them." (p 241, Yurovsky, bolshevik))

"... Maria mixed easily  with her jailers, flirting at every available opporunity." (p 241 Bykov, bolshevik)

One can only ask why would the authors chose to discredit the memory of Grand Duchess Mariya, (as one example) in the first place? Certainly the gleaned bolshevik accounts provide sensationalistic authorship, BUT it goes beyond that - it serves as a political motive to discredit the Imperial regime as the authors' central core of discontent.

Quote
... – but whatever their reasoning, they’re indulging in bad reporting, or, as in this case, in bad scholarship.


The need to portray the various members of the Imperial Family with profound negativity, by the clever use of tangential inferences, spiced with colorful expressions demonstrated their mutual belief that the Imperial Crown was "a rotting dynasty" that served to entrench their ultimate agenda.

Setting such a political scenario in place, they were then enabled to use unsubstantiated sensationalism to fit their multifaceted agenda.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Phil_tomaselli on March 09, 2006, 08:04:25 AM
Cutting through all the cant about the family virtues and allegations that there is some kind of "plot" to discredit Nicholas here is a direct quote from a senior British consular official (which I've lifted from the Rasputin thread) giving a contemporary picture of Russia attitudes to the Tsar in early 1917:

"As regards the future, the Ambassador's telegrams will have show what the feeling in the country is.  For my own part, I never hear anyone say a good word for either the Emperor or Empress, and their assassination is quite openly discussed by persons in responsible positions."

Phil Tomaselli
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: AGRBear on March 09, 2006, 01:48:11 PM
Greg and I had this discussion on one of these threads.  I disagreed with him and most historians because I think the order to executed the IF and the others came straight from Lenin.

Like others,  Greg couldn't find any kind of paper trail such as telegrams, etc. etc..  But,  I asked him, just as I have asked others, why was there a need of any kind of paper trail when people like Goloshchokin was in Moscow speaking privately to the top officals of the Moscow Soviets.  Then there was Gen. Berzin who would send word to the Ural Soviets about the timing of their retreat which some believe was the signal to execute Nicholas II....  There was the other Berzin of Perm who was also in Moscow in July....  The third Berzin who was also,  in Moscow and  was a double agent, was  discovering a plot to assinate Lenin by the British with Letts hired by Sidney Reilly....  There was the assasination of the German Marbach who had been part of a plot to rescue Nicholas II on / about 16 July.....

There was a lot going on in July.

Elizabeth:  >> By this definition, King and Wilson are being either "overconfident" or "overzealous" in asserting that the Ural Regional Soviet executed the Romanovs solely on their own authority. <<

I have to disagree.  I think,  Greg and Penny were merely agreeing with most historians who believe Lenin had nothing to do with the execution of Nicholas II,  so Greg and Penny were neither "overconfident"  nor "overzealous".   I should add here that they didn't just go by what they had read, they dug into the sources and came up with the same conclusion. They had no new evidence to use which would allow them to disagree.  Let me track down what he wrote me when I asked him this question on another thread.  Hopefully,  I can find it.

I did, and here is just one of his replies in the Section of Russian Revolution under my thread called Turth or Fiction in History Books  1912-1938:

Quote

AGRBear:

I have no problem discussing this.  Akimov's original statement is much less direct, and not at all the "hard evidence" that Radzinsky makes it out to be.  Akimov simply states that in "the summer of 1918" he carried the cable to the office in Moscow that "confirmed the decision" to execute the Romanovs.  There is absolutely no hint AT ALL, as Radzinsky intimates, that this was prior to the murders.  In fact, we know of 1 cable and 1 cable only sent from Moscow to Ekaterinburg between July 12 and July 18-the cable from Sverdlov that indeed "confirmed" the decision of the Ural Regional Soviet to execute them.  This was an after-the-fact official rubber stamp on the Ural Regional Soviet's actions by Moscow and the Soviet VTsIK.  We simply went by what the evidence above lays out:

1.  Akimov sent a cable in "summer of 1918" "confirming the decision of the Ural Regional Soviet" to execute the Romanovs.  Note that nowhere in his memoirs does Akimov state that this was a cable that ordered the execution.  The use of the word "confirmed" clearly indicates, in this context, that the cable came AFTER the Ural Regional Soviet had already reached their decision.
2.  Since we know of only 1 cable sent by Moscow to Ekaterinburg (please see "Fate of the Romanovs," pages 291-93, and pages 335-39) during these days-the cable of July 18 in which the Soviet VTsIK in Moscow "confirmed" the decision of the Ural Regional Soviet to execute the Romanovs (a cable that came after the murders), we believe this is clearly the cable of which Akimov speaks.

Again, simply going by the evidence, for us at least it is apparent that the cables are one and the same.

Greg King


I'd forgotten about some of the stuff we had talked about and I'm headed back to reread some of it.  Join me.  I think this is where this kind of coveration should be taking place.

AGRBear

Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Elisabeth on March 09, 2006, 02:23:48 PM
Quote
Elizabeth:  >> By this definition, King and Wilson are being either "overconfident" or "overzealous" in asserting that the Ural Regional Soviet executed the Romanovs solely on their own authority. <<

I have to disagree.  I think,  Greg and Penny were merely agreeing with most historians who believe Lenin had nothing to do with the execution of Nicholas II,  so Greg and Penny were neither "overconfident"  nor "overzealous".   I should add here that they didn't just go by what they had read, they dug into the sources and came up with the same conclusion. They had no new evidence to use which would allow them to disagree.


This is simply false, AGR Bear. According to King and Wilson themselves, in FOTR, p. 283, most historians are in agreement that the Moscow leadership actually did have a hand in the murders at Ekaterinburg. Not only non-academics like Robert K. Massie and Edvard Radzinsky are on the record in saying that Lenin ordered the executions, but also academics specializing in the history of the Russian Revolution like Richard Pipes and Orlando Figes. Even Mark Steinberg believes that Lenin might have ordered the deaths of Nicholas and his family.

It is King and Wilson who are alone in declaring that the Ural Regional Soviet was acting solely on its own authority in killing the former tsar and his family. King and Wilson even go so far as to accuse professional historians like Pipes and Figes of having a "simplistic reading" of this episode in Russian history! How's that for unmitigated nerve?
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: AGRBear on March 09, 2006, 02:37:08 PM
Quote
Cutting through all the cant about the family virtues and allegations that there is some kind of "plot" to discredit Nicholas here is a direct quote from a senior British consular official (which I've lifted from the Rasputin thread) giving a contemporary picture of Russia attitudes to the Tsar in early 1917:

"As regards the future, the Ambassador's telegrams will have show what the feeling in the country is.  For my own part, I never hear anyone say a good word for either the Emperor or Empress, and their assassination is quite openly discussed by persons in responsible positions."

Phil Tomaselli


I agree.

The revolutionaries were working hard to create their Revolution and were stirring up whomever would listen.

The war and it's horrors added to the discontent, the misery and horror.

Even before the war,  there was the smell of revolution in the Russian air.   Marx and Lenin were writing anything and everything about a new socialist govt.,  slogans,  anything that would fire up the future revolutionaries into action.  Who was reading all this stuff?  People like Yurovsky, Kudrin, Goloshchokin, Ermakov.....Stalin.   Most were arrested for their activities and some ended up togather in prisons in Siberia....  

These men, who were leaders,  in the Ural Soviets didn't just fall of the back of some vegetable and fruit wagon and just happen to become  part of the Ural Soviets.

AGRBear

Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Phil_tomaselli on March 09, 2006, 03:05:06 PM
Excerpts from Ambassador Buchanan's telegrams to London from early January 1917:

Jan 4th 1917:

“I am ready if you think it advisable, to make one more attempt to bring home to the Emperor the gravity of the situation, as well as the danger to which the Dynasty may be exposed if the present tension is allowed to continue.”

Jan 4th 1917:  

“I do not wish to be alarmist but if the Emperor continues on his present course and if as seems probable other assassinations follow that of Rasputin, danger of anti-dynastic movement is by no means excluded.  Question of assassination of Empress is a common topic of conversation even among highly placed officers in the Army while I have even heard question of change of sovereigns mooted.”  


Jan 7th 1917:

“With a divided Government and a country on the verge of revolution, it is impossible for us to count on any effective support from Russia in the war.”

More follows.

Phil T
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: AGRBear on March 09, 2006, 03:05:45 PM
Quote

...[in part]...

This is simply false, AGR Bear. According to King and Wilson themselves, in FOTR, p. 283, most historians are in agreement that the Moscow leadership actually did have a hand in the murders at Ekaterinburg. Not only non-academics like Robert K. Massie and Edvard Radzinsky are on the record in saying that Lenin ordered the executions, but also academics specializing in the history of the Russian Revolution like Richard Pipes and Orlando Figes. Even Mark Steinberg believes that Lenin might have ordered the deaths of Nicholas and his family.


....


It's been way to long since I've read Figes or Pipes.  I doubt many people [outside of this forum] have unless they were interested in Russian history or were hand feed some of their words in a class in college/university.

My memory may be wrong, but it seems to me that most historianal authors talk about Lenin as Steinberg did , as you've stated.  They believed Lenin  might have ordered the deaths of Nicholas II.  As for the execution of all the others,  I think, the blame was set upon the Ural Soviets.  Why? There was/is  that little problem of actually proving that Lenin did take part because there was nothing on paper with his name on it which gave the order of execution for the night of 16/17 July 1918.

I'm sorry, but I've felt this attitude from other authors, articles and profs long before I ever read THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS.

Here is what FA just wrote:

Quote

Kudrin says that G. announced this to the entire meeting, and actually said that it was Lenin who refused permission, through Sverdlov. There seems to be no telegram or deposition existing that anyone has yet found confirming the discussion. The only thing we know for sure is that G. WENT to Moscow, and met with Sverdlov. Of course, why would Kudrin bother to make up the detail about G. reporting Sverdlov's discussion and Lenin's exact words about wanting a public show trial of Nicholas?



Evidently,  we're finding that same thread about Lenin's refusal of exectuion in not just one book/ article, testimony, etc.  we've read.

AGRBear



Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: AGRBear on March 09, 2006, 03:44:55 PM
Okay,  I dug out my Figes book.  

On page 636 he talks about Goloshchekin pleading with Sverdlov to let him have the Tsar.

Pages 636-7 he talks about the struggle between Moscow and the Urals who wanted Nicholas II.  Added to the mix was Yakovlev whom it is thought was sent by Moscow to take Nicholas II back to Moscow for trial.

>>...the suspicions of the Ekaterinburg Bolsheviks that he was planning to save the Tsar, perhaps<<p. 638>>taking him to Japan.  A battle of telegrams folllowed...<<

Once in Ekaterinburg Figes talked a few more pages about the relationship between  Moscow and the Ural Soviets.

Figes does not seem to say outright that Lenin gave the order.  Maybe I haven't read enough.  I'm skimming.   p. 640:

>>...Nicholas had to die so that Soviet power could live.

On 4 July the local Cheka had taken over the responsibility of guardin the Romanovs at the Ipatev House.  Yakov Yurovsky, the locak Cheka boss who led the execution squard, was on of Lenin's most trausted lieutenants...On eh night of the murder.....<<

Did I miss Figes actually stating the evidence about Lenin giving orders for this execution?

p. 639:

>>16 July Goloshcekin having returned to Ekateinburg, sent a coded telegram to Sverdlov and Lenin via Zinoview infomration them thtat the exection had to be carried out without further delay 'due to military cercumstatnces'.

Elisabeth said he did.  Back track.... p. 638

>>It was in the first week of July that the decision was taken to execute all the captive Romanovs.  Right up until its final collaspe, the Soviet regime always insised tht the murder was carried out on the sole initiative of the Bolsheviks in Ekaterinburg.  But the evidence that has since emerged from the archies shows conclusively that the order came from the party leadership in Moscow.  This in fact had been known in the West from an entry in Trotsky diary of 1935 in which he reclalled a conversation with Svedlov....<<

I beleve this conversation was later proven impossible since Trotsky was not in Moscow in July.... Or is my memory failing me on this, too.

Figes does not tell us any other evidence.

Remember, now,  I do think Lenin gave the final orders,  so,  Elisabeth and I are in agreement on this.  And,  she seems far more knowledgeable on historial authors and what they wrote than I.

AGRBear

Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: AGRBear on March 09, 2006, 03:58:43 PM
Quote
Excerpts from Ambassador Buchanan's telegrams to London from early January 1917:
 
Jan 4th 1917:
 
“I am ready if you think it advisable, to make one more attempt to bring home to the Emperor the gravity of the situation, as well as the danger to which the Dynasty may be exposed if the present tension is allowed to continue.”
 
Jan 4th 1917:  
 
“I do not wish to be alarmist but if the Emperor continues on his present course and if as seems probable other assassinations follow that of Rasputin, danger of anti-dynastic movement is by no means excluded.  Question of assassination of Empress is a common topic of conversation even among highly placed officers in the Army while I have even heard question of change of sovereigns mooted.”  
 
 
Jan 7th 1917:
 
“With a divided Government and a country on the verge of revolution, it is impossible for us to count on any effective support from Russia in the war.”
 
More follows.
 
Phil T


This is from someone who is living at that time and expressing what he see, feels and hears.  And,  it doesn't appear that there was very much love and warmth for the Tsar and his German wife whom the revolutionaries play upon and spread rumors that she was a German agent.

AGRBear
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: AGRBear on March 09, 2006, 05:10:50 PM
Note 10 March 2006/Modified:  Elisabeth is correct about most historians like Pipes and Figes:

Quote

This is simply false, AGR Bear. According to King and Wilson themselves, in FOTR, p. 283, most historians are in agreement that the Moscow leadership actually did have a hand in the murders at Ekaterinburg. Not only non-academics like Robert K. Massie and Edvard Radzinsky are on the record in saying that Lenin ordered the executions, but also academics specializing in the history of the Russian Revolution like Richard Pipes and Orlando Figes. Even Mark Steinberg believes that Lenin might have ordered the deaths of Nicholas and his family.

It is King and Wilson who are alone in declaring that the Ural Regional Soviet was acting solely on its own authority in killing the former tsar and his family. King and Wilson even go so far as to accuse professional historians like Pipes and Figes of having a "simplistic reading" of this episode in Russian history! How's that for unmitigated nerve?


Do you really think that King and Wilson are the only ones in the newer generation of historical writers who have or are starting to question Lenin's role in the execution of Nicholas II and/or the family?

AGRBear
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Alixz on March 09, 2006, 05:54:13 PM
Much can be said when nothing is said.

Lenin was a smart cookie.  Even though there is no "direct paper trail" showing that he was the final arbitrar of the fate of the Imperial Family, that only means either we can't find it, or he didn't want a paper trail.  (Yes, I know it can also mean that it just doesn't exist.)

But Lenin didn't know that he was going to die just six years after the execution.  He was planning a long term revolution and he planned to be around to control it.

By leaving the matter in limbo, he could have used it and spun it any way he wanted for future use.

Wait and see how the country reacts to the execution and then decide who gets the credit or blame for it.  Suppose the White's had won?  Would Lenin had wanted to take credit for the execution in that case?
IMHO, I would doubt it.

And the country was still in too much turmoil to have a public trial as Lenin wanted.  He would have needed for the revolution to have completely succeeded and the White's to have been totaly defeated before he could have put on a showy public trial.

The military situation in Ekaterinberg probably messed up everyone's plans.  The execution had to take place or the family had to be moved away from the advancing White's before the city fell.

And one more question.  Why would the Ural Soviet hate the Romanovs any more than the other Soviets?  From what we read, they actually stopped the train and diverted it to Ekaterinberg from where ever it was supposed to go. (Moscow? Farther east?)

Why the Ural Soviet?  Did Nicholas do something personally to the Ural communities to make the leaders of the Ural Soviet demand his imprisonment and eventual death at their hands??
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Elisabeth on March 09, 2006, 06:10:36 PM
AGR Bear, I have already stated that according to King and Wilson themselves, on p. 283 of FOTR, most historians agree that Moscow had a hand in these murders:

Western historians have followed the pattern as laid out by the White investigator Nicholas Sokolov in assessing responsibility for the murders. "The fate of the Imperial Family," Sokolov concluded, "was not decided in Ekaterinburg, but in Moscow." It is a view fervently endorsed by émigrés, and resurgent in post-Soviet Russian works on the imperial family, irrevocable evidence of the barbaric nature of Lenin and his Bolshevik regime. Author Robert Massie thus claimed: "From the beginning the annihilation of the Romanovs – their execution and the disappearance of their bodies – had been approved by Moscow." The voices are nearly unanimous. Historian Richard Pipes: "It can be established that the final decision to liquidate the Romanovs was taken personally by Lenin, most likely at the beginning of July." Edvard Radzinsky: "It was all decided in Moscow." And Orlando Figes: "The evidence that has since emerged from the archives shows conclusively that the order came from the party leadership in Moscow." The reality of the situation, however, was far more complex than that suggested by this simplistic reading of history[/i] (FOTR, p. 283).

King and Wilson then go on to claim that Moscow did not order the murders and that the Ural Regional Soviet was acting on its own in killing the former tsar and his family: "The crisis had come to a head: the Ural Bolsheviks must agree to Moscow’s demands [to send the IF to Moscow], and risk losing the prisoners to their would-be rescuers [the Whites], or follow the path on which they had already embarked, to eliminate the entire imperial family, in open defiance of the Soviet government[/i]" (p. 289, FOTR).

Quote
Do you really think that King and Wilson are the only ones in the newer generation of historical writers who have or are starting to question Lenin's role in the execution of Nicholas II and/or the family?


Nowhere did I say, AGR Bear, that King and Wilson are alone in questioning Moscow’s true role in the Ekaterinburg murders. (Professor Mark Steinberg questions it at some length in his book The Fall of the Romanovs, concluding that the evidence is so "ambiguous and contradictory" that we simply cannot know for sure one way or the other.) However, where King and Wilson do seem to be utterly alone is in stating as a certainty that the Ural Regional Soviet’s decision to eliminate the entire family was "in open defiance of the Soviet government." I have never come across this view before in any of the literature on the subject.

This is what Mark Steinberg has to say about the role of Moscow in the murder of the IF:

The scenario most in keeping with the evidence is that the party and state leaders in Moscow, in discussions with Goloshchekin, the Urals’ representative, in early July, ordered that a trial – to be held in Ekaterinburg – be prepared immediately; but if the military situation forced the evacuation of Ekaterinburg and if Nicholas and his family could not be safely removed to a secure location, then execution without trial would be necessary[/i] (Steinberg, Fall of the Romanovs, p. 293).

And this is the explanation that makes the  most sense to me.

P.S. Could someone please take it upon themselves to start a new thread for King and Wilson's FOTR? Because this thread has become so long that it takes my computer a good 5-10 minutes to load before I can even post a reply! Help!  
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: AGRBear on March 09, 2006, 07:18:39 PM
[continued from: http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=Books;action=display;num=1080907570;start=450#450]


Evidently, Part 1 was getting too long and it was requested to start a new thread,  Part 2.


AGRBear
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: AGRBear on March 09, 2006, 07:24:00 PM
 
Quote
Evidently, Part 1 was getting too long and it was requested to start a new thread,  Part 2.


This thread is continued.  Go to:
http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=Books;action=display;num=1141949919;start=0#0


AGRBear
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: AGRBear on March 09, 2006, 07:45:32 PM
Quote
AGR Bear, I have already stated that according to King and Wilson themselves, on p. 283 of FOTR, most historians agree that Moscow had a hand in these murders:

Western historians have followed the pattern as laid out by the White investigator Nicholas Sokolov in assessing responsibility for the murders. "The fate of the Imperial Family," Sokolov concluded, "was not decided in Ekaterinburg, but in Moscow." It is a view fervently endorsed by émigrés, and resurgent in post-Soviet Russian works on the imperial family, irrevocable evidence of the barbaric nature of Lenin and his Bolshevik regime. Author Robert Massie thus claimed: "From the beginning the annihilation of the Romanovs – their execution and the disappearance of their bodies – had been approved by Moscow." The voices are nearly unanimous. Historian Richard Pipes: "It can be established that the final decision to liquidate the Romanovs was taken personally by Lenin, most likely at the beginning of July." Edvard Radzinsky: "It was all decided in Moscow." And Orlando Figes: "The evidence that has since emerged from the archives shows conclusively that the order came from the party leadership in Moscow." The reality of the situation, however, was far more complex than that suggested by this simplistic reading of history[/i] (FOTR, p. 283).

King and Wilson then go on to claim that Moscow did not order the murders and that the Ural Regional Soviet was acting on its own in killing the former tsar and his family: "The crisis had come to a head: the Ural Bolsheviks must agree to Moscow’s demands [to send the IF to Moscow], and risk losing the prisoners to their would-be rescuers [the Whites], or follow the path on which they had already embarked, to eliminate the entire imperial family, in open defiance of the Soviet government[/i]" (p. 289, FOTR).


Nowhere did I say, AGR Bear, that King and Wilson are alone in questioning Moscow’s true role in the Ekaterinburg murders. (Professor Mark Steinberg questions it at some length in his book The Fall of the Romanovs, concluding that the evidence is so "ambiguous and contradictory" that we simply cannot know for sure one way or the other.) However, where King and Wilson do seem to be utterly alone is in stating as a certainty that the Ural Regional Soviet’s decision to eliminate the entire family was "in open defiance of the Soviet government." I have never come across this view before in any of the literature on the subject.

This is what Mark Steinberg has to say about the role of Moscow in the murder of the IF:

The scenario most in keeping with the evidence is that the party and state leaders in Moscow, in discussions with Goloshchekin, the Urals’ representative, in early July, ordered that a trial – to be held in Ekaterinburg – be prepared immediately; but if the military situation forced the evacuation of Ekaterinburg and if Nicholas and his family could not be safely removed to a secure location, then execution without trial would be necessary[/i] (Steinberg, Fall of the Romanovs, p. 293).

And this is the explanation that makes the  most sense to me.
 
P.S. Could someone please take it upon themselves to start a new thread for King and Wilson's FOTR? Because this thread has become so long that it takes my computer a good 5-10 minutes to load before I can even post a reply! Help!  



>>The scenario most in keeping with the evidence is that the party and state leaders in Moscow, in discussions with Goloshchekin, the Urals’ representative, in early July, ordered that a trial – to be held in Ekaterinburg – be prepared immediately; but if the military situation forced the evacuation of Ekaterinburg and if Nicholas and his family could not be safely removed to a secure location, then execution without trial would be necessary[/i] (Steinberg, Fall of the Romanovs, p. 293).<<

Where do we actually find Lenin's fingerprints on the order to execute Nicholas II and the IF?

Like you and others,  I believe Lenin was behind this execution.  So, what is the actual evidence which contradicts King and Wilson's conclusion?

(1) p. 284:
>>...Goloshchokin arrived in Moscow in the evening of July 3.<<

Bear:  I assume this is correct.

(2)>> With him he carried the Ural Regional Soviet's resolution seeking approval for the immediate execution of the Romanovs and those imprisioned with them.<<

Bear:  Are these resolutions found in the archives and  do they asked for the "immediate execution"?

(3)>>...Moscow was less than receptive.  Goloshchokin pleaded Ekataerinburg's case to his friend and fellow Ural Bolshevik Yakov Sverdlov, though he ultiminately failed in his mission; Lenin was too busy even to meet with him.<<

Souce 16=   Radzinsky, 330

Bear:  Radzinsky.....  [Let me go back to the old thread and pull in what FA wrote.]

Quote

Kudrin says that G. announced this to the entire meeting, and actually said that it was Lenin who refused permission, through Sverdlov. There seems to be no telegram or deposition existing that anyone has yet found confirming the discussion. The only thing we know for sure is that G. WENT to Moscow, and met with Sverdlov. Of course, why would Kudrin bother to make up the detail about G. reporting Sverdlov's discussion and Lenin's exact words about wanting a public show trial of Nicholas?





AGRBear

Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: AGRBear on March 09, 2006, 08:18:06 PM
Quote

The problem I have with Kudrin's testimony is that it was given in 1963, many decades after the event, and yet he quotes Lenin's supposedly exact words to Sverdlov at great length. And even if the gist of what Kudrin reported is true, that still doesn't mean that Moscow didn't approve a "contingency plan" to kill the former tsar and his family if Ekaterinburg couldn't be held. Professor Mark Steinberg is a leading expert on the Romanovs and he concludes in his book that this possibility cannot be ruled out:

"There is some indication that a contingency plan was discussed [with Lenin and Sverdlov]. Yurovsky stated that while Goloshchekin was in Moscow in early July 'the center' decided 'what to do if abandoning Ekaterinburg became unavoidable' - implying that this was a decision in favor of executing the former tsar... Yurovsky's assistant, Grigory Nikulin, also later claimed that Sverdlov had told Goloshchekin, 'If you can organize a trial, then organize it, but if not, well, you know what that means'" (Steinberg and Khrustalev, The Fall of the Romanovs, pp. 290-91).

