Alexander Palace Forum

Discussions about the Imperial Family and European Royalty => The Myth and Legends of Survivors => Topic started by: investigator on January 28, 2004, 08:35:19 AM

Title: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: investigator on January 28, 2004, 08:35:19 AM
Some people believe that Alexei survived and lived in America and even had children.  How much truth is in this school of thought?
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Forum Admin on January 28, 2004, 09:28:52 AM
There is no truth whatsoever in any fantasy story that Alexei escaped. Period.

As I said earlier, as Inheritor to the Throne of Russia, the Bolsheviks would have made very certain that Alexei was dead. Also, given the known fact of his hemophilia, he could not have survived any injuries from the executioners for any length of time.  Lastly, an eyewitness, who was not part of the execution squad testified that he had seen Alexei's corpse and described it in great detail.

Alexei's supposed "survival and escape" is frankly even more a fairy-tale fantasy than that of Anastasia. Even those who still believe in Anna Anderson mostly concede that Alexei did not survive.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: insight on January 28, 2004, 10:25:36 PM
Do you know the name of the eyewitness and if so the circumstances behind the observation?
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Alice on January 29, 2004, 05:10:30 AM
I'd like to know that too. (Who the eyewitness was)
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Forum Admin on January 29, 2004, 08:58:21 AM
This was a member of the Cheka, G.I. Sukhorukov, who was assigned to go help dispose of the corpses of the Royal Family the next morning. On April 3, 1928 his memoir:... "It was necessary to begin digging up the corpses (after the attempt to burn them the previous night)...the first thing we came across was the leg of the last Nicholas.  He was removed successfully, and then all the others. To be precise, it can be said that everybody was naked, except for the heir, who had on a sailor shirt but no trousers."
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: insight on January 29, 2004, 11:36:50 PM
The fact that the other witness was a member of the secret police and involved with the assassination (though maybe not directly) does not in my opinion lend anymore credibility than the testimony of the assassins themselves.

I personally don't think anyone should jump to conclusions regarding the missing children without proper forensic evidence. There needs to be dna recovered which positively identifies any remains. The same level of evidence (if not more) is required from those who claim that the two survived (or claim descent). When someone says they know the answer to this issue then they should be able to provide conclusive evidence and not just conclusive theories.      
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: investigator on January 30, 2004, 02:14:21 AM
I agree.  Because the bodies of Alexei and one of the girls were never found.  
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Alice on January 30, 2004, 05:19:00 AM
Why would they've stripped all the bodies completely, except for Alexei? And if Alexei was dug up with the other bodies, why wasn't his body re-buried with the others? There must've been a reason . . . not saying that he survived, because I honestly don't think he did.  

Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Forum Admin on January 30, 2004, 09:36:03 AM
Alice,
The reason the bodies had been stripped was because all of the girls and Alexandra had gold and diamonds hidden in their clothes.  During imprisonment in the Alexander Palace they took diamonds out of Alexandra's jewelery and sewed them into little packets between two thin chemises which they were always wearing secretly.  For those who don't know, at that time, all the Grand Duchesses wore corsets (as did all "ladies of breeding" in Victorian times) and the chemise was a thin undershirt worn under the corset.  During the murders several of the Grand Duchesses were not killed by the bullets, because the diamonds acted like a bullet proof vest, as the executioners began to stab them, the diamonds started spilling out. Therefore, they stripped all of the bodies to shred the clothes looking for valuables. Each corpse was carefully searched while still in the basement.  This is, at least to me, more compelling evidence that all of them were quite dead, because the bodies were clearly handled quite a lot that night and someone would surely have noticed someone still alive.  Alexei was wearing just his favorite sailor's shirt from the Standardt crew and they could see he did not have any valuables on him so they just left the shirt.  All of the bodies were then taken to the forest and they tried to burn them...again more evidence that none of them were still alive. This much is without doubt...it is after this point that things become murky.

As for the demanding of concrete physical evidence, it is not always necessary. Compare that notion to this obvious possibility:
Clearly it is possible that perhaps one hundred people who were supposed to be in the WTC September 11 decided to use the tragedy as an excuse to disappear and start new lives and identities from scratch.....The New York Times reports that over 350 people are missing still from the Sept. 11 tragedy with no DNA or physical evidence ever found....should we still be convinced that they are alive and well somewhere until this proof is found one way or the other??
To me, demanding some physical evidence of the two bodies to prove their deaths is just as ludicrous....
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: insight on January 30, 2004, 10:41:17 PM
Quote:"All of the bodies were taken to the forest and they tried to burn them...again more evidence that none of them were still alive. This much is without doubt".

When you say "All" and "without doubt" you are assuming that people involved in the assassination process (of questionable character) were telling the truth. I would be more inclined to see your point if several, credible independant witnesses (not involved in the assassination) observed and were able to positively identify the bodies.

I don't dispute the fact that members of the family and their aids were murdered, bodies burned then burried. This was confirmed through forensic identification of the bones and mtdna analysis.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but was not the explanation (given by the assassins) for the missing bodies of Alexei and one of his sisters a result of the grave being too full? If so then why not dig the pit a bit deeper? Dig another pit right there. Would people who cared nothing for the family make the effort to drag away the burned bodies to a secret location? If that much care and effort was required then why was that same effort not used to "hide" the Tsar's remains?

How can you compare the intense fire and implosion of two skyscrapers and its effect upon the human body with the murder and disposal of a family. I would understand your analogy a bit better if the family was killed in a hudge explosion that spread human remains over a large area...but they weren't.

Quote: "To me, demanding some physical evidence of the two bodies to prove their deaths is just ludicrous..."

LOL!...you can't be serious!  ::) That's like someone coming forward to claim descent from the missing children and when asked to provide physical evidence through dna they say "it's not needed"! I don't have a problem with people's "theories" or "opinions"-if someone wants to believe that the children were abducted by Marvin the Martian I really don't care...opinons are like a**holes everybody has one. It's when words like "fact" or "without doubt" are used that I want to see REAL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE to back that up. What is ludicrous is making assumptions WITHOUT real physical evidence...and if you are that easily convinced with uncredible testimony then I have a great bridge for you... really cheap.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Forum Admin on January 31, 2004, 12:01:35 PM
First, in order to accurately understand the events, one must put them into the context of the time. The Ural Soviet decided that the continued existence of the Imperial Family gave the White Army and its supporters and allies too much hope and support and so they decided to murder them all, but to cover it up. It was a bit of disinformation really, because they were also scared that if the murders were public knowledge that the Whites would then seem them as martyrs and seek revenge. So, the idea was for them to totally disappear so that no one would really know what had happened to them (this worked).

OK, lets look at what we know: No question 12 people went into a small room.  More armed men chosen especially for their hatred of the Imperial Family took turns shooting them. No question here either. We know several survived initally, and were finished off, at least to the satisfaction of the executioners. Again no question so far. Yurovsky testified that he personally shot each survivor in the head at least twice. We may choose not to believe this.  I see no reason not to believe him however as there is no motivation for him to lie about this point. Valuables were found, bodies were searched and handled. Again, no question.

An important point to remember is that everyone involved in the murder at this point, every eyewitness, was convinced they were all dead.

A truck was stationed at the front door of the house. We have the requisition record.  Guards were posted in the street to make sure no one came by. We have the posting records and their testimony. Strekotin and Yakimov among others. We also have the driver of the truck sitting in or standing next to it. A six passenger car, an Overland, was delivered to the front door as well, we have the records, and its driver was sent away and told not to come back.
Now. Every single eyewitness testimony says the same thing: Each corpse was removed and placed onto the truck. Again, each person handling each corpse and putting them onto a stretecher and carrying them to the truck is still convinced they are all dead. No one says they actually counted them at this point, BUT, we also know that another detachment of guards who were not present in the house at the time of the murders was sent in immediately afterward to physically clean up the basement of the blood and other remains of the murders. We have their assignment posting logs and their testimony.
So: If there are guards and a truck driven outside in the street to make sure no one comes along, everyone admits that every corpse was put on the truck, and there was no one left in the basement when the guards went down to clean up. WHERE could  any of the bodies have gone? There was no time when they were unattended between the shootings and the truck leaving. So, everyone must be and is still accounted for and on that truck.

Now, testimony at the mine says that the bodies were indeed counted. We can disregard this if you wish, but bear one important thing in mind. In the Russian Orthodox religion, an "uncorrupted body" is required for that person to be a saint.  We know from testimony that it was agreed that each body was to be stripped of their remaining clothing and be disfigured so that they could not recieve Sainthood rites in the Church and they were making sure that each "candidate" was accounted for. We have an eyewitness who says specifically he saw Alexei at this point.  Also, who would remove a body from the truck at this point and how could they have carried it off unnoticed prior to the disfigurements and stripping off the remaining clothes from the bodies (to burn the clothes and hide the evidence), and where would they have taken it? Where would they have hidden it? How could they have tended medically and physically to them? How could this be kept secret? Remember, this is in a boggy wet desolate forest miles out of town.  We know though that physically speaking, this is the only point in what is known of the chain of events where anyone "might" have survived and escaped. What happened later really almost doesn't matter.

Now, we must also be remembered that the Bolsheviks were not convinced that they might win. So, they were also motivated out of fear that IF anyone survived or any evidence of their murdering the Imperial Family was found later, they could be tried and convicted for their actions. This is an important point.

How much more physical evidence can we hope to have?

Yes, everyone has an opinion, but some are more informed than others.  How much research have you done to support your contention that more evidence is required? Please let us know your sources.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: insight on January 31, 2004, 02:20:43 PM
Quote: "How much more physical evidence can we hope to have?"

The skeletal remains of the two missing children that can be verified through dna analysis by serveral different sources.

Quote: "How much research have you done to support your contention that more evidence is required? Please let us know your sources."

My contention isn't to support a "theory" either way about the incident...I have stated none in the above posts. I have though already made my position clear regarding why I need to see more physical evidence (see above). A person can vomit out citations left and right, but if the info or interp is tainted from the begining it's of no value; nor does this make the person citing it an expert. It wasn't long ago when people believed the world was flat. Why? because a quote was misinterpreted as being the bonafied word on high (four corners of the earth). People quoted it...cited it...killed and died because it. Even when people wanted more evidence (things weren't adding up) people still ran with it and burried their heads in the sand.  

It wouldn't bother me with slight differences in witness testimonies (normal in any investigation) what does is that they all match too well IMHO. This isn't about I've read 10 books and you have read 11 or the other way around. Again all the people who witnessed it were involved. This is about jumping to conclusions either for and against...it may be enough evidence for you, but it sure isn't for me. Faith based on oral testimony works for religions, but this requires tangible scientific proof!

So if all the witnesses who testified to this and were involved in the assassination, and/or burial, should have been able to direct someone to the burial site...right?

As for Mr. Yurovsky having no reason to lie-what if the two kids escaped the compound prior to the murders happening? You think that entire group of people would not have had a major reason to lie. Yes there is no evidence to suggest that, but men have always had reasons to lie-whether lies are obvious to the general public or not. So what would you do if that happened and you were in their position? Start an intensive search for them- If you couldn't find them you would probably set up an elaborate misinformation campaign that they were killed with the hopes of flushing them out. Maybe you are right though...who am I to say? 8) :-X

You keep basing your certainties on one form of evidence (oral testimony). Are you really that certain? Were you there....no...so then how can you be absolutely certain of those events without real physical evidence? I am not here to say that you are wrong or others are right. I am here to say that you don't have enough evidence to conclude what you have stated.

Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: investigator on February 01, 2004, 02:50:44 AM
Well i have to say that i agree with Insight.  We need more evidence.  The Russian Orthrodox church did not authorize the burial of the Tsar in 1998 because they believed that the bodies been buried were not that of the Tsar and his family.  I mean to me this says a lot and therefore more evidence is required.  Anything could have happened, it was chaos and confusion at that time.  I dont have any evidence to prove my statement but i still believe that more evidence is required so that the missing bodies of the 2 can be found.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Alice on February 02, 2004, 04:13:54 AM
This is never going to be solved UNLESS two more skeletons are found and are proved to be related to the other skeletons.

I think I read on a website somewhere that Professor Avdonin found two more skeletons in another grave . . . but I haven't heard anything more. Probably just a rumour.

One thing's for sure: I think that the most unlikely person to escape would've been Alexei because A) he was the heir, B) if he'd been wounded at all his chances would've been slim and C) because he was so young, and so dependent on his mother that if he DID survive, psychologically he would've been severely traumatised and depressed.

Many folks seem to cling to hope that members of the family survived, but please remember how traumatic it would've been for anyone that DID survive. We're talking about a very, very close family here, who were very, very religious, and who believed that when they died, they'd go to Heaven and be with God and with each other. Even if someone DID survive, you can't imagine the state of mind of someone who's family has just been massacred before their eyes. It'd be very difficult for anyone to escape in that state of mind, as escape would require a healthy state of mind (and even in a healthy state of mind, it would still be difficult, in the circumstances). Also, if someone had've survived, they probably would've contemplated suicide.

I'm sorry, but the odds are against survival. It's a possibility, but I think it's a very low possibility. Some folks need to stop kidding themselves by putting so much weight into the survival theory.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: insight on February 02, 2004, 08:30:35 PM
Quote: "I'm sorry, but the odds are against survival. It's a possibility, but a very low possibility. Some folks need to stop kidding themselves by putting so much weight into the survival theory."

You could be quite right. Theories are great (for or against), but you need to back them up to make them fact.

You mentioned that Alexei was a "momma's boy" lol...yes that was probably very true. He was also an intelligent and experienced 14 year old. He was probably more experienced in the outdoors than you would think. Going with his dad to the hunting lodge in Poland...his love of fishing...going to the front with his dad during WW1 ect.

When did you hear about him (prof Avdonin) finding these two skeletons?
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: BobAtchison on February 02, 2004, 08:48:30 PM
It has been several years since I have been in contact with Avdonin and I don't know how the search efforts by American scientists ended up.  I will try and find out.  Avdonin has not been well.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Alice on February 03, 2004, 05:04:46 AM
Thanks Bob! Please let us know if you find out anything.

Insight: I read it on a website somewhere, last year I think. (I'll see if I can find the URL and if I can I'll post it)
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Forum Admin on February 05, 2004, 12:50:58 PM
Dear NAAOTMA (whoever you are since you did not provide us with your name when you signed up).
My exact words which you have deemed "harsh" were these:
"The New York Times reports that over 350 people are missing still from the Sept. 11 tragedy with no DNA or physical evidence ever found....should we still be convinced that they are alive and well somewhere until this proof is found one way or the other??
To me, demanding some physical evidence of the two bodies to prove their deaths is just as ludicrous.... "

Where have I "put down" any specific person? I personally am truly of the belief that holding on to the hypothesis that anyone survived ( after my years of reading, research and discussions with the scientists and others directly involved in the recent investigations about the remains of the Romanovs)just because we do not have physical remainsis indeed ludicrous.  There are hundreds of instances where people are murdered or killed and there are never any physical remains found, yet people gladly accept their deaths as fact, yet for some reason this logic does not apply to the "Anastasia" case. Certainly others are quite free to believe as they wish and I respect their right to do so. There is nothing any more harsh in this statement than in YOURS characterizing my response as somehow unfriendly to any specific person.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Forum Admin on February 05, 2004, 01:39:30 PM
Thank you Melissa, no need, I have put it into your profile.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: insight on February 05, 2004, 10:25:20 PM
Hi Melissa!

No offence taken  from FA's remark......even though FA is WRONG!   :P

Thank's though
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: ptitchka on February 08, 2004, 08:30:43 PM
I believe the Forum Administrator makes some very logical arguments in regards to the 'missing' children.  One simply cannot imply that he is wrong about this without backing it up.  The ball is in the court of anyone that means to prove the Heir and his sister survived.

Even the highly controversial book, 'The Fate of the Romanovs', describes Alexei's murder as especially brutal and thorough.  (I doubt the book's authors will be able to pull an Alexei survival theory out of their hat after publishing that.)
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: BobAtchison on February 09, 2004, 11:01:20 AM
We all wish we could 'undo' the murder, but we can't.  I think that is why most of us would like to believe someone survived that horror.

Many years ago I spoke with Bishop Vassili (Rodzianko) about this.  He told me that I had a romantised conception of the death and that I had not accepted it as fact since in my heart I wished I could back and somehow stop it.  He meant that I did not understand the spiritual importance of it and the reality of evil in the world.  He told me the victims emulated the Passion of Christ and that this was their 'povdig'. Perhaps someone can explain this term....

Bob
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: insight on February 09, 2004, 01:28:29 PM
Quote: "One simply cannot that he is wrong without first backing it up. The ball is in the court of anyone that means to prove that the Heir and his siter survived."

I didn't imply it...I stated it outright. If you read the above posts you will see that I have no dispute with any theory of the FA. My problem comes with his use of "flawed logic", eg: comparing the childrens missing bodies to those missing from 911 and broad, uncited caselaw to further his arguement as fact.

I agree with the fact that people have been convicted of murder without a body being found. These instances are extremely rare (ask any prosecuter how hard it is to get a conviction). I would like to see one cited case in which the evidence resembles this incident! A case where there was absolutely no penalty for those who committed the crime. A case where those involved had everything to loose by telling the truth if two children had escaped. A case which involved government at it's highest level. If someone wants to compare this to any other murder case...go ahead...for me other previous caselaw doesn't have alot of bearing on this incident. Granted one can make the assumption that a person missing for a certain number of years is presumed dead (insurance ect). I'm not prepared to make that assumption because there are still too many loose ends that have not been tied up.  

Some of the loose ends are as follows:
1. There was another post on this board which stated that the assassins bragged about the murders years later, and that they wore it as a "badge of honor". Of course they would! Let's see...in one hand, hero's of their party or getting the "bumbling bonehead award" of the century for allowing the heir and his sister to escape? Let's see...in one hand get favorable treatment and  possibly a good position in the new government, or the other is face public embarrassment and wrath of your superiors? These men had alot of reason to lie.

2. The men who carried out the murders were not methodical and meticulous. They were sloppy and lazy from the start. The evidence of this shows up quite clearly in the way they disposed of the bodies. The men dumped the bodies in a well...pulled them out again...tried to burn two and when that didn't work...buried the rest in a common grave and yet took the time and effort to cart off the two burnt bodies and bury them in an undisclosed location? Hmmm...if they were in that much of a hurry with the White Army on the doorstep they would have dug a pit right there and burried the bodies of the two children. Why not try and burn the Tsar's body? Why not try to hide his in a secret location?

3. Why does the Russian Orthodox dispute the claim that all the family died? Is this just wishful thinking or was it someone close to the Orthodox Church who sheltered the two children? If they knew for certain that two children survived, and then for years listened to lies about it, they would be very sceptical concerning any dna findings.

4. The muderers explained in enough detail to locate the main grave. Where was the information and detail to locate the grave of Alexei and his sister?

5. Most important is the fact that two skeletons have yet to be found whose dna matches those of Alexei and his sister.  

I'm not here to judge anyone's theory; just to question the evidence or lack thereof.

In regards to books and publications, if you wish to follow their reasoning, and it makes sense to you then great. :)
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Lanie on February 09, 2004, 06:57:41 PM
I've read that the Orthodox Church had been revering fake bones from the 20s or something (in Paris, I think).  Which would explain why they wouldn't acknowledge these bones.  Dunno if that's true or not.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: ptitchka on February 09, 2004, 08:31:17 PM
More on 'The Fate of the Romanovs' - I actually found that book to be much too indiscriminate in its citation of sources and much too slanted towards 'de-idolizing' the Imperial Family.  

When I say that the ball is in the court of those who wish to believe someone survived the massacre of the Tsar and his family, I mean that there is no really compelling evidence on their side of the coin.  The overwhelming testimony about the murders, the circumstances and the crime scenes bears much more scrutiny than any pretender's claim.

I challenge anyone who believes Alexei survived to share with us anything they wish about a living Tsarevich any time after July 16, 1918.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: ptitchka on February 09, 2004, 08:45:39 PM
Mr. Atchison - it's a pleasure to try to explain the term 'podvig' as best I can.  The term translates in Russian as 'exploit, feat' in my Oxford Russian/English Dictionary, but perhaps it also means 'how well one bears one's cross.'  (one's sufferings, trials, irritations).  

The crosses of Alexei, his parents and his sisters appear heavy indeed to us, especially since they were topped off with a brutal mass murder.  Someone once wrote 'Who would want to lay a hand on this nice boy, these beautiful girls?'  We may feel the same way.  This world being subjected to futility as it is, a few people did do such a thing, and a few people continue to do such things.  But bear their heavy cross they did, with that faith and patience and love the available anecdotes tell of.

Hope this helps, sir.  It's an honor to try!  Thank you for continuing and improving upon this site!
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 22, 2004, 04:09:43 PM
Bob, I think you meant "podvig"which literally means a "heroic act" in Russian. The Imperial family had been martyred and subsequently canonized by the Russian Orthodox church, since the church leaders felt that they all died in the name of religion (loosely speaking). The idea is that the Bolsheviks tried to eliminate not only the monarchy but any 'earthly representatives appointed by God", which the Tsar and his family were considered to be... and they all died for that.
Helen
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: David Newell on February 26, 2004, 07:41:54 AM
I have read all the above messages with great interest. I began reading about the family many years ago. I think I have read everything in print in english, many in french and some not in print books. I have spoken to AF's late nephew Earl mountbatten. I sincerly believe that the family all perished that dreadfull night in 1918. I have always believed that and when I asked Mountbatten about the then new theorys on some of the children escaping (it was the 1970's then) he sad very sadly that he hoped that the family had all died together , because as he said none of them survived and if any did it would have prolonged their agony. Mountbatten was avery kind man, old when I spoke to him and he did not have to take the time to speak to a 9 year old. But I have to say I never thought that in my life time that our Queen would visit Russia and that AF and the family would be buried in St. petersburg. So I am always open to new ideas about the murder. But in my heart I know they all died together. I think the bishop that Bob A. spoke to has the right idea, we have to accept the evil of this dreadfull event and be at peace with it for their sakes. I also very strongly believe that this event was the begining of the dreadfull events that were to follow where a childs innocence came to mean nothing, when other famillies would be sent to their deaths in the horror of the Second World War. It was as if once done it could be done over and over again. We still see it happening. Lets hope that we shall learn from the mistakes we have made.

Please excuse my spelling I can't find the spell check on here.

David Newell. London
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: David on February 27, 2004, 08:53:40 PM
Insight...
 While I agree that we dont have factual evidence, I do have to challenge your assertion that Alexei had obtained some sort of survival skills thru visits to his fathers hunting lodge. Spala was not just a cabin...it was a lodge with all the creature comforts of turn of the century Poland. It was dreary and dark, but not without creature comforts. I also cant recall reading about any other visit to Spala made by Alexei other than THE visit in 1912 that almost killed the boy.  Im sure he wasnt out and about much on that visit!
 The whole issue of a survivor has been a troubling mystery for many years, and will be until, as you say, they find the missing skeletons.  But I have to agree with Jane that...at least if only by supposition..that Alexei would have had worst odds for survival. Lets face it, he was frail. He had only recently gotten into the bathtub on his own...and that was momentous enough to make the Empresses diary.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Angie_H on March 02, 2004, 09:39:37 AM
 Since Alexei was a haemophiliac his parents did their upmost to protect him from injury, but there is one photo of him that boggles me every time I see it!  :o It is Alexei on a bike with one of his sailor nannies. What gets me is that Alexei is in a seat on the handle bars?????!!!!!!!!!!!!! What were they thinking????
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: insight on March 02, 2004, 01:37:33 PM
David's Quote: "I do have to challenge your assertion that Alexei had obtained some sort of survival skills through visits to his fathers hunting lodge."

It was not my intent to imply that the boy was "Rambo". Just think though how fond of the Cossacks he was. A boy (Royalty or not) between the ages of 7-14 is full of questions. Now I'm just guessing here, but don't you think he would pester his father (and some of the guards) about "soldier stuff"? As a military cadet would he not be taught basic survival skills as they are today?

Everybody seems to imply that he was this delicate wilting lily. He was an outdoors kind of kid, who loved to fish, train his dog and play in the dirt.

Angie_H: It should make wonder! There is also a photo of him sitting on the back of a pony, which was probably pretty tame. If he was suffering from hemophelia would you take him to the front with you during the war? There is photo's of him at the front with his uniform, pack, and rifle. If he was really that frail would you do these things?