Steinberg describes this and other evidence for Moscow's involvement as "ambiguous and contradictory" (p. 292). He further states that "any author - including myself - who concludes that the truth can be stated with certainty, is overconfident in his or her omniscience or overzealous in the desire to tell a good story. Every answer to the question of who gave the order - and indeed, a good many questions about the Romanovs' final days - is based on a fair measure of deduction and imaginative speculation" (my emphasis, p. 294).

By this definition, King and Wilson are being either "overconfident" or "overzealous" in asserting that the Ural Regional Soviet executed the Romanovs solely on their own authority.  
  

Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: AGRBear on March 09, 2006, 08:21:12 PM
The other topic to be continued, I presume is:

Quote

Might not there be a number of different agenda that were multilayered, to effect a common focal point of their displeasure against the Imperial regime? The authors by their conclusive remarks, attempted to discredit Emperor Nikolai II, and the Imperial government as their primary goal.

Please examine these few extracted expressions -

"If not the bloodthirsty tyrants used to invoke the country to discontent ..." (p 526)

"... nor were they paragons of all moral virtue." (p 526)....


Follow her thread for the rest of her list.

Quote
Cutting through all the cant about the family virtues and allegations that there is some kind of "plot" to discredit Nicholas here is a direct quote from a senior British consular official (which I've lifted from the Rasputin thread) giving a contemporary picture of Russia attitudes to the Tsar in early 1917:

"As regards the future, the Ambassador's telegrams will have show what the feeling in the country is.  For my own part, I never hear anyone say a good word for either the Emperor or Empress, and their assassination is quite openly discussed by persons in responsible positions."

Phil Tomaselli



Quote
Excerpts from Ambassador Buchanan's telegrams to London from early January 1917:
 
Jan 4th 1917:
 
“I am ready if you think it advisable, to make one more attempt to bring home to the Emperor the gravity of the situation, as well as the danger to which the Dynasty may be exposed if the present tension is allowed to continue.”
 
Jan 4th 1917:  
 
“I do not wish to be alarmist but if the Emperor continues on his present course and if as seems probable other assassinations follow that of Rasputin, danger of anti-dynastic movement is by no means excluded.  Question of assassination of Empress is a common topic of conversation even among highly placed officers in the Army while I have even heard question of change of sovereigns mooted.”  
 
 
Jan 7th 1917:
 
“With a divided Government and a country on the verge of revolution, it is impossible for us to count on any effective support from Russia in the war.”
 
More follows.
 
Phil T

Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Phil_tomaselli on March 10, 2006, 06:09:56 AM
Buchanan telegram January 11th 1917

Personal and Secret.

My telegram No 36.

Leading Grand Duchess came to se me today and said that hearing (I?) was to see the Emperor tomorrow she had come to ask me both in her own name and in that of other members of Imperial family to impress on His Majesty extreme danger which he was incurring.  If things continued as thety were war would be lost and it was the duty of Allied Governments to bring this fact home to the Emperor.  Members of the Imperial family at present at Petrograd had had several meetings lately and were addressing a collective letter to the Emperor begging that Grand Duke Dmitri might be recalled from Persia.  Although he had sworn on the head of his mother that he was guiltless of Rasputin’s murder he had been made the scape goat and in spite of his delicate health had been sent off to a bad climate without money or food and had had hardly anything to eat on the journey.  There had been no proper enquiry  held into the crime and others like Pureshkevitch had been allowed to go free.  Grand Duke Dmitri had in consequence become a popular hero.

Speaking of general situation Her Imperial Highness said that serious people were not only discussing what should be done with the Emperor and Empress but who was to replace His Majesty on the throne.  They had tried to induce Imperial family to place itself at head of movement but had been told that not a single member of it would take a hand in an anti-dynastic movement or accept the throne which had been stained with blood.  If they heard any such plot was in contemplation they would at once denounce it.  Danger was however imminent and it was only a question of weeks.  The Emperor and Empress were living in a fools paradise and were intent on doing everything to provoke the public in order to show how firm they were.  Neither the Empress nor party which advised her were really German but they were being made unconsciously the tools of others who were in German pay and a private and secret enquiry was being made in the hope of discovering the names of these German agents and proving that the Empress was guiltless of acting in German interests.

(paragraph omitted)

President of the Duma whom I saw later in the day also insisted that time had come for Allies to speak if we were to win the war.  Duma would almost certainly be dissolved and this would create feeling of consternation in the country as conduct of the war would be left in the hands of an incompetent Government.  He gave me however reassuring statement that he and his friends would not countenance any movement against the Dynasty or reassembling Duma in another town.  Work of providing munitions etc would continue as before while there had of late been transport improvements effected in the matter of food supplies for the army and towns.  Army was determined to win the war but, were serious troubles to arise, army might split into two opposing camps one for and one against the dynasty.  He did not believe that there was any immediate danger of revolution but there was a party who favoured a policy of assassinations although he trusted and believed that the Emperor’s life was safe.

Minister of Finance told me this morning that he had informed President of the Council that he could dispose of his portfolio but that his Excellency had begged him to remain.  He replied that as President of the Council had accepted Protoppoff as Minister of the Interior hw would never be able to meet the Duma and that chamber would consequently have to be dissolved.  Minister of Finance will tender his resignation to Emperor tomorrow  but it is possible that Emperor will refuse to accept it.

His Excellency spoke in high terms of new Minister of Communications but said that although new President of the Council was an honest gentleman he was quite incompetent and that (he and?) new Minister of Education, about whom little is known, owe their appointments to palace clique.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Forum Admin on March 10, 2006, 09:09:57 AM
I think we need to look at the timing of the discovery of information when analysing the responsibility for the decision to murder the IF.  The "Kudrin" statement was unknown before the mid 1990s to scholars. Massie, Pipes et al simply never had seen it.

I actually agree with Greg and Penny on the responsibility lying on the Ural Regional Soviet. Don't forget that not only do we know know of Kudrin remarks, there are also the telegrams from the German Embassy to Lenin demanding "protection for all Princesses of German Blood and their children".

Lenin wanted nothing more than total legitimacy for his government. Which would look more legitmate to the world, murdering the IF and children in a basement at night or a huge public show trial in Moscow full of reporters and pictures splashed all over the world THEN a guilty verdict and legal "execution of criminals"??

Lenin was playing all sides to his own advantage. period.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: AGRBear on March 10, 2006, 12:54:32 PM
  
Quote

AGRBear:

I have no problem discussing this.  Akimov's original statement is much less direct, and not at all the "hard evidence" that Radzinsky makes it out to be.  Akimov simply states that in "the summer of 1918" he carried the cable to the office in Moscow that "confirmed the decision" to execute the Romanovs.  There is absolutely no hint AT ALL, as Radzinsky intimates, that this was prior to the murders.  In fact, we know of 1 cable and 1 cable only sent from Moscow to Ekaterinburg between July 12 and July 18-the cable from Sverdlov that indeed "confirmed" the decision of the Ural Regional Soviet to execute them.  This was an after-the-fact official rubber stamp on the Ural Regional Soviet's actions by Moscow and the Soviet VTsIK.  We simply went by what the evidence above lays out:

1.  Akimov sent a cable in "summer of 1918" "confirming the decision of the Ural Regional Soviet" to execute the Romanovs.  Note that nowhere in his memoirs does Akimov state that this was a cable that ordered the execution.  The use of the word "confirmed" clearly indicates, in this context, that the cable came AFTER the Ural Regional Soviet had already reached their decision.
2.  Since we know of only 1 cable sent by Moscow to Ekaterinburg (please see "Fate of the Romanovs," pages 291-93, and pages 335-39) during these days-the cable of July 18 in which the Soviet VTsIK in Moscow "confirmed" the decision of the Ural Regional Soviet to execute the Romanovs (a cable that came after the murders), we believe this is clearly the cable of which Akimov speaks.

Again, simply going by the evidence, for us at least it is apparent that the cables are one and the same.

Greg King
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: AGRBear on March 10, 2006, 01:03:35 PM
Quote
Snipped to relevant points:


1.  But, AGRBear, what precisely is this "circumstantial evidence?"  The only whisper we even came across is that it is POSSIBLE that Lenin MAY have allowed for the execution of Nicholas II ONLY, and even that is our guesswork-if such an allowance was made, I have to say, it is much more likely that it was Sverdlov who allowed for this, not Lenin.

But that raises the larger question: What evidence supports your theory that Lenin ordered the Ekaterinburg murders, other than your opinion/belief that this was so?  Again, we went through every single claim and scenario, analyzing everything, and not one shred of evidence even supports the idea that Lenin ordered the family killed.

Now, as we say in "The Fate of the Romanovs" and have said on this board, we don't claim to the last word on the subject by any means, but we ARE the most recent, comprehensive word; you do yourself and your arguments a disservice by continuing to refer to books/theories published before 2003 and not looking in advance at our book to see if, in the interval, serious questions about these assertions have not arisen and if so how they have been addressed.  If you did so, you would see that:

2.  Trotsky changed his story later-it was not Lenin who ordered the murders, but Stalin-he left Lenin completely out of it in a later version (as we discuss).  You might save yourself future trouble if, for example, when reading this or that pre-2003 account of something, you also checked our book to see if we found any evidence to support/oppose that position, before posting the theories of pre-2003 books, many of which we show to no longer be valid.

I'm not trying to sound as if we're the end-all, be-all here, because I'm the first to admit we're not; but again I think you can save yourself some time and trouble by checking to see what if anything we may have uncovered before launching into a theory that may well already have been discredited.  Then you can agree or disagree, and that's fine, but without checking out all the facts available at your disposal you do yourself a disservice.

Free exchange of ideas and opinions is fine, but there is a point where one simply begins to not only ignore evidence, but has nothing better to back up a theory than "a feeling," or "an opinion."  In this historical case, it's the evidence that, in the end, has to rule the day.  So again, I ask, what evidence suggests that Lenin ordered the entire family killed?

Greg King


Let me repeat two sentences:

>>2.  Trotsky changed his story later-it was not Lenin who ordered the murders, but Stalin-he left Lenin completely out of it in a later version<<

>>So again, I ask, what evidence suggests that Lenin ordered the entire family killed?<<


Yes, it's true,  most of my sources are dated pre-2003.

Is there evidence that Stalin gave the orders?

Do any of us have any new or old evidence which would contradict Greg and Penny's conclusion about Lenin and/or Stalin's part ???

AGRBear

Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Elisabeth on March 12, 2006, 12:55:46 PM
Mark Steinberg discusses the evidence for and against Moscow’s involvement in the Ekaterinburg murders on pp. 290-95 of his book, The Fall of the Romanovs. He was working in the archives with his Russian colleague Vladimir Khrustalev and therefore presumably had as much access to unpublished information about the fate of the Romanovs in the first half of the 1990s as King and Wilson did almost a decade later (his book was published in 1995; theirs in 2003).

Interestingly, Steinberg does say that it is possible that Moscow’s "contingency plan" only envisioned the death of Nicholas II (should Ekaterinburg have to be abandoned) and that the Ural Regional Soviet might have taken it upon themselves to kill the entire family at the same time. (Also interestingly, King and Wilson don’t footnote Steinberg for this contribution to the debate, even though his book came out eight years before theirs.) But Steinberg doesn’t, as King and Wilson do, state this scenario as a certainty. What he says is: "This possible scenario is no less consistent with the evidence – fragmentary, vague, inconsistent, and often unreliable – and the political dynamics of the time than the generally accepted story that Moscow ordered the execution of the entire family and that Yekaterinburg did what it was told" (my emphasis, Steinberg, p. 295). In short, according to Steinberg, we don’t know precisely what Moscow’s role was, and we may never know, given the fragmentary and contradictory nature of the evidence we have.

Personally I have a lot of reasons for doubting King and Wilson’s certainty about Moscow’s lack of involvement in the murder of the imperial family (not to mention the Alapaevsk murders).

First, it was the official line of the Soviet government from July 1918 until August 1991 that the Ural Regional Soviet (URS) acted on its own in killing the family of the former tsar. Why would a small fry like Medvedev-Kudrin dare to contradict the Soviet government? Remember, he gave his statement back in the 1960s, when the communist government of the Soviet Union was fully entrenched.

If it was not its stated or unstated intention that the Romanov family be killed with the tsar, then why didn’t Moscow insist on an evacuation plan from the URS for the Romanov women? In early July 1918 when Goloshchekin was in Moscow negotiating with Lenin and Sverdlov, everyone involved knew that Ekaterinburg was within weeks of falling to the Whites. Yet there is no evidence whatsoever that any such evacuation plan was ever demanded by Moscow or for that matter, drawn up by the URS. What was supposed to happen to the Romanov women when Ekaterinburg fell?

For that matter, what was supposed to happen to the heir, Alexei Nikolaevich? The German government wasn’t expressing any concern for him: so was he included in Moscow’s presumable decision to execute the former tsar, or was he not? A boy not even fourteen years old… and yet he’s not even mentioned in Kudrin’s statement or any of the others. Are we supposed to believe that Lenin and his government somehow overlooked the existence of the former tsarevich? Are King and Wilson willing to admit that the child Alexei might have been included in Moscow’s decision to let the URS go ahead with the execution of the tsar? In which case, where does that leave us, in moral terms?

Furthermore, if the URS was really acting so independently of Moscow, why did they send all the Romanov papers and valuables, including the jewels found on the women’s bodies, to Moscow immediately after the executions? Why did Yurovsky show himself to be such a conscientious and loyal servant of Moscow in this regard?

Why did the URS obey Moscow in the timing of its announcements that the former tsar had been killed? And if they were really such renegades, why did they keep it a secret, not from Moscow, but from the public and the world, that they had killed the family as well? … once again, in full accordance with Moscow’s wishes.

Why did a former Kremlin guard, A. F. Akimov, testify in the 1960s that he had "personally carried Lenin’s message to the telegraph office 'confirming' the 'decision' of the Ural party committee to execute the former tsar and his family"? Can we really safely assume that we have all the telegrams that passed between Moscow and Ekaterinburg in July 1918? (See Steinberg, p. 292; Radzinsky, The Last Tsar, pp. 344-46.)  

Why didn’t any of the members of the Ekaterinburg URS and Cheka suffer reprisals from Moscow for killing the Romanov family? Why did people like Goloshchekin and Beloborodov, who had supposedly so flagrantly disregarded Moscow’s wishes, nevertheless still continue to advance in state and party ranks? And why was Ekaterinburg renamed "Sverdlovsk" after the very man who supposedly could not even control his own subordinates?

Finally, does it actually matter in the end whether Lenin and his henchmen gave a direct order to the URS to murder the imperial family? Lenin was the head of the Soviet government; the murders happened on his watch. So whether or not the URS Bolsheviks acted on their own or in full sympathy with Moscow in killing the IF, Lenin and his government were still ultimately responsible for the IF’s fate. As Harry Truman so eloquently put it, "The buck stops here." Or are we holding Lenin’s government to different standards than we do our own governments in the West?
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Alixz on March 13, 2006, 03:09:30 PM
FA said:

"Lenin was playing all sides to his own advantage. period. "

I couldn't agree more.

I just got through re-reading Kurth's Tsar and while I know that many of you suspect Kurth's work, it made me feel more strongly that FA is right.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 04, 2006, 08:46:25 AM
I have another concern with one of the claims the authors make in FOTR. I just started a separate thread on this subject because I am extremely curious about this topic and hope we can discuss it there(http://forum.alexanderpalace.org/YaBB.cgi?num=1144155798), but I will also post my comments here because the subject is directly related to the book.

Quote
I am currently re-reading FOTR more carefully than last time, and came across something that I did not remember the first time I read it. According to most  historians, Yakov Yurovsky was born into a Jewish family (as Yankel Yurovsky) and later on in life converted to Lutheranism and then perhaps (I can't remember for sure now as I don't have the books in front of me) to Russian Orthodoxy. FOTR authors on the other hand claim something completely different, and I was wondering if anyone else knew what is the basis for this claim. The authors state that Yurovsky was born Russian Orthodox, all his family was Russian Orthodox, and they even go as far as to say that they were in fact strong anti-semites. This version of Yurovsky's background is completely different from anything I ever read anywhere else, so I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts about it? I don't have the book in front of me now, but when I get home I will post the page numbers and some quotes. Thanks in advance for any thoughts anyone can provide!


Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Bob_the_builder on May 18, 2007, 09:19:30 PM
(http://www.expressbookshop.com/media/Fate_of_the_Romanovs0.jpg)

In my opinion this is the best of all of the books about the last days of the Imperial Family and a great follow-up to Massie's "Nicholas and Alexandra". I've never read a book where the horrors of the execution played out in my mind. It is told so gruesomely and so truthfully unlike many of the other accounts which try to downplay the murder because of how horrible it was. I love this book and I've read it twice already.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Sarushka on February 28, 2008, 11:11:11 AM
I've started this thread as an outlet for specific questions regarding FOTR that have arisen out of The author's obligations to his/her readers (http://forum.alexanderpalace.org/index.php/topic,10966.0.html) thread.

To start, I've taken the liberty of importing some of Annie's inquiries, modifying them slightly for context:

Do an author's obligation to their readers not include being more true to history than their own possible goals? Let's explore the background that may prove there were issues involved that affected the information in FOTR and how it was presented.

Many of us have noticed the connection between the AA 'agenda' and the 'mistakes'/'bad editing' in FOTR, and would like some answers.

Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Dominic_Albanese on February 28, 2008, 11:41:52 AM
I am happy to get this close to the top of this thread...

It appears that despite being discussed over and over and over and over again, some continue to try and trash what any objective student of history would say is an overall solid book that added much to a complex, difficult, and painful chapter of history.  The sourceing alone is worth the price of the book.  I would encourage those who are new to this issue and have questions to actually get the book themselves (from your local library), look at what Penny and Greg (and others on this site) have said over and over about problems in the book and make your own determination as to whether it belongs in your library. 

It is increasingly clear that there are some who have an agenda related to the authors as nothing new has been said here about a book that was published a few years ago.  So those of you who are coming across this for the first time thinking that there is some new discovery here - please look in the archives, some of these people have been making the same complaints about the same things and people for years.  Frankly, I find this continued rehash highly distasteful and counter productive to what this site is supposed to be about.  Rob, I vote for locking it before it even gets started, since it's all been said about 200 times before.

dca
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Annie on February 28, 2008, 11:45:54 AM


It is increasingly clear that there are some who have an agenda related to the authors as nothing new has been said here about a book that was published a few years ago.

No, it's the other way around- we are wondering if the authors had an agenda.

Quote
So those of you who are coming across this for the first time thinking that there is some new discovery here - please look in the archives, some of these people have been making the same complaints about the same things and people for years.  Frankly, I find this continued rehash highly distasteful and counter productive to what this site is supposed to be about.  Rob, I vote for locking it before it even gets started, since it's all been said about 200 times before.

dca

No it all hasn't been said many times before. There is much I only recently found out, and more questions that need answering. They were in the deleted thread but are not in any old ones. I'm sure that those who have personal feelings for Penny do want it locked, but is that fair? If it were Radzinsky or Dejong, would you want it locked? All writers are up to equal scrutiny and no one should be immune due to your personal feelings for them. If our goal is to be integrity of nonfiction, it all needs to be addressed and hopefully answered.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Dominic_Albanese on February 28, 2008, 11:59:32 AM
frankly,  I have NO personal feelings for Penny or Greg one way or the other - other than having to admit I have learned much from their extensive scholarship over the years.  Are they always right, by their own words, they admit they are not.  I have not read one complaint about FOTR that was new - this book has been out for years and the same people bash it over and over again for essentailly the same reasons - do you really expect me to believe that suddenly there has been some new uncovered error in the book that has been in the wide market place for years?  I find that highly unlikely - even as sharp as you are (and I'm generally a fan of your work as well).  My expectation is that it won't be long before this discussion will be this weeks argument in the sandbox bringing much consentation and wasted time to many people.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Annie on February 28, 2008, 12:03:14 PM
Before I waste my time writing a long post and digging up references, let's know now:

FA- is this thread going to be censored or deleted?  Please tell us  what the deal is before any effort is wasted on it. I will refrain from posting until I get a response. Thank you.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Forum Admin on February 28, 2008, 12:27:38 PM
Bumping this up to merge with a similar thread. Discuss away, but PUHLEEEEZE try not to rehash arguments already done to death in the previous thirty pages. 

Please also bear in mind the rule that there are to be NO PERSONAL ATTACKS upon the authors, this is a discussion about the content of the book and nothing more, and keep it civil.


FA
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Annie on February 28, 2008, 01:36:11 PM
There's no need. ANY questioning of the 'mistakes' in the book and possible motives behind them will be perceived as a 'personal attack' on the authors by the authors or one of their stalwart defenders. I sure wish there was some place we could really have a good, honest, discussion on this without having to worry about it getting too 'touchy' for some.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Janet Ashton on February 28, 2008, 02:00:27 PM
There's no need. ANY questioning of the 'mistakes' in the book and possible motives behind them will be perceived as a 'personal attack' on the authors by the authors or one of their stalwart defenders. I sure wish there was some place we could really have a good, honest, discussion on this without having to worry about it getting too 'touchy' for some.

Point of information, Annie. One of the athors of this book has not read anything on this forum in years and takes zero interest in what is said about him on the internet EXCEPT when it is specifically drawn to his attention. Even then, he is more likely to evince irritation with the person who pointed it out. Quote: "I can't control what is said about me on the internet; it is part and parcel of being a public figure."

But, as a further point of information, it IS a personal attack to question the honesty of someone's conclusions. Like it or not, conscious or unconscious, all historians have an "agenda" to demonstrate the veracity of what they believe to have happened.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Annie on February 28, 2008, 02:03:47 PM

Point of information, Annie. One of the athors of this book has not read anything on this forum in years and takes zero interest in what is said about him on the internet EXCEPT when it is specifically drawn to his attention. Even then, he is more likely to evince irritation with the person who pointed it out. Quote: "I can't control what is said about me on the internet; it is part and parcel of being a public figure."

I believe that of Greg, however I'm not sure Penny agrees.

Quote
But, as a further point of information, it IS a personal attack to question the honesty of someone's conclusions. Like it or not, conscious or unconscious, all historians have an "agenda" to demonstrate the veracity of what they believe to have happened.

Then why is it a personal attack to question it? Look, the issue has been, there are mistakes in FOTR. There is questionable new info in FOTR. Much of this seems tied to the AA agenda. There is evidence the authors were heavily devoted to the AA cause at the time the book was written, and had plans of a claimant book at that time. Some of us feel that there is a connection between the two. If we cannot question this, why even have the thread?
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Janet Ashton on February 28, 2008, 02:27:44 PM
Quote
But, as a further point of information, it IS a personal attack to question the honesty of someone's conclusions. Like it or not, conscious or unconscious, all historians have an "agenda" to demonstrate the veracity of what they believe to have happened.

Then why is it a personal attack to question it? Look, the issue has been, there are mistakes in FOTR. There is questionable new info in FOTR. Much of this seems tied to the AA agenda. There is evidence the authors were heavily devoted to the AA cause at the time the book was written, and had plans of a claimant book at that time. Some of us feel that there is a connection between the two. If we cannot question this, why even have the thread?

Long ago, when I first got to know Greg, which was not long after reading on ATR the press announcement about FOTR (which I greeted with disbelief and distaste), I asked him whether it was a book about Anna Anderson being Anastasia, as some believed. He called it a book that had "started life as a re-examination of the Anna Anderson case." This isn't at all the same thing as devotion to her cause, and the book soon developed well beyond that narrow and specific beginning. And then he got me critiquing the manuscript precisely because of my cynicism about what I believed to be the premise of the book. If you ask what influence Peter Kurth had, you could equally ask what influence I had and any one of the other people who read it; I am not sure how many there were, but I know of at least four.

I would be wary of taking what you read about people on ATR archives and the like very seriously at all. As I have posted before, a lot of people jumped to conclusions about FOTR before it was published, and without knowing anything at all about it beyond their own issues with Peter Kurth (for instance). The book was NOT discussed with them. And Greg used to use ATR like most people would use a magazine: as a place to take a five minute break from work; NOT somewhere to go for a lengthy and serious discussion. In ninety per cent of his posts, his mind was elsewhere.

It might and indeed should be possible to write a book on Romanov claimants as a phenomenon WITHOUT espousing the cause of any one of them.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Annie on February 28, 2008, 03:41:54 PM

Long ago, when I first got to know Greg, which was not long after reading on ATR the press announcement about FOTR (which I greeted with disbelief and distaste), I asked him whether it was a book about Anna Anderson being Anastasia, as some believed. He called it a book that had "started life as a re-examination of the Anna Anderson case." This isn't at all the same thing as devotion to her cause, and the book soon developed well beyond that narrow and specific beginning. And then he got me critiquing the manuscript precisely because of my cynicism about what I believed to be the premise of the book.