I also have a question for Bob or FA. When the mtdna was recovered from the remains, did they look for the gene mutation that causes hemophelia? If they did, was it type 1 or type 2 hemophelia which was carried?      
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Louise on March 02, 2004, 02:27:13 PM
It has been written that Alexei was a naturally curious young boy with all the enthusiasm of any child. However, as we know his hemophalia kept him from pursuing many of the activites that children participate in.

From the pictures I have seen with Alexia on a bike, it looks to me like a three wheeler/tricyle with large back wheels. I can only assume the larger wheels are for a better balance to prevent him from falling.

One can only surmise why Alexei is on the handle bars of the bike. Could it be it was a posed picture? The same with pictures of him on a horse. I would also presume that he was watched, and guarded throughly so accidents would not befall him.

I also believe that Alexei was brought to the front lines to spend time with his father and to learn and understand the rigors and the statesmanship of ruling Russia. The Tsar felt he was inadequately trained by his father and did not want to make the same mistake with his son.

Louise
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: anna on March 05, 2004, 03:56:25 PM
Angie's quote: What were they thinking!.

You must not forget, N&A were indeed overprotecting parents a normal reaction in Alexei's case. Actually it was P. Gilliard who suggested to let loose and try no to pamper him to much. This was necessary for his physical development.
Gilliard never thought they would agree but reject. N&A understood very well the importance of giving Alexei a change to develop as a normal child, despite his ilniss.
I think this was a very brave decision.
But what Gilliard secretly feared happened, Alexei injured himself and Gilliard felt responsible. But as hard as it was, Nicholas nor Alexandra blamed him for this.

Anna

Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Steve on March 05, 2004, 04:24:57 PM
Quote
This was a member of the Cheka, G.I. Sukhorukov, who was assigned to go help dispose of the corpses of the Royal Family the next morning. On April 3, 1928 his memoir:... "It was necessary to begin digging up the corpses (after the attempt to burn them the previous night)...the first thing we came across was the leg of the last Nicholas. †He was removed successfully, and then all the others. To be precise, it can be said that everybody was naked, except for the heir, who had on a shirt sailor but no trousers."


Strange. Let me quote some other witnesses...

Medvedev: "The tsar carried the heir in hir arms. The tsar and the heir were dressed in millitary blouses with caps."

Yurovsky: "The wanted to burn Alexei and Alexandra, but by mistake burned Alexei and the lady-in-waiting instead." If they burned his corpus how could it be Sukhorukov saw a shirt???

I don't know what to beleive. Maybe Alexei survived.

May I advise you to visit www.searchingalexei.com
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: ptitchka on March 05, 2004, 10:02:49 PM
About those quotes, Steve:

It may be worth your while to consider that these observations were made at different times, describing different scenes - the cellar as opposed to the Four Brothers Mine as opposed to the location of the burial of most of the family and the attempted cremation of the Tsarevich and whichever of his sisters was mistaken for his mother.  

The observation about the 'millitary blouses' - which more probably meant 'military tunics' (overshirts) - refers to the earliest chronological moment in your three quotes, when they were still alive.

The Tsarevich could very well have worn a striped sailors' undershirt (typically a snug fitting garment usually worn underneath a white middy shirt with a sailors' collar) underneath his military tunic at the time of the murders.  Such tight clothing would have been difficult to remove from the poor boy given the murderers' haste to dispose of their victims at the mine.  This would explain the circumstances of that quote that falls here in time.

The third quote about the attempted cremation refers to the last moment of the three chronologically, does not mention what Alexei did or did not have on, and therefore cannot reasonably imply anything about this.

None of this is strange at all,  and none of what you have cited can reasonably lead to a conclusion that the Tsarevich may have survived.  I DO, however, hope to see more on www.searchingalexei.com than I have seen already.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: masha on March 05, 2004, 10:04:22 PM
Dear Everybody, but especially Bob, Pravoslavnaya & David Newell for making the discussion poignent , meaningful & even funny - I too, desperately need spellcheck!
First of all, like many who have given serious thought to this whole issue over the years, I've flip-flopped between the two sides Re: the children's survival. For many years from the time of my childhood back in the early 1970's when my father first showed me the picture of the last Tsar, described him in endearing terms & gave me the Massey book to read, I believed that the family all died together. Peter Kurth's book about Anastasia, with his ever convinving way of writing and sources swayed my thinking - eventhough I could never reconcile the looks of Anna Anderson with those of Anastasia. For a few years I came to believe that she & her brother survived.
It was not until I spoke of this with some very dear friends of mine who grew- up & lived through the comminist years in Russia, that I had my mind set straight on the matter & have reverted to my original opionion that they could not have survived anything as so horrid an experience alone. Yes, I'm with you, Insight, as far as the deceitfulness of Yuovsky & his so-called witnesses. His actions, his morality & overall integrity are a reflection of the whole history of the communist regime, who turned their people inside-out & against each other with thier lies, brutality & lack of anything good. How can we trust anyone with so little goodness? There is much more than meets the eye on the latter stages of the whole muder, or as you say, Bob, when things begin to go a-muck. Yet, for anyone who has ever experienced any form of physical violence or brutality, one would have to be certain that the family all died - their killers would make certain of it.
To finish, I would like to end with the Anna Anderson case & the other imposters - again, it's no secret how that regime played mind games with seducers, spies and general mis-information. Don't think for a moment that this whole field day wasn't the intended out-come, and that people like Anderson were either out-right opportunists or slickly coached agents of bedlam.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: steve on March 06, 2004, 02:02:49 PM
Quote
About those quotes, Steve:

It may be worth your while to consider that these observations were made at different times, describing different scenes - the cellar as opposed to the Four Brothers Mine as opposed to the location of the burial of most of the family and the attempted cremation of the Tsarevich and whichever of his sisters was mistaken for his mother.


Are you suggesting that they changed alexeis cloths after the execution and even after the burning?

Quote
The observation about the 'millitary blouses' - which more probably meant 'military tunics' (overshirts) - refers to the earliest chronological moment in your three quotes, when they were still alive.


Yes, walking to the so-called execution "cellar"...

Quote
The Tsarevich could very well have worn a striped sailors' undershirt (typically a snug fitting garment usually worn underneath a white middy shirt with a sailors' collar) underneath his military tunic at the time of the murders. †Such tight clothing would have been difficult to remove from the poor boy given the murderers' haste to dispose of their victims at the mine. †This would explain the circumstances of that quote that falls here in time.


That would be an undershirt from very special meterial that doesn't burn away when cremating a body.

Quote
None of this is strange at all......


:o ???  :o
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Steve on March 06, 2004, 02:13:46 PM
Quote
His actions, his morality & overall integrity are a reflection of the whole history of the communist regime, who turned their people inside-out & against each other with thier lies, brutality & lack of anything good. How can we trust anyone with so little goodness? There is much more than meets the eye on the latter stages of the whole muder, or as you say, Bob, when things begin to go a-muck. Yet, for anyone who has ever experienced any form of physical violence or brutality, one would have to be certain that the family all died - their killers would make certain of it.


Don't forget that the events occured in 1918. The Whites were still in power in great parts of Russia and fighting in and around Ekaterinburg.

Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: ptitchka on March 07, 2004, 03:53:12 PM
Dear Steve:

Perhaps I did not make myself quite as clear as I hoped.  Again:  the first remark about the military tunics referred to that point in time when the Tsar carried his son down the stairs to the cellar in the Ipatiev house.  Not a so-called cellar but in fact the very one the Soviets at one time even took important people to visit as the place where they had killed Nicholas II.  And the new Cathedral 'on the Blood' in the city of Yekaterinburg is built over that very same spot, with an altar in that very place.

I did mention that the sailor shirt seen on poor Alexei was one he'd probably worn as if it were an undershirt UNDERNEATH the military tunic.  At the Four Brothers Mine Yurovsky's men undressed the family in order to burn their clothes, right?  But either due to haste or not being able to remove that sailor shirt from Alexei due to the condition of his body the shirt was apparently still on him when the bodies were removed from the pit and taken to Koptyiaki Forest.  This, of course was BEFORE the attempted cremation and burial.

When the Bolsheviks tried to burn Alexei and his sister, there was no mention of anything he was wearing, but surely the shirt would have burned up.  

Now I would like to challenge you, Steve, to tell me how this is strange rather than very sad.  I would like to challenge you to explain how, based on whatever you have read, Alexei could have survived the occasion of his murder and that of his family.



Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: BobAtchison on March 07, 2004, 04:26:01 PM
It isn't surprizing that Aleksey wore a sailor undershirt beneath his tunic.

Bob
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: masha on March 07, 2004, 10:37:53 PM
Steve,
To clarify my statement about Yurovsky - his actions in the "House of Special Purpose" was symbolic of the whole regime that emerged or rather forced it's way into power. The blood on his hands from that night in July 1918 represents the bloodshed and terror that was to come.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Robert_Hall on March 07, 2004, 11:20:02 PM
Bob.. No it is not surprising. He more than likely wore the undershirt for bed.  Put on the tunic when he was to move about.
They no longer had the luxury of  a regular change of clothes, after all.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: steve on March 08, 2004, 12:07:24 AM
Quote
Dear Steve:
Now I would like to challenge you, Steve, to tell me how this is strange rather than very sad. †I would like to challenge you to explain how, based on whatever you have read, Alexei could have survived the occasion of his murder and that of his family.


How can you convince someone who strongly beleives in Sokolov? That investigation was a fraud! Before Sokolov arrived there were two other investigations and both explained that the celler was to small to kill 12 people. I think, after reading several great works, that it happened another way. They killed the tsar, that we can be sure of but I really don't know what happened to the other family members.

The bolsheviks themselves said for weeks that the boy and his mother were save.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: steve on March 08, 2004, 12:22:11 AM
Quote
Clearly it is possible that perhaps one hundred people who were supposed to be in the WTC September 11 decided to use the tragedy as an excuse to disappear and start new lives and identities from scratch.....The New York Times reports that over 350 people are missing still from the Sept. 11 tragedy with no DNA or physical evidence ever found....should we still be convinced that they are alive and well somewhere until this proof is found one way or the other??
To me, demanding some physical evidence of the two bodies to prove their deaths is just as ludicrous....


You can't compare this weeks of burning with a campfire made by the bolsheviks...
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: steve on March 08, 2004, 12:28:41 AM
Quote
I personally don't think anyone should jump to conclusions regarding the missing children without proper forensic evidence. There needs to be dna recovered which positively identifies any remains. The same level of evidence (if not more) is required from those who claim that the two survived (or claim descent). When someone says they know the answer to this issue then they should be able to provide conclusive evidence and not just conclusive theories. † † †


I think that if you claim that Alexei was murdered you need to proof that. If I disappear and someone shows you my clothes. Would you beleive I'm dead? (Of course not, you would like to see more evidence)

So far Alexeis body (and even the bodies of the girls) have never been found. Don't jump to conclusions after reading a fraud investigation or second hand witness accounts (none of the witnesses saw the execution)
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: investigator on March 08, 2004, 02:28:15 AM
I am really satisfied with this thread because all of us have been able to convey our views on this topic.  I too believe that more investigation is required because the bodies of alexie and one of the girls are still missing and also the rest of the remains of the family members is still questionable because the russian orthodox church did not authorize the burial that took place in 1998.  
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: BobAtchison on March 08, 2004, 08:28:17 AM
Investigator:

The Moscow Patriarchate officially did not recognise the remains, however I know the Patriarch has visited the remains and has told other bishops that the remains are those of the family.

I cannnot explain why the church took the position it did.  I know some in the church also resurrected some of the bizarre theories of heads in barrels and Jewish/Masonic plots at the same time as alternatives.

Bob
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Nick_Nicholson on March 08, 2004, 11:35:09 AM
Dear Bob and all,

I can answer the question about the church recognition as it was explained to me.

The reason that the Patriarchal branch of the Orthodox Church (as opposed to the Synodal Branch in exile) refused to recognize the bones has nothing to do with whether or not they doubted the veracity of the DNA evidence.

The Romanovs were declared saints by the Church in Exile in the 1980s, and only by the Moscow Patriarchate in 2000.

The two churches have been in a tense and difficult negotiation since the fall of communism about reunification.  Much of the acrimony has to do with real estate in the Holy Land and around the world.

One of the requirements of the Church in exile was that Moscow recognize the 1980's canonization of the Imperial Family.  Moscow did so in 2000.

This is the problem -- the ritual for burial of saints is one religious service, while the interrment of an imperial family member is another.  The bones and relics of saints are supposed to be venerated in churches, not to be buried.

By "not recognizing" the bones, the Moscow church was able to allow the interrment in the Sts. Peter and Paul Fortress without having to open the sainthood issue with the Russian government.

Now that the martyrs are buried, and the Church has recognized them, they are already interred, and the Patriarchate doesn't need to worry about dividing and distributing the bones as relics.

Once the church in Ekaterinburg is finished I bet there will be discussion about moving some or all of the bones to the site of their martyrdom.

Nick
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Steve on March 08, 2004, 01:54:01 PM
Today I discovered something strange. There are three diaries of Tsarevich Alexie known. The first - for 1916 - is preserved in the State Archive of the Russian Federation; the second - for 1917 - was discovered after the murder in the posession of the Ipatiev House guard  M. Letemin and the third - for 1918 - was published in the book Tsarevich Alexei by Princess Eugenia of Greece and was in the possession of the Greek royal family up until its publication (1990). Its present wherabouts are not known.

How did this last diary get to Greece?
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: David on March 08, 2004, 03:48:09 PM
In response to the conjectures that Alexei was privy to survival skills due to his boyish instincts or travels with his Dad during the war: Lets not forget just how pampered the officer class was in 1916 Russia. Even with the war raging, officers...and specifically, noble officers, lived lives far removed from the front line horrors. Lets not forget that, in the whole war, only one Romanov died due to battle wounds (a son of GD Constantin) and that was very early in the war. Nicholas lived in either his luxorious train or in the Governors mansion in Mogiliev. Dinner was at an elegantly set table and while the talk might have been soldierly, I doubt it was on survivalism. One gets the impression that Alexei was with his dad for male comeraderie and not soldierly training. And dont forget that theres a great deal of difference between hanging around a cossack and becoming one!
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: ptitchka on March 08, 2004, 09:48:10 PM
Dear David --

I think it was Robert Massie in 'Nicholas and Alexandra' that mentioned something about the tender cameraderie between father and son at Mogilev.  While Alexei's presence no doubt delighted the generals that surrounded him and his father and inspired the rank and file of the Russian army whereever he went, the greatest benefit to each was each other's companionship,  combined with a strengthening of Nicholas' own morale and a beneficial change of pace for the Tsarevich. :)  The boy was one day going to act in his full capacity as the Ataman of all the Cossacks, even if - as you have observed - it was going to be an armchair post (good thing in Alexei's particular case!).
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: insight on March 09, 2004, 11:08:00 PM
David...as I stated before I never said he was "Rambo" and asking questions of a Cossack doesn't make you one is quite true. Are you certain that the military cadets were not given basic survival skills? Are you stating this as fact or just an assumption? Boy Scouts are taught how to build a fire, shelter ect and that doesn't make them Special Operations.


 

     
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: NAAOTMA on April 17, 2004, 12:22:37 PM
Is there a preference for the spelling of this name?

About fifteen years ago, I became aware of the "Alexis pretender" who lived for many years in Scottsdale, Arizona. His story was later covered in Robert Massie's book about the ultimate fate of the Romanovs.

That gentleman went by the last name of "Lukian" and the similarity between it and the name of one of the men  that July night has always struck me as PERHAPS more than a coincidence.  Melissa K.

Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: LisaDavidson on April 29, 2004, 12:35:02 AM
Melissa:

I believe that these are actually two different (albiet similar) surnames.

My Mom was introduced to the Scottsdale Alexis. She was underwhelmed.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: NAAOTMA on April 29, 2004, 11:32:10 AM

The truck driver L. had a son just a few years older than the Scottsdale man who claimed to be Alexis Romanov. I have often wondered if there might be something to that connection.

As to the Scottsdale pretender Alexis, I never met him. I can say that his son had very very blue gray eyes that were unusual. The son was and is a very decent, genuine and totally private person. I think being the son of the Scottsdale pretender was not easy. Interestingly enough, they both played beautiful tennis and rode horses with a natural knack that was true giftedness. The father was a terrific polo player. So whoever the Scottsdale pretender was, he had some talents & inclinations that must have seemed "royal" to some casual observers, and those unusual eyes might have impressed some people too. Melissa K.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: stepan on January 17, 2005, 11:57:18 AM
This Alexis of Anjou wrote a book in French where he claimed his mother was GD Maria. I think he was inspired to write this after "The file on the tsar" by Summers and Mangold was published in 1975. As we know they tell the theory that the women in the family survived and were brought to Perm.  It was long before the remains of the IF were found so the theory was plausible at the time. The real name of this Alexis of Anjou was Brimeyer and  he died in Spain in 1993. He was known to have forged various papers and titles. Mark Ferro  gave some credence to this story in his biography of Tsar Nicholas.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: MariaR on January 17, 2005, 12:20:19 PM
Hi,
I'm new and not even a Romanov amateur, i"m too green for that even!  However, I've done a search on this board and can't find much discussion on Visaly Filatov who claimed to be Alexei. My husband is currently reading the book The Escape of Alexei. What is the general opinion on this "survivor"? I read the book long ago and remember feeling quite convinced, but I tend to let the winds of the written word blow me either way depending on what I am currently engrossed in. I very much feel like no one could of survived that horrendous night, in particular Alexei, but I never rule the impossible out.

Any thoughts for the newbie?

MariaR
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 17, 2005, 01:14:23 PM
MariaR, welcome.  :)

There is a Vasily Filatov thread you may want to check out:  http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=loonies;action=display;num=1089372646
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: MariaR on January 17, 2005, 02:01:15 PM
Thank you so much~it was enlightening. I just must've been searching wrong. Ah, gee here we go: Age of search...I guess I should've put something besides 7 days in that!
Back to the board!
Thanks again,
MariaR.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: marina on January 18, 2005, 04:59:06 AM
I agree with you everybody. That is incredible but not impossible; it is not the same. This man Alexis of Anjou was already a duc so he did not need money or a royal title. However, I can't believe that dictionnaries and historicals books are wrong since 90 years. Why Elizabeth II and her husband weren't at the burial of the family in 1998 whereas duc of Edimburg lent his blood for the identification. Do they know something but can't say it?
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: MariaR on January 18, 2005, 02:52:58 PM
Just pardon the new girl here, but I don't find a lot on the board about him except for the one thread that was pointed out to me on Filatov. Does everyone just discount him totally as a "survivor?" Too many holes in his story?

I do have to say I think he looks incredibly like "Aunt Olga" Alexandrovna.  I have photos from "The Escape of Alexei " and if I only knew how to post them I would :-/. There was also another picture posted somewhere (searching but can't for the life of me find it!) where Alexei is with Olga in a small car. Again, Olga looks like Filatov.

And I know everyone is going to flame me on this, but is it possible at all that some Romanov (not pointing fingers...) nad a illegitamate child that grew up around the IF or Palaces?  I know, I know :o but it wasn't uncommon!! I just wonder at the survivors AA or VF knowing so many details of the lives of the Romanovs~

Thanks for listening. I know how hard it is to grin and bear the newbies asking the same questions that have been hashed and rehashed...

MariaR
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 18, 2005, 09:47:30 PM
Quote
 I can't believe that dictionnaries and historicals books are wrong since 90 years.
I never heard of this man, Alexis of Anjou. What dictionaries and history books for 90 years?  ??? Well, maybe it's just me.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: marina on January 19, 2005, 08:39:31 AM
For the dictionary, I just wanted to mean that everywhere, we read that the WHOLE family died in 1918.
About Alexis, it is true that he was an unknown man in spite of being a duc. He lived in Spain, spoke french, spanish, russian, english,...And lived quietly without problems until he decided to be recognised. By the way, why the king Juan Carlos decided to accept him as duc if he lied?
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Georgiy on January 19, 2005, 07:48:54 PM
Well, it couldn't be the tsar or Tsaritsa having an illegitemate child, as the DNA rules that one out. With the DNA analysis which Romanovs would have been potential parents? (Not that I think it is likely by any means, but out of simple curiosity. Could AA or VF been related to any one in the IF at all?)
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: MariaR on January 19, 2005, 08:17:55 PM
Has there been DNA testing done in the Filatov case? I've tried to find more info than The Escape of Alexei but haven't.

Well, when I was thinking illegitamate children I was trying to come up with another idea concerning what I find to be such resemblance of VF to "Aunt" Olga A. Also his knowledge of IF and his "higher" education considering he grew up in a very poor household of peasants. I was trying to think another way around the fact that he was Alexei, because I don't believe he was....yet so many coincidences....

MariaR (who will one day learn to spell)
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 19, 2005, 08:29:19 PM
MariaR, welcome! Yes, I know what you mean about Filatov and his clan, they do have an uncanny resemblance to some of the Romanovs. I don't know enough about the case to add too much to this discussion, but there is a Filatov thread that already exists:

http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=loonies;action=display;num=1089372646;start=0#0

Georgiy, I don't know if any of the Filatovs' DNA was ever tested, I don't think so, but AA's DNA was definitely excluded from having any relationship whatsoever to the IF.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: MariaR on January 19, 2005, 09:06:03 PM
Helen

Thanks for your reply. I know why I missed that post~spelling visaly/visali~thanks for bringing that to my attention.I guess I"m one who sees the resemblance between them, but some good points were brought out on that thread.
I think VF's claim (or that of his children) is just as valid as AA's claim(which I think after the DNA should settle it) and wonder why his claim isn't talked about so much here on the forum.  I highly doubt Alexei could survive, but truth is stranger than fiction and as Alice says it's "curiouser and curiouser". I think it's very likely he would live a life of quiet obscurity. Then there is the whole hemophilia or not question.

Thanks again,
MariaR
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Helen_Azar on January 19, 2005, 09:10:48 PM
MariaR, there is another Alexei claimant who had a blood disorder other than hemophilia, his name is Heino Tammet. If you are interested, here is a thread on him:

http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=loonies;action=display;num=1094856918;start=0#0
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: moonlight_tsarina on January 24, 2005, 09:45:59 PM
Quote
I do have to say I think he looks incredibly like "Aunt Olga" Alexandrovna.  I have photos from "The Escape of Alexei " and if I only knew how to post them I would .

yes, i do have that book too, and at first there doesnt seem to be a resemblance...he doesnt look as handsome as Alexei..  ;)
But on second thought there is a resemblance!
On your qustion on how to post pics, if you have a scanner scan them and then go to www.imageshack.com and upload them from your computer!
Hope this helps!  :D
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: moonlight_tsarina on January 24, 2005, 09:47:17 PM
 ???Yes, the DNA proved Filatov wrong i beleive, but dont you ll think its harder to try to be Alexei because you had to have hemophilia to try and fool people at first?
::)
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: tatiana_Romanova on February 07, 2005, 06:50:28 PM
i think its possible that he suvived despite his hemophilia, 'cuz he was burnt right? if you cut your self cant u just burn something to stop the bleeding? not a doctor just a kid so dont email me if i'm wrong.
Some one in my class said that if you cut your self badly u have to burn it if you cant stop the bleeding, so since alexei was shot in the ear we would most likely bleed out, but he also was burnt by acid so it would burn the wounds and stop the bleeding.
the only thing that would make this story not plausible is that if he had internal bleeding for like the fall after he was shot or he was shot more then once.
is that true or is it just plausible

P.S. dont mail me if i spelt something wrong.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: AGRBear on February 07, 2005, 08:24:03 PM
Quote

...[in part]....
I think I read on a website somewhere that Professor Avdonin found two more skeletons in another grave . . . but I haven't heard anything more. Probably just a rumour.
....


The skeletons found †were not the missing children of Nicholas II.

As for the speculation that Alexei survived the execution, let me remind you, † some of the early investigators believed the execution was staged. †If this is in fact the case, †then Alexei and the others may have escaped, therefore, he suffered no injuries as reported so vividly by Penny in the book THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS.

As for †his life span, if he had survive, †he probably wouldn't have lived past his twenties. †I think that was about the longest someone with hemophilia lived in that time period. †

Since Alexei doesn't appear to have surfaced and cried out" †"Here I am. †I am alive. †I am the son of Nicholas II," †then this leaves us in the dark to his fate. †I assume he may have just moved in with the masses and vanished forever to some unknown fate.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: AGRBear on February 07, 2005, 08:29:06 PM
Quote
This was a member of the Cheka, G.I. Sukhorukov, who was assigned to go help dispose of the corpses of the Royal Family the next morning. On April 3, 1928 his memoir:... "It was necessary to begin digging up the corpses (after the attempt to burn them the previous night)...the first thing we came across was the leg of the last Nicholas. †He was removed successfully, and then all the others. To be precise, it can be said that everybody was naked, except for the heir, who had on a sailor shirt but no trousers."