Thank you for your backstory and honesty. So no one really denies that AA's case was the original inspiration for the book?

Quote
If you ask what influence Peter Kurth had, you could equally ask what influence I had and any one of the other people who read it; I am not sure how many there were, but I know of at least four.

I meant the influence of Kurth that in 2000 he made them heir to the AA legacy.

Quote
Greg used to use ATR like most people would use a magazine: as a place to take a five minute break from work; NOT somewhere to go for a lengthy and serious discussion. In ninety per cent of his posts, his mind was elsewhere.

I have always noticed that Greg is not the internet poster Penny is.

Quote
It might and indeed should be possible to write a book on Romanov claimants as a phenomenon WITHOUT espousing the cause of any one of them.


But doesn't it make a difference if these two authors in particular were made the 'torchbearers' and 'champions and defenders' of AA, who 'will become the crown of the tree'? (all these from the words of Kurth, not some random poster)
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Janet Ashton on February 28, 2008, 03:57:56 PM

Long ago, when I first got to know Greg, which was not long after reading on ATR the press announcement about FOTR (which I greeted with disbelief and distaste), I asked him whether it was a book about Anna Anderson being Anastasia, as some believed. He called it a book that had "started life as a re-examination of the Anna Anderson case." This isn't at all the same thing as devotion to her cause, and the book soon developed well beyond that narrow and specific beginning. And then he got me critiquing the manuscript precisely because of my cynicism about what I believed to be the premise of the book.

Thank you for your backstory and honesty. So no one really denies that AA's case was the original inspiration for the book?

Quote
If you ask what influence Peter Kurth had, you could equally ask what influence I had and any one of the other people who read it; I am not sure how many there were, but I know of at least four.

I meant the influence of Kurth that in 2000 he made them heir to the AA legacy.

Quote
Greg used to use ATR like most people would use a magazine: as a place to take a five minute break from work; NOT somewhere to go for a lengthy and serious discussion. In ninety per cent of his posts, his mind was elsewhere.

I have always noticed that Greg is not the internet poster Penny is.

Quote
It might and indeed should be possible to write a book on Romanov claimants as a phenomenon WITHOUT espousing the cause of any one of them.


But doesn't it make a difference if these two authors in particular were made the 'torchbearers' and 'champions and defenders' of AA, who 'will become the crown of the tree'? (all these from the words of Kurth, not some random poster)

Ah geez, I give up.....
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Dominic_Albanese on February 28, 2008, 04:15:55 PM
Exactly, what is your point Annie, and why should the general public be interested in it?

dca

ps. by the way, I *never* believed Anna Anderson was Anastasia (in its simplest form – it never passed the smell test for someone as simple minded as I am) and yet I can read, question, discuss, disagree, and accept many others who did (and some who continue to) believe - in a way that is respectful, doesn't question motivation, accepts the fact that information changes and evolves as time marches forward, and assumes that most people really do want to and try to do the right thing without an agenda.  The tone and tenor of the questions on this subject in the last few days in particular doesn’t ring that way to me and that’s what I object to and am being so vocal about.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Annie on February 28, 2008, 04:17:06 PM


Ah geez, I give up.....

Sorry, I've just seen too much pro AA, or at least 'maybe' AA stuff coming from them the last few years to believe a project would be objective. Penny has been especially very passionate (to put it kindly) on the subject.

Now Greg, I am not even sure he even believes in AA. I bought his first book out of the back of a magazine when he was an unknown, and I liked it. I also enjoyed "Man Who Killed Rasputin". Reading these books, I did not get the impression he even considered AA might be AN. It looks to me like this changed when he became 'in league' with Penny and Kurth. IMO, this was a sad thing for his career because had he stayed solo it looked like he was very promising to become one of the greatest Romanov writers ever.

Anyway, having seen, read and experienced all I have, I find it impossible to accept that the interest in AA was 'objective.' And, as Helen (and I) have said about bear's posts, when ALL of your posts are from that viewpoint they certainly make it look as if that is your stand on the issue. Words, and action, speak louder than denials.(what if I told you that I was an AA supporter? Or had no opinion one way or the other? Would you believe me, considering the past history of my posts?)  But then again, I don't believe anyone has really approached the AA case from a neutral position, except maybe Massie, though he was solidly a disbeliever. Kurth and Lovell felt very strongly pro AA. Godl was anti-AA. Klier and Mingay's book is billed as 'telling both sides and letting the reader make up their own mind', yet to me it's heavily anti-AA slanted. Even me, when I began my AA project, it was from the position that she was not AN and I was out to prove that. I would honestly like to see something written by someone from a completely neutral position (though I don't believe it's possible, since those interested in the case enough to write about it are generally too passionate one way or the other)
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Belochka on February 28, 2008, 04:25:05 PM

Long ago, when I first got to know Greg, which was not long after reading on ATR the press announcement about FOTR (which I greeted with disbelief and distaste), I asked him whether it was a book about Anna Anderson being Anastasia, as some believed. He called it a book that had "started life as a re-examination of the Anna Anderson case." This isn't at all the same thing as devotion to her cause, and the book soon developed well beyond that narrow and specific beginning. And then he got me critiquing the manuscript precisely because of my cynicism about what I believed to be the premise of the book.

Thank you for your backstory and honesty. So no one really denies that AA's case was the original inspiration for the book?

Indeed finally the truth of the matter has finally been revealed. This is what I wrote in October 2006 to the consternation of a few. These extracts were kindly published on Peter's SEARCH website:

"In order to write a book about the assassination of the Imperial Family, it appears that the authors were challenged by their idea, which is stated on the jacket cover of their book, of the possibility that Grand Duchess Anastasia may have survived her ordeal in the Ipatiev basement! This western idea having its origin in Berlin of the early 1920s was perpetuated by a small group of Russian exiles for many decades. Despite the fact that the identity of the alleged claimant was conclusively proven to be false when DNA profiling became available as a forensic analytical tool, FOTR attempts to maintain the notion of their survival hypothesis by discarding the expertise of all international forensic pathologists who collaborated to authenticate the skeletal remains of the Imperial Family."

and

"The authors of FOTR prefer to leave open the possibility that one or more Imperial children survived the massacre. In their efforts to prove this highly dubious hypothesis, King and Wilson not only discredit Russian scientific expertise but also distort the scientific evidence that identifies the remains found in Ekaterinburg are indeed those of the Imperial Family. For these reasons I would respectfully contend that this book has no place in the serious study of Russian history."

See: http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/Book-Review.html
....

It appears that dispite all the disapproval expressed by the FOTR authors and a number of their readers against my revelations, I was not mistaken in my estimation where the book was really heading.

Thank you Ms Ashton for revealing the truth of the matter.

Margarita Nelipa
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Puppylove on February 28, 2008, 04:39:48 PM
I agree with Belochka that Janet's explanations have made everything clear as a bell. The authors had an agenda (like every writer of a book or post) and probably did hope to write a sequal of sorts which would espouse AA as AN. Fate intervened. DNA evidence, combined with newly discovered bones which almost certainly belong to the missing Romanov children, ensures that any such sequal starring AA as AN will only be found in the fantasy section of your local bookstore. In my opinion King recognized the lost opportunity for what it was and moved on. There's evidence to indicate Wilson has not moved on...completely. Kurth agrees per Cody's email that he himself has not.

Jenn

Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Puppylove on February 28, 2008, 04:44:51 PM
frankly,  I have NO personal feelings for Penny or Greg one way or the other - other than having to admit I have learned much from their extensive scholarship over the years.  Are they always right, by their own words, they admit they are not.  I have not read one complaint about FOTR that was new - this book has been out for years and the same people bash it over and over again for essentailly the same reasons - do you really expect me to believe that suddenly there has been some new uncovered error in the book that has been in the wide market place for years?  I find that highly unlikely - even as sharp as you are (and I'm generally a fan of your work as well).  My expectation is that it won't be long before this discussion will be this weeks argument in the sandbox bringing much consentation and wasted time to many people.

Dominic, I understand the essence of your post, but I hope you are not suggesting that latecomers to the book have less of a right to their critiques and opinions than the book's first readers?
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Belochka on February 28, 2008, 04:51:56 PM
I agree with Belochka that Janet's explanations have made everything clear as a bell. The authors had an agenda (like every writer of a book or post) and probably did hope to write a sequal of sorts which would espouse AA as AN. Fate intervened.
Jenn

Jenn I believe that it was the truth that finally intervened.

Margarita
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Janet Ashton on February 28, 2008, 04:53:23 PM
I agree with Belochka that Janet's explanations have made everything clear as a bell. The authors had an agenda (like every writer of a book or post) and probably did hope to write a sequal of sorts which would espouse AA as AN. Fate intervened. DNA evidence, combined with newly discovered bones which almost certainly belong to the missing Romanov children, ensures that any such sequal starring AA as AN will only be found in the fantasy section of your local bookstore. In my opinion King recognized the lost opportunity for what it was and moved on. There's evidence to indicate Wilson has not moved on...completely. Kurth agrees per Cody's email that he himself has not.

Jenn



I am sorry, I have no wish to sound offensive, but you, Margarita and whoever can believe exactly as you wish about any "sequel;" you will never go beyond speculation by the very nature of what you have been told. Any decisions on whether or not any "sequel" would be written and what it might contain have and had nothing whatsoever to do with any newly-disovered bones or things of that nature. I have said here already that I find it very offensive that some people would attempt to reduce a book like FOTR to the status of a "prequel" to a rehash of the AA tale; I can't help it if people are uable to distinguish between a root and a tree. I sincerely wish I had not posted anything on this subject; I think I will ask FA r Lisa to delete my posts herewith.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Belochka on February 28, 2008, 05:03:53 PM
I agree with Belochka that Janet's explanations have made everything clear as a bell. The authors had an agenda (like every writer of a book or post) and probably did hope to write a sequal of sorts which would espouse AA as AN. Fate intervened. DNA evidence, combined with newly discovered bones which almost certainly belong to the missing Romanov children, ensures that any such sequal starring AA as AN will only be found in the fantasy section of your local bookstore. In my opinion King recognized the lost opportunity for what it was and moved on. There's evidence to indicate Wilson has not moved on...completely. Kurth agrees per Cody's email that he himself has not.

Jenn



I am sorry, I have no wish to sound offensive, but you, Margarita and whoever can believe exactly as you wish about any "sequel;" you will never go beyond speculation by the very nature of what you have been told. Any decisions on whether or not any "sequel" would be written and what it might contain have and had nothing whatsoever to do with any newly-disovered bones or things of that nature. I have said here already that I find it very offensive that some people would attempt to reduce a book like FOTR to the status of a "prequel" to a rehash of the AA tale; I can't help it if people are uable to distinguish between a root and a tree. I sincerely wish I had not posted anything on this subject; I think I will ask FA r Lisa to delete my posts herewith.


And thus it seems that the truth may be difficult to sustain and the request for a deletion is heard because suddenly the truth has become inconvenient.

Without the roots a tree cannot survive.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Annie on February 28, 2008, 05:06:57 PM

I am sorry, I have no wish to sound offensive, but you, Margarita and whoever can believe exactly as you wish about any "sequel;" you will never go beyond speculation by the very nature of what you have been told. Any decisions on whether or not any "sequel" would be written and what it might contain have and had nothing whatsoever to do with any newly-disovered bones or things of that nature. I have said here already that I find it very offensive that some people would attempt to reduce a book like FOTR to the status of a "prequel" to a rehash of the AA tale; I can't help it if people are uable to distinguish between a root and a tree. I sincerely wish I had not posted anything on this subject; I think I will ask FA r Lisa to delete my posts herewith.

WHY Janet? Don't you want the real truth to be known? Why would you want to deprive the truthseekers among us of such a valuable piece of evidence? I don't see any reason why this should be concealed, unless the authors are now ashamed of it, or embarrassed, since they have denied it. Either way, we are here to find out the REAL story, and if this is our answer, let it be.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Puppylove on February 28, 2008, 05:07:41 PM
I agree with Belochka that Janet's explanations have made everything clear as a bell. The authors had an agenda (like every writer of a book or post) and probably did hope to write a sequal of sorts which would espouse AA as AN. Fate intervened. DNA evidence, combined with newly discovered bones which almost certainly belong to the missing Romanov children, ensures that any such sequal starring AA as AN will only be found in the fantasy section of your local bookstore. In my opinion King recognized the lost opportunity for what it was and moved on. There's evidence to indicate Wilson has not moved on...completely. Kurth agrees per Cody's email that he himself has not.

Jenn




I am sorry, I have no wish to sound offensive, but you, Margarita and whoever can believe exactly as you wish about any "sequel;" you will never go beyond speculation by the very nature of what you have been told. Any decisions on whether or not any "sequel" would be written and what it might contain have and had nothing whatsoever to do with any newly-disovered bones or things of that nature. I have said here already that I find it very offensive that some people would attempt to reduce a book like FOTR to the status of a "prequel" to a rehash of the AA tale; I can't help it if people are uable to distinguish between a root and a tree. I sincerely wish I had not posted anything on this subject; I think I will ask FA r Lisa to delete my posts herewith.

I'm not offended, but you clearly are. I offered my opinion, I don't care enough to have it rise to the level of a belief.

Jenn
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Annie on February 28, 2008, 05:09:29 PM
And thus it seems that the truth may be difficult to sustain and the request for a deletion is heard because suddenly the truth has become inconvenient.

The truth should not be denied.

Quote
Without the roots a tree cannot survive.[/color]

...much less grow to become the crown..
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Puppylove on February 28, 2008, 05:16:30 PM
HONEST TO GOD, why are there SO MANY PEOPLE on this forum who write/delete....write/delete...write/delete. If you're going to post at least have the decency to stand by what you write! You can't have a discussion or an inquiry or a debate when half the posts go missing. GRRRR....
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Puppylove on February 28, 2008, 05:21:05 PM
And thus it seems that the truth may be difficult to sustain and the request for a deletion is heard because suddenly the truth has become inconvenient.

The truth should not be denied.

Quote
Without the roots a tree cannot survive.[/color]

...much less grow to become the crown..

LOL! No matter where one falls on the FOTR spectrum that was, to borrow Simon's phrase, well played!
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Belochka on February 28, 2008, 05:26:34 PM
HONEST TO GOD, why are there SO MANY PEOPLE on this forum who write/delete....write/delete...write/delete. If you're going to post at least have the decency to stand by what you write! You can't have a discussion or an inquiry or a debate when half the posts go missing. GRRRR....

I could't agree more Jenn.

Only yesterday I was reminded about the fine virtues of the English expression "freedom of speech" provided the issue is not libellous or threatening and abusive.

Margarita
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Belochka on February 28, 2008, 05:36:41 PM
And thus it seems that the truth may be difficult to sustain and the request for a deletion is heard because suddenly the truth has become inconvenient.

The truth should not be denied.

Quote
Without the roots a tree cannot survive.[/color]

...much less grow to become the crown..

Indeed there is no crown to be had nor riches to be gained.

The parent tree wilted and was forced to yield reluctantly to a new era ninety years ago uprooting the nation along the way.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Puppylove on February 28, 2008, 05:44:42 PM
HONEST TO GOD, why are there SO MANY PEOPLE on this forum who write/delete....write/delete...write/delete. If you're going to post at least have the decency to stand by what you write! You can't have a discussion or an inquiry or a debate when half the posts go missing. GRRRR....

I could't agree more Jenn.

Only yesterday I was reminded about the fine virtues of the English expression "freedom of speech" provided the issue is not libellous or threatening and abusive.

Margarita

Yes Margarita, freedom of speech. If people won't stand up for it then they've given up the privilege to lament it when it's gone. Anyway, I hope Janet thinks twice about removing her post because it really is central to the discussion. And this IS a discussion, not a hanging.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Forum Admin on February 28, 2008, 06:21:40 PM
Just for the record, I will repeat why we have the fifteen minute time limit for a poster to modify or delete their posting.  We wish to compel posters to THINK before hitting "post". too many people were having "monday morning quarterbacking" and deleting posts and leaving threads un-intelligible.  My policy is that NO post is deleted after the fact just because someone "changed their mind".  I must be presented with some compelling reason to remove the post other than someone wanting to pick up their marbles and find another sandbox.

FA
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Belochka on February 28, 2008, 06:33:44 PM
Just for the record, I will repeat why we have the fifteen minute time limit for a poster to modify or delete their posting.  We wish to compel posters to THINK before hitting "post". too many people were having "monday morning quarterbacking" and deleting posts and leaving threads un-intelligible.  My policy is that NO post is deleted after the fact just because someone "changed their mind".  I must be presented with some compelling reason to remove the post other than someone wanting to pick up their marbles and find another sandbox.

FA

To expose ones "marbles" may appear to be a heavy burden for the occassional players. However we are all willing participants in this arena.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Belochka on February 28, 2008, 07:00:51 PM
I agree with Belochka that Janet's explanations have made everything clear as a bell. The authors had an agenda (like every writer of a book or post) and probably did hope to write a sequal of sorts which would espouse AA as AN. Fate intervened. DNA evidence, combined with newly discovered bones which almost certainly belong to the missing Romanov children, ensures that any such sequal starring AA as AN will only be found in the fantasy section of your local bookstore. In my opinion King recognized the lost opportunity for what it was and moved on. There's evidence to indicate Wilson has not moved on...completely. Kurth agrees per Cody's email that he himself has not.

Jenn



I am sorry, I have no wish to sound offensive, but you, Margarita and whoever can believe exactly as you wish about any "sequel;"  ...

I am delighted that you have thought of me as you typed, however if you closely examine the originator of the posting you have addressed above you will find that it was not I.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: AGRBear on February 28, 2008, 07:42:18 PM
Here are King and Wilson's remarks which show how they felt and why they wrote what they did about the execution of Nicholas II and the others.

I assume most of you haven't gone back and read all of these pages,  so,  I thought I'd just forward a few of their comments.

We both wrote it, so I can only post my own thoughts.  When we first started, we had to of course determine how to do this-the vital center of the book.  And in the first few drafts it was quite short.  But I remember thinking of something that James Cameron said about making "Titanic"-that he wanted to show on film how horrible it must have been on that ship for everyone at the end, that it didn't just slip into the water with everyone linked arm and arm singing.  And the same was true for the murder.  The Imperial Family weren't just shot and quickly fell dead, and it wasn't all over in 10 seconds, as every film has depicted.  So it became very important to me to try to portray accurately what happened, including the wounds and what happened.  And it wasn't easy to do on any level.  I know some people have said what you do-that they have to put the book down-and that's exactly what I wanted, because this is a brutal, horrendous murder, and people need to think about it.  If you believe that the IF are martyrs, then this is their sacrifice; if they are simple victims, it is still a terrible massacre.  And at no other point in the book did I try so consciously try to evoke sympathy for them.  It was hard all around.

Greg King

Quote

If it is possible I wonder if either one of you could share with us your thoughts when writing this chapter. Again, I can't imagine your anquish at having to pen this information.

Louise,

As Greg said in his response, we knew that the murders would be the "vital center" of this book, and we did spend a  lot of time talking about how best to handle it. 

There was no question of soft-pedalling it; whether a reader thinks that the family and their friends were martyred or murdered, it was tremendously important to us to provide as completely researched an account as possible.  I read once -- I think it was in conjunction with my Holocaust Studies class in university -- that it is important to know what happened as thoroughly as possible, because then we can still bear witness for the victims.  I forget who wrote that -- perhaps Simon Wiesenthal? -- but I think it's very true, and this is what motivated me.  I wanted readers to feel that they could visualize that cellar room in their own minds, and follow along with what happened to each person.  And between us, I think we did a pretty good job -- Greg was just masterful in weaving together the various accounts.

It would have been all too easy to become emotionally tied up in writing that chapter, but that wasn't my job.  My job -- and Greg's -- was to make the reader feel the emotions, rather than to feel them ourselves.  So I focused myself strongly on whatever part of the murder we were writing and researching -- and the research never stopped.  Particularly in this part of the book, it was vital that everything be nailed down, checked and double-checked and cross-referenced.

It was only when I read the chapter afterwards -- long afterwards, probably after it had been type-set and I hadn't worked on it for a few months -- that I had an emotional response.  And for me, that response was to the death of Dr Botkin.  I couldn't tell you why, but the idea of that man struggling to raise himself from the floor struck me deep in my heart.  I had to go and take a long, hot shower and cry and pound on the walls.  I was very melodramatic!  ::)

The other thing that effected me emotionally was a single account of Trupp's last moments that we did not include because we could not finally establish the witness' presence in or around the murder room:  This witness claimed that in his last moments, after the shooting began, with every gun pointed straight at the Emperor's chest, Trupp pushed himself off the back wall and charged the assassination squad, cursing and shouting "like a Catholic," the person said.   I can believe it possible that an old military man like Trupp would react like this -- but what that witness must have thought of Catholics!  ;D
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: AGRBear on February 28, 2008, 07:55:11 PM
Another example on how King and Wilson worked the information they found:

Quote

Picked it up for $48 from amazon used book section.

-----

Back to Myachin/Yakovlev.  Was it in his memiors about his various deeds and alliases...?    And,  how do you or other researchers confirm that these papers are authenic  and not something placed there by the communists just like they did for Halliburton whom you mention on p. 19 -20?

For those who don't have their book,  King and Wilson talked about American journalist who was given the oportunity to talk to Ermakov. And I quote:  >>"In fact, Soviet authorities had carefully managed the entire Ermakov "confession."  His translator, the mysterious Walter, was later discovered to have been an agent of the GPU. successor to the Cheka.  Many year later, Stoneman speculated the entire affiar had been designed to "feed" Halliburton, as an unsuspecting dupe, "with Moscow's prepackaged 'facts.'"<<

AGRBear

The answer is research, pure and simple.  Yakovlev left 4-5 memoirs or statements, so we compared content, looked at what we knew to be true versus any peculiarities, looked at when things were written and deposited, etc.  While you have to exercise ordinary caution, I think suggesting that anything that originates from Russian archives or from a Soviet source is suspect is simply imposing personal prejudice.  Yakovlev's memoirs, and their content, bear no relation to the Ermakov "confession," which when it comes to what happened after the murders simply falls apart as a deliberate lie.  You always look for key indicators like distortion or error when examining anything in this case, but you also examine materials against a wider catalog of other materials that can help confirm or deny their veracity.

Greg King
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: AGRBear on February 28, 2008, 08:25:57 PM
Reread up to page 9, and the majority of people who posted liked FATE OF THE ROMANOVS up to this point in this thread.

I remember way back then that both Helen and Annie told me to read this book because it would answer a lot of my questions.

I found this post which Helen wrote:

I thought this was an interesting review of  Helen's  after she first read FATE OF THE ROMANOVS:

I want to add my two cents here, as AnastasiaFan and I started to discuss this topic on a different thread.

One of the reasons I liked FOTR is because until this book came out, I always felt like something was missing from the portrayals of the characters in other Romanov- related books. The personalities were often polarized, either too stereotypically good or too stereotypically bad, kind of flat even because of that. The authors always seemed to take sides and go out of their way to show either the angelic IF or the evil revolutionaries. To me, somehow something was always missing in these portrayals, something I couldn't quite put my finger on but I always felt that there must be more to it. In FOTR we saw things that were different. We saw the IF members that were not such an ideal family after all, instead a normal human one with all the issues and problems of a normal family. They had issues like normal teenage daughters have with their mother (who doesn't?). This of course didn't  mean they were matricidal, or that they couldn't stand the site of her or would never write loving notes or letters to her, they just mean that there were normal tensions between the mother and her children, as we can witness across the board in a common human experience, royal or not they were human. Somehow the portrayal in FOTR seemed more realistic to me. I know there have been many accounts of the IF being the most harmonious and the most ideal family ever, who never had any discords among each other or any disagreements and who all loved each other at all time and never argued. This is all very nice, and I am sure some people really did see them that way. But we all know that things are rarely, if ever, what they appear to be. I am not saying that this means that things behind the royal doors were totally different than they seemed, or that when no one was looking Nicholas would get drunk and beat his wife and children or something like that, but I am fairly sure that they were not as ideal as they have been described in the past. I am certain that beyond the "facade"(for the lack of better term), they were real human beings - teenagers or young adults, with mood swings and all. I don't think that makes them seem any less admirable in certain ways that they were, and it doesn't make them any less likable. In fact, quite the opposite, it made them seem more real and more interesting. I think this was the first book that actually addressed many of these things, and maybe this is why many people were taken aback by it. But just because something was never addressed in other books before, it doesn't mean at all that it must be false information. In fact, from what I understand, Penny and Greg were two of very few Romanov historians who actually went to primary sources for their references, and this makes it more credible to me.

Helen

There is a number of posts which followed this one as Helen worked through some subjects.

I think her earlier posts about this book were more accurate than what she believes today.

AGRBear
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Annie on February 28, 2008, 08:37:12 PM
Bumping this up to merge with a similar thread. Discuss away, but PUHLEEEEZE try not to rehash arguments already done to death in the previous thirty pages. 

FA

BEAR: When FA bumped this thread, he asked us NOT to 'rehash' the last 30 pages. So please stop reposting the same old posts. If anyone wants to read the old ones, the pages are still there. Let's move along to NEW things that haven't been said before, and new posts with new info.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Puppylove on February 28, 2008, 10:59:04 PM
I agree with Belochka that Janet's explanations have made everything clear as a bell. The authors had an agenda (like every writer of a book or post) and probably did hope to write a sequal of sorts which would espouse AA as AN. Fate intervened. DNA evidence, combined with newly discovered bones which almost certainly belong to the missing Romanov children, ensures that any such sequal starring AA as AN will only be found in the fantasy section of your local bookstore. In my opinion King recognized the lost opportunity for what it was and moved on. There's evidence to indicate Wilson has not moved on...completely. Kurth agrees per Cody's email that he himself has not.

Jenn





I am sorry, I have no wish to sound offensive, but you, Margarita and whoever can believe exactly as you wish about any "sequel;"  ...

I am delighted that you have thought of me as you typed, however if you closely examine the originator of the posting you have addressed above you will find that it was not I.

Margarita, Janet may have taken her marbles and gone home for the night, but I trust her to correct me if I'm wrong: I think she was addressing me, and you, and whoever. On the other hand, if she confused me for you, well, I'll just take that as a tremendous compliment and run with it!

Jenn
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Puppylove on February 28, 2008, 11:09:46 PM

There is a number of posts which followed this one as Helen worked through some subjects.

I think her earlier posts about this book were more accurate than what she believes today.

AGRBear

Or maybe Helen was hepped up on catnip the day she wrote this review. Gratefully her first post and many (not all) of her subsequent ones have been preserved so readers can follow the progression of her thoughts and reach their own conclusions. As Forum Admin indicated, intact threads are cool that way (paraphrased).
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Janet Ashton on February 29, 2008, 07:06:15 AM
Just for the record, I will repeat why we have the fifteen minute time limit for a poster to modify or delete their posting.  We wish to compel posters to THINK before hitting "post". too many people were having "monday morning quarterbacking" and deleting posts and leaving threads un-intelligible.  My policy is that NO post is deleted after the fact just because someone "changed their mind".  I must be presented with some compelling reason to remove the post other than someone wanting to pick up their marbles and find another sandbox.

FA


Yeah well, I'm not storming out of the sandbox; I don't "do" newsgroup histrionics. My post was well- thought-out and - I believed - helpful in clarifying how reserach topics develope and evolve from one beginning into quite a different animal. I was totally taken aback to see people read it as quite the opposite. I guess I just wouldn't ask for anyone else's weird follow-ups to be deleted; but it's pretty clear that the marbles blowing left right and centre and all over the floor aren't mine....;-)

I don't know why, but every time Margarita addresses me, I'm reminded of a large school girl with a waggng finger and her hands on her hips, approaching the miscreant with a bunch of friends lurking behind, some giggling, others just staring..
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Belochka on February 29, 2008, 07:56:47 AM
Yeah well, I'm not storming out of the sandbox; I don't "do" newsgroup histrionics. My post was well- thought-out and - I believed - helpful in clarifying how reserach topics develope and evolve from one beginning into quite a different animal. I was totally taken aback to see people read it as quite the opposite. I guess I just wouldn't ask for anyone else's weird follow-ups to be deleted; but it's pretty clear that the marbles blowing left right and centre and all over the floor aren't mine....;-)

I don't know why, but every time Margarita addresses me, I'm reminded of a large school girl with a waggng finger and her hands on her hips, approaching the miscreant with a bunch of friends lurking behind, some giggling, others just staring..

BTW, it is anatomically impossible to have both hands on one's hips and wagger a finger simultaneously.

Indeed it is most regrettable that if one is unable to offer a constructive discussion they must instead resort to discontented criticism.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Dominic_Albanese on February 29, 2008, 08:02:13 AM
Thank you for proving my point better than I ever could...The sandbox is open, the same people are playing, all is well in their world.  Radio silence time, sit back and chuckle...
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Annie on February 29, 2008, 08:28:38 AM
Okay, after reading this thread, the ATR archives, AP over the last four years, and a few other things, I am going to offer up my theory- mind you that is what it is, not an 'accusation' or 'attack' but a hypothesis based on information and experience as to how it all progressed.

First, in 2000, Kurth clearly and obviously passed the torch of the AA legacy to Wilson and King. Seemingly, being the new 'heirs' standing on the shoulders of past supporters, their mission was to find a way for AA to still be AN despite the DNA evidence. To achieve any measure of believability in this, two things would have to be accomplished: one, the pesky DNA would have to be challenged and discredited, if not fully, then leaving 'reasonable doubt' in the minds of laymen. Two, there would have to be 'startling new evidence' that changes the long held views of the Romanovs and what became of them, especially on the murder night.

It is not a secret that FOTR leaves the door open for AN to have still been alive after the executions, leaving a possible window of opportunity for the 'cart story' to find a way to come true, or at least leave 'reasonable doubt' in the minds of the average person that it could. Other factors that associate the AA story with FOTR are the 'mistakes' alleging that the girls were 'not left in peace' on the Rus, and Penny's earlier post insinuating there were at least three opportunies for AN to have been involved sexually with guards, and openly stating that "AA-as-Anastasia left the Ipatiev house pregnant.' Stir in the "Buxhoevedon betrayal"- something that AA used to try to prove it was something "only Anastasia would have known". FOTR tries hard to prove this, though it has since been discounted by other research, and Sophie's own memoirs themselves. Sophie had to be made a traitor, because AA said she was, though, like the alleged rape stories, has no factual basis and can be discounted with other sources, especially the memoirs of those involved. So, yes, it does appear that perhaps these things were emphasied in order to help the eventual conclusion that 'maybe' AA 'was' AN after all!

It has been noted and proven through past conversations and correspondence that the project undertaken by Wilson and King, the new heirs apparent to the AA legacy dating back to 1925 in Berlin, Rathlef, shoulders, trees, etc., was originally a re-examination of the AA case, but it changed and grew into something larger. True, FOTR is not a book about AA, but the idea did start that way. In 2002, King argued to someone who had asked if his new book was AA related, answered that the poster was confusing a planned project from two years ago with the current one, or what it evolved into. So we have established- the book began as an AA project and took on larger subject matter. However, I am still convinced the two might still be related...

When I first came to this forum four years ago, and over the next year or two, Penny was actively posting that there was a new 'claimant' book in the works. She frequently posted- some now deleted, some not- things that alluded to our said outright that AA either was or could possibly be AN. She mentioned 'new' evidence she had found that would prove this, but when asked about it, she would become indignant, sometimes get upset about being challenged, or would even delete certain posts or leave the forum temporarily. That appeared suspicious to me, and yes I doubted such 'new' 'proof' existed or could be produced. Other times, she graciously told us that we'd just have to wait for the book, and that her publisher did not allow her to devulge anything about the project. This did not, as it were, stop her from dropping inticing little hints to keep interest sparked for the AA story and therefore the upcoming project.

So here is my 'theory'- not an open accusation: It does seem likely that at least part of the original purpose of FOTR was to set up a lead-in to the 'sequel' or new book on AA and claimants, laying the background work and leaving the door at the Ipatiev house cracked for AN's escape. I have no idea if the author(s) actually believed this, or were only carrying on the myth for sensationalistic purposes. I am not Rasputin, I cannot read hearts or minds, all I can do is what any juror would do, take the presented evidence and draw what I feel is the most logical conclusion.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 29, 2008, 08:37:21 AM
Wow, it looks like I missed a lot yesterday...

Just for the record, I will repeat why we have the fifteen minute time limit for a poster to modify or delete their posting.  We wish to compel posters to THINK before hitting "post". too many people were having "monday morning quarterbacking" and deleting posts and leaving threads un-intelligible.  My policy is that NO post is deleted after the fact just because someone "changed their mind".  I must be presented with some compelling reason to remove the post other than someone wanting to pick up their marbles and find another sandbox.

Thank you for this, FA, this was a great idea because too much denial has gone on in the past after the "incriminating" posts were deleted by posters , making some of us appear petty and vengeful and them as innocent victims who never said or did anything even close to what they are being accused of.   
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 29, 2008, 09:00:29 AM
Okay, after reading this thread, the ATR archives, AP over the last four years, and a few other things, I am going to offer up my theory- mind you that is what it is, not an 'accusation' or 'attack' but a hypothesis based on information and experience as to how it all progressed.

First, in 2000, Kurth clearly and obviously passed the torch of the AA legacy to Wilson and King. Seemingly, being the new 'heirs' standing on the shoulders of past supporters, their mission was to find a way for AA to still be AN despite the DNA evidence. To achieve any measure of believability in this, two things would have to be accomplished: one, the pesky DNA would have to be challenged and discredited, if not fully, then leaving 'reasonable doubt' in the minds of laymen. Two, there would have to be 'startling new evidence' that changes the long held views of the Romanovs and what became of them, especially on the murder night.

It is not a secret that FOTR leaves the door open for AN to have still been alive after the executions, leaving a possible window of opportunity for the 'cart story' to find a way to come true, or at least leave 'reasonable doubt' in the minds of the average person that it could. Other factors that associate the AA story with FOTR are the 'mistakes' alleging that the girls were 'not left in peace' on the Rus, and Penny's earlier post insinuating there were at least three opportunies for AN to have been involved sexually with guards, and openly stating that "AA-as-Anastasia left the Ipatiev house pregnant.' Stir in the "Buxhoevedon betrayal"- something that AA used to try to prove it was something "only Anastasia would have known". FOTR tries hard to prove this, though it has since been discounted by other research, and Sophie's own memoirs themselves. Sophie had to be made a traitor, because AA said she was, though, like the alleged rape stories, has no factual basis and can be discounted with other sources, especially the memoirs of those involved. So, yes, it does appear that perhaps these things were emphasied in order to help the eventual conclusion that 'maybe' AA 'was' AN after all!

It has been noted and proven through past conversations and correspondence that the project undertaken by Wilson and King, the new heirs apparent to the AA legacy dating back to 1925 in Berlin, Rathlef, shoulders, trees, etc., was originally a re-examination of the AA case, but it changed and grew into something larger. True, FOTR is not a book about AA, but the idea did start that way. In 2002, King argued to someone who had asked if his new book was AA related, answered that the poster was confusing a planned project from two years ago with the current one, or what it evolved into. So we have established- the book began as an AA project and took on larger subject matter. However, I am still convinced the two might still be related...

When I first came to this forum four years ago, and over the next year or two, Penny was actively posting that there was a new 'claimant' book in the works. She frequently posted- some now deleted, some not- things that alluded to our said outright that AA either was or could possibly be AN. She mentioned 'new' evidence she had found that would prove this, but when asked about it, she would become indignant, sometimes get upset about being challenged, or would even delete certain posts or leave the forum temporarily. That appeared suspicious to me, and yes I doubted such 'new' 'proof' existed or could be produced. Other times, she graciously told us that we'd just have to wait for the book, and that her publisher did not allow her to devulge anything about the project. This did not, as it were, stop her from dropping inticing little hints to keep interest sparked for the AA story and therefore the upcoming project.

So here is my 'theory'- not an open accusation: It does seem likely that at least part of the original purpose of FOTR was to set up a lead-in to the 'sequel' or new book on AA and claimants, laying the background work and leaving the door at the Ipatiev house cracked for AN's escape. I have no idea if the author(s) actually believed this, or were only carrying on the myth for sensationalistic purposes. I am not Rasputin, I cannot read hearts or minds, all I can do is what any juror would do, take the presented evidence and draw what I feel is the most logical conclusion.

This is a good synopsis, Annie, but I want to add to it.

Personally, what really bothers me about FOTR is not the AA aspect, but the fact that so many sources seem to have been fudged (key word "seemed to have been"- I'm not making a direct accusation). I know that editorial errors happen, but it's very hard for me to believe that editors would change the text to mean the opposite of what the sources said, which also happend to coincide with the suspected agenda. One would have to be extremely naive to believe this, especially in light of the fact that we know that the book was originally conceived with a specific agenda, i.e, to try to prove that AA was legitimate, or at least plant a seed of doubt about the opposite theory in the reader's mind. If we consider all that happened in the last few years, knowing what we know is it really so far fetched to suspect that the sourced were used with that same agenda in mind?
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Raegan on February 29, 2008, 09:28:34 AM
So was there ever an answer to what the correct sources were? If these were "editorial mistakes," what were the correct sources?
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Forum Admin on February 29, 2008, 09:32:49 AM
My patience is wearing thin about having to remind posters once a day it seems that this thread is for CONTENT related discussions and not for personal discussions of the authors or other posters.

I have deleted or modified offending posts.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Puppylove on February 29, 2008, 09:37:23 AM

This is a good synopsis, Annie, but I want to add to it.

Personally, what really bothers me about FOTR is not the AA aspect, but the fact that so many sources seem to have been fudged (key word "seemed to have been"- I'm not making a direct accusation). I know that editorial errors happen, but it's very hard for me to believe that editors would change the text to mean the opposite of what the sources said, which also happend to coincide with the suspected agenda. One would have to be extremely naive to believe this, especially in light of the fact that we know that the book was originally conceived with a specific agenda, i.e, to try to prove that AA was legitimate, or at least plant a seed of doubt about the opposite theory in the reader's mind. If we consider all that happened in the last few years, knowing what we know is it really so far fetched to suspect that the sourced were used with that same agenda in mind?

And so what if posters are "speculating" as to a potential agenda? What writer wouldn't love a shot at a prequal or sequal if the book was successful? If King and Wilson hoped for a follow up that didn't pan out no harm/no foul.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Puppylove on February 29, 2008, 09:44:20 AM

There is a number of posts which followed this one as Helen worked through some subjects.

I think her earlier posts about this book were more accurate than what she believes today.

AGRBear

Helen, I think Bear has a good question here, would you mind addressing the evolution of your thoughts?

Thanks, Jenn
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Raegan on February 29, 2008, 09:58:40 AM
So was there ever an answer to what the correct sources were?

I guess not.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Annie on February 29, 2008, 10:04:28 AM

Personally, what really bothers me about FOTR is not the AA aspect, but the fact that so many sources seem to have been fudged (key word "seemed to have been"- I'm not making a direct accusation). I know that editorial errors happen, but it's very hard for me to believe that editors would change the text to mean the opposite of what the sources said, which also happend to coincide with the suspected agenda. One would have to be extremely naive to believe this, especially in light of the fact that we know that the book was originally conceived with a specific agenda, i.e, to try to prove that AA was legitimate, or at least plant a seed of doubt about the opposite theory in the reader's mind. If we consider all that happened in the last few years, knowing what we know is it really so far fetched to suspect that the sourced were used with that same agenda in mind?

Yes, and it was also rather suspicious the way it took so long- weeks, months, to finally explain what happened. It seems to me that if there was a real, direct, honest answer, it would have come immediately and not taken so long to reveal. I have a hard time accepting that every single 'error' was due to the editors' mistakes, especially when every one of them totally changed the meaning from a source. If I were their editors, I would be upset.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 29, 2008, 10:04:52 AM

There is a number of posts which followed this one as Helen worked through some subjects.

I think her earlier posts about this book were more accurate than what she believes today.

AGRBear

Helen, I think Bear has a good question here, would you mind addressing the evolution of your thoughts?

Thanks, Jenn

Absolutely! As I mentioned more than once when I refer to FOTR, my initial reaction to the book was "hey, this is different than any other book I've read on the Romanovs!", which made me like FOTR. The post which AGR is referring to was made by me in November 2004 - 3 and half years ago. At that time I had not as much knowledge about the Romanovs as I do now (although I thought it did). In the last 3 and half years, I have learned much. At the time I also didn't check any of the sources in FOTR, but like many other readers took the authors' words face value and assumed the sources were correct. Only when I got more involved in Romanov discussions, learned a lot more about them and finally checked the sources, did I realize what kind of "new" information we were dealing with here. My post from 3 and half years ago just goes to show you that I accepted FOTR with an open mind, had no personaly vendetta for the authors or against the book (much like most other readers), and only after I obtained more information did I realize that the book is full of holes and mistakes and apparent agenda. I hope this addresses this subject sufficiently, but feel free to ask more questions!
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Annie on February 29, 2008, 10:08:59 AM

This is a good synopsis, Annie, but I want to add to it.

Personally, what really bothers me about FOTR is not the AA aspect, but the fact that so many sources seem to have been fudged (key word "seemed to have been"- I'm not making a direct accusation). I know that editorial errors happen, but it's very hard for me to believe that editors would change the text to mean the opposite of what the sources said, which also happend to coincide with the suspected agenda. One would have to be extremely naive to believe this, especially in light of the fact that we know that the book was originally conceived with a specific agenda, i.e, to try to prove that AA was legitimate, or at least plant a seed of doubt about the opposite theory in the reader's mind. If we consider all that happened in the last few years, knowing what we know is it really so far fetched to suspect that the sourced were used with that same agenda in mind?

And so what if posters are "speculating" as to a potential agenda? What writer wouldn't love a shot at a prequal or sequal if the book was successful? If King and Wilson hoped for a follow up that didn't pan out no harm/no foul.

This is one thing I would really like to address. IF they originally had a plan that didn't work out, just say so. There is no need to deny it or get defensive over it. Obviously, AA was the inspiration for what eventually became FOTR, and at the time it came out and right after, there was talk of a claimant book. Perhaps the authors have now changed their minds. If they have, that's okay, but please let us know. If the things they said/did in the past are no longer the same view they hold now, let us know. Don't deny the past, just fess up to it, admit error, tell us they've changed their minds and let's move on.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Forum Admin on February 29, 2008, 10:10:08 AM
So was there ever an answer to what the correct sources were?

I guess not.

Raegan,

If you mean at least as for the Rus incident,  go back a couple of pages, you can first read my annotated version, and then Janet Ashton said that she read the original manuscript, which also had the same references that I mentioned.  If you mean something else, you need to be more specific please.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 29, 2008, 10:14:05 AM
So was there ever an answer to what the correct sources were? If these were "editorial mistakes," what were the correct sources?

No, there wasn't. And I am not really holding my breath that we will ever get these "corrected" sources...
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 29, 2008, 10:22:42 AM
Perhaps the authors have now changed their minds. If they have, that's okay, but please let us know. If the things they said/did in the past are no longer the same view they hold now, let us know. Don't deny the past, just fess up to it, admit error, tell us they've changed their minds and let's move on.

I agree with this. If the authors would just admit their mistakes publicly and give the new version of events, based in real facts, we wouldn't have these endless discussions popping up now and then, which more often than not end up becoming hostile and cause so many bad feelings continously. Obviously people are not ready to drop something which has not been resolved. If they would only own up to their mistakes, admit that they changed their minds or something like that, SOMETHING instead of saying that it was the editors' fault (which is obviously not the case), all this wouldn't be happening over and over. Otherwise these issues will keep coming up because they remain as a gaping hole. But based on everything I have experienced and know, I have a strong feeling that it will never happen...
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Puppylove on February 29, 2008, 10:24:59 AM

There is a number of posts which followed this one as Helen worked through some subjects.

I think her earlier posts about this book were more accurate than what she believes today.

AGRBear

Helen, I think Bear has a good question here, would you mind addressing the evolution of your thoughts?

Thanks, Jenn

Absolutely! As I mentioned more than once when I refer to FOTR, my initial reaction to the book was "hey, this is different than any other book I've read on the Romanovs!", which made me like FOTR. The post which AGR is referring to was made by me in November 2004 - 3 and half years ago. At that time I had not as much knowledge about the Romanovs as I do now (although I thought it did). In the last 3 and half years, I have learned much. At the time I also didn't check any of the sources in FOTR, but like many other readers took the authors' words face value and assumed the sources were correct. Only when I got more involved in Romanov discussions, learned a lot more about them and finally checked the sources, did I realize what kind of "new" information we were dealing with here. My post from 3 and half years ago just goes to show you that I accepted FOTR with an open mind, had no personaly vendetta for the authors or against the book (much like most other readers), and only after I obtained more information did I realize that the book is full of holes and mistakes and apparent agenda. I hope this addresses this subject sufficiently, but feel free to ask more questions!

Thank you Helen. I know you've been accused of having an agenda, so this sets the record straight for me (and hopefully for Bear). There's no crime (or agenda) in adjusting one's views as more facts become known regarding books or real life. It's kind of a reader's obligation to oneself.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 29, 2008, 10:32:56 AM

There is a number of posts which followed this one as Helen worked through some subjects.

I think her earlier posts about this book were more accurate than what she believes today.

AGRBear

Helen, I think Bear has a good question here, would you mind addressing the evolution of your thoughts?

Thanks, Jenn

Absolutely! As I mentioned more than once when I refer to FOTR, my initial reaction to the book was "hey, this is different than any other book I've read on the Romanovs!", which made me like FOTR. The post which AGR is referring to was made by me in November 2004 - 3 and half years ago. At that time I had not as much knowledge about the Romanovs as I do now (although I thought it did). In the last 3 and half years, I have learned much. At the time I also didn't check any of the sources in FOTR, but like many other readers took the authors' words face value and assumed the sources were correct. Only when I got more involved in Romanov discussions, learned a lot more about them and finally checked the sources, did I realize what kind of "new" information we were dealing with here. My post from 3 and half years ago just goes to show you that I accepted FOTR with an open mind, had no personaly vendetta for the authors or against the book (much like most other readers), and only after I obtained more information did I realize that the book is full of holes and mistakes and apparent agenda. I hope this addresses this subject sufficiently, but feel free to ask more questions!

Thank you Helen. I know you've been accused of having an agenda, so this sets the record straight for me (and hopefully for Bear). There's no crime (or agenda) in adjusting one's views as more facts become known regarding books or real life. It's kind of a reader's obligation to oneself.

And I didn't go back and delete my posts from 3.5 years ago where my opinion was different from my current one, even though there was a time not long ago when that was possible. Quite the contrary, I want my early posts to stand so that everyone can see that I had no personal vendetta against the authors or any agenda right from the get-go (as Janet A claims that some people had before the book even came out). In fact, initially I couldn't understand why so many people felt so strongly about this book, and seemed to hate it and the authors. It was only later, when I learned a lot of additional information, both about the Romanov history and about the book, when I started to realize what it was all about...
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Annie on February 29, 2008, 11:11:29 AM
Let me say too that I am glad FA took away the delete feature. We had some very good and informative discussions here, and now when we look back at some of them, they're full of holes, missing info, things quoted with no name, some people left standing holding bags of rebuttals that were originally in response to some very vicious posts now removed, but without those, make the person attacked look mean and crazy. Whole threads no longer make any sense. Valuable bits of info have been removed by several contributors to our early AA threads, and this is a shame so much was lost. (not everyone who did this was an AA supporter, and their posts were a great loss to the forum)  I agree that everyone should think before they post, and a smalll time frame is available to change your mind, after that, it's here to stay (unless a mod deletes it)
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Raegan on February 29, 2008, 12:17:24 PM
Raegan,

If you mean at least as for the Rus incident,  go back a couple of pages, you can first read my annotated version, and then Janet Ashton said that she read the original manuscript, which also had the same references that I mentioned.  If you mean something else, you need to be more specific please.

I skimmed the last few pages but didn't see anything. Perhaps it is on a different thread? I'm very curious about the correct sources for the Maria and the guard claim as well as Sophie's betrayal. If these were "editorial mistakes," then what are the correct sources for these claims? 
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Annie on February 29, 2008, 12:22:17 PM
Raegan,

If you mean at least as for the Rus incident,  go back a couple of pages, you can first read my annotated version, and then Janet Ashton said that she read the original manuscript, which also had the same references that I mentioned.  If you mean something else, you need to be more specific please.

I skimmed the last few pages but didn't see anything. Perhaps it is on a different thread? I'm very curious about the correct sources for the Maria and the guard claim as well as Sophie's betrayal. If these were "editorial mistakes," then what are the correct sources for these claims? 

It was in the other thread. See, that happens;)

Simon had made some comment about the allegations of rape on the Rus, and said something to the effect that "well Gibbes was there."