No, this is not true. †They did not attempt to burn the bodies the previous night. †The bones found in the grave do not show evidence of burning by fire.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Alexa on February 08, 2005, 07:16:36 AM
Quote
i think its possible that he suvived despite his hemophilia, 'cuz he was burnt right? if you cut your self cant u just burn something to stop the bleeding? not a doctor just a kid so dont email me if i'm wrong.
Some one in my class said that if you cut your self badly u have to burn it if you cant stop the bleeding, so since alexei was shot in the ear we would most likely bleed out, but he also was burnt by acid so it would burn the wounds and stop the bleeding.
the only thing that would make this story not plausible is that if he had internal bleeding for like the fall after he was shot or he was shot more then once.
is that true or is it just plausible

P.S. dont mail me if i spelt something wrong.


Yes, certain wounds require cauterization to stop bleeding, but the scenario with Alexis is vastly different than that of a situation that would require cauteriztion (the burning of the skin to prevent bleeding).  A gun shot in the head is a gun shot in the head and cauterizing is not going to help the fact that the poor boys brains were blown out.  If the testimony is accurate, and Alexis was shot in the head, then he didn't leave that room alive (at the very most, he left the room brain dead).  Also, acid is not used for cauterizing and would not have the same effect as the tools used by doctors to cauterize (in layman's terms, a hot poker).  Acid destroys, melts away the skin.  It's not something that would cut off blood vessels the way cauterizing will.

Alexa
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 08, 2005, 09:38:05 AM
Quote
Since Alexei doesn't appear to have surfaced and cried out" †"Here I am. †I am alive. †I am the son of Nicholas II," ...


Bear, where have you been? Of course he did. There have been several Alexei claimants, most notable ones: Michael Golenewski (sp?), Heino Tammet, etc...
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: AGRBear on February 08, 2005, 10:27:18 AM
Yes, he may have survived for another day, a week, †months, or even several years despite what you and others think.

If there was even a hint someone was claiming to be Alexei, I bet the commmunists sent someone to make sure he wasn't the real Alexei. †To them, this was politically important in the early years.

No, †I don't think the claimants we know about were Alexei but that doesn't mean anything to me accept to prove there are people who out there who wanted to make people believe they were. †And, that is † sad :'(.

If Alexei had suddenly poped up in England and knocked on the door of George V,  do you think he would have been allowed in to see the King? And,  what would it have taken, back then, for you and the rest of the world to believe he was the real Alexei?  [Remember that was long before DNA.]

AGRBear
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: AlexeiLVR on February 09, 2005, 12:35:54 PM
I've read this thread and I still don't understand if Anastasia and Alexei were realy dead where were they burried then?

And does any one know the site where Cheka, G.I. Sukhcrukov tells what he witnessed the night of the murder?

Vera
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Abby on February 09, 2005, 02:06:57 PM
They could not have been buried because the bodies weren't found. Do you mean, did they die at the time when the rest of the family was cannonized? We would all like to know that as well!  :P

As for the witnessing of the murder, the only other person that I read about as witnessing the murder besides the executioners themselves was Deryabin, who watched from the semicircular window, and Ivan Kleschev, who watched from the arched window opening to the garden on the west side of the house.  According to "The Fate of the Romanovs."
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: AlexeiLVR on February 09, 2005, 02:37:52 PM
ok thanx Abby!

But I also herd that Alexei and one of the lady in waiting were cremated (fogive my spelling) Doesn't cremated mean being burned to ashes?

And isin't that why Alexei's body was never found?  ???
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Malenkaya on February 09, 2005, 03:23:06 PM
Quote
But I also herd that Alexei and one of the lady in waiting were cremated (fogive my spelling) Doesn't cremated mean being burned to ashes?


Yes, that's what it means.  However, they did not have the means to do what they claimed.  It would have been impossible for the bodies to have been completely reduced to ashes in the way the assassins said they did it.  They claimed they burned the bodies in one night until nothing was left of them.  (I believe I read once about a scientist who used one human bone and attempted to recreate what the Bolsheviks claimed to do - doused the bone in sulfuric acide and then set it on fire.  Several days later the bone was still there.)  It's also next to impossible to destroy human teeth - at the very least, teeth would have been discovered at the site.  But none were found.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Elisabeth on February 09, 2005, 03:28:12 PM
Even Yurovsky admitted that there were remains left over after the burning. The Bolsheviks tried and failed to cremate two of the bodies. This is why there was a second burial - not of ashes, but of human remains, as testified by many.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Malenkaya on February 09, 2005, 03:50:29 PM
Quote
Even Yurovsky admitted that there were remains left over after the burning. The Bolsheviks tried and failed to cremate two of the bodies. This is why there was a second burial - not of ashes, but of human remains, as testified by many.


Maybe it was a very old source, but I do recall reading somewhere that they claimed they burned the bodies and there was nothing left.  We know that couldn't have been the case, but I know I read someone's account that claimed they completely destroyed the evidence.  Maybe the story changed in time when they realized what they had claimed wasn't actually possible?  I wish I could remember where I read it.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Elisabeth on February 09, 2005, 04:01:50 PM
No, as early as 1920 Yurovsky recorded that they burned and then buried the "remains" (quote unquote) of two bodies in a separate grave from the others. Then they lit another fire over this separate grave to cover up the traces of the failed cremation.

I don't have access to his 1928 Note, but in his 1934 Note, Yurovsky recorded that "we dug a pit by the spot where they were burned, piled in the bones, evened it over, lit another big fire, and covered all traces with ashes."
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: AlexeiLVR on February 09, 2005, 05:43:18 PM
ok so what i understand is there was an attempt to cremate two of the bodies wich i herd were Alexei's and one of the ladies in waiting. And then when they realized they have failed to cremate them, were the remains just bones?

And the rest of the bodies were burried els where, but the remains of Alexei and the lady in waiting were burried in another spot?

This is all abit confusing for me! Can somebody explain it to me again but in simpler form? Thanx i'm sorry for the trouble as some of you may already know English isin't my first language and i have some troubles still (i am still a kid too)
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Denise on February 09, 2005, 06:11:40 PM
Denise to the rescue again, AlexeiLVR!!  ;)



Quote
ok so what i understand is there was an attempt to cremate two of the bodies wich i herd were Alexei's and one of the ladies in waiting. And then when they realized they have failed to cremate them, were the remains just bones?



Well, the way Yurovsky tells it, while the soldiers were digging the mass grave, he decided to burn Alexei and Alexandra, but got Demidova instead.  The bodies were frozen so they smoked and hissed, but couldn't burn to bone because it was too cold and wet out to make a fire burn hot enough to incinerate the bodies.  So he says that they buried the bodies on the spot where the fire was built (this account is from Fate of the Romanovs, 330).

Quote
And the rest of the bodies were burried els where, but the remains of Alexei and the lady in waiting were burried in another spot?



Once they realized that burning was not going to work, they buried the rest of the bodies in the mass grave after smashing the faces abd dumping acid on them so they couldn't be recognized.

Quote
This is all abit confusing for me! Can somebody explain it to me again but in simpler form? Thanx i'm sorry for the trouble as some of you may already know English isin't my first language and i have some troubles still (i am still a kid too)


I hope this helped!!  If something is still not clear, you just have to ask!





Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 09, 2005, 06:20:38 PM
I just want to add that in reality, the two bodies that were separated from the rest, turned out to be Alexei and Anastasia (some people believe Marie), and not the lady in waiting, and these two bodies are the ones still missing...
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Denise on February 09, 2005, 06:26:54 PM
Yes, Helen, you are correct!!  I was going by Yurovsky's testimony.  Thanks for the correction.  I wouldn't want to confuse our new student!  :)
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: AlexeiLVR on February 09, 2005, 07:05:18 PM
Thanx Denise ;D

And wow so Yurovsky actualy said he burried Alexei and Anastasia not the lady in waiting in a seperate place! So I guess thats the anwser to the two missing bodies! :D

But wasn't there 12 people murdered and 9 were found in the mass grave and two (Alexei and Anastasia) burried els where. Wheres the 12th bodie? or was there only 11?
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Denise on February 09, 2005, 07:15:09 PM
Quote
But wasn't there 12 people murdered and 9 were found in the mass grave and two (Alexei and Anastasia) burried els where. Wheres the 12th bodie? or was there only 11?


There were only 11.

Quote

And wow so Yurovsky actualy said he burried Alexei and Anastasia not the lady in waiting in a seperate place! So I guess thats the anwser to the two missing bodies! :D



No, he said he buried Alexei and the lady in waiting (Demidova).  Since Demidova was found in 1989 in the mass grave, he must have actually buried Anastasia.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: AlexeiLVR on February 09, 2005, 07:18:28 PM
OOO wow Yurovsky was pretty stupid then! If he wanted to burn Alexandra and Alexei, and actualy burned Alexei and Anastasia! (i'm so sorry if i'm wrong)
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Georgiy on February 09, 2005, 07:46:17 PM
Yes, it does seem strange that he would mistake a short, possibly slightly tubby 17 year old girl for a middle aged woman (who I read was tall - at least taller than Anastasia would have been).
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Denise on February 09, 2005, 07:56:57 PM
I have never understood this mistake either!!  Unless he had to remember much later WHO he tried to burn--if they were in their nightclothes there would be no distinction of dress.  Also, if rigor mortis (or the freezing cold) had stiffened the bodies in bent positions, height might not have been as apparent....
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Mgmstl on February 09, 2005, 07:59:49 PM
Also consider this boys strength, survival would be almost NIL for a hemophiliac at that point in time.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: AlexeiLVR on February 09, 2005, 08:02:18 PM
Or maybe Yurovsky was just drunk lol!

And i just couln't imagine picking up frozen dead bodies GROSS!
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Denise on February 09, 2005, 08:03:37 PM
Quote
Also consider this boys strength, survival would be almost NIL for a hemophiliac at that point in time.

True Michael.  I have been reading FOTR for the last 2 days (up to chapter 6 now) and I don't think I ever realized quite how sick Alexei was at the end.  I think those photos of him sawing wood with his dad at the AP in captivity misled me...

How tragic for N&A to see their child so sick yet not be able to help or even try to get him better medical attention!
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: AlexeiLVR on February 09, 2005, 08:03:55 PM
O and  if Alexei did survive (like if their even wasn't a murder) when could have he recovered and started to walk after the Tobolsk incident?
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Mgmstl on February 09, 2005, 08:38:55 PM
But THERE WAS A MURDER 8) and in the chance that he was shot or injured his chances for survial were almost nil..
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: AlexeiLVR on February 09, 2005, 09:00:15 PM
No Micheal.G. I'm asking when could of Alexei started to walk again after the Tobolsk incident where he sled down the staires!

And near the "end" what kind of condition was Alexei in?
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Mgmstl on February 09, 2005, 10:14:35 PM
Didn't he have to be carried on board the Rus???? I don't have FOTR at my desk here.  It seems to have taken him longer to recover from the hemophilia as he got older didn't it?  Which is strange.  During the tercentenary celebrations he had to be carried.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: AlexeiLVR on February 09, 2005, 11:26:10 PM
Realy?


What is FOTR?
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Malenkaya on February 09, 2005, 11:51:31 PM
Quote
What is FOTR?


It's a book - Fate Of The Romanovs, by Greg King and Penny Wilson (who both post here on the forum).
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: AlexeiLVR on February 10, 2005, 12:25:48 AM
Kewl! Thanx Malenkaya! To what ages would you recomend FOTR to?

Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Malenkaya on February 10, 2005, 12:48:14 AM
Quote
Kewl! Thanx Malenkaya! To what ages would you recomend FOTR to?


I would say to anyone with a genuine interest in the subject and the attention span to read it.  How old did you say you were - 13?  It's a big book, over 650 pages.  But with a strong interest in the subject matter it would be excellent reading for you.

Anastasia
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Mgmstl on February 10, 2005, 09:17:29 AM
Yes AlexeiLVR  File On The Romanovs, The Last Tsar by Edward Radzinsky, The Flight Of The Romanovs, Greg Kings excellent book on Alexandra, also are good.

But if you are interested in the revolution and captivity, get "File On The Romanovs"  It is EXCELLENT, but it also pretty straight forward.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Denise on February 10, 2005, 09:30:24 AM
Quote

But if you are interested in the revolution and captivity, get "File On The Romanovs" †It is EXCELLENT, but it also pretty straight forward.


Do you mean File on the Tsar or Fate of the Romanovs?  

Fate of the Romanovs is about the captivity, Vera. File on the Tsar is an older book that is fairly outdated....
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: AGRBear on February 10, 2005, 09:40:28 AM
When I ask the question on another thread about Alexei ability to walk on the 16th,  I was told he was just starting to get out of bed.

AGRBEAR
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Abby on February 10, 2005, 11:24:49 AM
Quote

Do you mean File on the Tsar or Fate of the Romanovs?  

Fate of the Romanovs is about the captivity, Vera. File on the Tsar is an older book that is fairly outdated....



I think he meant 'Fate of the Romanovs' because he said it dealt mostly with revolution and captivity...right Michael?
it is easy to get these titles mixed up as a lot of them sound silimar! :)
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: otmafan on February 10, 2005, 11:27:49 AM
Quote
No Micheal.G. I'm asking when could of Alexei started to walk again after the Tobolsk incident where he sled down the staires!

And near the "end" what kind of condition was Alexei in?


I don't think he would have ever walked again. He was so weak after that incident.  :(
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: AGRBear on February 10, 2005, 01:30:01 PM
In that same conversation,  I was told Alexie weight was about 80 pounds.

Anyone know this description of Alexei comes from?

AGRBear
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Denise on February 10, 2005, 01:45:31 PM
Quote


I think he meant 'Fate of the Romanovs' because he said it dealt mostly with revolution and captivity...right Michael?
it is easy to get these titles mixed up as a lot of them sound silimar! :)


Yes, because Fall of the Romanovs is out there too!!  
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Denise on February 10, 2005, 01:48:46 PM
Quote
In that same conversation, †I was told Alexie weight was about 80 pounds.

Anyone know this description of Alexei comes from?

AGRBear


I had not heard this, Bear.  I would be interested in hearing the source as well.  I know how thin he looked in the photo of he and Olga on the Rus, but for him to be that tall (he was Nicholas height by then) and only 80 pounds is sad.  

Although, in reading Fate of the Romanovs yesterday, I did read that Marie was able to carry Alexei outside to sit in his wheel chair.  I couldn't see how she could do that, lifting a boy her height.  Penny and Greg called her "the strongest of the grand duchesses" but I guess if Alexei had lost that much weight it would be feasible....
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Abby on February 10, 2005, 02:10:31 PM
That's true, for Marie to carry Alexei he must have been really lightweight! But she was probably not so strong near the end of their imprisonment either.  :'(
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: AGRBear on February 10, 2005, 02:18:38 PM
The reason I had ask was because I had question the fact that Yurovsky had said that Nicholas II had carried Alexei, who was taller than his father, all the way from their apartment, down the stairs, around the building, down some more stairs, to the basement rooms then through a building......  

Someone told me he weighted only 80 pounds...

I don't remember the thread so I don't remember who said it.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Denise on February 10, 2005, 02:23:00 PM
I can't imagine who would have an estimate of Alexei's weight, who would have LIVED through the revolution.  Those who would have had an idea through personal contact with him at the end--Nagorny, Dr Botkin, the family were all killed.  Perhaps through some testimony of Dr. Derevenko?  

I'd be interested to see what info you dig up, Bear.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Mgmstl on February 10, 2005, 02:28:13 PM
Abby, you are right I meant FATE of the Romanovs....NOT File on The Tsar....  The Last Tsar by Edward Radzinsky is the other title I reccomend.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: AGRBear on February 10, 2005, 02:29:41 PM
It seems I must have come across it and asked the question about the weight in this quote:

Quote
To me it appears there "is something wrong with this picture".

Massie wrote p. 4 in THE ROMANOVS, THE FINAL CHAPTER:

"...Nicholas followed, carrying his son, who could not walk, Alexis, crippled by hemophilia, was a thin, musular adolencent weighing eighty pounds but the tsar managed without stumbling."

Page 303 in King and Wilson's THE FATE OF THE ROMANOVS:
 "Nicholas came first, carrying Alexei in his arms."

A fifty two year old man carried his son, who was taller than himself and probably weighed 120 pounds, not eighty, †not only [p. 304 FOTR] across a level floor but down a secondary stairs, across a courtyard area to another short flight of steps to the ground floor, through several or more hallways, through the guardroom †to the opposite end of the house, and, finally, they entered the "execution room" †....

So, what do you think? †Possible? †Not likely? †Not probable?

AGRBear


Must be why it stuck in my mind.

I can't imagine a 5 foot 7inch young man, who even if he was ill but recovering weighing just 80 pounds.... Heck, †I remember when I was about 5 foot 4 inches weighing about 100 pounds and I was more than skinny. †Never saw that weight ever again †;D

AGRBear
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Denise on February 10, 2005, 02:40:13 PM
I agree that it seems unlikely that Alexei was 80 pounds, but I can't see Marie as being capable of carrying a 120 pound Alexei....
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: AlexeiLVR on February 10, 2005, 07:53:59 PM
Well i don't think Alexei was 80 pounds, but I think somewhere arround 110-120.

Is 5 foot 7 inches tall for a 13/14 year old?
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Denise on February 10, 2005, 09:47:58 PM
Quote


Marie DOES seem to have been freakishly strong, though. †Remember the story about her picking up her tutor during lessons? †I can't remember if it was Gibbes, Gilliard or someone else, but a full-grown man can't have been all that light...


:o :o :o

Wow!!  I don't remember that one!!
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: strom on February 16, 2005, 10:29:42 AM
Filatov's family does seem to bear a striking resemblance to the Alexandrovich.  Moreover, there seems to be strong reason to believe that Alexei survived.  Whatever happened during those last hours in the Ipatiev house, and I suspect there are a number of separate and competing threads to the story, what was put over as history by the Western and Soviet authorities --intellectual and otherwise, is not what happened.  
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Olga on February 18, 2005, 02:57:46 AM
You're not Kevin Alfred Strom, are you?
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 18, 2005, 08:12:36 AM
Quote
You're not Kevin Alfred Strom, are you?


Great  ::)
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Olga on February 18, 2005, 08:17:44 AM
Do you know of him, Elena Alexandrovna?
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 18, 2005, 08:18:33 AM
Quote
Do you know of him, Elena Alexandrovna?


Isn't he the white supremacist guy?
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: AGRBear on February 18, 2005, 04:47:09 PM
Quote

Isn't he the white supremacist guy?


Helen and Olga: How in the world do you see a name like Strom and jump to the idea that the poster might be someone who is †a "white supremacist"? †What on earth are you two thinking? †You don't even know this person!!! † And, no, don't tell me that he sounds like so-and-so or whats-his-name.... †Some of you thought I was some person named Rodger then I was McNeal and then.... Well, never mind. †You get my point, I'm sure.

Back to the topic, please.

AGRBear † †>:(
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Olga on February 18, 2005, 08:19:19 PM
I was only asking a question. I wanted to know if he was that particular man.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: AGRBear on February 19, 2005, 10:07:27 AM
Quote
Filatov's family does seem to bear a striking resemblance to the Alexandrovich. †Moreover, there seems to be strong reason to believe that Alexei survived. †Whatever happened during those last hours in the Ipatiev house, and I suspect there are a number of separate and competing threads to the story, what was put over as history by the Western and Soviet authorities --intellectual and otherwise, is not what happened. †


Whomever he is, †he apparently believes in Filatov's claim. †And, apparently thinks Alexei escaped and hopes to prove that something else occured than what Yurovsky and the others claimed.

I can agree on that there might have been an escape, however, like many others, †I don't see anything that gives me reason to believe that Filatov was Alexei. †I think it was his height [Fliatov was far too short] that convinced me..... †But I'm just one person and I've not really gone into his story accept for what's been on the various threads.

As for children being born out of wedlock in the royal Romanovs. †I'm sure that it occured. †I doubt that anyone kept records. †DNA testing can quickly establish relationships these days, so, if there is a question, †it can be shown through such testing.

AGRBear

PS: †Over on the following thread are photographs:
http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=loonies;action=display;num=1089372646;start=0#0
PSS †Welcome to our forum MariaR. †It is always good to hear new voices and if anyone "flames" you, †send me a PM [personal message] and let me know when and where because I know what it feels like † ::) .....
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: AGRBear on February 20, 2005, 11:42:13 AM
From p. 131 THE ESCAPE OF ALEXEI, Son of Tsar Nicholas II by Etrov, Lysenho and Egorov.

The photo of Filatov and G.D. Olga.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/AGRBear/FilatovGDOlga.jpg)

AGRBear

PS †Anyone remember reading how tall Filatov was? †I was flipping the pages but, now, I'm not sure I read about his height in this book.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 20, 2005, 09:30:53 PM
Quote

Helen and Olga: How in the world do you see a name like Strom and jump to the idea that the poster might be someone who is †a "white supremacist"? †


Bear,

How in the world did you jump to the conclusion that we jumped to any conclusions like that? Olga asked a question and I asked a question about her question. That's all. Even though we all like a little bit of excitement in our lives - lets not make mountains out of a mole hill yet again, please! †::)

Back on topic, I don't think the above two photos look particularly similar, are they supposed to?  ???


Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: LisaDavidson on February 20, 2005, 09:37:18 PM
Many people seem to think they do. I see a superficial resemblance myself, though I would not say the two are related. The thing is, the word about the Filatov testing is that the DNA results do not support their claim, though I have seen no actual testing results.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Annie on February 20, 2005, 09:41:48 PM
I don't see it, but the main thing is, Alexei never looked like Olga, so why would he start later? The one who looked like Olga A. was Anastasia, the last known pic of her looks so much like her I thought it was her. I think in her old age she'd have looked more like her aunt (nothing like AA)
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 20, 2005, 10:08:38 PM
Quote
I think in her old age she'd have looked more like her aunt (nothing like AA)


This is why I can't wait to see Jeremy's age progression photos: to see what AN (and the rest of the girls) would have looked like in old age!  :D
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Michelle on February 20, 2005, 11:09:22 PM
Jeremy's going to do an age progression on all of OTMAA? :o  When? When? :D  I can't wait!!!
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Strike on February 22, 2005, 12:28:30 PM
Intresting I strongly doubt Filatov was  Alexei, and from those pictures he looks nothing like Alexis aunt.

(Mostly here to find out more on the possible survial on the Tsars daughters).
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Baby Tsarevich on April 03, 2005, 09:42:38 AM
Quote
This was a member of the Cheka, G.I. Sukhorukov, who was assigned to go help dispose of the corpses of the Royal Family the next morning. On April 3, 1928 his memoir:... "It was necessary to begin digging up the corpses (after the attempt to burn them the previous night)...the first thing we came across was the leg of the last Nicholas. †He was removed successfully, and then all the others. To be precise, it can be said that everybody was naked, except for the heir, who had on a sailor shirt but no trousers."


I'm not sure if this was already discused, but I don't really have time now to read the whole thread! So where can I find the full discription of Sukhorukov's witness of the dead bodies?

~Anastacia~
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Forum Admin on April 03, 2005, 12:05:26 PM
In the original Sokolov report. my quote was my translation from the French original.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Lass on April 05, 2005, 11:46:07 AM
This could already have been mentioned, but I'm new here, so I wouldn't know!

What are your opinions of Michael Gray's claim to be the son of the tsarevich? From the little I have gathered on here so far, the generally held view is that the whole family died...
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Phil_tomaselli on April 05, 2005, 02:00:30 PM
I'm afraid that Michael Gray's book "Blood Relative" is, in those few areas where I consider myself informed, arrant nonsense.  I particularly laughed at his analysis (pp120-121) of Meinertzhagen's claims about the aircraft rescue (which he completely misinterprets) and his statement that various RAF bases in S Russia could have been used as staging posts for a rescue.  Considering they weren't established until 1919 this is impossible & if he didn't check these facts what else didn't he check?  I particularly liked the way he suggested that Special Branch (the UK's "political police") had been through his house in his absence.  Given that he's from Northern Ireland and admitted to having been in correspondence with Prince Michael of Kent and to have tried to arrange meetings I sincerely hope they had.

There are undoubtedly mysteries attached to this man but not the ones he thinks.

Phil Tomaselli
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Lass on April 05, 2005, 02:48:49 PM
Lol, you do make it sound like nonsense too! ;D I know what you mean, but what made me think he shouldn't be too quickly brushed aside was his naming of sources. If those are real people, then their words would be significant.

Also, I couldn't help thinking that the authorities would never be so concerned about him unless he was worth being concerned about, if you see what I mean! I don't possess the book, so you'll have to fill me in if I'm wrong.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: AGRBear on April 05, 2005, 07:10:21 PM
Quote

I'm not sure if this was already discused, but I don't really have time now to read the whole thread! So where can I find the full discription of Sukhorukov's witness of the dead bodies?

~Anastacia~


Penny †posted part of Sukhorukov's state of 3 April 1928 over on the thread about Yourievsky and testimonies under Final Chapter.

http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=lastdays;action=display;num=1106530719;start=25#25

AGRBear
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: lexi4 on April 06, 2005, 08:48:09 PM
As for Mr. Yurovsky having no reason to lie-what if the two kids escaped the compound prior to the murders happening? You think that entire group of people would not have had a major reason to lie. Yes there is no evidence to suggest that, but men have always had reasons to lie-whether lies are obvious to the general public or not. So what would you do if that happened and you were in their position? Start an intensive search for them- If you couldn't find them you would probably set up an elaborate misinformation campaign that they were killed with the hopes of flushing them out. Maybe you are right though...who am I to say?

I agree with you Insight. I think Yurovsky and others had ample reason to lie if all of the bodies weren't accounted for...like execution. Like you, I have not reason to believe that any of the IF survived. I do now that for me to believe something, I need to have data, hard evidence. I also agree that it was really in poor taste for the forum administrator to use 911 as part of his argument.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 06, 2005, 09:20:57 PM
Quote
As for Mr. Yurovsky having no reason to lie-what if the two kids escaped the compound prior to the murders happening? You think that entire group of people would not have had a major reason to lie. Yes there is no evidence to suggest that, but men have always had reasons to lie-whether lies are obvious to the general public or not. So what would you do if that happened and you were in their position? Start an intensive search for them- If you couldn't find them you would probably set up an elaborate misinformation campaign that they were killed with the hopes of flushing them out. Maybe you are right though...who am I to say?

I agree with you Insight. I think Yurovsky and others had ample reason to lie if all of the bodies weren't accounted for...like execution. Like you, I have not reason to believe that any of the IF survived. I do now that for me to believe something, I need to have data, hard evidence. I also agree that it was really in poor taste for the forum administrator to use 911 as part of his argument.


Why wouldn't Yurovsky et al then just replace the two missing bodies with two other corpses (even if they had to do this later on) and be done with it, instead of making up an elaborate story about burning two bodies (and not even being sure which ones they burned in retelling)? That would make a lot more sense - if they were trying to cover up the missing children issue.... They wouldn't even have to kill a pair of other children to do this, since both Anastasia and Alexei were pretty much full grown. They could have just obtained a couple of bodies of small-ish adults (and it couldn't have been that hard during that time since, many people were getting killed in the civil war in that region), and disfigure them enough to pass for those two (sorry for being graphic). Why make up a story about burning the two bodies, then not even remembering the right bodies when retelling the story? That's the part that doesn't really make if this were a cover up....  

Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 06, 2005, 09:24:24 PM
Quote
...it was really in poor taste for the forum administrator to use 911 as part of his argument.


What are you talking about?  ???
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: AGRBear on April 07, 2005, 10:17:11 AM
Quote

Why wouldn't Yurovsky et al then just replace the two missing bodies with two other corpses (even if they had to do this later on) and be done with it, instead of making up an elaborate story about burning two bodies (and not even being sure which ones they burned in retelling)? That would make a lot more sense - if they were trying to cover up the missing children issue.... They wouldn't even have to kill a pair of other children to do this, since both Anastasia and Alexei were pretty much full grown. They could have just obtained a couple of bodies of small-ish adults (and it couldn't have been that hard during that time since, many people were getting killed in the civil war in that region), and disfigure them enough to pass for those two (sorry for being graphic). Why make up a story about burning the two bodies, then not even remembering the right bodies when retelling the story? That's the part that doesn't really make if this were a cover up.... †



The part that really doesn't make sense is why no one can find the bodies which were buried near the mass grave? †Since the burning would have left only †charred corpses and they didn't use acid on their bodies then these bodies would be in better shape than those in the mass grave. †And, with everyone digging up Pigs Meadow, one would think they would have been found by this time.

We can speculate about Yuruovsky's and the other's testimonies †but it's the absence of the two missing, Alexei and one of his sisters, which tell us †Yurovsky and the other Bolsheviks were lying about what happened.

Far as we know, †Marie and Alexei could have escaped on her birthday. †What Alexandra and others wrote in the diaries about their presents could have been something they were told to write and †NOT something they wanted to write. †I, also, believe forgery †cannot be ruled out.....

Nicholas II refused to write anything for a number of days.

Or they were all still in the Impatiev House but the Germans came onto the scene on the night of 16 July, found everyone drunk, and they swept the eleven away but were hunted down by the Reds and were murdered later.... †accept two, Alexei and Anastasia or Maria.

There are suggestions that it was the Reds who killed Nicholas II and Alexei then took Alexandra and the girls to Perm. †From here it is said that Anastasia escaped not once but twice from the CHEKA.

Or, maybe, the British or some independent Whites managed a rescue but it failed somewhere along the route of escape and nine of the eleven were found and executed.

Or, two survived the execution, and, two brothers or cousins rescued Alexei and one of his sisters. Only Alexei didn't survive but the one sister did....

We've gone over these possibiliities over and over and over but it seems to be the opinion of most that Alexei probably didn't survive very long after the 16th.

Then, again, there were Reds and Whites still looking for him as well as interviewing possible claimants for years. †Even the US believed a claimant was Alexei and actually transported him to the US but then it was proven he was not the real Alexei....

My speculations are no better or no worst than anyone elses, because many possible senarios are possible. †Why? †Because we just do not know what happened.

Until the bodies of Alexei and his sister are found, I'm sure we'll be continuing this conversation here and on other threads for months and even years to come. †Heck, I've been doing research since 1959, I was a Junior in High School, †and I'm still searching for the truth.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: lovebird on April 09, 2005, 06:41:46 PM
DNA  WILL PROVE THE FACT
2 ARE MISSING
AND THEY NEVER CAME FORWARD BECAUSE  THEY WERE  TRAUMATIZED ,AND IN FEAR.

PERIOD.
OR  ELSE  FIND  ME THE  2 BODIES AND  MATCH WITH  DNA.
THIS WAS 1918 AND  THERE WAS  NO EXPLOSION   like  911.

HELLO  wake up
some one is hiding the truth from the world.


Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Lass on April 11, 2005, 08:36:01 AM
Maybe I have missed it, but nowhere have I yet seen this question asked: Why distinguish between the Empress & Alexei, and the other members of the group? Why did the men feel the need to treat their bodies differently? To me, that appears suspiciously like a cover-up for something.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: rskkiya on April 11, 2005, 09:00:10 AM
Lass
   Well as far as the "Yurofsky report" his comment about attempting to burn Alexandria is incorrect because we have identified her body... I am of  the opinion that he - having been awake for over 72 hours at this point - was simply mistaken about which broken smashed female corpse was which, and attempted to destroy someone.
   Alexandra was generally disliked and many russians imagined her to have been a german spy. Alexis (as heir) would have been the object of some frustration in the eyes of the revolutionaries as the last of an autocratic line.

rskkiya
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Lass on April 11, 2005, 10:51:04 AM
Good point with regard to Alexandra's German connexions. Yes, that was a source of irritation to many Russians... I wonder why, though, they didn't pick the Tsar himself...?
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 11, 2005, 03:29:40 PM
Quote
I wonder why, though, they didn't pick the Tsar himself...?


Maybe because they weren't trying to hide that they had killed the tsar? Remember, they had publically announced that the tsar had been executed and that the rest of the family was "taken to a place of greater safety". Hence, if they were going to try to dispose of any bodies, of course it would be the other members of the family (or others who were killed with them) rather than the tsar... Maybe they initially thought that they could burn all of the bodies but the tsar's, then realized that it won't work after the first two didn't burn, gave up and reburied them elsewhere.... It would make sense. I think people are making a lot more of this than it was...
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Lass on April 11, 2005, 04:02:23 PM
Interesting - thank you! :)
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: flying_sparrows on April 20, 2005, 08:26:09 PM
Could this possibly be one of the sites previously mentioned?

http://www.npsnet.com/tsarevich_alexei/index.html

I realize some of it is far-fetched and I'm new, however, some of his ideas and theories make sense.  Opinions?

Just thought I'd share.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: ptitchka on April 20, 2005, 09:31:20 PM
Dear flying_sparrows:

In light of this particular thread about whether the Tsesarevich could possibly have survived the carnage in the basement of the Ipatiev house, the Tammet story falls flat when compared to the narrative of what happened to the poor boy one reads in the Fate of the Romanovs.  While Tammet claimed that Yurovsky was such an excellent shot as to deliberately miss him and render him deaf in one ear, and was supposed to have had bayonet scars in the lower part of his body,  Yurovsky himself said in his memoirs that he shot the Tsarevich two or three times at point blank range -- and this after Ermakov flung himself on the boy and inflicted bayonet blows in the region of the heart that drew blood in spite of the jeweled armor he wore, and that after enough shots to the abdomen that Alexei slipped out of his chair to his father's feet.

The Tammet claim and site have been cited and discussed in other threads.  I leave it to you to read the discussions on the boards dedicated to Alexei Nikolaevich and to Imperial Claimants.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Deliciously_Scared on April 23, 2005, 01:07:24 PM
New to the board, I did a search on Filatov to see if this issue had been addressed already, but couldn't find anything on it.

I just finished the book on Filatov and I was wondering whether anyone knew if any new info had been discovered, i.e. did Filatov's DNA get analyzed?

Also, I found it odd that Filatov said nothing about what happened to the Grand Duchess whose body is unaccounted for.

Does anyone know anything more about this specific case?
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: RussiaSunbeam1918 on April 23, 2005, 01:18:06 PM
I remember that book. I'm not sure about 5the case, but the book was not that convincing.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: etonexile on April 23, 2005, 03:37:24 PM
Other than in romantic fantasy...NONE of the Romanov family escaped that cellar...DNA is the ultimate proof...but the viciousness of the guards and firing squad is the first evidence...These weren't boy scout with pop-guns...sheeeeesh... ::)
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: RussiaSunbeam1918 on April 23, 2005, 08:35:20 PM
I'm sorry, I got cut off on my last post. What I was going top continue saying was:

Alyoshenka was shot close range in the right temple, and I think that would do more to a person (let alone a hemophiliac) than than deafen him.

Personally, I didn't even think they looked alike, and although it is possible that his looks could have changed a lot, I mean the last pictures of him were when he was a young teen, and his conditions could have made him look older, more stressed, and pther things like that, I don't personally see any resemblance. I think that stuff in the back that lists "unusual simmilarities" is garbage.

When he identified his "family" he misidentified the Grand Duchesses. You would think someone that close to them could tell hih "sisters" apart from one another.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: GD Alexandra on April 24, 2005, 12:27:48 AM
Quote
I'm sorry, I got cut off on my last post. What I was going top continue saying was:

Alyoshenka was shot close range in the right temple, and I think that would do more to a person (let alone a hemophiliac) than than deafen him.


That info should be enough to convince anyone that poor Alyosha didn't survive...
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Belochka on April 24, 2005, 01:53:30 AM
Another tiresome novel created to distort the real facts.  >:(

Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: RussiaSunbeam1918 on April 24, 2005, 10:01:38 AM
Deliciously_Scared, do you beleive Alyosha is Vastly Flatov?  :-/
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Forum Admin on April 24, 2005, 10:18:27 AM
This topic really belongs under the "Question of Survivors" and not the Alexei thread, so I moved it.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: RussiaSunbeam1918 on April 24, 2005, 11:47:30 AM
Sorry.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Deliciously_Scared on April 24, 2005, 12:44:30 PM
Quote
Deliciously_Scared, do you beleive Alyosha is Vastly Flatov?  :-/


No, but I am open to the possibility.  As previous posters stated, definitive DNA evidence is required and since that hasn't been done, I'll remain open minded.

I don't think there has been a definitive true account of what happened that night, however I also think it unlikely any of them survived.

What are anyone's theories about the 2 missing bodies?
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Jutte on April 24, 2005, 12:55:33 PM
i think that heino tammet was a far more plausible and convincing claimant, even though it was obvious he wasn't real. i think the fact that alexei was a haemophiliac is evidence enough to suggest he didn't survive.

i have opposing theories on the missing bodies. one which i would like to be true, two which are considerably more likely.

1) anastasia was still alive and escaped the truck, accidentally taking alexei's body with her as she escaped and alexei's body was lost that way, while anastasia lived. this is the theory i would like to be true.

2) the drunken guards who were clumsy in most other aspects of the assassination simply lost the other bodies OR there's the theory that the two smallest children were tested to see how quickly the bodies burned.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: RussiaSunbeam1918 on April 24, 2005, 01:18:37 PM
My theory on the bodies:

The gaurds wanted to burn Alexei and his mother right? My theory being she was the "German" who they hated, and h would be the "evil Tsar who wouldnt let them be free" (  :P ) after Nicholas. Now, we know her body was found because the saw her dental work in the skull, but Robert K. Massie says bodies sometimes bloat or get bigger after they die depending on your age. I think Anastasia's body got bigger and they thought it was Alexandra scince the faces were so mutalated. I could be wrong, but it seems like it could happen. Then they probably just threw the ashes.  The wind could have taken it anywhere.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: etonexile on April 25, 2005, 11:08:01 AM
Yes...don't look for tidy,technical butchery by the murderers...They shot,chopped,burned,used acid...and if one or two bodies went astray....What did they care?...the Romanovs were dead...and the Whites were approaching....history as ugly business....
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: RussiaSunbeam1918 on April 25, 2005, 04:53:09 PM
in "the romanovs the final chaptar" it said they probably drove over the bodies too. or so some scientista said, because of the shattard bones.

Very true, they were dead, and most likely didn't care, you could be (and probably are) right.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: lexi4 on May 03, 2005, 12:34:37 AM
Quote
New to the board, I did a search on Filatov to see if this issue had been addressed already, but couldn't find anything on it.

I just finished the book on Filatov and I was wondering whether anyone knew if any new info had been discovered, i.e. did Filatov's DNA get analyzed?

Also, I found it odd that Filatov said nothing about what happened to the Grand Duchess whose body is unaccounted for.
?

What is the name of the book?
Does anyone know anything more about this specific case
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: lostfan on May 08, 2005, 06:31:27 PM
Go to www.google.com and do a search for 'vasily filatov' The article should be the fifth result, 'The Escape of Alexei. Son of Tsar Nicholas II'

What I find most strange is the fact that they mention hemophilia, and they mention that Filatov had THREE daughters, all of whom would be carriers, yet they don't seem to think this is important enough to find out of any of the daughters had hemophiliac sons?

Also, they state that two of Filatov's children had blonde hair, which, apparently, is attributed to hemophilia.  ::)
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: lexi4 on May 08, 2005, 09:55:10 PM
Thank you lostfan.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: RealAnastasia on May 13, 2005, 07:10:21 PM
Hi:

      Does anyone knows something about this guy in Russia that claimed to be Alexei? I read his case in the Radzinsky book: "The Last Tsar", and I think it is interesting.

       I do not mean this man (who, after all I suppose , is dead now) was the Tsarevitch. I never discuss Romanov pretenders here, for some members of the forum eat you alive when you states your beliefs about someone surviving the Ekaterinburg awful night  ;D. I'm only requesting pretenders' INFOS, and not opinions about them.  I'm doing a "Romanov Complete Pretenders List" and I think I'm forgotten some of them...There are soooo many pretenders! (Too many!)

      Did Radzinsky further researching in this man ? Someone had a pic of him? I would like very much to know how he looks, and his whole story. Radzinsky exposed the case in "The Last Tsar", but as for I read in Peter Kurth's site, he is still researching it. I know (for I read it here  ;)) that he is not a very accurate source, but his "Russian Alexei" must become part of my "Pretenders List" and I need to know more on him.

     Besides, I promise to share with you some good info about two "Tatiana's Pretenders". I want to do it, because Tatiana was not the girl whom pretenders like the more to become.Almost all of them wanted to be Anastasia or Maria. I know at least, two "Tatianas" in the West. The first one lived in France, working as a nurse; the other lived for a while in Syria  :o and moved to Spain, where she give birth to a baby-boy. I must translate the basically info about the two Tatianas (the first one from French, the other from  Spanish) to share it with this board.

      RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Robert_Hall on May 13, 2005, 07:22:09 PM
I think  you will find that by far most of these "pretenders, claimants" or whatever one wishes to call them merited only brief newspaper coverage, often second hand and even more brief mention in the serious biographies and histories. Much the "15 minutes of fame" syndrome. I wish you luck in tracking down more information for your list.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Tsarevna_Olga on May 26, 2005, 07:50:27 AM
In Internet,I've found an interesting site that say that Alexei survived and came in Canada.this is the site.

What do you think about this?
In this site there is the possibility that the Little Alexei was not hemophiliac(sorry but i don't know the English translation,because I'm Italian :)  )but he suffered by a Plastic Anemia
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Tsarevna_Olga on May 26, 2005, 02:42:39 PM
yes,but the fact that DNA od Tammet-Romanov(make since 1995)don't give in modern age is very strange
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on May 26, 2005, 03:37:28 PM
AGRBear,

Thanks for pointed out the thread about Alexei and haemophilia. It is definately worth reading.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: etonexile on May 27, 2005, 05:36:28 PM
INTERESTING that the DNA testing on dear Heino's tooth should have been halted...it might make a suspicious person suspicious...besides the fact that Heino looks dead common and NOTHING like Alexei....

The hay-day of..."I'm that missing person...because I say so...and I'm mad enough...or brazen enough...to carry on the charade"...is...OVER...
DNA is the swift kick in the...reality gene....
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: reve4iexelA on May 27, 2005, 06:30:25 PM
Heino Tammet's own family - and by this I do not mean the Russian Imperial one - know the truth about their eccentric great uncle Ernst:

Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: etonexile on May 27, 2005, 06:34:56 PM
Eccentric?...is that a polite term for...something else?
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on May 27, 2005, 06:45:55 PM
There was a pretender that swore he was Alexei right in the begining of the investigation of the murders.

I don't know what motivates someone to claim to be a surviving member of the IF.

But someone took the time to ask a question on this board. And it might be a question that can be easily dismissed. One that has been asked by newbees forever and a day.

I think those who take the time to answer kindly are valuable members of this community.

Maybe someone whose first language isn't English can be confused and dismayed by sophisticated word play.

Just a thought.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: lexi4 on May 27, 2005, 10:53:28 PM
I agree Inquiring mind.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: AGRBear on May 28, 2005, 02:02:52 PM
Even those of us whose first language was English can often times be confused because we don't know the poster and therefore all we have are words. †We can not see a person's smile or serious face or frown so we have no idea what was in the poster's head when a post is written. †
;) ;D >:( :o :-/ :-X ::)  <<<<< These come in handy but not always 8)

AGRBear
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: shadowfox4089 on June 06, 2005, 02:41:17 PM
I think that Heino Tammet was indeed alexei

http://www.sptimesrussia.com/special/tsar/why.htm
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Forum Admin on June 06, 2005, 02:50:19 PM
Take the article with a grain of salt. It was written by John Kendrick himself, who is the one behind the whole story. This is NOT an independent assessment of the claims.

FA
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: shadowfox4089 on June 06, 2005, 03:10:56 PM
wel the article is very intriguing and credible
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: RussiaSunbeam1918 on June 06, 2005, 03:14:32 PM
Personally, I do not beleive the Tammet claim, but the site is well put together, and in some points, he makes a very convincing case.

I guess it depends on your view on the Romanov's story, and death too. I don't think Alexei cuold have survived, but your view could be totally different.

Whether we think he was Alexei or not, he IS a part of their story because there were many beleivers and he was a quite popular claiment.

-Dana
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: shadowfox4089 on June 06, 2005, 03:30:26 PM
i belive it becuase he never came out in public and said he was alexei so that means he wasnt looking for fame
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: ferngully on June 06, 2005, 03:43:41 PM
look on the survivor and claimers threads
selina               xxxxxxxx
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Kimberly on June 06, 2005, 03:49:54 PM
I gave up with the document after the Freemasons were introduced into the story >:(
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Arleen on June 06, 2005, 04:10:30 PM
I don't believe it either.....but isn't he gorgous?  He is exactly what I would have wanted Alexei to have looked like grown up!
....shallow, shallow, shallow am I!
..Arleen
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: rskkiya on June 06, 2005, 05:07:54 PM
DNA?

I have my extream doubts...but, then again...
- I am[glb]EVIL![/glb]

rskkiya
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: etonexile on June 06, 2005, 05:42:16 PM
Besides the fact that he looks like some Estonian peasant and not in the least like AN....it just sounds silly...the whole story....but as we say so often in this forum....DNA testing....!!!
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Lanie on June 06, 2005, 05:42:41 PM
I have nothing constructive to say (so I hope I won't be reprimanded by dear FA!  ;D) but this:  ::)  Hemophilia anyone?
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Fawzia on June 06, 2005, 05:45:30 PM
Well, anything is possible, but this seems highly unlikely.   :-/
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: etonexile on June 06, 2005, 05:55:06 PM
Isn't this the yarn where the HT/AN person didn't actually "have" haemophilia...erm...yeh....it was...just a blood disorder...that he "out grew"...ya see.... ::) ::)
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: RussiaSunbeam1918 on June 06, 2005, 06:02:12 PM
Right, "outgrew" it.  ;)

But he seemed to have a lot of supporters, so he must have had something that made people consider him. Tammet isn't my forte. Why exactly did he get so 'infamous' so to say, if you know?  :-/

-Dana

Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Georgiy on June 06, 2005, 06:20:31 PM
A slick website, no doubt ::)
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: shadowfox4089 on June 06, 2005, 06:24:44 PM
more evidence that Heino Tammet was indeed alexei

http://www.npsnet.com/tsarevich_alexei/page29.html
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: etonexile on June 06, 2005, 06:24:46 PM
A combination of hutzpah and madness can take one a long way....








...tries not to think of FS/AA...tries very hard....
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: etonexile on June 06, 2005, 06:38:08 PM
Folk can claim whatever they wish....with no DNA backing....just an attitude....but it does seem evermore sad in the memory of a bright and charming young chap and his family...to be so cruelly extinguished....in a dreadful,small cellar....and then to have the flotsum-and-jetsam of Old Europe to be claiming that they are the 'august dead'....IT'S A FUNNY OLD WORLD.... ::)
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: RussiaSunbeam1918 on June 06, 2005, 07:00:58 PM
Not to mention any claiments in particular, but some of them, with such little evedance, would be better claiming they were X Romanov in a past life.

I guess, though, If you beleive Tammet, it's ok. I mean, we'd all want to beleive someone survived that night (but some of us are pretty hard to crack on this site)
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Fawzia on June 06, 2005, 07:17:24 PM
He doesn't really look like Alexei to me.  
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Georgiy on June 06, 2005, 07:31:47 PM
He certainly aged well if that photo from 1967 (from the link a couple of posts back)is to be believed! Doesn't look at all like a 63 year old there!
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: RealAnastasia on June 06, 2005, 08:09:02 PM
I always took DNA proofs with a grain of salt...But certainly I always knew Alexei was an hemophiliac and Heino Tammet WAS NOT. I don't believe in the "Thrombocitopenya" story, for it simptoms are very different from Alexei's one as a child.  The Semionov story is more beliable to me, but sadly, I havent a single photo from him, and I can't said if he looked as Alexei or not. Edvard Radzinsky has some snapshots from Semionov, and it will be a good think if he would share it with us.

RealAnastasia.
 
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Lizameridox on June 06, 2005, 10:30:12 PM
Poor Alexei Nikolaevich!  Forgive me, but my heart cries for that sweet little prince every time I read Mr. Tammet's name in print.  :'(   I believe this claimant's own family in Estonia have said it's high time things were brought to a halt and I only wish they would do something more about it, since their unique perspective would go a long way.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: etonexile on June 07, 2005, 09:17:55 AM
Erm...what was that piccie of HT dressed as Charlie McCarthy...?...including monacle...I think good looking costume jewelry can be had from most theatrical costumers....
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: lexi4 on June 07, 2005, 01:32:09 PM
Don't we have other threads that address this? Look under the claimants thread.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: jaa on June 07, 2005, 02:04:11 PM
I find also the thrombocytopenia theory much more convoluted than it is convincing.