An analysis of the text of FOTR pg140-141 using the known evidence. (my additions in bold)
"'The women, as Buxhoeveden recalled, had been ordered "to leave our cabin doors open all night. No one undressed." [Through the open doors, the soldiers leered at the grand duchesses]this phrase added by the authors, there is NO factual evidence to support the statement, and it is asserted as FACT and not identified as speculation [refusing, as Volkov later learned, to "leave them in peace"]Completely false. Volkov stated the GDs WERE LEFT IN PEACE. The abuse reached a cresendo as the night wore on. exactly what abuse? again, abuse is stated as fact when there is no support in the evidence.   Gibbes, locked away in his cabin, listened helplessly, as he later told his son George, as the drunken guards harassesd the grand duchesses, "It was dreadful, what they did,"  the former tutor recalled.  The "terrifed screams" of the girls, Gibbes said, haunted him, "to the end of his life."When Gibbes was deposed by Sokolov within months of the event, HE SAID NOTHING about abuse or screams or anything else. This statement was made literally decades after the fact, and saliently in House of Special Purpose George Gibbes made NO MENTION of this event on the Rus. "Rodionov, who was in charge of the evil-looking detachment, insisted on padlocking Alexis and Nagorny into their cabin, even though it was made clear that the child might need a doctor. The girls, on the other hand, were forbidden to lock their cabin door." (HOSP, pp. 102-103) 
 
"Almost certainly, the Grand Duchesses were subjected to taunts, and perhaps lewd advances at the hands of the drunken Latvian guards, how this progressed as the evening wore on is impossible to determine." Saliently, there is no cited evidence to support this supposition at all, much less "almost certainly'. To the contrary, Buxhoeveden writes specifically that only the assigned guards came near them, the others stayed on their assigned part of the boat, see "Left Behind" - "The rest of the soldiers did not come near us and spent the day on their part of the deck, singing and playing the accordion.  Some had fine voices, and it carried us back to happier days,..."
 
"no matter what took place, it is difficult not to believe that the experience had a profound traumatic effect on the young women, particularily grand Duchess Olga. Once she arrived in Ekaterinburg, Olga was withdrawn, silent, and did not mix with her sisters, perhaps indicating that she suffered some significant trauma. "  Buxhoeveden says Olga N. was showing these syptoms in April, weeks BEFORE the voyage on the Rus: cf. Life & Tragedy..."Olga Nicholaevna was in a state of great anxiety. She longed to join her parents, for whose fate she trembled, and, on the other hand, she feared the move for her brother, both on account of his health and also for fear of what the move might lead to" at Ch. 31; or perhaps for myriad of other reasons including imprisonment itself under increasingly difficult circumstances. - cf: Gilliard Ch. 22 "The conditions of the imprisonment were much more severe than at Tobolsk. Avdiev was an inveterate drunkard, who gave rein to his coarse instincts, and, with the assistance of his subordinates, showed great ingenuity in daily inflicting fresh humiliations upon those in his charge. There was no alternative but to accept the privations, submit to the vexations, yield to the exactions and caprices of these low, vulgar scoundrels."
 
"The near veil of silence surrounding the events of that night, however, is not difficult to understand, given the exalted position of the Grand Duchesses; ... to present them as paragons of all moral virtue  or perhaps the "silence" is because NOTHING ACTUALLY HAPPENED so no one had anything to say. ie: the entire diary entry of Gilliard:
"Monday May 20th - At half-past eleven we left the house and went on board the Russ.  She is the boat which brought us with the Czar and Czarina eight months ago.  Baroness Buxhoeveden has been granted permission to rejoin us.  We left Tobolsk at five o'clock.  Commisar Rodionov has shut Alexei Nicholaievich in his cabin with Nagorny.  We protested: the child is ill and the doctor ought to have access to him at any time.
"Wednesday May 22nd - We reached Tiumen this morning."
or here is the ENTIRE discussion on the subject in the Sokolov investigation's report made AFTER interrogating all surviving passengers of the Rus(pg 146)
    "Here is how the journey of the imperial children went under the command of Rodionov:
     "From Gilliard's deposition: "Rodionov behaved very badly. He closed off from outside the cabin in which were found Alexei with Nagorny.  All of the other cabins, in particular those of the Grand Duchesses were not to be locked from inside, under his order."
     "The morning of May 22, the imperial children arrived in Tiumen."

 
"Those on board the ship were unable (being locked up) or unwilling (through fear of reprisal ...) again, suppostion without evidence, yet stated as fact...This may be the key to the events of that night: shame and humiliation at not being able to come to the defense of the helpless Grand Duchesses might well account for Gibbes' "worst memory.


I also found that I had said this, and I believe it is one fundamental obligation of authors:
ANY author writing what purports to be accurate historical non-fiction must keep what they know "for sure from the evidence" separate from their speculation and imagination based on that evidence.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 29, 2008, 12:34:15 PM
An analysis of the text of FOTR pg140-141 using the known evidence. (my additions in bold)
"'The women, as Buxhoeveden recalled, had been ordered "to leave our cabin doors open all night. No one undressed." [Through the open doors, the soldiers leered at the grand duchesses]this phrase added by the authors, there is NO factual evidence to support the statement, and it is asserted as FACT and not identified as speculation [refusing, as Volkov later learned, to "leave them in peace"]Completely false. Volkov stated the GDs WERE LEFT IN PEACE. The abuse reached a cresendo as the night wore on. exactly what abuse? again, abuse is stated as fact when there is no support in the evidence.   Gibbes, locked away in his cabin, listened helplessly, as he later told his son George, as the drunken guards harassesd the grand duchesses, "It was dreadful, what they did,"  the former tutor recalled.  The "terrifed screams" of the girls, Gibbes said, haunted him, "to the end of his life."When Gibbes was deposed by Sokolov within months of the event, HE SAID NOTHING about abuse or screams or anything else. This statement was made literally decades after the fact, and saliently in House of Special Purpose George Gibbes made NO MENTION of this event on the Rus. "Rodionov, who was in charge of the evil-looking detachment, insisted on padlocking Alexis and Nagorny into their cabin, even though it was made clear that the child might need a doctor. The girls, on the other hand, were forbidden to lock their cabin door." (HOSP, pp. 102-103) 
 
"Almost certainly, the Grand Duchesses were subjected to taunts, and perhaps lewd advances at the hands of the drunken Latvian guards, how this progressed as the evening wore on is impossible to determine." Saliently, there is no cited evidence to support this supposition at all, much less "almost certainly'. To the contrary, Buxhoeveden writes specifically that only the assigned guards came near them, the others stayed on their assigned part of the boat, see "Left Behind" - "The rest of the soldiers did not come near us and spent the day on their part of the deck, singing and playing the accordion.  Some had fine voices, and it carried us back to happier days,..."
 
"no matter what took place, it is difficult not to believe that the experience had a profound traumatic effect on the young women, particularily grand Duchess Olga. Once she arrived in Ekaterinburg, Olga was withdrawn, silent, and did not mix with her sisters, perhaps indicating that she suffered some significant trauma. "  Buxhoeveden says Olga N. was showing these syptoms in April, weeks BEFORE the voyage on the Rus: cf. Life & Tragedy..."Olga Nicholaevna was in a state of great anxiety. She longed to join her parents, for whose fate she trembled, and, on the other hand, she feared the move for her brother, both on account of his health and also for fear of what the move might lead to" at Ch. 31; or perhaps for myriad of other reasons including imprisonment itself under increasingly difficult circumstances. - cf: Gilliard Ch. 22 "The conditions of the imprisonment were much more severe than at Tobolsk. Avdiev was an inveterate drunkard, who gave rein to his coarse instincts, and, with the assistance of his subordinates, showed great ingenuity in daily inflicting fresh humiliations upon those in his charge. There was no alternative but to accept the privations, submit to the vexations, yield to the exactions and caprices of these low, vulgar scoundrels."
 
"The near veil of silence surrounding the events of that night, however, is not difficult to understand, given the exalted position of the Grand Duchesses; ... to present them as paragons of all moral virtue  or perhaps the "silence" is because NOTHING ACTUALLY HAPPENED so no one had anything to say. ie: the entire diary entry of Gilliard:
"Monday May 20th - At half-past eleven we left the house and went on board the Russ.  She is the boat which brought us with the Czar and Czarina eight months ago.  Baroness Buxhoeveden has been granted permission to rejoin us.  We left Tobolsk at five o'clock.  Commisar Rodionov has shut Alexei Nicholaievich in his cabin with Nagorny.  We protested: the child is ill and the doctor ought to have access to him at any time.
"Wednesday May 22nd - We reached Tiumen this morning."
or here is the ENTIRE discussion on the subject in the Sokolov investigation's report made AFTER interrogating all surviving passengers of the Rus(pg 146)
    "Here is how the journey of the imperial children went under the command of Rodionov:
     "From Gilliard's deposition: "Rodionov behaved very badly. He closed off from outside the cabin in which were found Alexei with Nagorny.  All of the other cabins, in particular those of the Grand Duchesses were not to be locked from inside, under his order."
     "The morning of May 22, the imperial children arrived in Tiumen."

 
"Those on board the ship were unable (being locked up) or unwilling (through fear of reprisal ...) again, suppostion without evidence, yet stated as fact...This may be the key to the events of that night: shame and humiliation at not being able to come to the defense of the helpless Grand Duchesses might well account for Gibbes' "worst memory.


I also found that I had said this, and I believe it is one fundamental obligation of authors:
ANY author writing what purports to be accurate historical non-fiction must keep what they know "for sure from the evidence" separate from their speculation and imagination based on that evidence.


Ok, so these are the corrections made by someone else, i.e. FA - using other sources - not corrections by the authors, which is what we have been talking about... I don't think the authors ever presented their own "corrected' sources about the Rus incident as Simon and AGRB claimed - you know - the sources on which they based their information in the book that the GDsess were sexually harassed or probably sexually harassed or groped by the guards and most definitely not left in peace - which is what seems to be implied in the book... Did the authors blame that entire paragraph on the incompetence of the editors? I have to admit, I didn't read the K&W forum so I have no idea what the excuses were. Did King and Wilson mean to publish what FA posted here and those pesky editors got it all wrong and published the opposite? I don't understand what their explanation was about this. Does anyone know? AGR? Simon?
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Janet Ashton on February 29, 2008, 01:13:23 PM


Ok, so these are the corrections made by someone else, i.e. FA - using other sources - not corrections by the authors, which is what we have been talking about... I don't think the authors ever presented their own "corrected' sources about the Rus incident as Simon and AGRB claimed - you know - the sources on which they based their information in the book that the GDsess were sexually harassed or probably sexually harassed or groped by the guards and most definitely not left in peace - which is what seems to be implied in the book... Did the authors blame that entire paragraph on the incompetence of the editors? I have to admit, I didn't read the K&W forum so I have no idea what the excuses were. Did King and Wilson mean to publish what FA posted here and those pesky editors got it all wrong and published the opposite? I don't understand what their explanation was about this. Does anyone know? AGR? Simon?

Did you in fact read a single word of what I wrote on the other thread?

Sorry - stupid question.

Incidentally, I don't for a moment believe that Penny "blamed" the editor for any errors (I assume it's her you are having a go at, since you do in fact seem to be suffering from some sort of strange obsession, and I can't for a moment imagine Greg discussing editorial issues in a public place). Here for example, since you and Annie seem keen on digging up ancient internet posts, as another old Usenet one about FOTR: - 

http://tinyurl.com/yqayu3

Note her words: -

"I don't want to place any "blame" for the rewrites and revisions on our
editors.  They did a great job in preserving the heart of the book while
making us more "readable."  While we would have loved to publish our
original, January version, a simple fact of the publishing world these days
is that a book must sell.  And how many people would have bought a
multi-volume compendium of Romanov history?  Perhaps us here, but I'm
betting not nearly as many as will buy this version. "

Oh sorry - you won't read it.....

Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Janet Ashton on February 29, 2008, 01:22:21 PM
What writer wouldn't love a shot at a prequal or sequal if the book was successful? If King and Wilson hoped for a follow up that didn't pan out no harm/no foul.

Indeed. And people do and don't write "sequels" for all sorts of reasons, ranging from [loss of] interest to demands by the publisher and so forth. No need to assume that IF no Romaonv claimants book is ever done it has anything to do with recent discoveries at all, and taht IF it is it has anything to do with "proving" AA. The discovery of bones does not wipe out past histories of claims.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Puppylove on February 29, 2008, 01:26:34 PM
http://tinyurl.com/yqayu3

Note her words: -

"I don't want to place any "blame" for the rewrites and revisions on our
editors.  They did a great job in preserving the heart of the book while
making us more "readable."  While we would have loved to publish our
original, January version, a simple fact of the publishing world these days
is that a book must sell.  And how many people would have bought a
multi-volume compendium of Romanov history?  Perhaps us here, but I'm
betting not nearly as many as will buy this version. "

Oh sorry - you won't read it.....



Penny Wilson has a good point about books written to sell, but it's at least a fine balance if not outright risky business for a publisher to choose between sales and accuracy, no?

I'm not referring to FOTR here, only my opinion on nonfiction: I'd rather have one multi-volume book be true and accurate than a million which are something less. You might not make money on just one, but somewhere on this board Ms. Wilson declared she was not in it for money. (But yes, why sell a book if you can't at least recoup your expenses?)
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Puppylove on February 29, 2008, 01:30:11 PM
What writer wouldn't love a shot at a prequal or sequal if the book was successful? If King and Wilson hoped for a follow up that didn't pan out no harm/no foul.

Indeed. And people do and don't write "sequels" for all sorts of reasons, ranging from [loss of] interest to demands by the publisher and so forth. No need to assume that IF no Romaonv claimants book is ever done it has anything to do with recent discoveries at all, and taht IF it is it has anything to do with "proving" AA. The discovery of bones does not wipe out past histories of claims.

Fair enough Janet. I WAS speculating, and was left with the impression that the idea of a sequel or prequel was somehow offensive on its face. Thanks for clarifying!
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Janet Ashton on February 29, 2008, 01:55:45 PM
What writer wouldn't love a shot at a prequal or sequal if the book was successful? If King and Wilson hoped for a follow up that didn't pan out no harm/no foul.

Indeed. And people do and don't write "sequels" for all sorts of reasons, ranging from [loss of] interest to demands by the publisher and so forth. No need to assume that IF no Romaonv claimants book is ever done it has anything to do with recent discoveries at all, and taht IF it is it has anything to do with "proving" AA. The discovery of bones does not wipe out past histories of claims.

Fair enough Janet. I WAS speculating, and was left with the impression that the idea of a sequel or prequel was somehow offensive on its face. Thanks for clarifying!

Oh no - it's not the idea of sequels; it's the idea that FOTR mighht be JUST some kind of "prequel". What I always hated was that when FOTR came out, loads of people who loved AA (and indeed those who hated her) were all rubbing their hands waiting for the presumed follow-up, when the book itself was to me far more important than any possible sequel. I don't know about Penny and can't speak for her, but Greg certainly felt - at that point - that a claimants book would be a "lesser" one. As I have said here before, I loved the stuff in FOTR about the religious and political agenda in the imperial family's postumous cult, this being a particular interest of mine; and my favourite chapter was the funeral chapter.....
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Annie on February 29, 2008, 02:09:15 PM
What writer wouldn't love a shot at a prequal or sequal if the book was successful? If King and Wilson hoped for a follow up that didn't pan out no harm/no foul.

But, not if the first book was a misleading lead-in for the next one (IF that happened and IMO)
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 29, 2008, 02:09:43 PM


Ok, so these are the corrections made by someone else, i.e. FA - using other sources - not corrections by the authors, which is what we have been talking about... I don't think the authors ever presented their own "corrected' sources about the Rus incident as Simon and AGRB claimed - you know - the sources on which they based their information in the book that the GDsess were sexually harassed or probably sexually harassed or groped by the guards and most definitely not left in peace - which is what seems to be implied in the book... Did the authors blame that entire paragraph on the incompetence of the editors? I have to admit, I didn't read the K&W forum so I have no idea what the excuses were. Did King and Wilson mean to publish what FA posted here and those pesky editors got it all wrong and published the opposite? I don't understand what their explanation was about this. Does anyone know? AGR? Simon?

Did you in fact read a single word of what I wrote on the other thread?

Sorry - stupid question.

Incidentally, I don't for a moment believe that Penny "blamed" the editor for any errors (I assume it's her you are having a go at, since you do in fact seem to be suffering from some sort of strange obsession, and I can't for a moment imagine Greg discussing editorial issues in a public place). Here for example, since you and Annie seem keen on digging up ancient internet posts, as another old Usenet one about FOTR: - 

http://tinyurl.com/yqayu3

Note her words: -

"I don't want to place any "blame" for the rewrites and revisions on our
editors.  They did a great job in preserving the heart of the book while
making us more "readable."  While we would have loved to publish our
original, January version, a simple fact of the publishing world these days
is that a book must sell.  And how many people would have bought a
multi-volume compendium of Romanov history?  Perhaps us here, but I'm
betting not nearly as many as will buy this version. "



Janet, are you saying that they didn't blame anything on the editors? Then what was the reason for all the mistakes and misquotes? I admit, I am having trouble understanding you.

I think you missed the much more recent posts, evidently on the K&W forum, where Penny Wilson, in her attempt to explain away the errors stated that most were "editorial errors". This is what this discussion was about... Or did I get that wrong, maybe she didn't say that they were editorial errors? In which case how else did they explain the errors and the misquotes in the book? Someone please help me out.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 29, 2008, 02:15:24 PM

Note her words: -

"I don't want to place any "blame" for the rewrites and revisions on our
editors.  They did a great job in preserving the heart of the book while
making us more "readable."  While we would have loved to publish our
original, January version, a simple fact of the publishing world these days
is that a book must sell.  And how many people would have bought a
multi-volume compendium of Romanov history?  Perhaps us here, but I'm
betting not nearly as many as will buy this version. "


Ok, so let me get this straight... does this mean what I think it does? That all the misquotes and wrong information was published in order to sell more books? And the authors didn't object to that? Hmmm... Isn't it what King and Wilson have been accused of to begin with?
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Janet Ashton on February 29, 2008, 02:53:18 PM


Ok, so these are the corrections made by someone else, i.e. FA - using other sources - not corrections by the authors, which is what we have been talking about... I don't think the authors ever presented their own "corrected' sources about the Rus incident as Simon and AGRB claimed - you know - the sources on which they based their information in the book that the GDsess were sexually harassed or probably sexually harassed or groped by the guards and most definitely not left in peace - which is what seems to be implied in the book... Did the authors blame that entire paragraph on the incompetence of the editors? I have to admit, I didn't read the K&W forum so I have no idea what the excuses were. Did King and Wilson mean to publish what FA posted here and those pesky editors got it all wrong and published the opposite? I don't understand what their explanation was about this. Does anyone know? AGR? Simon?

Did you in fact read a single word of what I wrote on the other thread?

Sorry - stupid question.

Incidentally, I don't for a moment believe that Penny "blamed" the editor for any errors (I assume it's her you are having a go at, since you do in fact seem to be suffering from some sort of strange obsession, and I can't for a moment imagine Greg discussing editorial issues in a public place). Here for example, since you and Annie seem keen on digging up ancient internet posts, as another old Usenet one about FOTR: - 

http://tinyurl.com/yqayu3

Note her words: -

"I don't want to place any "blame" for the rewrites and revisions on our
editors.  They did a great job in preserving the heart of the book while
making us more "readable."  While we would have loved to publish our
original, January version, a simple fact of the publishing world these days
is that a book must sell.  And how many people would have bought a
multi-volume compendium of Romanov history?  Perhaps us here, but I'm
betting not nearly as many as will buy this version. "



Janet, are you saying that they didn't blame anything on the editors? Then what was the reason for all the mistakes and misquotes? I admit, I am having trouble understanding you.

I think you missed the much more recent posts, evidently on the K&W forum, where Penny Wilson, in her attempt to explain away the errors stated that most were "editorial errors". This is what this discussion was about... Or did I get that wrong, maybe she didn't say that they were editorial errors? In which case how else did they explain the errors and the misquotes in the book? Someone please help me out.

Question 1. Are you really so stupid that you don't know that authors also make "editorial errors" during the editing process?
Question 2. Are you really so stupid that you think that you'd set me a trap with that one?

No apologies for the personal attacks - I am really enjoying this....;-)

As to "selling lies for money" - the last person I heard that one from was sixteen years old. Most adults appreciate the stylistic demands of commercial publishing, which have nothing to do with any resultant editorial errors.

Man, I really need to turn off my email alert thing....
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Forum Admin on February 29, 2008, 02:57:23 PM
For what little its worth, Penny told me personally on the telephone that  errors were made by both she/Greg AND the editors at Wiley, "during the rush to publication" (her words as best I can recall.)
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 29, 2008, 03:00:12 PM
Question 1. Are you really so stupid that you don't know that authors also make "editorial errors" during the editing process?

Yes, perhaps I am. So you are saying that the editorial errors were made by the authors themselves?


Question 2. Are you really so stupid that you think that you'd set me a trap with that one?

I wasn't trying to set a trap, I am asking an honest question.

As to "selling lies for money" - the last person I heard that one from was sixteen years old. Most adults appreciate the stylistic demands of commercial publishing, which have nothing to do with any resultant editorial errors.

So what you are saying is that all these "editorial mistakes" were made on purpose so that the book would sell better? Yes, perhaps I am as naive as a 16-year-old, but why didn't the authors just admit that in the first place and got so defensive about the mistakes? At least if they admitted it without being apologetic (sort of like you) that they wanted to make more money off this book and hence included misquotes and misinforamtion, then there wouldn't be any need for all this controversy about who made the "mistakes" and why. And we could take it from there. Instead they kept arguing that it wasn't their fault and all the information in the book is true, with the exception of the mistakes made by the editors... This is all very confusing, but thanks for that information about their motive... I didn't realize it was so blatant.


Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 29, 2008, 03:03:48 PM
For what little its worth, Penny told me personally on the telephone that  errors were made by both she/Greg AND the editors at Wiley, "during the rush to publication" (her words as best I can recall.)

I made my previous post before I saw this. So here it is, the "editorial mistakes" were made by the authors AND by Wiley according to Penny Wilson. From what I have seen, Wilson blamed only the editors (not the authors editing their own text) and yes, "rush to publication' was mentioned... Janet, if you didn't turn off your email alert, how do you explain that?
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 29, 2008, 03:11:47 PM
As to "selling lies for money" - the last person I heard that one from was sixteen years old. Most adults appreciate the stylistic demands of commercial publishing, which have nothing to do with any resultant editorial errors.

You know, Janet, I must be even more stupid than you suspected, because I honestly don't understand what you mean by "stylistic demands of commercial publishing". Does it mean the author can change what sources say in order to make them sound more "juicy" (and sell more books)? Does it mean the author can pick selected sources which fit their agenda? What exactly are "stylistic demands of commercial publishing"? I would be very grateful if you elaborated on that.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Alixz on February 29, 2008, 04:22:14 PM
If an author has an agenda (and which one wouldn't?) and their focus is to explain historical  happenings with a view to a different conclusion than was previously shown in other books, would they not then use only those "sources" that sustained their viewpoint and agenda?

Would they not "down play" those sources that disagreed with their new viewpoint and agenda?

Is not history, after all, the interpretation of various sources?  And as we all know eye witnesses are extremely unreliable.  So why do we then, accept say, Gibbes account, but not Buxhoeveden's. (I am not accepting or rejecting either as sources, only using them as an example.)

Why is anyone who wrote about the last days of the Romanovs any more reliable than anyone else as a source?

Why is W. Bruce Lincoln more reliable that King & Wilson.  Is Edward Crankshaw more reliable than W. Bruce Lincoln?

Oscar Wilde was so right.  To report what never happened is the right of every historian. (Sorry about the paraphrase.)

Is Alexander Mikhailovich more reliable that Felix Yussupov?

IMHO  everyone and I mean everyone has an agenda when they write about history or chose the sources that they will include in their works.

Without the Internet, we would probably not even know that King & Wilson had been accused of "massaging" the facts or having editorial problems or that their book was "styled to sell"  unless we were reading about it in a magazine that critiques new books.  And how many of us would bother with that?

All I know is that (again IMHO) all of the sources, whether they were present at the time or wrote about the events afterward, are no more reliable than any other source.

Why are we so outraged over this particular book?  Shouldn't we be just as outraged over Guy Richards The Hunt for the Czar or Summers and Mangold's The File on the Tsar?  Taken at the time they were written, the information was thought to be true but there was no Internet for us to tear them apart over.

Sorry to have run on for so long.  I just get jittery when a subject gets the kind of treatment that this has gotten.




Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Puppylove on February 29, 2008, 04:41:07 PM
Without the Internet, we would probably not even know that King & Wilson had been accused of "massaging" the facts or having editorial problems or that their book was "styled to sell"  unless we were reading about it in a magazine that critiques new books.  And how many of us would bother with that?

All I know is that (again IMHO) all of the sources, whether they were present at the time or wrote about the events afterward, are no more reliable than any other source.

Why are we so outraged over this particular book?  Shouldn't we be just as outraged over Guy Richards The Hunt for the Czar or Summers and Mangold's The File on the Tsar?  Taken at the time they were written, the information was thought to be true but there was no Internet for us to tear them apart over.

Sorry to have run on for so long.  I just get jittery when a subject gets the kind of treatment that this has gotten.

I would think it's the internet itself that helped this book to sell as well as it has. And while I doubt King or Wilson intentionally set aflame the controversy surrounding it, their accessibility by way of this and other forums was fuel for the fire. Readers asked for answers; when they received answers they found unsatisfactory they pressed for more. I'd bet the life of my neighbor's cat if Penny Wilson never posted on this forum, interest in the book would have quietly faded away. Controversy sells.

Jenn
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Janet Ashton on February 29, 2008, 05:24:36 PM
As to "selling lies for money" - the last person I heard that one from was sixteen years old. Most adults appreciate the stylistic demands of commercial publishing, which have nothing to do with any resultant editorial errors.

You know, Janet, I must be even more stupid than you suspected, because I honestly don't understand what you mean by "stylistic demands of commercial publishing". Does it mean the author can change what sources say in order to make them sound more "juicy" (and sell more books)? Does it mean the author can pick selected sources which fit their agenda? What exactly are "stylistic demands of commercial publishing"? I would be very grateful if you elaborated on that.

I am going to answer this in the least facetious and most open way I can, in the hope that maybe this explanation will be accepted.
When first written, the book was pretty academic in style, went round and round lots of points, considering the pros and cons of evidence. As far as the Rus was concerned, the evidence of Edvard Radzinsky and George and Sidney Gibbes that something had happened on the boat to upset the Grand Duchesses, and that it involved the soldiers, was set against the claims of Buxhoeveden and Gilliard - for example - that nothing happened at all, though Buxhoeveden went as far as to admit how edgy they were and that no-one had undressed. Their silence does NOT necessarily indicate that all was well, since Gilliard was in his cabin (as, conversely, was Gibbes) and in no real position to know, and Buxhoeveden had any nuber of reasons starting with  embarrassment to be silent. Volkov - in my personal opinion - is ambigiuous; he says that the guards went away "HAVING LEFT the Grand Duchesses in peace," thereby prompting the question (to me) "at what point did they leave them alone?" Additionally, the kids' father recorded that they had suffered when they arrived in Ekaterinburg.
Anyway, all this stuff weighed and balanced seems to indicate that something occurred, but that no-one could be sure what. Authors concluded - as do I - that it was certainly not rape, since if it had been the effects would have been more dramatic. Most likely, the girls were subjected to some kind of sexual taunting before the soldiers finally went away.

When FOTR was edited and re-written, the "stylistic demand" was that controversial material was presented in a sure and certain and accessible manner, rather than hedged about with discussion and uncertainty. Thus the Rus incident was reduced to one or two paragraphs presenting conclusions, with all preceding discussion removed. As I have said, the conclusions are the same, even without the argument present. In the course of doing this, material was moved about and quotes may have been truncated or mislocated. This may appear misleading in context, but does not to me change the validity of the conclusion, whether people agree or not - nor was it deliberately done to deceive.

Anyway, I am kind of done with all this.....

And those who have said in this threda that without the internet, none of this would have mattered are spot on: I don't think the book would have been subjected the same scrutiny without ATR and this forum at least....
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Annie on February 29, 2008, 05:44:33 PM


Volkov - in my personal opinion - is ambigiuous; he says that the guards went away "HAVING LEFT the Grand Duchesses in peace," thereby prompting the question (to me) "at what point did they leave them alone?"

That is quite a stretch. That's the opposite of reading between the lines, it's adding between the lines! Surely if something as drastic as mass sexual assault of one or more Grand Duchesses would have occured, Volkov would have said so, or at the very least Alexandra would have mentioned it in her diary.


Quote
Additionally, the kids' father recorded that they had suffered when they arrived in Ekaterinburg.

In what way? If they had been raped, that would have been very noteable and would have been mentioned.


Quote
Anyway, all this stuff weighed and balanced seems to indicate that something occurred, but that no-one could be sure what. Authors concluded - as do I - that it was certainly not rape, since if it had been the effects would have been more dramatic. Most likely, the girls were subjected to some kind of sexual taunting before the soldiers finally went away.

The book suggesting this with no backup from any of the memoirs seems to me like either a dirty mind or trying to 'spice things up.' It's like people talk about Gilligans' Island. There was no sex ever shown or mentioned (not even between the Howells) but I have heard many people say that you KNOW the professer got it on with Ginger and Mary Ann and that Skipper and Gilligan were more than just 'buddies'. Maybe Mr. or Mrs. Howell had affairs. This is all just hypothetical speculation (I mean, assuming the characters were real) with no basis, just like the Rus allegations. Let's see, we have four attractive young girls and a bunch of lonely soldiers...can't something be made of this? Maybe more than it should be, with no evidence? It might make it more interesting, but it shouldn't come at the cost of the truth. (and of course there is still the "Anastasia" had to be pregnant factor, which makes it even more despicable if it is intentional)

Quote
This may appear misleading in context, but does not to me change the validity of the conclusion, whether people agree or not - nor was it deliberately done to deceive.

There is a difference between misleading and blatantly inaccurate.

Quote
And those who have said in this threda that without the internet, none of this would have mattered are spot on: I don't think the book would have been subjected the same scrutiny without ATR and this forum at least....

But if not for the internet, we would not be able to discover, discuss and try to correct the errors.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Forum Admin on February 29, 2008, 06:25:06 PM
Volkov is not the least bit "unclear".  Try reading the original french or russian.  Volkov goes to great lengths to discuss how the focus was on Alexei and Nagorny, most especially because Nagorny was constantly bickering with the guards.  The "having left the Grand Duchesses in peace" in the original MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO IMPLICATION WHATSOEVER IN THE ORIGINAL  that anything happened to them BEFORE "leaving them in peace.  Rather, the original is WITHOUT DOUBT CLEAR that that "having left" was not a temporal reference timewise, rather a COMPARISON to the treatment that Alexei and Nagorny were getting by being locked into their cabins from the outside and not able to leave at will.

Further, the original French can just as easily read "leaving the Grand Duchesses undisturbed" without any alteration of the original meaning.  There are a myriad of ways in French to imply that something happened to them BEFORE but were subsequently "left in peace" and the original text JUST DOESN"T SAY THAT.

Oh, and by the by, Penny Wilson has told me personally several times that SHE HAS NO DOUBT THAT VOLKOV SAID THE GRAND DUCHESSES WERE NOT MOLESTED OR ABUSED IN ANY WAY.

TO READ ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING ELSE IS NOTHING BUT SPECULATION AND SUPPOSITION WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER TO SUPPORT THIS AS BEING ANYTHING ELSE. PERIOD.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: AGRBear on February 29, 2008, 06:44:19 PM

There is a number of posts which followed this one as Helen worked through some subjects.

I think her earlier posts about this book were more accurate than what she believes today.

AGRBear

Helen, I think Bear has a good question here, would you mind addressing the evolution of your thoughts?

Thanks, Jenn

Absolutely! As I mentioned more than once when I refer to FOTR, my initial reaction to the book was "hey, this is different than any other book I've read on the Romanovs!", which made me like FOTR. The post which AGR is referring to was made by me in November 2004 - 3 and half years ago. At that time I had not as much knowledge about the Romanovs as I do now (although I thought it did). In the last 3 and half years, I have learned much. At the time I also didn't check any of the sources in FOTR, but like many other readers took the authors' words face value and assumed the sources were correct. Only when I got more involved in Romanov discussions, learned a lot more about them and finally checked the sources, did I realize what kind of "new" information we were dealing with here. My post from 3 and half years ago just goes to show you that I accepted FOTR with an open mind, had no personaly vendetta for the authors or against the book (much like most other readers), and only after I obtained more information did I realize that the book is full of holes and mistakes and apparent agenda. I hope this addresses this subject sufficiently, but feel free to ask more questions!

Let me repeat what Helen said: 
>>...finally checked the sources, did I realize what kind of "new" information we were dealing with here.<<

Over and over and over I have asked for sources so I could check out the information in order to learn more about what they've posted.  But,  Helen nor Annie have the book FATE OF THE ROMANOVS so it makes it hard to discuss  the subject of "holes" and  "mistakes" without specifics.

FA has given us an example of one of the errors that leaped out at him. It was the suggestion of "rape" on the Russ.   I've read his opinion, just as I have read King and Wilson.  FA has translated a section and has shown us that indeed there was an error.   King and Wilson explained how the error occurred.  However, as far as I know,  King and Wilson still believe something had occured.  This doesn't have anything to do with AA.  Their opinion is based on information which none of us, including FA,  were privy to since we didn't talk to the people involved or see the documents or whatever it was that gave them the impression that something occured.

Since Annie nor Helen have the book, and,  what Simon wrote on the other thread is gone,  let me give you a direct quote from the book p. 141:

>>Almost certainly, the grand duchesses were subjected to taunts, and perhaps lewd advances at the hands of the drunken Latvian guards, how far this progressed as the evening wore on is impossible to determine.<<

These Latvians were drunk not only with booze but with the feeling of power over the children of the ex-Tsar Nicholas II,  their enemy, the man whom they blamed for everything terrible that had occurred in their lives.

Some idot may have even  pulled out his penis and waved it at the girls,  because they were men taunting and thinking it was funny.  This certainly would have caused the girls to scream.

If you don't believe me that this could happen,  just read some of the diaries of people who, like the royal family,  were prisioners of the Bolsheviks. 

One doesn't have to have been  a Bolshevik,  history provides us many such examples which have occured throughout the history of mankind when one rules over the people who had once ruled over them.  No one needs to make up such stories because there are enough true stories to curl or uncurl  your hair.

Farther down the page King and Wilson write:

>>No matter what took place, it is difficult not to believe that the experience had a profoundly traumatic effect on the young women....<<

I went back and reread pages 139 to 142.  I do not see the word "rape" written anywhere.  They did write p. 140:

>>What happened that night aboard  Russ, leaving it seared in Gibbes' mind as, according to George Gibbes, his "worst memory," even "more so than learning that the family had been martyred"?  The key must lie in Gibbes'  account in the "dreadful" thing done to the girls, an unnamed crime that brought about such "terrified screams" that their tutor ws haunted by the memory "to the end of his life".

Do you see the word "rape" in what they wrote?  The words they used was  "an unnamed crime".

Never mind that King and Wilson didn't translate Volkov exactly.  On the whole,  FA's translation gives us the same impression, the Bosheviks were drinking, firing into the air, throwing grenades and acting foolish  like men, with a high level of hormones mixed with booze  jumping around in their bodies,  do in these circumstances.

Don't just pick out the errors, which all books have,  read the rest of the story.   Like Helen once believed,  and,  I still do, this book gives us a different insight into the lives of the Royal Family of Russia  who were prisioners of these Bolsheviks who would in the end kill them in a brutal, savage and final act.

AGRBear
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Sarushka on February 29, 2008, 06:48:40 PM
I hope you'll pardon me for a little bit of good-natured teasing...

That old Henry Fonda movie, Twelve Angry Men (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050083/) is on right now, and I'm getting a kick out of imagining the posters in this thread in the various parts.

Who'd like to audition for Juror #8 (Fonda) and Juror #3 (Cobb)?

*wink*
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Annie on February 29, 2008, 07:17:37 PM


Oh, and by the by, Penny Wilson has told me personally several times that SHE HAS NO DOUBT THAT VOLKOV SAID THE GRAND DUCHESSES WERE NOT MOLESTED OR ABUSED IN ANY WAY.


So if she accepts he didn't say that, where did the 'refusing' come from before 'leave them in peace?' Was this added by the editors?

I would also like to know when she changed her mind from the time when it seemed rather likely she believed a rape on the Rus could well have taken place as mentioned in this old post..


Quote
Quote from: AGRBear on July 25, 2005, 11:28:26 PM

Here is some additional information from Penny on AA's child:

Yes.  She was quite adamant about the child's birth, and claimed a date in -- I think -- December 1918/January 1919 for the birth.  This is in the court records, along with her statement concerning the possible death of Alexander Tschaikowsky -- which AA claimed happened in a street-fight, but which can't be verified independently.

This date of birth, of course, places conception in the early months of 1918 -- unthinkable for people when the theory was that she was Anastasia, because that would mean one of two things:  That rape had happened in Tobolsk, on board the Rus, in the Ipatiev house, or all three; or Anastasia had had consensual sex while in captivity, presumably with a guard. Either way, when she -- AA-as-Anastasia -- left the Ipatiev House in mid-July 1918, she was pregnant.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: AGRBear on February 29, 2008, 08:08:47 PM
I did not write the quote Helen tells us that Penny said.  I don't even know for sure where it came from.

I apologize for digressing.

Since Helen opened this thread and directed her words to myself and Penny,  I feel I need to respond, even without FA's permission.



... [ in part]....
Here is some additional information from Penny on AA's child:

Yes.  She was quite adamant about the child's birth, and claimed a date in -- I think -- December 1918/January 1919 for the birth.  This is in the court records, along with her statement concerning the possible death of Alexander Tschaikowsky -- which AA claimed happened in a street-fight, but which can't be verified independently.

This date of birth, of course, places conception in the early months of 1918 -- unthinkable for people when the theory was that she was Anastasia, because that would mean one of two things:  That rape had happened in Tobolsk, on board the Rus, in the Ipatiev house, or all three; or Anastasia had had consensual sex while in captivity, presumably with a guard.  Either way, when she -- AA-as-Anastasia -- left the Ipatiev House in mid-July 1918, she was pregnant.


This of course refers to the Rus trip and implication that Anna Anderson was Anastasia... Issue #1.

Lets take it from there. If anyone else remembers anything else, you can post it here...




Remember  I explained certain threads that  too many posts were eliminatd, and,  posters went back and changed their posts  [this was when people could go back and anytime and change their posts].  So what people read, now,  will read something entirely different than it was intended to be since it's, now,  out of context..

Yes, we were talking about what Gibbes' son said that his father had said.

Yes,  we were talking about the various testimonies of the people who were on the Russ.

I believe it was Chat Noir who mentioned AA's story in the middle of that discussion.... One post lead to another.... We were no longer talking about the Grand Duchess but AA and von Kleist's claim that AA had a child in Dec. of 1918.  So,  if AA  [NOT GD Anastasia] had a child in Dec.,  one needed to count back seven to nine months.  Let me repeat.  We were talking about AA's and von Klest's dates.  Someone  reminded us that AA had denied von Kleist's story and that she claimed to have had a child in 1919.  I think we agreed that since AA claimed she had a child with Tchaikovsky  that she couldn't have had a child in Dec. 1918 so it had to have been born seven to eight months after July of 1918.  Unfortunately, somewhere,  I jokenly mentioned that someone had written in their diary that GD Anastasia was said to be getting fat.  I later apologized because this caused some eye brows to flare up.  And, this caused people to incorrectly think I thought AA was GD Anastasia.  Which I do not.


That was my  BIG ERROR.  When FA pointed out my blunder,  I openly admitted my blunder at the time.  Because when I do make blunders or any kind of errors,  I do admit it, say I'm sorry, and expect people to accept my apology. 

Since I don't believe AA is GD Anastasia,  most people did not have a problem with  accepting my apology, accept Helen and Annie, who have no intentions of accepting my apology, then, now, or later, and,  they have no intentions of stopping this campaign against King and Wilson.  I assume they attack me because I continued to defend King and Wilson. 

Now, back to the Russ and the events which may or may not have occured.

FA has his opinion about the events whichhe believes  occured on the Russ.  I find them interesting.  Just as I find  King's and Wilson's opinions  interesting.  I believe they have seen GARF, talked to Gibbes' son (or read what he had said) and other documents which caused them to think it worth presenting in their book.

Their error was a simple one.  The publisher had taken out part of a sentence, which wasn't caught, and so the footnote ended up at the end of the sentence which meant the footnote was establishing the wrong point.   And,  that point  was and still  concerns FA who wishes this error and the other errors could  be corrected. 

After some heated discussion on AP,  both King and Wilson left AP, and, then  placed on their forum how the errors occured.  I accepted their  explanation, asdo others. 

Unless the publisher allowes King and Wilson to correct the errors,  the errors will reamain.  And,  the book will be reprinted, again and again with those errors.  This is what is.   And,  if you have ever published anything,  you'd realize that an author loses many rights when he/she sign the dotted line.  How do I know?  Experience.  And,  if anyone tells you differently, then,  they have been some of the lucky ones who haven't had this problem.

Let me repeat for the umteenth  time since Helen and Annie fail to understand and seem to want you to believe otherwise: 
I do not believe AA was GD Anastasia.

AGRBear

Let me repeat,  we were talking about AA's  story about her child  and not GD  Anastasia.

Annie has read this. Annie commented on it.  So,  I'm not sure what else she wants  me to say.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: AGRBear on February 29, 2008, 08:18:26 PM
I hope you'll pardon me for a little bit of good-natured teasing...

That old Henry Fonda movie, Twelve Angry Men (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050083/) is on right now, and I'm getting a kick out of imagining the posters in this thread in the various parts.

Who'd like to audition for Juror #8 (Fonda) and Juror #3 (Cobb)?

*wink*

I don't recall the movie well enough to audition for any of the 12.

I do, however, enjoy your humor.

AGRBear
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Annie on February 29, 2008, 08:50:18 PM
I did not write the quote Helen tells us that Penny said.  I don't even know for sure where it came from.


Come on, bear, the post was yours, I found it in a search, it's in one of the old threads.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Puppylove on February 29, 2008, 09:03:54 PM
I hope you'll pardon me for a little bit of good-natured teasing...

That old Henry Fonda movie, Twelve Angry Men (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050083/) is on right now, and I'm getting a kick out of imagining the posters in this thread in the various parts.

Who'd like to audition for Juror #8 (Fonda) and Juror #3 (Cobb)?

*wink*

I don't recall the movie well enough to audition for any of the 12.

I do, however, enjoy your humor.

AGRBear

I haven't seen the movie. I have seen Gilligan's Island however, so I'm smiling to myself as I try to mentally fill those roles with fellow posters!
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Forum Admin on February 29, 2008, 09:08:53 PM
Bear.

Please to explain WHY Gibbes was totally SILENT on the subject when questioned by Sokolov about the Rus mere weeks and months after the fact.  The ONLY MENTION of Gibbes' self-proclaimed "worst nightmare" was not until THIRTY PLUS YEARS LATER and then not a  first hand reference.  There is simply no logical or reasonable explanation that he was totally silent in his first hand interrogation by Sokolov just scant MONTHS after the fact , yet DECADES later proclaims the event to a third party as his "worst nightmare".  Sorry to bring Judge Judy back but, honestly, "if it doesn't make sense then IT CAN"T BE TRUE." 

CAN ANYBODY explain to me WHY an unsupported THIRD party account is given so much MORE evidentiary weight than Gibbes' recorded first hand accounts, INCLUDING his own book??
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Alixz on February 29, 2008, 09:36:32 PM
Bear.

Please to explain WHY Gibbes was totally SILENT on the subject when questioned by Sokolov about the Rus mere weeks and months after the fact.  The ONLY MENTION of Gibbes' self-proclaimed "worst nightmare" was not until THIRTY PLUS YEARS LATER and then not a  first hand reference.  There is simply no logical or reasonable explanation that he was totally silent in his first hand interrogation by Sokolov just scant MONTHS after the fact , yet DECADES later proclaims the event to a third party as his "worst nightmare".  Sorry to bring Judge Judy back but, honestly, "if it doesn't make sense then IT CAN"T BE TRUE." 

CAN ANYBODY explain to me WHY an unsupported THIRD party account is given so much MORE evidentiary weight than Gibbes' recorded first hand accounts, INCLUDING his own book??

I think I just asked this question a few posts earlier.  Why are some sources given more credence that others?  I guess I could have just put it that way, but I went into details and asked about several well known writers, some who were present and some who were not.

What makes one more acceptable to some than others?  Is it because one source supports a certain point of view and another source does not?

And I still believe that, while we are here and have the Internet to use as a place to discuss this, that if there were no Internet, some of us might still question and others might just accept what was written and never ever get upset about it.

To tell the truth (sorry FA) buy I have always thought that something, anything, could have happened to the Grand Duchesses.  Especially after their parents and Marie left for "Moscow" and ended up in Yekaterinburg.

Men and women at war for a cause they believe in can be truly evil and I agree that having the young women under the control of these power hungry and (in the soldier's minds) finally liberated men, they might have done just about anything to humiliate and degrade the girls.

Remember that physical abuse and rape is about power and control, not about love or desire. 

So Gibbes did not say anything to Sokolov when he was questioned just weeks after the murders.  Does that mean that nothing happened or that Sokolov just never asked the questions that would have prompted Gibbes to tell all because Sokolov had other concerns on his mind.  Or that Gibbes was "so horrified" that he could not bring himself to form the words.

Would Gibbes have volunteered the information if not directly asked?  Would Sokolov have directly asked the right questions?

I guess what I have always wanted to know is why do some think that the girls were so special and highly thought of and placed so far above the average woman that no soldier or jailer would try anything at all.  I think that gives the girls a mythological cast that, while they might have had it before the tsar's abdication, they surely lost it during the year and a half of captivity.



Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Belochka on February 29, 2008, 10:15:57 PM
... As far as the Rus was concerned, ...

Volkov - in my personal opinion - is ambigiuous; he says that the guards went away "HAVING LEFT the Grand Duchesses in peace," thereby prompting the question (to me) "at what point did they leave them alone?"

When FOTR was edited and re-written, the "stylistic demand" was that controversial material was presented in a sure and certain and accessible manner ...

Ms Ashton wrote that: "he says that the guards went away "HAVING LEFT the Grand Duchesses in peace" ...

Alexei Volkov actually wrote the following:

"В два часа дня параход отчалил от пристани и пошел на Тюмень. Во время пути солдаты вели себя крайне недисциплированно: стреляли с парахода птиц и просто - куда попало. Стреляли не только из ружей но и из пулеметов. Родионов распорядился закрить на ночь наследника в каюте вместе с Нагорным. Великих княжон оставил в покой."

Firstly, (with my emphasis) it was NOT  “guards went away having left the grand duchesses in peace” at all.

1. It  was ONE PERSON – Rodionov  who ordered "to shut-in (the) Naslednik for the night in the cabin together with Nagorny".       and

2. "(The) Grand Duchesses he left in peace". 

The text and the context recommended by Ms Ashton do not mirror the original Russian text .

Secondly, there was no preceding “event” that involved the Grand Duchesses described or implied by Volkov. The entire episode described by Alexei Volkov had to do with the onset of the night.

My concerns regarding this alleged event are found in these sentences in FOTR:

1. At p 141:
 
"Almost certainly, the grand duchesses were subjected to taunts, and perhaps lewd advances at the hands of the drunken Latvian guards ..."

and also at p 141:

"The harrassment, as Volkov wrote , continued throughout the night ..."

and these unsubstantiated claims were then tied in with this declaration found on the same page:

"The near veil of silence surrounding the events of that night, however, is not difficult to understand, given the exalted position of the grand duchesses; the horrific murders in Ekaterinburg; the determination by those intimately connected with the Romanovs to present them as paragons of all moral virtue; and the tenor of the times."

Indeed, the "stylistic demand" as described by Ms Ashton was certainly met.  Misinterpretations or bad translation coupled with insulting prejudicial remarks are thus proffered in the name of publishing a book. 

Margarita  
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Belochka on February 29, 2008, 10:39:07 PM

.... Most adults appreciate the stylistic demands of commercial publishing ...

While so called "stylistic demands" may be deemed acceptable by some - the facts must be held to be sacrosanct by all.  
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Belochka on February 29, 2008, 11:02:40 PM
The discovery of bones does not wipe out past histories of claims.

The bones uplifted in Ekaterinburg during 1991 negated all the spurious claims made in the West by a certain Mrs Manahan.

The less than imperious woman was never part of Russian imperial history and that is a proven fact that can never be wiped away.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Puppylove on February 29, 2008, 11:16:30 PM

I guess what I have always wanted to know is why do some think that the girls were so special and highly thought of and placed so far above the average woman that no soldier or jailer would try anything at all.  I think that gives the girls a mythological cast that, while they might have had it before the tsar's abdication, they surely lost it during the year and a half of captivity.


I agree guards can do terrible, degrading things as we have seen with our own eyes in photos coming out of Iraq. But it's not really such a stretch to think these young ladies, separated from their parents, worn down by the year's events, dreading the unknown, surrounded by hostile men, might have jumped out of their skin at something as simple as a knock on the door. I remember my own terrified screams when my brother threw cicada shells on my back, for heaven's sake.