However, in Tammet's case, the DNA issue is troubling because apparently at least one DNA test was done - and the result was not released, not even to the family. This is a link to Kendricks' account of the DNA tests:
http://www.npsnet.com/tsarevich_alexei/page4.html

Kendrick has a lot of conspiracy arguments, but I have no reason to doubt the facts he gives: the teeth samples and the letters from Dr. Ivanov and Dr. Gill. It is unclear what happened to the testing at Aldermaston, and the letters are conflicting. Testing by Dr. Marie-Claire King's lab was supposedly completed, but the results were never released. I don't know what to think of any of this.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Lizameridox on June 07, 2005, 06:42:41 PM
The world would have known by now if Tammet's DNA had proven he had any connection to the Imperial Family.  I think it is a lot more likely that testing was not even completed because Mrs. Tammet had not paid for it like the Filatovs and Anna Anderson's supporters had done.   Conspiracy theories make for high romance -- not a crime against a lost Romanov.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: RealAnastasia on June 07, 2005, 08:08:53 PM
I repeat it...We have not "conspirative minds". There ARE cosnpirations in this world. Deny it, it's to said we are all ingenuous. There are conspirations surrounding the Romanovs, as there are surrounding other subjects...I'm not saying that Heino Tammet was Alexei for I don't know if he was, but I'm as I said many times here,  open minded to all possibilities. I wants to know the DNA results in Heino Tammet case; I wants to see Filipp Grigorievich Semionov photographies and other claimants ones, etc.

Historical subjects are NEVER closed. We'll be all time asking different questions about them and seeing them from other points of view. Science is an History helper, but History is NOT science, as History is not Arqueologie, Sociologie, etc. I don't divinise DNA. It's only an History helper, not more, not less.

RealAnastasia
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: jaa on June 08, 2005, 11:32:07 AM
I'm sure conspiracies exist, but I'm certainly not sure any conspiracy was at work in the Tammet case. Obviously I wasn't clear about this, but I found too much of Kendrick's argument was conspiracy and there were few facts.

It's just that what facts there are of the DNA testing seem strange. I am not suggesting anything; I honestly don't know what to make of this.

Apparently, there's a DNA sample in the freezer at Aldermaston of which Dr. Gill is not aware. And, two years after Mrs. Tammet sent the teeth for testing, Dr. Ivanov suggested that they should charge for the test. None of this makes sense to me:

According to Kendrick, Tammet's "widow and third wife, thirty-five years his junior, sent two of his teeth to England's Home Office forensic scientists in Aldermaston in April of 1993... On the tenth day of May 1993 Dr. Ivanov sent a memo to Molecular Research Centre director Dr. Peter Gill stating that he considered the analysis of those teeth to be worthwhile."

Sometime around February 1994, Dr. Gill sent a letter to Tammet's widow saying he had no knowledge of the sample.

Kendrick writes that in August 1995, Dr. Ivanov sent Mrs. Tammet a letter stating that "DNA extraction was started on one of the teeth.  He says there was a 'hiatus' and the work was stopped but gives no explanation why.  It was then suggested that they should charge for the tests.  Dr. Ivanov said that to the best of his knowledge the extraction was still in a laboratory freezer in Aldermaston when he left for Moscow on the 16th of July 1993."

"...another two teeth had been sent to the American research team headed by Dr. William Maples of the C.A. Pound Human Identification Laboratory at the University of Florida.  He sent those two teeth along with his other Romanov material to the lab of Dr. Mary-Claire King in Berkeley, California.  Dr. Maples told Mrs. Romanov [Tammet's widow] during the summer of 1994 that 'The evidence is complete'.  Dr. King has yet to release any sort of report and Mrs. Romanov has yet to be told anything about the results of the tests."

Again, I'm not suggesting any conspiracy or coverup or proof that Tammet was Alexei. I just can't make enough sense of this to suggest anything at all.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: etonexile on June 08, 2005, 12:05:54 PM
I suppose the "truth" is in this mish-mosh somewhere...


besides the fact that HT looks NOTHING like AN or other Czarist relations....cripes...."I" look more like AN....and I look like Harry Potter.....


Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: RealAnastasia on June 08, 2005, 07:27:46 PM
Well; I don't know much about Heino Tammet's case, but I didn't believe in any conspirancies against him...until I knew the DNA matter. Why didn't they said clearly: "He isn't related to Romanovs in any ways", or "He is Alexei"? Too odd. How could have been a "hiatus" in the proofs that are being performed in the teeth sample? Anyone...? ???

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: shadowfox4089 on June 08, 2005, 08:34:10 PM
i found out that alexei is 5,209 weeks old ;D
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: shadowfox4089 on June 08, 2005, 08:40:33 PM
He and his family were murdered 2,742,237,534 seconds ago
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: lexi4 on June 08, 2005, 10:07:34 PM
I did not know that Filatovs  DNA was tested. Does anyone have any more information about this?
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Lizameridox on June 08, 2005, 10:24:57 PM
RealAnastasia:  

It sounds to me like while the process of extracting the raw material of the DNA  from the tooth was done, the process, the sample was not actually processed because the procedure was not paid for and therefore the people at Aldermaston had no information to report.  If Dr. Gill in fact had no knowledge of the sample in 1994, pursuing anything more from the English lab would be fruitless.  

About those other two teeth, Dr. William Maples died sometime after making that cryptic remark to Mrs. Tammet that 'the evidence is complete':  which could have just meant that the laboratory needed nothing more from her.    She had also submitted evidence of a collection of letters and memorabilia dating from about the time Mr. Tammet was supposed to have 'admitted he was Alexei'.    (sounds more like the onset of a psychotic break brought on by the strain of illness after a difficult life and a few broken marriages of convenience that did not work out.)  The extractions may not even have been done there either because of no payment from Mrs. Tammet.  Conspiracy is not likely here in the least.

I would not hold my breath.  If the Wiermann family did step forward and say anything more about their eccentric great-uncle, DNA testing would not even be necessary.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: etonexile on June 08, 2005, 10:31:07 PM
Quote
Well; I don't know much about Heino Tammet's case, but I didn't believe in any conspirancies against him...until I knew the DNA matter. Why didn't they said clearly: "He isn't related to Romanovs in any ways", or "He is Alexei"? Too odd. How could have been a "hiatus" in the proofs that are being performed in the teeth sample? Anyone...? ???

RealAnastasia.


Yes...if the family didn't pay for all the testing...they get...nada....
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: RealAnastasia on June 10, 2005, 07:38:12 PM
I don't understand why they ust paid for something like this...The "Alexei case" is important for History, at least to be able to said that Tammet was not Alexei. And if the family is poor...must they give up to they right to know WHO they are? (Even if Tammet was not Alexei) I've a cousin who was not sure to be her father's daughter and wanted to do a DNA proof...but since she isn't awfully rich, she couldn't do it. And she still not know who was her father. Sad enough...All in this life is money.  ::) :o

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Lizameridox on June 10, 2005, 11:33:52 PM
RealAnastasia:  DNA testing is extremely expensive, and when the opportunity to compare that of any interested claimants to that of the Imperial Family came along, it was possibly not stressed to any of these people at the time that particularly in Russia costs were prohibitive.  The really sad thing about the Tammet DNA in that respect is that Sandra Tammet probably expected the tests to be done for free because she was extended an equal opportunity to get her husband's sample in at the same time the scientists got those of the rest of the interested parties.  This was not meant to imply that the requestors thought any more of Tammet's claim than of any other.  This was going to be a one-shot deal, and because the money ran out the plan fizzled for all the claimants that could not pony up for testing and results.  One supposes that most of these people were left high and dry especially if they were poor Russians that lived in Siberia.  If the supporters of Anna Anderson had not paid, they would have gotten no results either.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: lexi4 on June 10, 2005, 11:42:41 PM
It's all kind of sad really. So many questions could have been put to rest for so many.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: xX_Mashka_Xx on June 11, 2005, 01:56:00 PM
I don't think anyone survived. I heard that they had found 2 skeletons near where the Imperial Family was found. They are believed to be the skeletons of Alexei, and the missing grand duchess(whom I believe is Maria).
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: lexi4 on June 11, 2005, 03:05:27 PM
Quote
I don't think anyone survived. I heard that they had found 2 skeletons near where the Imperial Family was found. They are believed to be the skeletons of Alexei, and the missing grand duchess(whom I believe is Maria).


Where did you hear this? What is your source?
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: AGRBear on June 11, 2005, 03:58:28 PM
We've been informed that they were not Romanov bones, and, they were not in Pig's Meadow where the mass grave was found.

This old news story †occured several years ago and every once in awhile pops up on these threads....

AGRBear
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: xX_Mashka_Xx on June 11, 2005, 08:39:53 PM
I see. Thank you for telling me.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: lexi4 on June 11, 2005, 11:39:39 PM
Quote
We've been informed that they were not Romanov bones, and, they were not in Pig's Meadow where the mass grave was found.

This old news story †occured several years ago and every once in awhile pops up on these threads....

AGRBear

Thank you.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: etonexile on June 12, 2005, 10:44:00 AM
Quote
There was a pretender that swore he was Alexei right in the begining of the investigation of the murders.

I don't know what motivates someone to claim to be a surviving member of the IF.

But someone took the time to ask a question on this board. And it might be a question that can be easily dismissed. One that has been asked by newbees forever and a day.

I think those who take the time to answer kindly are valuable members of this community.

Maybe someone whose first language isn't English can be confused and dismayed by sophisticated word play.

Just a thought.


We should all work to be less sophisticated.....
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: RealAnastasia on June 13, 2005, 08:45:30 PM
So sad...I think that when History enigmes are involved, proofs should be for free... :-[

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: LisaDavidson on June 14, 2005, 12:10:35 AM
Regarding all this discussion about Mrs. Tammet-Romanov and paying for DNA tests. First of all, scientists came to this lady and asked her for samples, which she then provided. It's not as if she went to them and failed to pay a bill, it's simply not the case. Second, Mrs. Tammet-Romanov was promised the results of these tests. However, it was those financing testing who dropped the ball, not her. Third, DNA testing is no longer the great expense that it used to be.

These tests could still be done, it's a question of getting the funding to do the tests.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: lexi4 on June 14, 2005, 12:17:49 AM
Lisa,
I may be wrong about this, but didn't someone offer to help with this recently? I may have that all mixed up with someone else.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Lizameridox on June 14, 2005, 07:33:44 PM
Dear Lisa: †I do not mean to attack you in the least, but for the sake of debate and clarification, may I counter some of this?

Quote
Regarding all this discussion about Mrs. Tammet-Romanov and paying for DNA tests. First of all, scientists came to this lady and asked her for samples, which she then provided.


Wouldn't any other well-known claimants or claimants' family members have been extended the same invitation to have the testing done if they had not approached the scientists already? †This was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for each and every one of them, supposedly to be financed by that Arizona firm. † Is it most likely that the Vancouver claimant was included as a matter of courtesy, possibly at the last minute?

Quote
It's not as if she went to them and failed to pay a bill, it's simply not the case.


I understand that since Mrs. Tammet had not been the one that approached them, it is unfair to assume that she knowingly incurred an obligation to pay for the procedure. †But, particularly if the Tammet tooth samples were acquired at the last minute, when funds from Wink, Inc. may have been all but depleted, would it have come as any real surprise that - particularly in Russia - an unforeseen lack of adequate funds meant an unfortunate lack of results unless the individual payments suggested by the embarrassed scientists were forthcoming?

Quote
Second, Mrs. Tammet-Romanov was promised the results of these tests. However, it was those financing testing who dropped the ball, not her.


So, I am sure, was every other claimant or claimant's family that heard nothing from Drs. Ivanov/Gill et al. †Circumstances beyond their control kept them from fulfilling the promises they made in good faith. †How many times are cost estimates given prior to the performance of a service adjusted upwards to reflect the real cost every day in the real world? †I have also heard that it is a very RUSSIAN custom that palms are greased (i.e. †additional monies or bribes are paid) if someone wants or needs a guaranteed follow-through.

Quote
Third, DNA testing is no longer the great expense that it used to be.

These tests could still be done, it's a question of getting the funding to do the tests.


Wasn't it you that proposed something recently, Lisa? †If Mrs. Tammet has not responded to that offer (especially since Dr. Gill lost track of the sample at Aldermaston), one wonders just how serious she remains about this entire matter.

Of course anyone wanting to put a stop to the Tammet matter, such as the Veerman family, might consider arranging and paying for the tests on their own if they felt it necessary (or at least a needed bolster to any other proof they have).
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Anastasia_R on June 17, 2005, 10:47:01 AM
This sounds pretty convincing,espeically the part about Tammet being deaf in one ear and the fact that Alexei was shot in  the ear,but I really don't beleive it.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: RealAnastasia on June 17, 2005, 08:15:41 PM
Well..It would be more convincing for me if Heino Tammet suffered from haemophilia and crhiptorchidia, as Alexei did. The Russian pretender , Filipp Grigorievich Semionov seems to have suffered from both. A good Alexei pretender must have these two diseases.

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: etonexile on June 18, 2005, 01:46:33 PM
Quote
This sounds pretty convincing,espeically the part about Tammet being deaf in one ear and the fact that Alexei was shot in †the ear,but I really don't beleive it.


Shot twice in the ear....and he was just...deaf?....I have greater faith than some in the shooting skills of the executioners... ::)
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Abby on June 18, 2005, 07:19:01 PM
Yes, I agree. Seems that a point-blank shot to the ear (and I remember reading that Yurovsky fired TWICE) would yield fatal results almost certainly.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Inquiring_Mind on June 18, 2005, 07:28:08 PM
With respect, can anyone tell me in US dollars  what it would cost to do the DNA tests in this case?
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: RealAnastasia on June 18, 2005, 07:50:47 PM
Quote
Yes, I agree. Seems that a point-blank shot to the ear (and I remember reading that Yurovsky fired TWICE) would yield fatal results almost certainly.



I don't know in the case of Alexei, who was an haemophiliac, after all. But I read about people who survived after such injures. It sounds crazy, buy it's right. I read about a guy, in the WWII, who was shot by the Nazis in France . He was finished of by a shot in his head, but the bullet didn't hurt vital parts of his brain. He did as he was died, and when the Nazis goes away, he went dragging to a house, and then some people of this house bring him to a hospital. He suffered a surgery, and he survived. I read a similar case in Argentina, in the times of the Civils Wars (1830-1860's) . That's not absurd.

RealAnastasia
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: JonC on June 19, 2005, 12:44:09 AM
Shadowfox...you have to be bugging!!! There is such a thing a 'Facial Recognition Technology'. I just took a look at Mr. Heino Tammet's photo and it doesn't look anything like AN at all. If Mr. Tammet didn't suffer from Haemophilia then he MUST have suffered from a facial distortion sickness and needed a trip to the shrink on top of it.

If you guage, sir, the two faces mathematically i.e. the shape of the noses, lips, foreheads and ears, and the distance between the eyes you will clearly see that you have been deluding yourself. The two faces are definitely not the same at all. Wake up and smell the coffee. LOL.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Lizameridox on June 19, 2005, 08:10:19 AM
What an insult to Alexei Nikolaevich's dear memory both these claimants have paid!!!!  It's obvious that there could have been only one Alexei.  How DARE anyone perpetuate their claims to his identity?  Every single claimant falls into the same boat, their pictures looking nothing like him, their behavior not hearkening back to his in the least, their stories full of holes.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Belochka on June 21, 2005, 01:09:51 AM
Quote
What an insult to Alexei Nikolaevich's dear memory both these claimants have paid!!!! †It's obvious that there could have been only one Alexei. †How DARE anyone perpetuate their claims to his identity? †Every single claimant falls into the same boat, their pictures looking nothing like him, their behavior not hearkening back to his in the least, their stories full of holes.


Claimants always emerge when history creates uncertainty.

To honor the Tsesarevich, the best we can all do here is ignore the late Tammet's proxy assertions, for it is publicity Mr Kendrick seeks. :-X

Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Lass on June 21, 2005, 06:23:26 AM
Quote
To honor the Tsesarevich, the best we can all do here is ignore the late Tammet's proxy assertions, for it is publicity Mr Kendrick seeks. :-X


Even if that was Mr Kendrick's only motive (and I don't know how you can so dogmatically assert that it is), that would be no fair reason to dismiss all his research and well-founded conclusions.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: lexi4 on June 21, 2005, 09:35:28 PM
Does anyone know anything about Tammet's other wives? Were they aware of this or is it only Sandra that he told.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: etonexile on June 22, 2005, 09:26:09 AM
Quote

Claimants always emerge when history creates uncertainty.

To honor the Tsesarevich, the best we can all do here is ignore the late Tammet's proxy assertions, for it is publicity Mr Kendrick seeks. :-X



At least FS/AA bore a vague resemblance to AN....HT looked "NOTHING"...as in...not-at-ALL....zero...zilch...nada....like Alexei Nicholaiovitch...a small matter,I know....Oh,yes...they were both European, white ,males...I forgot that staggering similarity....
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Finelly on June 22, 2005, 10:50:40 AM
"Oh,yes...they were both European, white ,males...I forgot that staggering similarity.... "

Ok, isn't that ENOUGH?  what MORE do you WANT?  
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: AGRBear on June 22, 2005, 11:41:01 AM
Since Alexei's body has not been found, we do not know what happen to Alexei.

If Alexei did survive and lived into his twenties, he might well have had a child.

If this is true, don't you think if a claimant came along who really was Alexei's son, that he has every right to make this claim?

Do not not slam the doors shut in every claimants face unless you know the fate of Alexei.

Until then, †all of us should keep an open mind, or, as we say in Bear territory, don't climb into that silly old box where too many others are there pretending †everything is solved and there is nothing else to learn and know and ponder.
AGRBear
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Finelly on June 22, 2005, 11:52:42 AM
But....but....but....it's a NICE box!  It eliminates all concern and confusion!  It makes everything so CLEAR!  And we get to avoid all of that nasty intellectual thought-process stuff when we're on it!
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Lass on June 22, 2005, 12:52:32 PM
Good point, Bear, though others clearly disagree.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: etonexile on June 22, 2005, 01:08:34 PM
I respect the Bear the more I know her....I don't often agree with her....but few have her integrity and ....class.... ;)
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: rskkiya on June 22, 2005, 04:49:20 PM
Ahh
but what does dear Teddy think?

Well Agrbear, I don't think it at all likely that Alexie didn't suffer from Hemophilia and I do think it very VERY unlikely that he wasn't executed -- but how many more extream possibilities are we to accept? That he was not executed? That he was magiked away to a secret location to heal of his wounds...(Avalon? The Last Homely House? Shangra La?)

The thread of rational plausibility is getting awfully thin....Herr XXX --- does he know?


rs
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Finelly on June 22, 2005, 05:42:03 PM
Well, for sure not Shangri La.  I stayed at the Shangri La in Mexico and there was definately no sign of Alexei.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: pinklady on June 24, 2005, 12:20:22 AM
I have been studying in amazement the face of Heino Tammet and the face of Alexei and I see NO similarities. I dont know where some people get the notion they could be one and the same. They have no similarities apart from the fact they are white and male.

I have said it on another thread and I will say it again, why cant claimants at least look like the people they are pretending to be??
And my other point, it is disgusting to the memory of the Imperial Family that strangers impersonate their poor slaughtered children constantly.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Kimberly on June 24, 2005, 03:06:08 AM
I wonder if Mr. tammet had any scars around the ear area. Wasn't Alexei shot once,maybe twice at almost point blank range? If this didnt blow part of his head off (sorry for being graphic) it would surely have left a scar of some sort.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Malenkaya on June 24, 2005, 08:02:22 AM
Quote
I wonder if Mr. tammet had any scars around the ear area. Wasn't Alexei shot once,maybe twice at almost point blank range? If this didnt blow part of his head off (sorry for being graphic) it would surely have left a scar of some sort.



I don't know about scars, but he was deaf in one ear, the claim is that is was the result of the gun going off that close to his ear.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Finelly on June 24, 2005, 09:02:43 AM
PinkLady, my dear.  What a SILLY request!  I would remind you and refer you back to the "Imperial Claimants"board that actually RESEMBLING the person you claim to be is a sure sign that you are a FRAUD!

<sheesh!>
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: etonexile on June 24, 2005, 10:01:21 AM
Do any of you ever get those e-mails...often from Nigeria...telling you that they will give you millions if you give them the use of your bank account....erm....yes...it is not always the best policy to trust those who tell a jolly tale....which is how Teddy came to own the deed to the Brooklyn Bridge.... ::)
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: pinklady on June 26, 2005, 04:45:05 AM
Dear Eton in Exile and Teddy
If it is good enough for you to have a friend, I shall have one too.
From now on it is Pinklady and Dolly.
There.
I feel much cosier and like I have a friend too.
PS Finnelly, how silly of me, of course your right dear ;)
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: etonexile on June 26, 2005, 10:43:48 AM
Dearest Pinklady and Dolly'

How most topping fine to have friends with friends...Teddy thinks we should all get together at some point....perhaps for tea in the garden....and then maybe drinks at the "Marmot and Petard"...our local

I told Teddy that you might not be one for hard drink...though I can't speak for Dolly....
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Finelly on June 26, 2005, 12:16:40 PM
You know, every now and then I have the weirdest thoughts....I get the feeling that Teddy and Dolly are just stuffed objects and they don't really talk...their owners are the ones really talking....

Then I slap myself.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: etonexile on June 26, 2005, 12:31:58 PM
Quote
You know, every now and then I have the weirdest thoughts....I get the feeling that Teddy and Dolly are just stuffed objects and they don't really talk...their owners are the ones really talking....

Then I slap myself...*

*Is this the reason for your lovely complexion...?

Teddy seems to have problems believing we are real...it works both ways... ;D
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: pinklady on June 27, 2005, 07:01:30 AM
I am shocked.
Dolly is certainly not stuffed, she is of the finest porcelain, with a complexion as smooth and beautiful as peaches and cream.
Dear Eton and Teddy, Pinklady and Dolly both love hard drinks ;)
depending on the mood, the more the better ;D
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: etonexile on June 27, 2005, 09:54:28 AM
Quote
I am shocked.
Dolly is certainly not stuffed, she is of the finest porcelain, with a complexion as smooth and beautiful as peaches and cream.
Dear Eton and Teddy, Pinklady and Dolly both love hard drinks ;)
depending on the mood, the more the better ;D


Owww...yar...making for zee easy entertaining then....
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: RussiaSunbeam1918 on June 27, 2005, 10:03:10 AM
Quote
"Oh,yes...they were both European, white ,males...I forgot that staggering similarity.... "

Ok, isn't that ENOUGH? †what MORE do you WANT? †


Maybe...scars, a simmilar facial structure, some proof that he had been in a massacre besides deafness (that probably would have blown off the Tsarevitch's ear not deaffened him) proof he was a royal...I mean, if they never found the body, they couldn't undress him and thus take any jewels that were on his person. Would this qualify as some sort of proof?  I think any of these things would help sway his case.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: etonexile on June 27, 2005, 11:34:49 AM
Quote

Maybe...scars, a simmilar facial structure, some proof that he had been in a massacre besides deafness (that probably would have blown off the Tsarevitch's ear not deaffened him) proof he was a royal...I mean, if they never found the body, they couldn't undress him and thus take any jewels that were on his person. Would this qualify as some sort of proof? †I think any of these things would help sway his case.


Erm...I should imagine that the corpse of the late AN was undressed...along with the missing sister....before being burned or whatever....how rude of the murderers not to keep all the IF together for us nearly 90 years later...people...sheeeesh
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: RussiaSunbeam1918 on June 27, 2005, 11:54:32 AM
 ;) Sorry.
I was trying to say that if Tammet was Alexei and "escaped" then he wouldn't have been undressed and burned...well, because he was alive...so if there was anything hidden in his clothing and such he could have used that as proof. (I don't know if Tammet even mentions this...I don't know much about him.)

But yeah, I agree that the real Alexei was burned and all...once again sorry for confusion.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: JonC on July 08, 2005, 10:29:48 PM
Bear the claimant I have refered to in the past...no names please...who was Alexie did have a son. He is alive today practicing law in a small town in Sicily. His name, I was told, is Gigi. I can't say more for fear of expulsion.
Quote
Since Alexei's body has not been found, we do not know what happen to Alexei.

If Alexei did survive and lived into his twenties, he might well have had a child.

If this is true, don't you think if a claimant came along who really was Alexei's son, that he has every right to make this claim?

Do not not slam the doors shut in every claimants face unless you know the fate of Alexei.