The mythological cast, in my opinion, was only enhanced by the girls' dignity and comportment displayed throughout their captivity, not the opposite.

Jenn
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Belochka on February 29, 2008, 11:25:14 PM
For what little its worth, Penny told me personally on the telephone that  errors were made by both she/Greg AND the editors at Wiley, "during the rush to publication" (her words as best I can recall.)

I made my previous post before I saw this. So here it is, the "editorial mistakes" were made by the authors AND by Wiley according to Penny Wilson. From what I have seen, Wilson blamed only the editors (not the authors editing their own text) and yes, "rush to publication' was mentioned...

Surely "editorial" corrections made by an author are defined as general formatting such as placement of commas, spelling and such like while the deliberate deletion and addition of specific text is defined as revision?
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Belochka on February 29, 2008, 11:34:34 PM
... As I have said, the conclusions are the same, even without the argument present.

I would contend that without any argumentation one cannot provide a conclusion. What remains is merely a statement not necessarily supported by facts or sources.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Annie on February 29, 2008, 11:52:23 PM
Thanks Margarita for the original and the explainations. Since Volkov was Russian, that must be the way it was written and has to be exactly what he meant. So what we actually had was, ONE man putting Alexei and Nargorny locked up in a cabin, and leaving the Grand Duchesses alone (which may even have meant he did not lock them up) How in the world anyone can bring in a group of leering soldiers that never existed, and assuming their 'must' have been abuse going on in the night is ridiculous. There is nothing there but speculation elaborated on by imagination! Sorry but no editor's error could do that alone.

In addition, the theory that they could have been molested but nobody mentioned it because of their station is really, really, grasping at straws. And some people have accused ME of 'making stuff up' and stating unvalidated assumptions as fact ::) This episode appears more and more to be in the realm of historical fiction.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Belochka on March 01, 2008, 05:28:19 AM
Thanks Margarita for the original and the explainations. Since Volkov was Russian, that must be the way it was written and has to be exactly what he meant. So what we actually had was, ONE man putting Alexei and Nargorny locked up in a cabin, and leaving the Grand Duchesses alone (which may even have meant he did not lock them up) How in the world anyone can bring in a group of leering soldiers that never existed, and assuming their 'must' have been abuse going on in the night is ridiculous. There is nothing there but speculation elaborated on by imagination! Sorry but no editor's error could do that alone.

In addition, the theory that they could have been molested but nobody mentioned it because of their station is really, really, grasping at straws.

There never was any ambiguity in Volkov's words as they appear in the Russian and in the French languages. The text was never open to any other interpretation. 

Writers of history undoubtedly have an ethical obligation to describe an event as best they can.

What can one say if that occasion is instead completely transformed decades later and is instead depicted as an incident which is tinged with spicy ambiguity? 

Margarita  
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Annie on March 01, 2008, 06:28:35 AM
Thanks Margarita for the original and the explainations. Since Volkov was Russian, that must be the way it was written and has to be exactly what he meant. So what we actually had was, ONE man putting Alexei and Nargorny locked up in a cabin, and leaving the Grand Duchesses alone (which may even have meant he did not lock them up) How in the world anyone can bring in a group of leering soldiers that never existed, and assuming their 'must' have been abuse going on in the night is ridiculous. There is nothing there but speculation elaborated on by imagination! Sorry but no editor's error could do that alone.

In addition, the theory that they could have been molested but nobody mentioned it because of their station is really, really, grasping at straws.

There never was any ambiguity in Volkov's words as they appear in the Russian and in the French languages. The text was never open to any other interpretation. 

Writers of history undoubtedly have an ethical obligation to describe an event as best they can.

What can one say if that occasion is instead completely transformed decades later and is instead depicted as an incident which is tinged with spicy ambiguity? 

Margarita  


I don't see any ambiguity in the English version, either.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 01, 2008, 08:32:02 AM
If an author has an agenda (and which one wouldn't?) and their focus is to explain historical  happenings with a view to a different conclusion than was previously shown in other books, would they not then use only those "sources" that sustained their viewpoint and agenda?
Would they not "down play" those sources that disagreed with their new viewpoint and agenda?

Perhaps this is true, but what we are talking about here is changing the meaning of the sources to fit a specific agenda, not downpaying them... That means they are altering history, not just using only sources which fit in with their view. That's downright sleazy, IMO.


Why are we so outraged over this particular book? 

I think it was a combination of blatant source mutilation and the authors' reaction to legitimate criticism of the latter. 

Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 01, 2008, 08:32:58 AM
Volkov is not the least bit "unclear".  Try reading the original french or russian.  Volkov goes to great lengths to discuss how the focus was on Alexei and Nagorny, most especially because Nagorny was constantly bickering with the guards.  The "having left the Grand Duchesses in peace" in the original MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO IMPLICATION WHATSOEVER IN THE ORIGINAL  that anything happened to them BEFORE "leaving them in peace.  Rather, the original is WITHOUT DOUBT CLEAR that that "having left" was not a temporal reference timewise, rather a COMPARISON to the treatment that Alexei and Nagorny were getting by being locked into their cabins from the outside and not able to leave at will.

Further, the original French can just as easily read "leaving the Grand Duchesses undisturbed" without any alteration of the original meaning.  There are a myriad of ways in French to imply that something happened to them BEFORE but were subsequently "left in peace" and the original text JUST DOESN"T SAY THAT.

Oh, and by the by, Penny Wilson has told me personally several times that SHE HAS NO DOUBT THAT VOLKOV SAID THE GRAND DUCHESSES WERE NOT MOLESTED OR ABUSED IN ANY WAY. TO READ ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING ELSE IS NOTHING BUT SPECULATION AND SUPPOSITION WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER TO SUPPORT THIS AS BEING ANYTHING ELSE. PERIOD.


This is what I mean, Alixz...
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Annie on March 01, 2008, 08:34:24 AM
If an author has an agenda (and which one wouldn't?) and their focus is to explain historical  happenings with a view to a different conclusion than was previously shown in other books, would they not then use only those "sources" that sustained their viewpoint and agenda?
Would they not "down play" those sources that disagreed with their new viewpoint and agenda?

Perhaps this is true, but what we are talking about here is changing the meaning of the sources to fit a specific agenda, not downpaying them... That means they are altering history, not just using only sources which fit in with their view. That's downright sleazy, IMO.


Why are we so outraged over this particular book? 

I think it was a combination of blatant source mutilation and the authors' reaction to legitimate criticism of the latter. 



That's right. Alixz if you had been here and seen it in action you'd know what we mean.;)
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 01, 2008, 08:37:04 AM
CAN ANYBODY explain to me WHY an unsupported THIRD party account is given so much MORE evidentiary weight than Gibbes' recorded first hand accounts, INCLUDING his own book??

Apparently it is because this explanation would sell more books...
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 01, 2008, 08:44:40 AM
To tell the truth (sorry FA) buy I have always thought that something, anything, could have happened to the Grand Duchesses. 

Yes, that's true, however, there is no credible evidence that it did happen, so what we are left with is speculation. Now, it's ok to speculate of course, as long as it is made clear that that's what it is... However, in FOTR, they specifically modified the source to make it sound as if this is indeed what happened while this same source stated the opposite. Not only was it not indicated in the book that it was speculation, it was intentionally presented as a legitimate fact, using this source (Volkov)... What do you think about that?
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Annie on March 01, 2008, 08:52:54 AM
To tell the truth (sorry FA) buy I have always thought that something, anything, could have happened to the Grand Duchesses. 

Yes, that's true, however, there is no credible evidence that it did happen, so what we are left with is speculation. Now, it's ok to speculate of course, as long as it is made clear that that's what it is... However, in FOTR, they specifically modified the source to make it sound as if this is indeed what happened while this same source stated the opposite. Not only was it not indicated in the book that it was speculation, it was intentionally presented as a legitimate fact, using this source (Volkov)... What do you think about that?

They put words in his mouth in an attempt to validate a 'what if', theory, 'spice up', agenda, etc. That seems to be the same thing as falsification.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Forum Admin on March 01, 2008, 09:09:57 AM
A couple of points. First, I suddenly realized that there is a disturbing choice of syntax that never struck me before. FOTR says "as Volkov later learned"  Well, Volkov didn't learn anything later, he was THERE on board and knew what happened first hand.

As for the "likelihood" of some abuse, we must again abandon our early 21st century mindset and return to the era of 1918. These were revolutionaries to be sure, however, they still had some inherent societal decency about women and children. Look at the discussions about killing the children in Ekaterinburg, look at horrified even half of the soldiers in the Ipatiev basement were about what was happening. 

Secondly, we must examine the situation of the Rus itself.  A small boat to start, not some huge luxury liner.  Cabins small, and close together. Walls thin. The GDs were also not alone, there were some TWENTY adults with them as well (Gen. Tatistchev, Volkov, Bux, Hendrikova, Schneider, Dr. Derevenko, Taglieva, Gibbes, Gilliard, Nagorny plus THIRTEEN other servants cf: Bux. "Life and Tragedy..." ch. 22) .  I believe from Buxhoeveden's text "Rodionoff had sentinels posted everywhere, even at the doors of the lavatories, and ordered all of us ladies to leave our cabin doors open all night. No one undressed." we gain another key clue. THE CABIN DOORS WERE OPEN ALL NIGHT. Therefore, every woman on board would almost certainly have heard anything said to the Grand Duchesses, much less any physical abuse.   Secondly, Guards were "POSTED EVERYWHERE", so just how much access would the drunken soldiers up on deck have had? Virtually none.
Further, with twenty adult witnesses present, how 'brave' would the unruly soldiers be, especially with sober comrades on duty to ensure that the prisoners remained safe and did not escape? Abuse is a cowardly act.

This is borne out by the next phrase she wrote "A sharp watch was kept over us all, and we were told to speak Russian only and this very distinctly, in order that the men detailed to be our personal guards should understand what we said. The rest of the soldiery did not come near us and spent the day on their part of the deck, singing and playing the accordion."  They all had "personal guards" and were in fact left alone by the others.  Further, they were actually concerned about the children Bux. writes that during the time Alexei was shut up in his room and some shots were fired by the drunk soldiers on deck "but Khokhriakov, who was more considerate than Rodionov, came to the sick boy to tell him not to be frightened." (L&T...supra.)

Sure we can speculate that some "abuse" may have occurred, but the EVIDENCE shows strongly that nothing worse than some disrespect or verbal taunts actually transpired..
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Sarushka on March 01, 2008, 09:49:21 AM
However, in FOTR, they specifically modified the source to make it sound as if this is indeed what happened while this same source stated the opposite. Not only was it not indicated in the book that it was speculation, it was intentionally presented as a legitimate fact, using this source (Volkov)... What do you think about that?

Here I go splitting hairs again...

It's not possible to 'modify' a source -- unless of course you actually go back to the original document and falsify it. You can however, misquote. But as I've pointed out previously, Volkov himself is not misquoted in FOTR. The words "leave them in peace" are correct, and those are the only words attributed directly to Volkov. All claims that the grand duchesses were in any way abused come from the authors' mouths, not Volkov's.

Now, I'm not saying this means there isn't a mistake in this section of FOTR. I absolutely agree that the way the sentence is constructed, the authors' speculations, interpretations and implications are left unsubstantiated by any evidence. It is a misleading and mistaken sentence. Even so, I think it's inaccurate to accuse King & Wilson of misquoting, modifying, or otherwise tampering with a source.


Sure we can speculate that some "abuse" may have occurred, but the EVIDENCE shows strongly that nothing worse than some disrespect or verbal taunts actually transpired..

I agree that if some form of abuse occurred, this is the most likely scenario. Further, in light of how sheltered the girls were, I can't help believing that they could have reacted severely even to disrespect and verbal taunts -- lewd or otherwise. If there's any truth to George Gibbes's claim, I think it's possible that his father's alleged horror was misplaced -- a presumption based on hearing what might in essence have been an over-reaction.

Quote
Secondly, Guards were "POSTED EVERYWHERE", so just how much access would the drunken soldiers up on deck have had?

I hadn't realized before that the guards and the soldiers were two distinct groups of men. That does make a difference.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 01, 2008, 10:01:02 AM
But as I've pointed out previously, Volkov himself is not misquoted in FOTR. The words "leave them in peace" are correct, and those are the only words attributed directly to Volkov. All claims that the grand duchesses were in any way abused come from the authors' mouths, not Volkov's.

No, that's not correct. The words were "refusing to leave them in peace". That is very different from "left them in peace", which was what Volkov really said (see below). Of course they didn't attribute the word "refusing" to the quote, but the meaning of the quote was changed to fit the theeory, which in a way is even worse than directly misquoting the source. This shows premeditation. Especially when other (questionable) sources were used to further demonstrate how the GDesses were "not left in peace", and then the authors' conclusion was made that most likely something untoward had happend to the GDs, even the possibility of rape was implied - even though not exactly spelled out (things were worded in a way where the reader may imagine it).

"'The women, as Buxhoeveden recalled, had been ordered "to leave our cabin doors open all night. No one undressed." [Through the open doors, the soldiers leered at the grand duchesses]this phrase added by the authors, there is NO factual evidence to support the statement, and it is asserted as FACT and not identified as speculation [refusing, as Volkov later learned, to "leave them in peace"][b]Completely false. Volkov stated the GDs WERE LEFT IN PEACE[/b].

Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 01, 2008, 10:08:00 AM
[Here I go splitting hairs again... It's not possible to 'modify' a source -- unless of course you actually go back to the original document and falsify it. You can however, misquote.

Yes, wrong choice of a words on my part, I meant that it was misquoted. but I am sure everyone knew what I meant. 
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Sarushka on March 01, 2008, 10:20:15 AM
But as I've pointed out previously, Volkov himself is not misquoted in FOTR. The words "leave them in peace" are correct, and those are the only words attributed directly to Volkov. All claims that the grand duchesses were in any way abused come from the authors' mouths, not Volkov's.

No, that's not correct. The words were "would not leave them in peace". That is very different from "left them in peace", which was what Volkov really said. Another source was used to further demonstrate how the GDesses were not left in peace, and then the authors' conclusion was made that most likely something untoward had happend to the GDs, even the possibility of rape was implied - even though not exactly spelled out (things were worded in a way where the reader may imagine it).

You're mistaken. Here's a photocopy of the page in question with Volkov's quote hi-lighted:

(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y285/sarahelizabethii/Romanov/FOTR140.jpg)

My copy is a first edition hardcover.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Forum Admin on March 01, 2008, 10:29:01 AM
Here is the exact text again, so we don't get too sidetracked:

"The women, as Buxhoeveden recalled, had been ordered "to leave our cabin doors open all night. No one undressed." Through the open doors, the soldiers leered at the grand duchesses refusing, as Volkov later learned, to "leave them in peace".  The abuse reached a crescendo as the night wore on.  Gibbes, locked away in his cabin, listened helplessly, as he later told his son George, as the drunken guards harassesd the grand duchesses, "It was dreadful, what they did,"  the former tutor recalled.  The "terrified screams" of the girls, Gibbes said, haunted him, "to the end of his life."  Almost certainly, the Grand Duchesses were subjected to taunts, and perhaps lewd advances at the hands of the drunken Latvian guards, how this progressed as the evening wore on is impossible to determine."

Volkov: "the Grand Duchesses he left in peace" (Rodionov alone. No reference to the guards disturbing the GDs at all.

Thus the sentence "Through the open doors, the soldiers leered at the grand duchesses refusing, as Volkov later learned, to "leave them in peace". Has three errors of fact: a. Volkov did not learn anything "later" he was a first hand witness. b. Volkov was NOT referring to anything the guards did, he was speaking about Rodionov only. c. nobody "refused to leave them in peace" (which is the exact reading of the sentence as published. Further, the allegation written as a "fact" that the soldiers "leered" at the Grand Duchesses is unsupported speculation.

Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 01, 2008, 10:29:17 AM
Actually I've corrected my post while you were typing your last post, they didn't exactly say that Volkov stated that they were "not left in peace" but that they "refused to leave them in peace" which amounts to the same thing, except they didn't include the word "refuse" in the quote. So technically yes, they used the exact words that Volkov said, except they twisted them to mean the opposite, which is even worse than direct misquoting in my opinion, because it demonstrates that the authors knew exactly what they were doing with that quote...



You're mistaken. Here's a photocopy of the page in question with Volkov's quote hi-lighted:

(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y285/sarahelizabethii/Romanov/FOTR140.jpg)

My copy is a first edition hardcover.

Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 01, 2008, 10:30:07 AM
Thus the sentence "Through the open doors, the soldiers leered at the grand duchesses refusing, as Volkov later learned, to "leave them in peace". Has three errors of fact: a. Volkov did not learn anything "later" he was a first hand witness. b. Volkov was NOT referring to anything the guards did. c. nobody "refused to leave them in peace" (which is the exact reading of the sentence as published. Further, the allegation written as a "fact" that the soldiers "leered" at the Grand Duchesses is unsupported speculation.

Yes, exactly, thank you, FA.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Annie on March 01, 2008, 10:32:57 AM
This part is even worse than adding the leering soldiers and the 'refusing to' to the 'leave them in peace'. Stating that Volkov 'later learned' there had been abuse is absolutely FALSE, and is indeed putting words in his mouth.

A couple of points. First, I suddenly realized that there is a disturbing choice of syntax that never struck me before. FOTR says "as Volkov later learned"  Well, Volkov didn't learn anything later, he was THERE on board and knew what happened first hand.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Forum Admin on March 01, 2008, 10:33:39 AM
Sarah,

Please make certain that the authors don't have an objection to your reproduction of the entire page of the text. I don't want to infringe on any copyrights.  Thanks.

FA
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Sarushka on March 01, 2008, 10:39:18 AM
Sarah,

Please make certain that the authors don't have an objection to your reproduction of the entire page of the text. I don't want to infringe on any copyrights.  Thanks.

FA


I will do that immediately. If they have objections, I will delete the image from my photobucket account which should break the link.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Sarushka on March 01, 2008, 10:41:21 AM
Actually I've corrected my post while you were typing your last post, they didn't exactly say that Volkov stated that they were "not left in peace" but that they "refused to leave them in peace" which amounts to the same thing, except they didn't include the word "refuse" in the quote.

I hope you'll forgive my pickiness, but this is still not an accurate quote from FOTR. The wording is different, and the quotation marks setting off Volkov's words are missing:

'....refusing, as Volkov later learned, to "leave them in peace".'

I realize you were working quickly to correct your post, but I wouldn't want to have other posters inadvertantly copy the mistake and misrepresent the text in their arguments. Particularly when the discussion itself revolves around the accuracy of quotations.

Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Puppylove on March 01, 2008, 10:41:38 AM
So if I'm following this train of thought correctly, the wording can leave one with the impression that a very specific, very narrow agenda is hinted at here, something Janet A. staunchly denies.

Could it be possible the writing and the editing are just not very good?
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Forum Admin on March 01, 2008, 10:46:09 AM
Well, Sarah's reproduction of the page reveals another bad use of Volkov (poor Volkov, he seems to be the one subject to more abuse than the Grand Duchesses!).

Two paragraphs before the previous text discussed. They talk about how the bored and drunken soldiers fired shots off the boat and tossed grenades at the birds. THEN  "the boat slowly edged away from the Tobolsk wharf, churning a ribbon of white foam as it steamed across the dark water into the fire of the Siberian sunset. It was the beginning of what Volkov later termed "a savage orgy".

The clear meaning of the paragraph says that the passengers were locked up in the boat for hours before it left. The drunken and bored soldiers did their shooting and grenade tossing. THEN the Rus leaves and they say that Volkov calls the VOYAGE ITSELF "a savage orgy".



Here is what Volkov actually said. The boat left at two o'clock and steered in the direction of Tyumen. The conduct of the soldiers during the voyage was abominable. Absolutely no discipline. They fired gunshots and even threw grenades, without rhyme or reason, at birds, up in the air...It was a savage orgy.

Error of fact 1: The shooting and grenade tossing happened AFTER the boat left.
Error of fact 2: The Rus didn't steam off into the Siberian sunset. It left at 2pm.
Error of fact 3: Volkov did NOT call the voyage itself "a savage orgy".  That term was used to describe the lack of discipline of the soldiers up on deck.

Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 01, 2008, 10:47:00 AM
I hope you'll forgive my pickiness, but this is still not an accurate quote from FOTR. The wording is different, and the quotation marks setting off Volkov's words are missing:

'....refusing, as Volkov later learned, to "leave them in peace".'

I am not writing a thesis here, just making a point. What it comes down to is that Volkov was misquoted in what seems to be a deliberate and blatant manner.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 01, 2008, 10:49:30 AM
So if I'm following this train of thought correctly, the wording can leave one with the impression that a very specific, very narrow agenda is hinted at here, something Janet A. staunchly denies.

Yes, exactly.


Could it be possible the writing and the editing are just not very good?

Not sure about that. To me, there is no denial of what the authors are trying to convey there... and how the quotes are misused.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 01, 2008, 10:53:08 AM
Yeah, poor Volkov. Luckily for FOTR he was no longer alive to set things straight and unless the reader actually reads his memoirs in Russian or French, he or she would never know what he really said.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 01, 2008, 10:58:00 AM
The clear meaning of the paragraph says that the passengers were locked up in the boat for hours before it left. The drunken and bored soldiers did their shooting and grenade tossing. THEN the Rus leaves and they say that Volkov calls the VOYAGE ITSELF "a savage orgy".

Here is what Volkov actually said. The boat left at two o'clock and steered in the direction of Tyumen. The conduct of the soldiers during the voyage was abominable. Absolutely no discipline. They fired gunshots and even threw grenades, without rhyme or reason, at birds, up in the air...It was a savage orgy.

Error of fact 3: Volkov did NOT call the voyage itself "a savage orgy".  That term was used to describe the lack of discipline of the soldiers up on deck.

IMO, that quote was once again used to sensationalize the incident, in order to sell more books no doubt - I guess it was all still part of, what did Janet A call it? Oh yes, "stylistic demands of commercial publishing"...
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Annie on March 01, 2008, 11:04:25 AM
Yeah, poor Volkov. Luckily for FOTR he was no longer alive to set things straight and unless the reader actually reads his memoirs in Russian or French, he or she would never know what he really said.


This is another reason it's so despicable- Using a dead man who cannot defend himself or correct the info as a backup for something that never really happened, but for some reasons,(AA's pregnancy? Sensationalism sells? Other?) the authors needed to say that it did. Looks like some very snazzy maneuvering had to have been done to change what was actually said by this man into what they intended for it to convey, and I cannot accept that as accidental or unintentional.

At this point, there really is no defense and denying it. The authors should really just apologize, and if they ever do a reprint, correct it. I'm sure if those things were done, this topic of discussion would finally be over.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Puppylove on March 01, 2008, 11:06:39 AM
The clear meaning of the paragraph says that the passengers were locked up in the boat for hours before it left. The drunken and bored soldiers did their shooting and grenade tossing. THEN the Rus leaves and they say that Volkov calls the VOYAGE ITSELF "a savage orgy".

Here is what Volkov actually said. The boat left at two o'clock and steered in the direction of Tyumen. The conduct of the soldiers during the voyage was abominable. Absolutely no discipline. They fired gunshots and even threw grenades, without rhyme or reason, at birds, up in the air...It was a savage orgy.

Error of fact 3: Volkov did NOT call the voyage itself "a savage orgy".  That term was used to describe the lack of discipline of the soldiers up on deck.

IMO, that quote was once again used to sensationalize the incident, in order to sell more books no doubt - I guess it was all still part of, what did Janet A call it? Oh yes, "stylistic demands of commercial publishing"...

But why not just do it carefully and correctly from the beginning? People aren't going to suddenly drop their copy of The Secret where they stand and pick up The Fate of the Romanovs instead.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 01, 2008, 11:07:21 AM
The authors should really just apologize, and if they ever do a reprint, correct it.

Very unlikely...
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Forum Admin on March 01, 2008, 11:14:08 AM
But why not just do it carefully and correctly from the beginning?

THAT, to me is the question. Also, and I know its another  thread, is the heart of the Author's obligation (all authors of history non-fiction.)
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 01, 2008, 11:14:21 AM
The clear meaning of the paragraph says that the passengers were locked up in the boat for hours before it left. The drunken and bored soldiers did their shooting and grenade tossing. THEN the Rus leaves and they say that Volkov calls the VOYAGE ITSELF "a savage orgy".

Here is what Volkov actually said. The boat left at two o'clock and steered in the direction of Tyumen. The conduct of the soldiers during the voyage was abominable. Absolutely no discipline. They fired gunshots and even threw grenades, without rhyme or reason, at birds, up in the air...It was a savage orgy.

Error of fact 3: Volkov did NOT call the voyage itself "a savage orgy".  That term was used to describe the lack of discipline of the soldiers up on deck.

IMO, that quote was once again used to sensationalize the incident, in order to sell more books no doubt - I guess it was all still part of, what did Janet A call it? Oh yes, "stylistic demands of commercial publishing"...

But why not just do it carefully and correctly from the beginning? People aren't going to suddenly drop their copy of The Secret where they stand and pick up The Fate of the Romanovs instead.


That's the part I could never understand. The book is heavily cited and sourced, and obviously a lot of research went into it (at least it looks that way), so why misquote, or as in some instances even invent, the sources? My speculation is that if FOTR had done that, it would just be another Romanov book with nothing new. By "creatively" misusing the sources, FOTR resulted as an innovative book with a lot of "new" information. I can understand why authors would want to publish a book like that, however to resort to what amounts to falsifying history is going a bit far...
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Janet Ashton on March 01, 2008, 11:31:32 AM
Thanks Margarita for the original and the explainations. Since Volkov was Russian, that must be the way it was written and has to be exactly what he meant. So what we actually had was, ONE man putting Alexei and Nargorny locked up in a cabin, and leaving the Grand Duchesses alone (which may even have meant he did not lock them up) How in the world anyone can bring in a group of leering soldiers that never existed, and assuming their 'must' have been abuse going on in the night is ridiculous. There is nothing there but speculation elaborated on by imagination! Sorry but no editor's error could do that alone.

In addition, the theory that they could have been molested but nobody mentioned it because of their station is really, really, grasping at straws.

There never was any ambiguity in Volkov's words as they appear in the Russian and in the French languages. The text was never open to any other interpretation. 


Margarita  


The French text reads "ayant laisse en paix les Grandes Duchesses" - having left the Grand Duchesses in peace. You may or may not consider this to be the "definitive" text, but please do not accuse me of misrepresenting source material. I am writing from memory, but this is a point I checked with some attention the first (?) time you people went round this in 2006.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 01, 2008, 11:34:29 AM
The French text reads "ayant laisse en paix les Grandes Duchesses" - having left the Grand Duchesses in peace. You may or may not consider this to be the "definitive" text, but please do not accuse me of misrepresenting source material.

I believe the original Volkov was written in Russian (?) - correct me if I'm wrong - and this is where Margarita was getting her source material.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Janet Ashton on March 01, 2008, 11:35:20 AM
The French text reads "ayant laisse en paix les Grandes Duchesses" - having left the Grand Duchesses in peace. You may or may not consider this to be the "definitive" text, but please do not accuse me of misrepresenting source material.

I believe the original Volkov was written in Russian (?) - correct me if I'm wrong - and this is where Margarita was getting her source material.

Look, Tweedledee - please read the post to which I was responding.....
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 01, 2008, 11:42:49 AM
The French text reads "ayant laisse en paix les Grandes Duchesses" - having left the Grand Duchesses in peace. You may or may not consider this to be the "definitive" text, but please do not accuse me of misrepresenting source material.

I believe the original Volkov was written in Russian (?) - correct me if I'm wrong - and this is where Margarita was getting her source material.

Look, Tweedledee - please read the post to which I was responding.....

Good to see that you are still vigilant, Janet A ;-). But if this topic is driving you that crazy, you are free to remove your email alert to this thread and let others who are interested discuss it.  (Or maybe I should say "leave others in peace"  to discuss it ;-))
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Annie on March 01, 2008, 11:47:00 AM
For the record, I took the paragraph Margarita posted in Russian to Babelfish just to see how that translator would interpret it. The result was "Great princesses were left to their rest". (going to sleep, good night!) Again, nothing to suggest any hanky panky.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Forum Admin on March 01, 2008, 11:55:48 AM

The French text reads "ayant laisse en paix les Grandes Duchesses" - having left the Grand Duchesses in peace. You may or may not consider this to be the "definitive" text, but please do not accuse me of misrepresenting source material. I am writing from memory, but this is a point I checked with some attention the first (?) time you people went round this in 2006.

"ayant laissé" does not "strictly" mean "having left".  This is what is called "passé composée", all simple past tense in french uses "avoir" in this case.  It actually reads "he left" in English meaning exactly.  I would say "Je suis allé au marché to mean "I went to the market", but would it be more accurate to translate it as "I am went to the market"?? Obviously not.

It is beyond pedantic and frankly incorrect to place that much reliance of the use of "avoir" to mean anything more than the action was in the past.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Puppylove on March 01, 2008, 12:02:22 PM
The French text reads "ayant laisse en paix les Grandes Duchesses" - having left the Grand Duchesses in peace. You may or may not consider this to be the "definitive" text, but please do not accuse me of misrepresenting source material.

I believe the original Volkov was written in Russian (?) - correct me if I'm wrong - and this is where Margarita was getting her source material.

Look, Tweedledee - please read the post to which I was responding.....

Good to see that you are still vigilant, Janet A ;-). But if this topic is driving you that crazy, you are free to remove your email alert to this thread and let others who are interested discuss it.  (Or maybe I should say "leave others in peace"  to discuss it ;-))

Once again the most active threads are the ones that produce yawns among the high-minded who regard themselves as bored or claim they are beyond the subject matter. Yet still they come. The irony.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: AGRBear on March 01, 2008, 12:41:41 PM
But as I've pointed out previously, Volkov himself is not misquoted in FOTR. The words "leave them in peace" are correct, and those are the only words attributed directly to Volkov. All claims that the grand duchesses were in any way abused come from the authors' mouths, not Volkov's.

No, that's not correct. The words were "would not leave them in peace". That is very different from "left them in peace", which was what Volkov really said. Another source was used to further demonstrate how the GDesses were not left in peace, and then the authors' conclusion was made that most likely something untoward had happend to the GDs, even the possibility of rape was implied - even though not exactly spelled out (things were worded in a way where the reader may imagine it).

You're mistaken. Here's a photocopy of the page in question with Volkov's quote hi-lighted:

(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y285/sarahelizabethii/Romanov/FOTR140.jpg)

My copy is a first edition hardcover.


Okay.  If I remember all of this correctly,  this is where the footnote number was moved by the book editor/publisher's people which has caused all this critizism.  When it was first noticed and someone posted it,  I instantly voiced, without knowing King and Wilson's story, that someone had eliminated part of a sentence or many sentences and the footnote ended at the end of the sentence printed which was the wrong place because it wasn't the correct source.  Later,  Wilson came on AP and posted,  like Ashton had retold what she knew,  that some sentences had been removed.  So when this occured,  and it doesn't matter who's to blame at this point since the error was not caught,  the error was and still is there in the book.   Helen, Annie, FA and others have read about this error on AP and later on King's and Wilson's forum.  That should have been the end of it.  Errors happen.  As much as authors would like them not to happen,  it happens.  According to Ashton,  Wilson has placed the blame on her shoulders because it was her and King's book.   So,  why  are we  thrashing through all of this again?  Because of Helen and Annie.  Everywhere, on AP,  my forum,  Annie's forum, other forums,  they coninue this attack.  Even Amazon had to eliminate their comments on the book,  which is very rare and proves how vile  these attacks have been.

I can undertand FA's concern.  He disagrees with what King and Wilson wrote.  He has been giving us his sources and his interpretation of what Volkov said.  He believes that  the drunken soldiers on the Russ would never have touched the daughters of the ex-Tsar Nicholas II.  But this is his opinion.  King and Wilson think something more might have happened.  They tell us in plain words that they nor does anyone else know everything that happened on the Russ.

FA believes that because no one else wrote anything which Gibbes remembered,  it just didn't happen.  Gosh,  if life was only so simple.

I and others are suppose to realize that we're thinking like people living in 2008 and not 1918.  Please remember,  I stated that if you read diaries and letters of other aristocracts who were prisioners of the Bolsheviks,  that  the revolutionaries anger and hatred for the rich,  in my family's case the "Kulacks"  that this spurred these revolutionaries into acts upon these people (Tsar on down to a shop keeper's cat)  that were horrific.

If you want to believe the man in charge of the guards, well,  then do, but, think,  I have,  I can realize that  of course he's not going to make any comments in any report that he had lost control of his men from 2 PM to the time the Russ docked at Ekaterinburg.

Yes,  there were a number of servents, also, on the Russ. 

Yes,  the boat wasn't that big.

Yes, the duchesses remained dressed.

Yes,  Alexei was locked in a cabin.

Yes,  the soldiers were drunk,  shooting off their guns,  and throwing grenades.

"Rodinov and his band of drunken soldiers passed from cabin to cabin, reshuffling passeingers...<  wrote King and Wilson p. 140.

And why do you think they did this?   I assume it was  intimadation.  Why would they want to intimidate their passengers?  I can speculate, why they'd  want to intimidate their passengers, can't you?  But do we know for sure?  No.

And, THEN  there is the soft hearted and frighten Gibbes.  His character is nothing like Volkov's.  Gibbes is more sensitive.  His brain is collecting every sound of every moment.  He hears the Grand Duchesses screaming.  He doesn't tell anyone.  Why should he?  The others were on board the Russia, too.  They heard what they heard.  As  FA states,  the boat was small and the walls thin.   And,  what Gibbes heard was never forgotten by Gibbes.  Later,  Gibbes tells us adopted son George  his "worst memory".   

Evidently,  FA doesn't believe Gibbes' son.  But why would Gibbe's son lie?  George  had personally seen the emotions in his adopted father's face and eyes.  This memory of Gibbes remained with George who in turn retold the story.   

Again,  let me say,  King and Wilson stated that they nor anyone else knows what happen on the Russ.  Whatever it was,  the results was something Gibbes would never forget.

Now,  you can read all sides,  and,  then make up your own mind.

And you can ask more questions.  That's part of being part of a discussion.  I assure you I will view the events differently than FA or Helen or Annie.   Perhaps it's because,  like George Gibbes,  I have personally talked to people  who suffered under the Bolsheviki  who did terrible things to them.  All were part of a revolution.  Good people often times do bad things in revolutions, and, many of the Bolsheviks  did in those times.

AGRBear
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Puppylove on March 01, 2008, 12:52:59 PM

Again,  let me say,  King and Wilson stated that they nor anyone else knows what happen on the Russ.  Whatever it was,  the results was something Gibbes would never forget.

Now,  you can read all sides,  and,  then make up your own mind.

And you can ask more questions.  That's part of being part of a discussion.  I assure you I will view the events differently than FA or Helen or Annie.   Perhaps it's because,  like George Gibbes,  I have personally talked to people  who suffered under the Bolsheviki  who did terrible things to them.  All were part of a revolution.  Good people often times do bad things in revolutions, and, many of the Bolsheviks  did in those times.

AGRBear

Well said Bear. And a lot of us have loved ones who suffered at the hands of the Bolsheviks. But whether one does or doesn't, the questions and honest debate without nasty name calling are what matters here.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Forum Admin on March 01, 2008, 12:57:29 PM
I didn't say I don't believe Gibbes' SON.  I don't believe GIBBES necessarily meant what he son thought he did. As people get older, their memories blur and become fuzzy . They confuse events.  I'm going thru this right now with my own Dad in his 80s.  He vehemently "remembers" events that never happened and over dramatizes others into much more than they actually were.

an example.  He very lovingly gave me a watch on my last visit. "here son, take this, I never wear it. Its the Patek Phillipe your Mom gave me for my 60th birthday."  Well, it wasn't a real Patek.  It was a crude fake.  I remember twenty years ago when he won it in a golf game as a gag gift from a buddy of his.  He knew full well back then it was a bad fake.  I reminded him of it.  He became angry. NO NO NO, I REMEMBER when your mother gave this to me, its a real patek phillipe, I remember getting mad at her for spending so much money on it.

It never happened, so I let it go. 

I think it is FAR more valuable to know that Gibbes made absolutely NO MENTION of this "worst nightmare" to ANYONE EVER EVER until thirty plus years after the fact, when he was much older. THIS is why I distrust Gibbes'  "alleged" memory of the event  (that strongly coupled with the fact that NOBODY ELSE on the Rus said a WORD about this "worst nightmare" ever at any time.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: AGRBear on March 01, 2008, 01:24:15 PM
FA,

You have every reason not to believe your 80 year old father. 

Evidently, George Gibbes did believe his adopted father, so, therein is the difference.

And,  I could turn around and tell you that my grandmother who was born in 1885 and lived to be 96 never forgot anything.  And, to this day everything she told me about our family genealogy has been accurate.  But your father and my grandmother were not on the Russ.  Gibbes was and he told George what he told George.  You can believe it or not believe it.  That is your choice.

AGRBear
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 01, 2008, 01:29:55 PM
I am much more concerned with the misquotes of Volkov than whether Gibbs' adopted son believed his father or not... Volkov was a first hand witness, while the Gibbs testimony is hearsay...
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: AGRBear on March 01, 2008, 01:42:49 PM
...[in part]...

I think it is FAR more valuable to know that Gibbes made absolutely NO MENTION of this "worst nightmare" to ANYONE EVER EVER until thirty plus years after the fact, when he was much older. THIS is why I distrust Gibbes'  "alleged" memory of the event  (that strongly coupled with the fact that NOBODY ELSE on the Rus said a WORD about this "worst nightmare" ever at any time.
[/quote]

Here, again,  I can disagree.  I have time after time talked to the older generation who suddenly open up and spill out their story to me because I understand what it was like in those times.  And,  it is heart rendering to hear what they have kept locked up inside of them. 

Is every word accurate?  Of course not.  Human memory is a fasinating subject and sometimes it fails to remember the whole truth, or, sometimes  things are blown exagerated, but, many times many of the horrors remain hidden in the depths of the brain, which has it's own way of protecting it's owner.

Nothings changes.  It was Gibbes' memory which he passed on to his son.

Believe it or don't.  Like I've said,  "It's your choice."

AGRBear

PS   I'm having a difficult time placing quotes around FA's.  I must have some kinda glich working.  Sorry.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 01, 2008, 02:01:05 PM
I am much more concerned with the misquotes of Volkov than whether Gibbs' adopted son believed his father or not... Volkov was a first hand witness, while the Gibbs testimony is hearsay...
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Puppylove on March 01, 2008, 02:12:14 PM
I am much more concerned with the misquotes of Volkov than whether Gibbs' adopted son believed his father or not... Volkov was a first hand witness, while the Gibbs testimony is hearsay...

Well that should clear the fog for the forum's more elderly readers.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Annie on March 01, 2008, 02:20:35 PM
I am much more concerned with the misquotes of Volkov than whether Gibbs' adopted son believed his father or not... Volkov was a first hand witness, while the Gibbs testimony is hearsay...

Exactly, Volkov was there, as were Bux, Gilliard and Gibbes, who ALL wrote lengthy memoirs and not one of them mentioned any such thing. There is a chance the adopted son misunderstood something, told it wrong, or totally fabricated it because it sounded more interesting. Either way, he was not there and is not a credible witness.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Annie on March 01, 2008, 02:25:03 PM
I am much more concerned with the misquotes of Volkov than whether Gibbs' adopted son believed his father or not... Volkov was a first hand witness, while the Gibbs testimony is hearsay...

Well that should clear the fog for the forum's more elderly readers.

 ;D

One more thing, I have known elderly relatives who told long, detailed accounts of family vacations that never actually occured, or added exciting details to an original story that didn't really happen. But mainly, we don't even know if Gibbes actually said it, or if the adopted son made it up later.

The memoirs of the others don't say a word about it, and you know, people love to put spicy details in their books to help them sell better, so surely if anything had happened they'd have loved to have told, since it was more exciting than what they wrote.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Janet Ashton on March 01, 2008, 03:05:53 PM
The French text reads "ayant laisse en paix les Grandes Duchesses" - having left the Grand Duchesses in peace. You may or may not consider this to be the "definitive" text, but please do not accuse me of misrepresenting source material.

I believe the original Volkov was written in Russian (?) - correct me if I'm wrong - and this is where Margarita was getting her source material.

Look, Tweedledee - please read the post to which I was responding.....

Good to see that you are still vigilant, Janet A ;-). But if this topic is driving you that crazy, you are free to remove your email alert to this thread and let others who are interested discuss it.  (Or maybe I should say "leave others in peace"  to discuss it ;-))

Once again the most active threads are the ones that produce yawns among the high-minded who regard themselves as bored or claim they are beyond the subject matter. Yet still they come. The irony.

Perhaps they enjoy the sniping....
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: AGRBear on March 01, 2008, 04:09:01 PM
The Enlgish translation of Volkov's Memoirs can be found on AP:
http://www.alexanderpalace.org/volkov/

Acording to Bob Moshein's translation, Volkov wrote

Chapter 19:

>>May 7/20, at noon, a carriage was brought for the Tsarevich. As for the rest of us, we had to go to the pier on foot. There we went on board the ship "Rus", where we settled in. They took along on board from the governor's house not only the belongings which we had, those of the Imperial Family and those of us in the suite, but also those belonging to the house and the governor's furniture. Seeing this, the Tsarevich said to Rodianov: "Why are you taking these things? They don't belong to us, they belong to other people."
"The Master is gone, it is all ours" replied Rodianov.

The boat left at two o'clock and steered in the direction of Tyumen. The conduct of the soldiers during the voyage was abominable. Absolutely no discipline. They fired gunshots and even threw grenades, without rhyme or reason, at birds, up in the air...It was a savage orgy.<<
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: AGRBear on March 01, 2008, 04:12:14 PM
Let me repeat:

Voklov:
>>The conduct of the soldiers during the voyage was abominable. Absolutely no discipline. They fired gunshots and even threw grenades, without rhyme or reason, at birds, up in the air...It was a savage orgy.<<

This line seems to agree with Gibbes'  memory.

AGRBear
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: AGRBear on March 01, 2008, 04:35:03 PM
"not left in peace"

"refused to leave them in peace"

It seems to me if you deny leaving someone have peace that you are refusing to leave someone in peace.

Why do you think the meaning is twisted, Helen?

Actually I've corrected my post while you were typing your last post, they didn't exactly say that Volkov stated that they were "not left in peace" but that they "refused to leave them in peace" which amounts to the same thing, except they didn't include the word "refuse" in the quote. So technically yes, they used the exact words that Volkov said, except they twisted them to mean the opposite, which is even worse than direct misquoting in my opinion, because it demonstrates that the authors knew exactly what they were doing with that quote...



You're mistaken. Here's a photocopy of the page in question with Volkov's quote hi-lighted:

(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y285/sarahelizabethii/Romanov/FOTR140.jpg)

My copy is a first edition hardcover.


Earlier in the house at Tobolsk.  Volkov wrote, Chapter 19,  Bob Moshein's translation:
>>One day, Rodianov came to find me and declared: "Tell these young girls not to close the door to their room at night."

I replied that this was completely impossible. "I told you to do it" he insisted.

"It is absolutely impossible, since your soldiers would pass by there all the time in front of the open doors where the young girls would be sleeping."

"My soldiers will not pass by the open doors. But, if you do not exactly as I have ordered you to do, I have the authority to shoot you where you stand." As he spoke these words he took out his revolver.

"I will place a watchman at the door of the bedroom."
"But, that is abominable!" I shouted at him.
"That is my business" he replied.

The watchman was never posted, but the door to the grand duchess' bedroom stood wide open all night. <<

The door on the Russ to the Grand Duchesses cabin stayed wide open all night.

The Bolsheviks denied the Grand Duchesses privacy earlier in the house at Tobolsk and later on the Russ.

Who was in charge?  The same man Rodionov.

AGRBear
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Annie on March 01, 2008, 05:04:13 PM
"not left in peace"

"refused to leave them in peace"

It seems to me if you deny leaving someone have peace that you are refusing to leave someone in peace.

Why do you think the meaning is twisted, Helen?

But he said they were left in peace, so both are incorrect.

Quote
Posted by: AGRBear

Let me repeat:

Voklov:
>>The conduct of the soldiers during the voyage was abominable. Absolutely no discipline. They fired gunshots and even threw grenades, without rhyme or reason, at birds, up in the air...It was a savage orgy.<<

This line seems to agree with Gibbes'  memory.

AGRBear

Bear: they were talking about the massacre of the birds, not a sex orgy.



Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: AGRBear on March 01, 2008, 05:23:45 PM
"not left in peace"

"refused to leave them in peace"

It seems to me if you deny leaving someone have peace that you are refusing to leave someone in peace.

Why do you think the meaning is twisted, Helen?

But he said they were left in peace, so both are incorrect.

Quote
Posted by: AGRBear

Let me repeat:

Voklov:
>>The conduct of the soldiers during the voyage was abominable. Absolutely no discipline. They fired gunshots and even threw grenades, without rhyme or reason, at birds, up in the air...It was a savage orgy.<<

This line seems to agree with Gibbes'  memory.

AGRBear

Bear: they were talking about the massacre of the birds, not a sex orgy.



Who said there was a "sex orgy"?   Volkov said there was "savage orgy".  Do we need Bear to use the dictionary, again,  so you understand the words?

And,  how can you leave people in peace if guns are being firing,  grenades being thrown, and soldiers being undisciplined.... and,  doors to the cabins were left wide open so anyone passing could see the prisioners?

AGRBear



Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Annie on March 01, 2008, 06:05:37 PM

Who said there was a "sex orgy"?   Volkov said there was "savage orgy".  Do we need Bear to use the dictionary, again,  so you understand the words?

You said that line backed up the quote by Gibbe's son, making it look like you think it was sexual.

Quote
And,  how can you leave people in peace if guns are being firing,  grenades being thrown, and soldiers being undisciplined.... and,  doors to the cabins were left wide open so anyone passing could see the prisoners?

AGRBear

That's not the topic, it's whether or not they were left in peace in the bedroom.






[/quote]
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: AGRBear on March 01, 2008, 06:49:08 PM
George said Gibbes said that night carried his "worst memories" and  Volka said the Bolehviks had a "savage orgy".

Like King and Wilson wrote p. 141:

>>Almost certainly, the grand duchesses were subject to taunts and perhaps lewd advances at the hands of the drunken Latvian guards, how far this progressed as the evening wore on is impossible to determine.<<   

Thier conclusion goes no farther than  saying there probably were "taunts and PERHAPS lewd advances".

King and Wilson don't know if anything else happen or to whom?  I know I do not.  I know you and other posters do not. 

AGRBear
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Annie on March 01, 2008, 07:12:45 PM
No, we don't. But we don't guess and tell it for the truth.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Belochka on March 01, 2008, 07:21:29 PM
I don't know why, but every time Margarita addresses me, I'm reminded of a large school girl with a waggng finger and her hands on her hips, approaching the miscreant with a bunch of friends lurking behind, some giggling, others just staring..

Question 1. Are you really so stupid that  you don't know that authors also make "editorial errors" during the editing process?
Question 2. Are you really so stupid that you think that you'd set me a trap with that one?

No apologies for the personal attacks - I am really enjoying this....;-)

... Look, Tweedledee - please read the post to which I was responding.....

Re: The author's obligation to his/her readers Thread:

.... would there ever be the remotest possibility of shutting you up ...

Wasn't referring to you. My dear, don't give yourself airs.....  

How sad it is that when there is nothing intelligent to say the insults fly instead. Why do you persist with such an inhospitable attitude towards others Ms Ashton? I am reallly quite disappointed by your negativity on this Forum.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: AGRBear on March 01, 2008, 07:24:52 PM
No, we don't. But we don't guess and tell it for the truth.

King and Wilson gave us some quotes,  facts, opinions and then concluded:

>>Almost certainly, the grand duchesses were subject to taunts and perhaps lewd advances at the hands of the drunken Latvian guards, how far this progressed as the evening wore on is impossible to determine.<< 

Annie, I don't see in King or Wilson mentioning a "sex orgy" in these pages we are discussing.

What you have is a bad case of what I call  "reading between the lines" and guess what,  there is an empty white space between the lines in my book, so, either you are seeing words that do not exist, or,  King and Wilson wrote something between the lines, which I doubt,  in the book you read.

AGRBear
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: Belochka on March 01, 2008, 07:30:33 PM
No, we don't. But we don't guess and tell it for the truth.

King and Wilson gave us some quotes,  facts, opinions and then concluded:

>>Almost certainly, the grand duchesses were subject to taunts and perhaps lewd advances at the hands of the drunken Latvian guards, how far this progressed as the evening wore on is impossible to determine.<< 

Annie, I don't see in King or Wilson mentioning a "sex orgy" in these pages we are discussing.

What you have is a bad case of what I call  "reading between the lines" and guess what,  there is an empty white space between the lines in my book, so, either you are seeing words that do not exist, or,  King and Wilson wrote something between the lines, which I doubt,  in the book you read.

AGRBear

At p 140 "Volkov later termed a savage orgy".

For the record the words "savage orgy" do not appear in my Russian language copy of Volkov.
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: AGRBear on March 01, 2008, 07:32:25 PM
Belochka,

Take your personal differences with Ashton to PM please.

Back to topic!

AGRBear
Title: Re: The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson
Post by: AGRBear