Until then, †all of us should keep an open mind, or, as we say in Bear territory, don't climb into that silly old box where too many others are there pretending †everything is solved and there is nothing else to learn and know and ponder.
AGRBear

Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Lizameridox on July 10, 2005, 08:22:26 AM
Nonsense.  The little Tsarevich was killed in 1918.  He was not protected by Catholics and live in Ohio.  He did not teach tap dancing in Vancouver or contract marriages of convenience to get out of Estonia.  He had nothing to do with the CIA or have a son with a Greek princess.

None of these people were Alexei.  Absolutely none of them.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: etonexile on July 10, 2005, 11:01:50 AM
Quote
Nonsense. †The little Tsarevich was killed in 1918. †He was not protected by Catholics and live in Ohio. †He did not teach tap dancing in Vancouver or contract marriages of convenience to get out of Estonia. †He had nothing to do with the CIA or have a son with a Greek princess.

None of these people were Alexei. †Absolutely none of them.


None of the above is true...?...Well now I know why Spielberg hasn't returned my phone calls....tsk.... >:(
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Finelly on July 10, 2005, 09:05:39 PM
No, Spielberg hasn't called because he's busy trying to deal with the Tom Cruise debacle...he'll call.  He will.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Joy0318 on December 24, 2005, 07:45:00 PM
Quote
Another tiresome novel created to distort the real facts. †>:(



Those were my thoughts too after reading that book. I found it †used for a good price somewhere and naturally I was very excited for I read anything I can find on the Romanovs. But I was not impressed with this one. Very very unbelievable!

As much as I would have loved for Alexei to have survived the massacre I don't think that is possible. I don't think any of them survived that night and IMO Alexei is the least likely to have survived. A hemophiliac surviving being shot at close range in the head? †I don't think so!

And even if by some miracle he has survived that night I don't think that he would have lived as long a life as Vasili Filitov. I'm no medical expert but  I read somewhere the prognosis  for hemophiliacs born in the early 20th century were not good. Most of them died as children as there was so little that could be done to help them.  Vasili Filatov lived well into his 80's. I don't think he was Alexei.

Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: AGRBear on December 29, 2005, 10:24:03 AM
There is a section about Claimants and a list in which Vasily Filatov is mentioned:

http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=loonies;action=display;num=1097613572

There are a couple of pages just about Filatov with some photographs of †Filatov and family:
http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=loonies;action=display;num=1089372646;start=0#0

For another thread about photographs and comparisons, †I had copied this from the book:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v471/AGRBear/AFaceVFface1.jpg)

Some information on the Romanov web site:
http://www.romanov-memorial.com/pretenders.htm

I for one am not convinced that Vasily Filatov is Alexei. †

AGRBear
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: calebGmoney on December 29, 2005, 05:32:51 PM
Quote
Other than in romantic fantasy...NONE of the Romanov family escaped that cellar...DNA is the ultimate proof...but the viciousness of the guards and firing squad is the first evidence...These weren't boy scout with pop-guns...sheeeeesh... ::)

DNA cannot prove if anyone survived or not.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Forum Admin on December 29, 2005, 08:55:57 PM
It may not, but it DID prove that AA was NOT one of the survivors, without doubt.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: calebGmoney on December 29, 2005, 09:45:29 PM
Quote
It may not, but it DID prove that AA was NOT one of the survivors, without doubt.
I did not bring Anna Anderson into this case at all. All I stated was what I mentioned, that it cannot prove that no one survived. But since you seem to want to discuss Anna Anderson and the validity of the DNA tests, I will state that it is not possible for her to have been Franziska Schanzkowska, as it has been demonstrated before. Let's just end it at that as this thread is not about Anna Anderson.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Mander on December 29, 2005, 11:18:05 PM
Hi! This is my first post although I've been lurking around the forum for quite some time. I'm fascinated by the Romanov's and have read a lot about them although I'm far from the expert. I found the following online and I was intruiged by some of the questions it raises. I didn't see any particular threads about Mr. Tammett here and was wondering what some of you more seasoned professionals thought of the "circumstances" he describes.

http://www.npsnet.com/tsarevich_alexei/index.html

Myself, as much as I would like to believe that Alexei and possibly one of his sisters survived the execution, I can not. Unless someone gives me DNA evidence of it, I believe that all the Romanov's perished that night. However, I do find the last days very compelling as well as the legacy they left behind.

Some of the things that stood out to me was the possibility that Alexei didn't have hemophilia. I've read many of the threads here on the subject but was a bit unclear. Is it possible he had a different type of blood disease or are you staunch believers that he did have hemophelia? Is it possible that only three or so of the guns actually did contain bullets? Finally, is the information the author included about the Benckendorff family true? These are just a few of the questions I was left with and would love to see your thoughts on the subject. I'm more interested in the actually events than the supposed survival of Alexei himself. The text simply raised some interesting questions about the night in question.

I look forward to hearing some of your thoughts.
Mander
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: calebGmoney on December 30, 2005, 12:48:54 PM
Alexei Tammet Romanov is the only claimant other than Anna Anderson that I've ever been interested in. While I'm not saying I'm convinced that Alexei Tammet was the tsarevich, I think it's interesting how the scientists were ordered to stop the DNA tests on Tammet's tooth. It makes me continue to wonder if someone is still trying to hide the truth about what happened that night on July 16, 1918. The possibilty of a survivor is very high.

(http://english.pravda.ru/images/newsline/Anastasia.jpg)
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: AGRBear on December 30, 2005, 05:58:55 PM
There is another thread listed under Claimants that talk about Alexei Heino Tamet-Romanov:

http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=loonies;action=display;num=1094856918;start=0#0

A web site:
http://www.npsnet.com/alexei_found/

AGRBear
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Margarita Markovna on December 30, 2005, 08:50:31 PM
Quote
What I find most strange is the fact that they mention hemophilia, and they mention that Filatov had THREE daughters, all of whom would be carriers, yet they don't seem to think this is important enough to find out of any of the daughters had hemophiliac sons?



But hemophilia is passed down from daughter to daughter...any daughter of Alexei's would NOT be a carrier unless the mother was.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Mander on December 30, 2005, 08:59:02 PM
AGRBear- Thanks for the link to the other post. Actually, the website you referred me to is the one I linked above which is where I stumbled onto Alexei Heino Tammet.

There are definite similarities in the photo and the story about him is certainly more plausable than most I have seen. Still, short of DNA I am not inclined to believe in survivors. I would think that the two main bodies they would want to have and confirm death would have been those of Czar Nicholas and Czarovich Alexei.

Do you think the "scenerio" is plausible that the Bolsavics could have used Alexei by putting him back on the throne to control the country?
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Lizameridox on December 30, 2005, 09:07:23 PM
Not this again. †If you were to search under the word 'Tammet' on these discussion boards, †you would pull up a lot of material that would satisfy your curiosity about this impostor, including a statement from a member of ERNST Heino Tammet-VEERMAN's family. †We got into considerable discussion last year about St. Alexei's hemophilia, and you may be sorry you asked about this red herring.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: calebGmoney on December 30, 2005, 09:34:34 PM
Quote
Not this again. †If you were to search under the word 'Tammet' on these discussion boards, †you would pull up a lot of material that would satisfy your curiosity about this impostor, including a statement from a member of ERNST Heino Tammet-VEERMAN's family. †We got into considerable discussion last year about St. Alexei's hemophilia, and you may be sorry you asked about this red herring.

Alexei should not necessarily be considered a saint in my opinion. And really, you don't know Tammet was an imposter for a fact nor do you know the nature of his hemophilia.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Mander on December 30, 2005, 09:37:11 PM
With all due respect, I've spent days reading these forums. It's extremely huge and nearly impossible to verify every post/question you ask to see if it's been discussed already.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Rachael89 on December 31, 2005, 06:21:17 AM
Quote
Not this again. †If you were to search under the word 'Tammet' on these discussion boards, †you would pull up a lot of material that would satisfy your curiosity about this impostor, including a statement from a member of ERNST Heino Tammet-VEERMAN's family. †We got into considerable discussion last year about St. Alexei's hemophilia, and you may be sorry you asked about this red herring.


There's no need to be so rude, especially to someone who hasn't been a member of the forum very long, everyone makes mistakes and I find this thread interesting, it's nice to discuss something other than Anna Anderson for a change.

Also many have a problem with the search option, it can be very slow for some (including me) something that is not the fault of the users or the admin, it's just simply because of the huge number of posts availiable to search through.

As for the case of Mr Tamment he does indeed bear a striking resembalance to Alexei especially in the picture posted by calebGmoney, but I myself do not beleive his claim due to the fact that I believe that Alexei did indeed have Haemophelia making it near impossible to stay alive after being shot, considering early in his life a bruise could be potentially life threatening.

Thankyou for the links everyone they've all been very interesting.

Best

Rachael

P.S. Welcome to the forum Mander and happy new year to everyone!
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Lizameridox on December 31, 2005, 06:29:47 AM
My apologies if I have offended anyone. †I could have been more considerate and just posted links to those discussions concerning the subject of this particular impostor, whose claim has been hotly contested here on this board within the past year. † I must confess that I am still a little touchy about the discussions, and probably should have left this alone. †The real Tsarevich needs no defending.

This is the only claimant I know of whose claim to be poor Alexei Nikolaevich has been so elaborately constructed around the idea that maybe the Heir did not have hemophilia.   I could never refer to Mr. Veerman using the name of Alexei.

Again, my sincere apologies to those who frequent the claimant boards.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Rachael89 on December 31, 2005, 07:01:03 AM
Don't worry about it, I'm sure no one was seriously offended your post just came across as being a little bit 'sharp' if you know what I mean! It happens alot that newbies post things that have said before and some people can come across as being quite rude in their reactions to such posts. I thought you were one of them but you have been very nice about it all.

I do hope that you haven't deleted your account because of what I said, if so I'm sorry I can get preachy soemtimes  ;).

Rachael
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: cimbrio on December 31, 2005, 09:51:50 AM
I'd have to agree with Mander. To my mind, it's impossible that anyone would have survived that rain of bullets and escape the ultimate bayonet stabs. If we do consider there WAS a bolshevik with a soft heart that spared one of the prisoners (a Bolshevik ready to kill a whole family and then show mercy for one of them???  :-/), I frankly doubt he would have spared perhaps the most important, or the seocnd most important member of the family: the Tsarevich. At any rate, if by some way (which hasn't been explained and may never be) Alexey managed to survive and later claim the throne, unless I am shown DNA evidence, I will still believe that all the prisoners were shot and stabbed that night of July 16/17 1918 in Yekaterinburg. This si certainly material for films ;)

Cimbrio

PS-I cannot be sceptical about the aftc that Alexey ahd haemophilia. It quite probably that he did suffer haemophilia, and not only did the royal doctors say so but he showed eveyr symptom of it, as well as having several member sof the family that suffered the malady...
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Tania+ on December 31, 2005, 10:52:02 AM
Mander,

So sorry to be late in replying to your earlier post. Somewhere here in all of these threads of the AP Discussion Board, I believe there was information that the Tsarevich did not have hemophelia, but some other form of blood difficulties. Unfortunately, because of lack of strength, and multiple health issues, I don't have the fortitude to go through all of the threads. But I believe it was something written well after the revolution. Hopefully one of the other readers or posters may have read it as well. I can't point to it's being gospel truth, but it may well state some sort of medical connect to barify it's published statement(s).

Tatiana

Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Eternal_Princess on December 31, 2005, 10:55:56 AM
Heamophelia, acording to recent studies, doesn't come through the mother, it comes through the father. Which means Alexei's daughters, if he survived and had a family, would have been carriers. (The women of the Victorian line would also have been carriers)

(NB: Queen Victoria's, <this is where the heamophelia started in the family line,>  father was over fifty and they've proven the older a man is, the more likely it is that the sperm will carry the disease. <Victoria's mother was only thirty-two.> So this is where they've identified the heamophelia came into the family. <   :-* for the Discovery Channel.> )

So the disease was already rampant in Alexei's body even if he survived and was young when he was a father.  (If he had heamophelia and not a related blood disorder, they couldn't really be certain back then.)
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Mander on December 31, 2005, 06:23:37 PM
I've never questioned that Alexei had hemophilia; however, when I'd read the webpage on Tammett it simply made me wonder if he'd had another type of blood disease. All in all in matters little because I believe that the young Tzarivich died with his family that night. I'm afraid I'm not much of an expert on blood diseases which was why I asked if it was possible he had something else. Reason being that I don't much believe in the magical healing powers of Rasputin either and Alexei seemed to make several remarkable recoveries.

Personally, I think the only way someone could have survived the bullets and bayonets that night would have been if they were simply not in the room. With twelve people there, I don't see how that is possible. SOMEONE would have at least caved on their deathbed.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Joy0318 on December 31, 2005, 07:40:49 PM
Quote

But hemophilia is passed down from daughter to daughter...any daughter of Alexei's would NOT be a carrier unless the mother was.


From what I remember from my high school biology class hemophilia all daughters born to a hemopiliac man will be carriers while all the sons will be unafftected.

If this Vasili Filatov really was Alexei than all  of his daughters would have been carriers but did any of these daughters have hemophiliac sons?

And what about the statement in the book which said that having blonde hair is related to hemophilia? :-/ I've never heard  that before.

IMO the book was very unconvincing but it did make for somewhat of an entertaining read.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Joy0318 on January 02, 2006, 08:49:23 AM
As with Vasili Filatov and Micheal Golienowsky.  I do not believe that this Tammet was Alexei.  Even if he did (which I believe he did) not have hemophilia I find it highly unlikely that he would have survived the horrible night in the celllar. The only way I think that he could have escaped was if one of the guards had had a soft spot in his heart for a child and escorted him out of the room before the shooting started. I find this highy unlikely and even there had been such a person the others would not have allowed it.

As much as  I would have liked for Alexei  to have survived I think the possiblilities are slim to none.
:'(
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: AGRBear on January 02, 2006, 03:49:00 PM
Under Alexei section and another thread Did Alexei Have Hemophilia:

http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=alexei;action=display;num=1111720142;start=0#0

AGRBear
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: imperial angel on October 27, 2006, 11:07:41 AM
Well, Filatov's claim was interesting, but in the end, most likely nothing. Alexei did not survive, and really could not have, so he could not have been Alexei. Taking into account other things, there is no concrete evidence of the identity of Vasily Filatov anyway. It's very unlikely there was any Romanov connection there, in my mind. Of course there were some natural children, but the whole Filatov thing isn't explained by that.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Tsarfan on November 07, 2006, 11:10:30 AM
Quite a discussion broke out on another thread about the claim that Heino Tammet, an Estonian immigrant to British Columbia, was really the Tsesarevich Alexei Romanov.  Since that thread is being overtaken by the interminable Anna Anderson wrangle, I thought those of us who were trying to unravel the Hammet mystery could take it up here.

To summarize where we had been thus far:


_________________________


Here was my last post on the topic of Mr. Hammet on the other thread:


Today I telephoned the Office of the Private Secretary in the Princess Royal's Office at Buckingham Palace.

I was directed to one of her Private Secretaries (there are several, apparently) to whom I posed three questions:

Has the Princess Royal ever extended any recognition whatsoever, in any form whatsoever, to any claimaint for the Russian throne or to anyone claiming to be a survivor of Nicholas II's immediate family and, in particular, to someone from British Columbia claiming to be Alexei?
Did the Princess Royal personally send a telegram of thanks in 1973 acknowledging a congratulatory telegram from a Czaervich Alexei, Grand Duke of Russia, or to anyone of similar title?
What was the procedure used for sending telegrams from members of the royal family?

His answer to the first question was, "absolutely not". 

His answer to the second question was that Princess Anne was not personally involved in responding to the congratulatory telegrams she received upon her wedding.

His answer to the third question was that the incoming telegrams and their addresses were cataloged so that mass form responses could be sent out from her office.  The Princess was not personally involved in the process whatsoever.  He additionally pointed out that telegraphic communications from that time period provided no means for a written signature -- original or otherwise -- to be transmitted with a telegram.

So, Mr. Kendrick . . .

Would you disclose to us the means you used to confirm the authenticity of the telegram and Princess Anne's personal signature?  As an investigative reporter, I'm sure you would not have published such a claim without first thoroughly checking it out.


Thank you.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on November 07, 2006, 01:59:13 PM
Good idea.

I want to know how, regardless of WHICH blood disorder Alexei had, he could have escaped with a blood disorder? Surely ANY blood disorder would have rendered his survival incredibly unlikely considering the wounds he must have suffered?

And, I really really really want an answer about Michael.  He was the last Tsar.  Alexei wasn't even in the line to the throne- his father abdicated on his behalf- he wasn't heir anymore!

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Lemur on November 07, 2006, 02:37:04 PM
I was wondering when we'd get a thread just on this away from the other 'odd' comments.

Anybody got any pics of Tammet to post beside Alexei the way they do for AA and AN?
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 07, 2006, 03:08:22 PM
Did Heino Tammet say that (1) there was a shooting in the cellar of the Ipatiev House and (2) as Alexei, he was present for it if there was?
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Tsarfan on November 07, 2006, 04:40:38 PM
Mr. Kendrick,

In your post on this Forum on November 3, you said:

"In their consistently failed attempts to shoot down that same evidence, many of the posters on this board have continually attempted to read into my posts -- incorrectly, I might add -- that my presentation of that same evidence might somehow also represent my own personal beliefs about this case.

My duties as journalist are to report the details of the case, to present the supporting evidence as accurately as possible, and to ensure that the details of that evidence are properly understood.  In fact, I have never actually said what my "beliefs" are about this case.  Nor would I."  [my emphasis]

However, I just read the article you authored on September 16, 1998 and published on the internet (www. npsnet.com/alexei_found/).  In it you wrote:

"Alexei Heino Tammet-Romanov was telling the truth when he lay dying on a Vancouver hospitabl bed in June of 1977.  He really was the missing Alexei Nicolaievich, Sovereign Heir, Tsarevich, and Grand Duke of Russia."  [my emphasis]

So, which is it?  Do you have an opinion on Tammet's claim or do you not?

Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: skirt on November 07, 2006, 04:52:39 PM
Lemur, I found this site with a few pictures to compare
http://www.npsnet.com/alexei_found/
hope it helps- i'm not quite sure how to cut and paste the pictures- so sorry!!

Tsarfan- that ROCKS, you actually called- my new hero!!

Louis_/Charles I have wondered that as well, if Mr.Kendrick knows the whole story please tell- but from what I have gathered from the short time I've been here-
Is that "Alexei" was rescued, was not injured during the attack, but lost hearing in one ear due to a short range gun blast in the cellar.. blacked out.. was taken to safety..
According to this claimants story (Ra-Ra Rasputin asked I beleive) Alexei did not suffer injuries during the attack in the cellar short of hearing loss.. but I might have to re-read that- it was getting late.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Tsarfan on November 07, 2006, 05:27:03 PM
Thanks, Skirt.  But actually I was doing nothing more than taking up Mr. Kendrick's suggestion that if we wanted an answer to why the telegram was addressed the way it was, we should ask Buckingham Palace.  As I'm sure an investigative journalist such as Mr. Kendrick knows, sometimes answers really can be a simple phone call away.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: skirt on November 07, 2006, 05:45:53 PM
@Tsarfan
Ohh... *blushes* sorry..
Here's a question - I read this in another thread, and thought I'd bring it up
Quote
The very same Dr. Pavel L. Ivanov who had originally identified the Ekaterinburg remains has been holding the DNA evidence from the Tammet case in his own personal possession for the past 13 years.  The American DNA team of Dr. Mary-Claire King, working for the late Dr. William Maples, has also had samples for the same length for time, but has never published any known report on any of its Romanov DNA work.

Dr. Ivanov has admitted in writing (on US Armed Forces DNA Laboratory letterhead) to starting the tests on those same Tammet samples... and he knows the answer.  All you have to do is track him down and ask him.

Whether or not he will actually tell you that answer still remains to be seen.

JK

Has anyone actually asked this guy? found him? I'm refering to Dr. Ivanov..
I am aware that alot (of posters here)
could care less, and dont beleive a word of it- but Tsarfan, your the man!!
you've got the guts- wanna hunt him down and put an end to these debates that
go around in circles?
If anyone else has already done this, please share.
thanks!!
skirt
xxx


Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Bev on November 07, 2006, 07:15:22 PM
Shouldn't we first see the letter?
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: skirt on November 07, 2006, 08:56:21 PM
I stand corrected- yes Bev,
lets see the letter..
( its 7:00 PM in Van city- where is Mr.Kendrick?)
and surely someone would concider contacting this Dr.Ivanof..
it would be great to get the information and have a discussion about this
fascinating topic-

putting the gloves down first of course
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Lemur on November 08, 2006, 10:16:44 AM
Did Tammet ever mention escaping with, or knowing the fate of, his 'sister' 'Anastasia?'
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: lexi4 on November 08, 2006, 06:44:36 PM
Good idea.

I want to know how, regardless of WHICH blood disorder Alexei had, he could have escaped with a blood disorder? Surely ANY blood disorder would have rendered his survival incredibly unlikely considering the wounds he must have suffered?

And, I really really really want an answer about Michael.  He was the last Tsar.  Alexei wasn't even in the line to the throne- his father abdicated on his behalf- he wasn't heir anymore!

Rachel
xx
I thought there was some question as to whether Nicholas could legally abdicate on behalf of his son???  ???
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: lexi4 on November 08, 2006, 06:53:59 PM
Here is a site with pictures of Tammet. It also addresses Spala and hemophilia.
This site has more pictures and information:
http://www.npsnet.com/tsarevich_alexei/index.html
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: J_Kendrick on November 08, 2006, 11:06:51 PM
I stand corrected- yes Bev,
lets see the letter..
( its 7:00 PM in Van city- where is Mr.Kendrick?)


Dealing with far more important things first.

On the list of life's many priorities, entertaining AP Board members comes near the bottom of that list

Quote
and surely someone would concider contacting this Dr.Ivanof..
it would be great to get the information and have a discussion about this
fascinating topic-

putting the gloves down first of course


You do all remember, of course, that we have been down this very same path ever so many times before... without any sign of resolution.

Just as a recent example....
See:
http://forum.alexanderpalace.org/index.php/topic,752.75.html
http://forum.alexanderpalace.org/index.php/topic,752.90.html

As Yogi Berra had once said so famously: "It's Deja Vu all over again"
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Tsarfan on November 09, 2006, 06:16:13 AM

Dealing with far more important things first.

On the list of life's many priorities, entertaining AP Board members comes near the bottom of that list


Hmmm . . . yet you had plenty of time to regale this Forum with faked evidence, with misleading representations of the credentials of medical professionals who disagree with you, with false claims you have never taken a position on the veracity of Tammet's claim.

But when someone actually checks these things out, well . . . you're just too busy to deal with it.  The typical dead end of the typical con.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: skirt on November 09, 2006, 11:33:50 AM
Yes I am aware that we have been down this path before -
To prevent everyone from bickering in circles again, perhaps
someone could actually contact the people that you (Mr.Kendrick)
are suggesting we contact and get to the bottom of things?
eg. De.Ivanof
Thats what you have been telling us to do all along right?
So... has anyone done it?
Anyone know where to start?

...I know I know, humour me...
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: J_Kendrick on November 09, 2006, 11:36:11 AM

Hmmm . . . yet you had plenty of time to regale this Forum with faked evidence, with misleading representations of the credentials of medical professionals who disagree with you, with false claims you have never taken a position on the veracity of Tammet's claim.

But when someone actually checks these things out, well . . . you're just too busy to deal with it.  The typical dead end of the typical con.


The evidence is 100 percent legitimate... despite anything that you may choose to imagine.

In the two years that have passed since its pubication, no haematologist has yet disagreed with the medical paper that was fully approved and published by the editorial review panel of the American Journal of Hematology... each and every member of that same editorial panel a recognised professor of haematology.

...and this reporter is not a claimant.  This reporter researches the details and reports the verified facts.  If you don't like those reported facts and choose, instead, to read into those details something which is not there, then that's entirely of your own doing.  How you may personally choose to interpret that evidence will not alter or diminish the existence and veracity of that same evidence in any way whatsoever.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: J_Kendrick on November 09, 2006, 11:37:28 AM
Yes I am aware that we have been down this path before -
To prevent everyone from bickering in circles again, perhaps
someone could actually contact the people that you (Mr.Kendrick)
are suggesting we contact and get to the bottom of things?
eg. De.Ivanof
Thats what you have been telling us to do all along right?
So... has anyone done it?
Anyone know where to start?

...I know I know, humour me...

Yes... The Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 09, 2006, 11:42:43 AM

Hmmm . . . yet you had plenty of time to regale this Forum with faked evidence, with misleading representations of the credentials of medical professionals who disagree with you, with false claims you have never taken a position on the veracity of Tammet's claim.

But when someone actually checks these things out, well . . . you're just too busy to deal with it.  The typical dead end of the typical con.


The evidence is 100 percent legitimate... despite anything that you may choose to imagine.

In the two years that have passed since its pubication, no haematologist has yet disagreed with the medical paper that was fully approved and published by the editorial review panel of the American Journal of Hematology... each and every member of that same editorial panel a recognised professor of haematology.

...and this reporter is not a claimant.  This reporter researches the details and reports the verified facts.  If you don't like those reported facts and choose, instead, to read into those details something which is not there, then that's entirely of your own doing.  How you may personally choose to interpret that evidence will not alter or diminish the existence and veracity of that same evidence in any way whatsoever.

Well . . .no.

You are not a neutral reporter, Mr. Kendrick, you have a partisan interest in Hammet.

Tsarfan seems to have overturned your conclusion about the telegram. Not that it does not exist, but that it was sent as a purposeful recognition of Tammet's claims. Whether Alexei was a hemophiliac or not, he had a serious blood disorder. If he was shot in the basement, he would not have survived. I have asked several times. Is it your contention that Alexei was not in the basement when the Family was shot? Was it Hammet's contention that he was?

Thanks,

Simon
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Tsarfan on November 09, 2006, 11:47:57 AM
Mr. Kendrick, on October 31 you posted the following statement:

"Just one day later, Princess Anne and Capt. Mark Phillips themselves had promptly responded to Mr. Tammet-Romanov's message with a telegram of thanks in reply.

That very same telegram from the Palace, date stamped November 15th of 1973 and signed by Anne and Mark . . . [my emphasis]

The Princess Royal's Private Secretary tells me that telegrams cannot be sent and are not sent with a signature.  If you have a telegram "signed by" Princess Anne, then it is quite clearly a fake.

You say, "This reporter researches the details and reports the verified facts."  So, I ask you once again . . . how did you go about about verifying the authenticity of this telegram and its signature?

And, oh, yes . . . you haven't yet explained why you claimed on this site never to have revealed your own view of the veracity of Tammet's claim, when you quite clearly did so in the 1998 article you authored.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Forum Admin on November 09, 2006, 01:34:14 PM

In the two years that have passed since its pubication, no haematologist has yet disagreed with the medical paper that was fully approved and published by the editorial review panel of the American Journal of Hematology... each and every member of that same editorial panel a recognised professor of haematology.


Please tell us,  exactly how many Haemotologists have AGREED with the paper? Have any stepped forward by name? If so, please let us so so that we may contact them for their opinion.

Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: skirt on November 09, 2006, 04:20:36 PM
Is anyone willing to contact the Russian Academy of Science in Moscow?
I personally dont want this to be another thread of **** versus Mr.Kendrick.
So if anyone has any access to these facts that he is supplying perhaps
checking them out would be a good place as any to start...


before the lynching of course.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Tsarfan on November 09, 2006, 04:26:26 PM
The only response I can find in medical literature to Mr. Kendrick's theory was in a letter to the editor published in the American Journal of Hematology.  It was written by Farid I. Haurani, Professor emeritus of Medicine at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia.

Part of Kendrick's argument was that, if Alexei's disease really was hemophilia, then Rasputin's ministrations would have had no effect.  Dr. Haurani argued that there were documented cases of hypnosis preventing or lessening the extended bleeds of hemophilia.  In effect, he was arguing that reports that Alexei responded to Rasputin are, in fact, consistent with a diagnosis of hemophilia . . . not proof that the disease was not hemophilia.

Kendrick responded to this letter with one of his own, claiming that Rasputin "passed through the palace gates only seven times" -- with the longest stay being only 20 minutes -- during the period in which the imperial family knew him.

What Kendrick either does not know or omits to report is that Nicholas, Alexandra, and the children most often met with Rasputin at Anna Vyrubova's house, for the very purpose of having the frequency of their interchanges with him go unnoticed.  Also, the imperial family was often actually living at the New Palace at Peterhof when the Court Calendar officially reported them in residence at the Alexander Palace in Tsarskoye Selo.  In short, the Alexander Palace gate logs are meaningless in assessing the nature of Rasputin's contacts with the family.

Kendrick also argues that, since Rasputin was not at Spala, the 1912 episode was not relieved by Rasputin's ministrations.  Again, what Kendrick fails to mention is that hemophilia attacks, if they are not fatal, eventually recede of their own accord.  Hemophilia is not the complete absence of blood clotting.  It is the prolongation of the process.  The number of days that elapsed between the onset of the Spala attack and its spontaneous recession are completely consistent with a diagnosis of hemophilia.

I checked out the American Journal of Hematology.  It is ranked 40th out of 60 journals in number of citations.  In other words, it's not heavily quoted by scholars.

Mr. Kendrick makes much of the fact that his article was "peer-reviewed".  This is not as dispositive as it sounds.  Peer review simply means that the contents are scientifically tenable.  It does not imply that the conclusions are the only possible answer to a question . . . and it certainly doesn't imply that they are the correct conclusions.  For instance, cosmology and physics journals are full of peer-reviewed articles that argue for mutually-exclusive theories about the fundamental nature of matter.  Obviously, not all of these theories can be correct.  Yet they are all published in peer-reviewed journals.

So, here's the bottom line to this lengthy post . . .

Only three science or medical professionals that I can find have responded in print to Mr. Kendrick's hypothesis.  All three have taken issue with his conclusion.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: J_Kendrick on November 10, 2006, 01:56:12 PM

Hmmm . . . yet you had plenty of time to regale this Forum with faked evidence, with misleading representations of the credentials of medical professionals who disagree with you, with false claims you have never taken a position on the veracity of Tammet's claim.

But when someone actually checks these things out, well . . . you're just too busy to deal with it.  The typical dead end of the typical con.


The evidence is 100 percent legitimate... despite anything that you may choose to imagine.

In the two years that have passed since its pubication, no haematologist has yet disagreed with the medical paper that was fully approved and published by the editorial review panel of the American Journal of Hematology... each and every member of that same editorial panel a recognised professor of haematology.

...and this reporter is not a claimant.  This reporter researches the details and reports the verified facts.  If you don't like those reported facts and choose, instead, to read into those details something which is not there, then that's entirely of your own doing.  How you may personally choose to interpret that evidence will not alter or diminish the existence and veracity of that same evidence in any way whatsoever.

Well . . .no.

You are not a neutral reporter, Mr. Kendrick, you have a partisan interest in Hammet.

Tsarfan seems to have overturned your conclusion about the telegram. Not that it does not exist, but that it was sent as a purposeful recognition of Tammet's claims.


Did he ask if the Palace was actually aware of the telegram's existence?  No he did not.

Did he ask the person whose name is actually on the telegram if that same person was responsible for that telegram?  No he did not.

The Palace has its own Post Office from which the telegrams are sent.  When a message is sent by a staff member on the behalf of any given member of the Royal family then it carries that staff member's title.

See:
http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page2215.asp
http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page5131.asp

When a telegram is sent by any given member of the Royal family then it carries the name of that same member of the Royal family who authored the message.

See:
http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page3144.asp
http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page5132.asp

No one at the Palace staff can write in the name of a given Royal and use that same Royal's name.. except for those same Royals themselves.

On August 4th, 2000, Queen Mother Elizabeth, just like all other 100 year old Britons, had received a congratulatory telegram from Queen Elizabeth II on the morning of her birthday.  Do you imagine that telegram was sent by just a staff member?

If Tsarfan did, in fact, do as he has claimed.. then he only spoke with a staff member whose first task it is to shield his employer from the public and from uncomfortable questions from people like the members of the AP Board.

When he actually does manage to get the Princess Royal herself to respond to these questions -- because it's her name that is on the telegram -- then call me.

Just for a bit of practice, why don't you try asking The Queen if the following story about a telegram Her Majesty is reported to have sent only two weeks ago is true?

From London's Daily Mail newspaper.. 27th October 2006

See
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=413017&in_page_id=1770

100-year old cat's telegram from Buckingham Purr-lace

A 100th birthday telegram from the Queen is an honour few humans are fortunate enough to earn... let alone animals. In fact, Flook the Burmese cat may be the first have her grand old age (in cat years) officially recognised by Her Majesty.

Owner Chris Evans from Windermere, Cumbria, wrote to Buckingham Palace to inform the Queen that his beloved pet was set to celebrate reaching a century in cat years - that's roughly 23 in human years.

And, in a surprising break with protocol, she received an official congratulatory telegram signed by Her Majesty.

Mr Evans said: "I have watched Flook grow up from a kitten and I am very proud of her. I really just sent the letter tongue in cheek and didn't expect anything back. But when I got the letter from Buckingham Palace I nearly fell over.



jk
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Bev on November 10, 2006, 02:29:10 PM
Now you're really grasping at straws - we could just as easily assert that the Queen believes cats can read.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: J_Kendrick on November 10, 2006, 02:31:10 PM
The only response I can find in medical literature to Mr. Kendrick's theory was in a letter to the editor published in the American Journal of Hematology.  It was written by Farid I. Haurani, Professor emeritus of Medicine at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia.

Part of Kendrick's argument was that, if Alexei's disease really was hemophilia, then Rasputin's ministrations would have had no effect.  Dr. Haurani argued that there were documented cases of hypnosis preventing or lessening the extended bleeds of hemophilia.  In effect, he was arguing that reports that Alexei responded to Rasputin are, in fact, consistent with a diagnosis of hemophilia . . .


In fact, Dr. Haurani did not at any time question the medical accuracy of the alternative hypothesis.  He was only arguing in favour of Rasputin's claimed ability to heal... possibly by the use of hypnosis.  He was not arguing against the actual medical content of the paper.

What Dr. Haurani did say in his response was: "Regardless of the illness of the Tsarevich, the infamous Rasputin was the guardian angel to the Tsarevich".

You should also have mentioned Dr. Haurani's stated reason for responding...  that Dr. Haurani, in fact, has a personal interest in the story as a former student of the late Dr. Leandro Tocantins (1901-1963)... the same Dr. Tocantins that the author Robert Massie had used as a source to support his claims in "Nicholas and Alexandra" in 1967.

And by the way... Your arithmetic is off.

Quote

Only three science or medical professionals that I can find have responded in print to Mr. Kendrick's hypothesis.  All three have taken issue with his conclusion


The names you have claimed as medical professionals are the now retired Dr. Haurani.. and our own "Belochka" a.k.a. Margarita Nelipa

That's two.  Not three.

Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: J_Kendrick on November 10, 2006, 02:35:33 PM
Now you're really grasping at straws - we could just as easily assert that the Queen believes cats can read.

Hey...  It's a perfectly true story.  Reported in last month's DAILY MAIL

See
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=413017&in_page_id=1770

Surely, a guy can be allowed a bit of fun... when he's under attack.  ;D
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Tsarfan on November 10, 2006, 02:49:25 PM
So you're saying the Windsors acknowledged the heir to the throne of Russia by the same means they congratulated a cat for turning 100?  Classy.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 10, 2006, 03:53:49 PM
Is anyone willing to contact the Russian Academy of Science in Moscow?
I personally dont want this to be another thread of **** versus Mr.Kendrick.
So if anyone has any access to these facts that he is supplying perhaps
checking them out would be a good place as any to start...


before the lynching of course.

Now, now, simmer down, no one is "lynching" anyone. Mr. Kendrick seems feisty enough to defend himself against the attacks mounted on this board, and as he knows perfectly well, they are as gentle dew to the hailstorm that will break over his head if he takes this theory into a wider readership.

If people confabulate stories like this, they have to expect some challenges. If it helps, think of Mr. Kendrick as Galileo. It all worked out for him, didn't it?

By the way, Mr. Kendrick, were you able to get ahold of the Princess Royal to ask her about whether she was mailing off thank you's to the "Czarevitch" all those many years ago? Does she handle the "Czarevitch"claimants while her Mother takes care of the Methuselah cats?

Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Forum Admin on November 10, 2006, 04:00:24 PM

In the two years that have passed since its pubication, no haematologist has yet disagreed with the medical paper that was fully approved and published by the editorial review panel of the American Journal of Hematology... each and every member of that same editorial panel a recognised professor of haematology.


Please tell us,  exactly how many Haemotologists have AGREED with the paper? Have any stepped forward by name? If so, please let us so so that we may contact them for their opinion.



We are STILL  waiting for the answer, Mr. K.......why are you deflecting the genuine questions requiring specific answers by bringing up cats getting telegrams?
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: grandduchessella on November 10, 2006, 04:34:56 PM
So you're saying the Windsors acknowledged the heir to the throne of Russia by the same means they congratulated a cat for turning 100?  Classy.

Oh my! That just made me choke on my soda.  :) Too funny.  :D

If Tsarfan doesn't mind, I'll quote this passage from another thread:

Today I telephoned the Office of the Private Secretary in the Princess Royal's Office at Buckingham Palace.

I was directed to one of her Private Secretaries (there are several, apparently) to whom I posed three questions:

  • Has the Princess Royal ever extended any recognition whatsoever, in any form whatsoever, to any claimaint for the Russian throne or to anyone claiming to be a survivor of Nicholas II's immediate family and, in particular, to someone from British Columbia claiming to be Alexei?
  • Did the Princess Royal personally send a telegram of thanks in 1973 acknowledging a congratulatory telegram from a Czaervich Alexei, Grand Duke of Russia, or to anyone of similar title?
  • What was the procedure used for sending telegrams from members of the royal family?

His answer to the first question was, "absolutely not". 

His answer to the second question was that Princess Anne was not personally involved in responding to the congratulatory telegrams she received upon her wedding.

His answer to the third question was that the incoming telegrams and their addresses were cataloged so that mass form responses could be sent out from her office.  The Princess was not personally invovled in the process whatsoever.  He additionally pointed out that telegraphic communications from that time period provided no means for a written signature -- original or otherwise -- to be transmitted with a telegram.

So, Mr. Kendrick . . .

Would you disclose to us the means you used to confirm the authenticity of the telegram and Princess Anne's personal signature?  As an investigative reporter, I'm sure you would not have published such a claim without first thoroughly checking it out.

Thank you.

That's a good bit of work he did and information he received and bears directly on this subject.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: J_Kendrick on November 12, 2006, 05:28:36 PM
There seems to be some misunderstanding on this board about what kind of evidence it is that we are dealing with here.

I have said from the very beginning that the evidence being debated here is a telegram.  I have never said that it is anything else but a telegram.  It has now become readily apparent, however, that a number of those who are posting to this thread are not exactly clear on what a telegram actually is.

A telegram is one of the earliest forms of electronic communication.  It is a text message sent by wire.  A telegram can be traced to its sender in just the same fashion that a telephone call can be traced to its source... in much the same way that a modern day text message can be traced back to the owner of the "Blackberry" that was used to send it.

The sender writes his message, puts his name on the message, and then hands his message to Telegraph Operator A.  Telegraph Operator A then transmits that same message by electronic code via telegraph wire to Telegraph Operator B.  It is this same action of electronic transmission that actually makes that message a telegram.  Telegraph Operator B then transcribes that coded message back into text as it arrives at its destination and then delivers it to the intended recipient.

The telegram has been used by Buckingham Palace as a legitimate and official form of communication ever since the day when one of the first Morse code keys was installed at the Palace Post Office during the reign of Queen Victoria.  Victoria herself is said to have pushed the key that sent a telegram to be transmitted to her subjects throughout the British Empire, announcing the start of Jubilee celebrations.  It was a telegram sent from the Palace to Treetops in Kenya that was intended to give HM Elizabeth II the official notification of her father's death and her ascension to the throne in February of 1952.

Nitpick about the details just as much as you like.  It will not make any difference whatsoever to the evidence.  No matter how loud or how numerous your protestations may be, your complaints will do absolutely nothing to diminish the fact of this telegram's existence, not to even the slightest degree.   Neither will any amount of complaining about the details do anything to change the fact that the telegram in question was addressed to Alexei in Canada... 55 years after his disappearance... and that it was, in fact, sent from the Palace in London and that it does bear the names of Anne and Mark as the senders.

Niether have any of those same protestations posted here on this thread done anything at all to change the additional fact that a Thank You card sent to Alexei in Canada and postmarked from the Palace in Stockholm in 1976 was *signed* by King Carl Gustav and Queen Silvia.

Precisely how many coincidences must there be in a single case... before somebody finally realizes that it cannot possibly be just coincidence any longer?

jk
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on November 12, 2006, 05:45:37 PM
Sigh.  We all know what telegrams are, dear.

Do you think Anne 'n' Mark and Carl 'n' Silvia personally sat down and individually wrote out and signed each telegram? No.  Of course not.

A team of underpaid and overworked secretaries would have sent out the same STOCK telegram to all the wellwishers that these aformentioned royal personages did not know personally.  They would have used the same titles the sender had used, so as to avoid offence and to make their life easier.  This was not a carefully thought out process- random people sent in telegrams, they got telegrams back, addressed in the same manner they had addressed themselves.  Think of it as mail merge.

Anne and Mark DID NOT SIGN the telegrams.  Carl and Silvia DID NOT SIGN the telegrams.  It was in no way a personal thing.  Read what Tsarfan wrote.  These telegrams were standard thank you messages with the name of sender slotted in.  I could send the Queen a birthday invitation with 'Empress Rachel of Russia' on it, and I'd bet my bottom dollar I'd get a polite no thanks addressed to Empress Rachel of Russia back.  Would that make me Empress of Russia? Of course not!

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Tsarfan on November 12, 2006, 06:20:47 PM
As you so pointedly told us, Mr. Kendrick, the Windsors send telegrams to cats.  That makes it rather hard to accept your premise that they attach great consequence to telegrams or view them as a primary means -- in this case, the sole means -- of extending recognition to a Romanov claimant.

Your absurd argument that this telegram signified Windsor recognition of Tammet as Nicholas II's son can signify only one of two possibilities.  You are hopelessly gullible, or you think we are.

And, since we aren't . . . .
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Forum Admin on November 12, 2006, 08:25:18 PM

In the two years that have passed since its pubication, no haematologist has yet disagreed with the medical paper that was fully approved and published by the editorial review panel of the American Journal of Hematology... each and every member of that same editorial panel a recognised professor of haematology.


Please tell us,  exactly how many Haemotologists have AGREED with the paper? Have any stepped forward by name? If so, please let us so so that we may contact them for their opinion.



OK,

THIRD request. Am still waiting for an answer...I feel like this question is quite deliberately being ignored.... ???
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Belochka on November 12, 2006, 10:05:37 PM

In the two years that have passed since its pubication, no haematologist has yet disagreed with the medical paper that was fully approved and published by the editorial review panel of the American Journal of Hematology... each and every member of that same editorial panel a recognised professor of haematology.


Please tell us,  exactly how many Haemotologists have AGREED with the paper? Have any stepped forward by name? If so, please let us so so that we may contact them for their opinion.



OK,

THIRD request. Am still waiting for an answer...I feel like this question is quite deliberately being ignored.... ???

Perhaps it is better to ask which other hematologists actually read Mr Kendrick's Historic Note?

Margarita  
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: J_Kendrick on November 12, 2006, 11:09:35 PM

In the two years that have passed since its pubication, no haematologist has yet disagreed with the medical paper that was fully approved and published by the editorial review panel of the American Journal of Hematology... each and every member of that same editorial panel a recognised professor of haematology.


Please tell us,  exactly how many Haemotologists have AGREED with the paper? Have any stepped forward by name? If so, please let us so so that we may contact them for their opinion.



OK,

THIRD request. Am still waiting for an answer...I feel like this question is quite deliberately being ignored.... ???

Ignored?  NO.  Entertaining members of the AP board, however, is not high on the list of life's priorities.

That said....

How any haemtologists have disagreed with the paper?  Answer: None.

If you insist on asking the same question in the other direction, the paper is easily obtained.  Take it to any haematologist you like.  You should not need to go any further than calling the closest local hospital or university medical school.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Belochka on November 13, 2006, 01:10:38 AM

In the two years that have passed since its pubication, no haematologist has yet disagreed with the medical paper that was fully approved and published by the editorial review panel of the American Journal of Hematology... each and every member of that same editorial panel a recognised professor of haematology.


Please tell us,  exactly how many Haemotologists have AGREED with the paper? Have any stepped forward by name? If so, please let us so so that we may contact them for their opinion.



OK,

THIRD request. Am still waiting for an answer...I feel like this question is quite deliberately being ignored.... ???

Ignored?  NO.  Entertaining members of the AP board, however, is not high on the list of life's priorities.

That said....

How any haemtologists have disagreed with the paper?  Answer: None.

If you insist on asking the same question in the other direction, the paper is easily obtained.  Take it to any haematologist you like.  You should not need to go any further than calling the closest local hospital or university medical school.


Your selectivity has once again preceded your reponse Mr Kendrick.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on November 13, 2006, 03:31:57 AM
Mr Kendrick should have been a politician.  Ever considered a career change?

'I won't answer the question, because that's going to make me look bad....so, I'll answer the question I want to be asked instead, because that will make me look good and no-one will notice how I skillfully side-stepped the original question anyway, because I'm so clever.'

So, no one has disagreed with your paper.  But you can't actually quote anyone who AGREED with it, can you?

I wonder how many haemotologists (or hematologists, as you Americans seem to spell it) actually read the article on Alexei and cared enough to make comment on it in the first place? The case of a long dead boy would hardly have most modern practictioners on the edge of their seats.  I'd bet that most of them skipped that article.  Seeing as it was written by a journalist and all, to boot...it's not much use to actual doctors today, is it?  What light could it cast on modern practice?

Haemophilia or not haemophilia...Alexei had a blood disease that would have caused an early death no matter what. I'd like to see anyone who could survive multiple gun shot wounds with no medical interference if they were healthy to begin with, not to mention someone surviving multiple gun shot wounds with a blood disorder.  Also, let's not forget that Alexei had to be CARRIED to the basement by his father.  Hardly in tip-top condition to start with, was he? The very notion that Alexei, the weakest of the family health wise, who couldn't even walk down a flight of stairs unaided, would survive the kinds of injuries we can presume with little doubt that he received, is absurd.  You're embarrassing yourself by even entertaining the possibility.

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Tsarfan on November 13, 2006, 08:52:02 AM
Another question you haven't yet answered, Mr. Kendrick . . .

How did you authenticate your claim that Princess Margaret personally signed the telegram to Tammet?
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Mazukov on November 13, 2006, 02:32:34 PM
Excuse me but, telegrams are sent by wire, are they not? There for how can one add a personal signature to a wired text? Now with that said this was before emails and we all know we can copy our own signature and insert it within an email but, however that canít be done on a wiregram.


___Check__
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 13, 2006, 03:42:41 PM
Mr. Kendrick,

How about posting a scan of the telegram then?


Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on November 13, 2006, 04:49:46 PM
Excuse me but, telegrams are sent by wire, are they not? There for how can one add a personal signature to a wired text? Now with that said this was before emails and we all know we can copy our own signature and insert it within an email but, however that canít be done on a wiregram.


___Check__

This is perfectly true- of course a signature can't be added to a telegram.  Are we suggesting then that Princess Margaret flew to Canada to personally sign a telegram she personally sent?

This gets more and more absurd as we go on..

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Tsarfan on November 13, 2006, 07:33:00 PM
Mr. Kendrick,

In inquiring into the mysterious withholding of the DNA test results on Mr. Tammet's teeth, an interesting point was brought up.  So, let me ask you . . . was payment ever made for the requested tests?

Thank you in advance for your answer.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Belochka on November 13, 2006, 10:39:55 PM
Mr. Kendrick,

In inquiring into the mysterious withholding of the DNA test results on Mr. Tammet's teeth, an interesting point was brought up.  So, let me ask you . . . was payment ever made for the requested tests?

Thank you in advance for your answer.

Interesting I was always under the impression that jounalists enjoyed interacting with the public about issues that they have raised.  8)

Margarita
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: AGRBear on November 14, 2006, 10:36:06 AM

...[in part]....

How any haemtologists have disagreed with the paper?  Answer: None.

If you insist on asking the same question in the other direction, the paper is easily obtained.  Take it to any haematologist you like.  You should not need to go any further than calling the closest local hospital or university medical school.



Kendricks quote: 
Quote
How any haemtologists have disagreed with the paper? 
  So, is this true or is it not???

I assume, since FA and others are not in agreement with Kendricks,  that you can give me a few good lines from  haemtologists who have disagreed with his paper.

For some of you:  Is it his paper that you disagree or his connection with this paper in which he tries to prove Heino Tammet was Alexei?

Since I don't think Tammet was Alexei,  you do NOT need to pounce all over me.  A brief answer would take care of my curosity of this subject.

As for the telegram,  I haven't had time to go back and read what all that is about.  So,  don't  mix me into that one in your replies,  please.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Tsarfan on November 14, 2006, 12:52:49 PM
If you had bothered to read the posts on this topic, Bear, you would know the following:


Two other threads in which this issue has already been discussed were recently locked, Bear, when your redundant, querulous posts replowing the same ground over and over became the topic of the threads and displaced the discussion about history.

We all know that you do not think there is such a thing as ever reaching a final answer on any topic.  Your historical "methodology" consists simply of posing groundless and often illogical hypotheses to challenge every single fact ever asserted on any topic.  It also consists of saying you don't believe something (such as, "I don't believe Anna was Anastasia", or "I don't believe Heino was Alexei") and then proceeding to pose questions that invariably imply a belief in exactly the opposite.

Now that you have arrived on this thread -- without even bothering to read its earlier posts -- I assume we can now all drop the curtain on our attempts to elicit answers from Mr. Kendrick regarding his claim about Tammet.  As usual, the topic is about to become YOU . . . which seems to be the thing you want most of all.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: J_Kendrick on November 14, 2006, 05:24:04 PM
Mr. Kendrick,

In inquiring into the mysterious withholding of the DNA test results on Mr. Tammet's teeth, an interesting point was brought up.  So, let me ask you . . . was payment ever made for the requested tests?

Thank you in advance for your answer.

It was the scientists themselves who had requested the samples and offered to do the tests. The question of cost has never been raised by either party.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: J_Kendrick on November 14, 2006, 05:28:17 PM

 I assume we can now all drop the curtain on our attempts to elicit answers from Mr. Kendrick regarding his claim about Tammet.  As usual, the topic is about to become YOU . . . which seems to be the thing you want most of all.


Tammet is not my "claim".  I will say it again, for the umpteenth time. I am not a claimant.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Tsarfan on November 14, 2006, 05:45:50 PM
I said your claim "about Tammet", not your claim to be Tammet.  And, if you would re-read your own 1998 article, you most certainly asserted that Tammet was Alexei, no matter how much you have since tried to convince us you have never taken a position on the veracity of the claim.

Thank you for answering the question about paying for the tests.  Now, could you perhaps tell us how you authenticated the personal signature of Princess Anne on the 1973 telegram?

Thanks.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Bev on November 14, 2006, 08:33:51 PM
Actually, it wasn't the scientists themselves who requested the samples.  Your business partner in Phoenix took them to Gill and offered Gill a tv/book deal.  Your business partner failed to come up with the financing for any kind of deal.  You can hardly blame Gill for the failure of the business deal, since his only obligation was to do the testing after your partner came up with the financing.

I'm sure your business partner, Richard Sutz, is well aware of the fact that there is no Romanov money, no Romanov throne and no Romanov property that will be inherited by the widow of Heino Tammet.  Wink Inc.'s, website is amatuerish, parochial and downright embarrassing for a public relations firm, and anyone expecting some major publishing house book deal with these people as agents is swimming upstream. 

As Rob pointed out you could have these teeth tested for dna yourself.  You can request the sample from the lab and pay another lab to extract dna and test it.  Alexei would have the exact mtdna of his mother.  That would solve this once and for all.  Instead, it seems that everyone else is responsible for proving or disproving this claim.  Well, that's not the way it works in the real world - in the real world if you make such a claim as you are making, you are responsible for providing the proof.  And let's make no mistake about this, you are the one who is claiming that Heino Tammet was the legitimate tsar of Russia, and stood to inherit all property, etc.

You have no evidence, no proof - nothing.  You claim you have a telegram from Princess Anne formally recognizing Heino Tammet as the tsar of all the Russias, which no sentient person would believe, a letter from a Dr. Ivanov, which you have yet to post ( in which it is said according to you that extraction had begun, which in scientific terms is meaningless, and a letter to the editor in The American Journal of Hematology, (by the way, a Wiley search failed to turn up any submitted article out of 500 or so scanned about Alexei's hemophilia) and I have yet to see a copy of Heino Tammet's death certificate with the cause of death listed on it, which could easily be obtained by anyone with a few bucks and some ambition.  The obituary is not proof of anything, since the family (with help from the funeral home) writes the obituary and submits it to the newspaper and it is not even checked for accuracy of facts.  It is not a legal document, just as a headstone in a cemetary is not a legal document - you can put anything on a headstone that the cemetary will allow within the bounds of their contractual agreement.

I would also point out that Tsarfan,  at no time said YOU were the claimant.  He said that YOU made the claim that Tammet was Alexei the tsaravich.  You did make the claim, and you offered arguments  that are all either false, suppositionary or deflective of which Tsarfan has dissected with the skill of a neurosurgeon and the patience of Job, even to the point of doing your work for you,( such as the telegram as just one example) to be met by you with misdirection and disengenuousness. 

You know the saying "put up or shut up?"  Well, let's see the telegram, let's see Tammet's death certificate, let's see Ivanov's letter, let's see Sutz's contract with Gill, otherwise, well, you know the rest of it...
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Forum Admin on November 14, 2006, 09:10:46 PM
Bev Bev Bev

How can you inject "reality" into this discussion?  ;D
I asked Kendrick THREE times to identify exactly how many hemotologists and WHO specifically "agreed" with his published "note" and notice that I have YET to have a straight answer.  JK is very good at slippery non answers, and short on specifics, and is the first to squeal like a stuck pig when he feels threatened...but short on hard evidence.

So Mr. K... lets have the hard evidence and specific answers. provide the names of hemotoligists who support your note. show the scan of the telegram,...etc.. etc etc.

(dont' hold your breath y 'all....he's not one for hard answers....)
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Tsarfan on November 15, 2006, 05:46:30 AM

Actually, it wasn't the scientists themselves who requested the samples.  Your business partner in Phoenix took them to Gill and offered Gill a tv/book deal.


A book deal?  A made-for-TV movie?  A business partner?  A public relations firm?

You mean the scientists didn't request the teeth on their own initiative . . . and then mysteriously withhold the results under sinister circumstances that could only mean that powerful people did not want Tammet's true heritage known?

You mean we're never going to hear how Mr. Kendrick authenticated Princess Anne's personal signature?  We're never going to see that telegram?  We're never going to get the names of hematologists who think Alexei did not have hemophilia?

You mean this wasn't about an investigative journalist's search for the truth!?!   You mean Mr. Kendrick was using this Forum to hype a con?!?!?

Oh, dear.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Bev on November 15, 2006, 09:44:45 AM
I can guarantee that we will never see a single document or get one name.  If he had them he would have published them on his website. 
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on November 15, 2006, 09:46:19 AM
Busted!
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 15, 2006, 09:54:36 AM
I spent an interesting hour last night reading through the website, and I have to say . . .jeepers, Mr. Kendrick! It is filled with moments where Doctors write "Mrs. Sandra Romanov" saying, essentially, "we have no idea what you are talking about, lady" in terms of teeth requests, et. al., and from this Mr. Kendrick deduces a vast conspiracy. Moreover, none of the posted pictures of Heino look remotely like Alexei. I wondered if Heino had ever been examined a la Andersen, comparing the ears and such; there must be enough pictures of Alexei to make it feasible. Of course, there isn't any real reason to do it, but surely someone should be interested enough: the throne of Russia is at stake! The throne of Russia!

The problem with this field of study is that for every serious researcher, there is a Kendrick.

But I still think this is a glorious tease, and I salute you, Mr. Kendrick, for trying to pull it off. Will the future Tammet Tsar create you Duke of Ruritania? I'm sorry, Grand Duke?
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on November 15, 2006, 10:59:49 AM
I think I just wet myself.

Check out this little 'jewel' from J Kendrick's oh so professional website:

'Translated from Estonian into English the name Heino Tammet becomes Henry Oak.  The name Henry means "home ruler" or "royal ruler" and Tammet means "Oak" or "Oak Tree", so the man's pseudonym can be interpreted as "Royal Oak".  Could it be that the heir to the Russian throne who was hiding from the Soviets was referring to the event three hundred years earlier when the heir to England's throne, Charles II, was hiding in an oak tree to escape Oliver Cromwell's Roundheads?'

Could it be indeed...now that's damning evidence.

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: J_Kendrick on November 15, 2006, 02:57:21 PM
Actually, it wasn't the scientists themselves who requested the samples.  Your business partner in Phoenix took them to Gill and offered Gill a tv/book deal.  Your business partner failed to come up with the financing for any kind of deal.  You can hardly blame Gill for the failure of the business deal, since his only obligation was to do the testing after your partner came up with the financing.


Get the facts straight!!!

It was Russia's Dr. Pavel Ivanov who had requested the Tammet samples in March of 1993.

Richard Sutz is only connected to the story through his friendship with the widow of an entirely different Alexei claimant who had lived in Scottsdale, Arizona.

Any business deal that had existed with Wink Inc. was only between Richard Sutz, Dr. Peter Gill, and Dr. Pavel Ivanov.

This reporter is only telling you the facts of that arrangement. This reporter was not involved in those arrangements in any way whatsoever. 

This reporter will say.. yet again.. This reporter is not a claimant.  This reporter is only reporting the facts of a certain claim. 

If you do not like those same facts, then find some other way to deal with it.  Do not blame the messenger!
   
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 15, 2006, 03:09:50 PM
Mr. Kendrick:

Truly, I do hope that you are more attentive to what people say when you conduct interviews as a journalist then you are on this board. Perhaps Mr. Tammet said something like "I am the Star of all the Rushes", referring to out-takes of a movie in which he appeared.

No one has said that you are the claimant. Do grasp that. All people have said (correctly) is that you promote a claimant, which you do on your website. Since you are the messenger --- and a bit more than a neutral observer --- any shots that are fired your way are entirely justified.

Before he died, my Great-Uncle Leo thought that he was the Mayor of New York. We did not disabuse him of this, since after all, what was the harm? On the other hand, we didn't seek out opportunites to advertise his mental disability.

Seriously, as a journalist --- it never occured to you that Mr. Tammet could have set sail on the sea of strange? Not once?


Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: J_Kendrick on November 15, 2006, 03:18:50 PM
Mr. Kendrick:

Truly, I do hope that you are more attentive to what people say when you conduct interviews as a journalist then you are on this board. Perhaps Mr. Tammet said something like "I am the Star of all the Rushes", referring to out-takes of a movie in which he appeared.

No one has said that you are the claimant. Do grasp that. All people have said (correctly) is that you promote a claimant, which you do on your website. Since you are the messenger --- and a bit more than a neutral observer --- any shots that are fired your way are entirely justified.

Before he died, my Great-Uncle Leo thought that he was the Mayor of New York. We did not disabuse him of this, since after all, what was the harm? On the other hand, we didn't seek out opportunites to advertise his mental disability.

Seriously, as a journalist --- it never occured to you that Mr. Tammet could have set sail on the sea of strange? Not once?


Back when I had first heard of this case 29 years ago... yes.

Now that I know the evidence inside out, almost three decades later... most definitely not.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 15, 2006, 03:28:22 PM
Thanks for actually answering a question. 

I will take that as a sign that you take the point about no one is asserting that you are the claimant (for one thing, you would have to be 101 years old.)

Golly. Is there any place where we can see a list of your journalistic credentials?

So you are promoting Mr. Tammet's claims. On the basis of the evidence you have cited on this thread?
Well, that's going to draw fire. Since you have piled up the kindling, you can't really complain about the matches tossed at it.



Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 15, 2006, 03:28:37 PM
Now that I know the evidence inside out, almost three decades later... most definitely not.

Let me guess, it was Anne's signature on that telegram that finally convinced you, wasn't it...


Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Tsarfan on November 15, 2006, 03:35:32 PM
I think it was the undescended testicle.  Having seen that kind of evidence, you just never forget it.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 15, 2006, 03:38:45 PM
I think it was the undescended testicle.  Having seen that kind of evidence, you just never forget it.

Excellent point!  :o

Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Mazukov on November 15, 2006, 04:26:50 PM
My gosh, this topic get more mileage than a Goodyear radial.
My apologies, but people who make claims, saying I was so and so, without offering any substantial verification of produced evidence, is nothing more than a flat tire.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Tania+ on November 15, 2006, 04:36:30 PM
I know what you mean, and wonder if everyone is who they say they are...
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 15, 2006, 08:01:12 PM
people who make claims, saying I was so and so, without offering any substantial verification of produced evidence, is nothing more than a flat tire.

Are you saying that pulling down trousers in front of a number of journalists is not considered "substantial verification" as far as you are concerned? You are very demanding, Mazukov.

Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: skirt on November 15, 2006, 09:23:39 PM
Alright.
I would like to formally announce that-
I fully support Mr.Kendrick. As a fellow cyber-Canuck, I feel I have a duty to
defend him and his opinions- whether he wants me to or not.
Now remember that hockey is our national sport and I can throw my five foot frame
into a one heck of a body check!!!!
Regardless of my own personal thoughts on the matter- I've got your back Mr.Kendrick!!
This is a man that obviously beleives in his work and has spent countless hours researching our favorite topic/family.

(that being said, my thoughts and prayers are with him and his family during this terrifying storm and possible tsunami- God Bless)

Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: J_Kendrick on November 15, 2006, 09:42:37 PM
Now that I know the evidence inside out, almost three decades later... most definitely not.

Let me guess, it was Anne's signature on that telegram that finally convinced you, wasn't it...




Not even close.  Guess again...
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: J_Kendrick on November 15, 2006, 09:49:48 PM
people who make claims, saying I was so and so, without offering any substantial verification of produced evidence, is nothing more than a flat tire.

Are you saying that pulling down trousers in front of a number of journalists is not considered "substantial verification" as far as you are concerned? You are very demanding, Mazukov.



How have you managed to interpret a police-ordered strip search 34 years ago... into something that it most definitely was not?

Where, on earth, do you get these ideas?
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: J_Kendrick on November 15, 2006, 09:59:27 PM
Alright.
I would like to formally announce that-
I fully support Mr.Kendrick. As a fellow cyber-Canuck, I feel I have a duty to
defend him and his opinions- whether he wants me to or not.
Now remember that hockey is our national sport and I can throw my five foot frame
into a one heck of a body check!!!!
Regardless of my own personal thoughts on the matter- I've got your back Mr.Kendrick!!
This is a man that obviously beleives in his work and has spent countless hours researching our favorite topic/family.

(that being said, my thoughts and prayers are with him and his family during this terrifying storm and possible tsunami- God Bless)



Dear Skirt

Many thanks for your concern :-)  It certainly has been quite a day here, weatherwise, but we have seen much worse in the past... back in October of 1962 with Typhoon Freda.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 15, 2006, 10:43:07 PM
Mr. Kendrick,

This version of historical strip poker that you are playng about your claimant is silly. I would assume that the evidence that convinces you is embedded in the massivie verbiage on your website. Coy dashes onto the thread to let us know that you know something are a little juvenile for someone who must be of a certain age, nor do they serve your candidate. If you are sitting on some kind of double-naught spy smoking gun, now would be a good time to put it on the table, because the missing teeth and mass-generated thirty-five year-old telegram are not persuading people that Mr. Tammet, or Royal Oak as we like to call him, was anything other than Mr. Tammet.

Simon
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: AaronGlaeser on November 15, 2006, 11:15:34 PM
John,

Wow.  I usually don't post here, but started looking around while participating in another thread and saw this.  It has been almost 10 years since we last spoke.  We both still share a similar dedication, yet on differnt sides of the spectrum.  yet our dedication is still apparently strong. 

Despite our differences of beliefs, I do hope that you are doing well and wish you all the best. 

If you would like, you can send me a message via this BB.  I look forward to hearing from you, and hope that you remember me.

I do honestly hope that all is going well and have some serious accademic issues that I would like to run by you.  The years have taught me that two opposing sides can meet in a neutral ground at the middle to discuss issues as adults, while sharing a mutual respect to personal issues and differences.

Have a good day, John.

aaron glaeser
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Tsarfan on November 16, 2006, 04:38:37 AM

The Tsarevich and his sister lived christian and morally upright lives.  Throughout the struggles that they faced in their last years of life, they MAINTAINED that christian life.  Yet they were brutally murdered and were not afforded a christian burrial.  They were murdered, their bodies burned, and for almost 90 years have been lying in an unmarked grave.  The bullets killed, the flames destroyed and the earth covered what the flames could not devour . . . that is . . . until now.  They were better than all of us.  They suffered more than us.

For nearly 10 years I have made it my mission to tell the story of the life of Alexei as a motion picture.



Wow . . . do I smell a joint book/movie project in the making here?

Will you be able to weave in the story of the Arizona claimaint?  Did he have a code name, too?   Regis Redwood, perhaps?  Or maybe Woody King (the American Romanovs tend toward less formality, you know)?

Thank God the revelation of the meaning of Alexei's life and death is in hands such as yours and Mr. Kendrick's.

Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Bev on November 16, 2006, 07:58:34 AM
Where are the documents?  We're still waiting...
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Tsarfan on November 16, 2006, 08:20:23 AM

How have you managed to interpret a police-ordered strip search 34 years ago... into something that it most definitely was not?

Where, on earth, do you get these ideas?


Hold the phone here, Bucko . . . .  The police ordered  the strip search?

Let's get this straight.  Buckingham Palace, having gotten its first telegram from Tammet in 1972, called the Canadian Mounties and said, "Go look at that man's testicles.  If you can find only one, he's most assuredly our dear cousin Alexei!  Oh, and yes . . . if he does have an undescended testicle, tell him to send us another telegram next year.  We'll have Anne answer it personally."

So, tell us, Mr. Kendrick.  What exactly did the Mounties report on their visit say?  Or is it, like the 1973 telegram or the letter from Dr. Ivanov, something you have but cannot show us?  No problem.  Your credit is good in this bar.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 16, 2006, 09:50:14 AM
a police-ordered strip search

So... you are saying that Mr. Tammet was forced to drop his drawers in front of the reporters and the police? That's awful...  Poor Mr. Tammet :-\

Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: J_Kendrick on November 16, 2006, 10:19:32 AM
a police-ordered strip search

So... you are saying that Mr. Tammet was forced to drop his drawers in front of the reporters and the police? That's awful...  Poor Mr. Tammet :-\



Do you always insist on deliberately misinterpreting every post?

RCMP Security Force investigation ONLY

No one else involved*ONLY* the investigating officers.

The RCMP Security Force is now known as CSIS -- the Canadian Security Intelligence Service -- Canada's version of MI-5 or the CIA
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: J_Kendrick on November 16, 2006, 10:23:29 AM
John,

Wow.  I usually don't post here, but started looking around while participating in another thread and saw this.  It has been almost 10 years since we last spoke.  We both still share a similar dedication, yet on differnt sides of the spectrum.  yet our dedication is still apparently strong. 

Despite our differences of beliefs, I do hope that you are doing well and wish you all the best. 

If you would like, you can send me a message via this BB.  I look forward to hearing from you, and hope that you remember me.

I do honestly hope that all is going well and have some serious accademic issues that I would like to run by you.  The years have taught me that two opposing sides can meet in a neutral ground at the middle to discuss issues as adults, while sharing a mutual respect to personal issues and differences.

Have a good day, John.

aaron glaeser


Hey Aaron!

It's been a long time!  :)

Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Tsarfan on November 16, 2006, 10:54:32 AM

No one else involved*ONLY* the investigating officers.

The RCMP Security Force is now known as CSIS -- the Canadian Security Intelligence Service -- Canada's version of MI-5 or the CIA


Yes, Mr. Kendrick.  But who issued the order for them to examine Mr. Tammet's testicles?  You did say it was a "police-ordered" strip search.  And what were the conclusions they reached after interviewing Mr. Tammet?
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Forum Admin on November 16, 2006, 01:43:55 PM
Kendrick,
Please stop the slick tap dancing to suit your purposes.
First you say "police ordered strip search".  What does that automatically connote? I should think a "journalist" would choose his words carefully. What genuine choice would anyone have when the police order you to be subject to a strip search? I should think "forced" to strip is  EXACTLY what would happen during a "police ordered strip search". Now its just a "Security Force" Investigation ONLY. Well, was he ordered to be subject to a strip search or not? or did they just say "Say there Mr. T., this is just a little investigation, mind dropping trou for just a sec??"

SO, please be precise, rather than intentionally vague as usual. WHAT exactly happened when the police investigation decided to take a look at his  genitals?? 
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 16, 2006, 02:03:06 PM
No one else involved*ONLY* the investigating officers.

The RCMP Security Force is now known as CSIS -- the Canadian Security Intelligence Service -- Canada's version of MI-5 or the CIA

So no reporters/journalists saw Mr. Tammet's genitalia then, only RCPM/CSIS? Did the journalists get a written report about the testicle(s) from CSIS? I must admit -- this is all extremely confusing...

Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Mazukov on November 16, 2006, 03:58:51 PM
I just donít see how itís all revlent, first why in the world would the cops have someone striped searched? The only reason for a strip search is if they are looking for 1, drugs. 2, concealed weapons.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on November 16, 2006, 04:36:18 PM
Let me get this straight- so what has been suggested here is that an official body of some sort was ordered specifically by the Queen to have a delusional Canadian man drop his pants to prove whether he had an undescended testicle or not?

Oh, come on.  This is ridiculous.  No wonder Mr Kendrick doesn't seem to have any other publications aside from a rather unprofessionally produced website and an article in a journal that no one read.

Shame really.

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: J_Kendrick on November 16, 2006, 04:39:07 PM
No one else involved*ONLY* the investigating officers.

The RCMP Security Force is now known as CSIS -- the Canadian Security Intelligence Service -- Canada's version of MI-5 or the CIA

So no reporters/journalists saw Mr. Tammet's genitalia then, only RCPM/CSIS? Did the journalists get a written report about the testicle(s) from CSIS? I must admit -- this is all extremely confusing...




Good Grief !!!

Just drop the "journalists" notion. 

NO journalists were involved and NO journalists were even aware of the case when the RCMP Security Force investigation took place in 1972. 

Tammet himself did NOT have any contact with any journalists about his story. 

And where, exactly, did you get this hang-up of yours about cryptorchidism?

You can drop that too.

If you must know, they were looking for bayonet scars.



P.S.  Surely, you must realize that secret service organizations are not in the habit of publishing written reports.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on November 16, 2006, 04:44:42 PM
You honestly expect us to believe this?

Produce some proof or drop it.  Oh no, wait...you can't, because it's 'top secret'.  I forgot.  We've just got to take your oh so reliable word for it, right?

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Tsarfan on November 16, 2006, 04:59:48 PM
Oh.  So the police arrived, a prepared order in hand to look for bayonet scars.

I once knew a Bruce Poole, a paratrooper who was bayoneted as he landed in North Africa in 1944.  He went on to become a rural mail carrier with a limp in Unadilla, Georgia.  And he, too, did not have hemophilia.  Poor guy.  He never knew he had a convincing claim on the Russian throne.

And just think about his name . . . .  "Bruce", meaning a leader in Gaelic (as in Robert the Bruce of Irish revolutionary fame); and "Poole", an unmistakable reference to the pool of blood in which he lay while awaiting rescue from the cellar.  I really cannot figure out how the Bolshies or the Windsors never tracked him down.  I mean, Royal Oak's name created a trail a mile wide.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: J_Kendrick on November 16, 2006, 05:03:35 PM
You honestly expect us to believe this?

Produce some proof or drop it.  Oh no, wait...you can't, because it's 'top secret'.  I forgot.  We've just got to take your oh so reliable word for it, right?

Rachel
xx


You want proof..

Just two months ago, the historian Mr. Marvin Lyons had admitted during an interview with the Canadian Press reporter Jeremy Hainsworth that he was the one who had called on the police to investigate... at the behest of his friend Lord Louis Mountbatten.

That one you can verify... without my help.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Tsarfan on November 16, 2006, 05:14:15 PM

Just two months ago, the historian Mr. Marvin Lyons had admitted during an interview with the Canadian Press reporter Jeremy Hainsworth that he was the one who had called on the police to investigate... at the behest of his friend Lord Louis Mountbatten.


And here's a direct quote from the story Hainsworth wrote for the Canoe Network News:

"Michael Futrell, a retired University of British Columbia professor, firmly believes Alexei Romanov died in 1918.

'There's been so many crooks and lunatics and swindlers involved in this thing for so many years,' he said.

And he's got a friend of the Romanov Imperial family in his corner.

Marvin Lyons, also a historian, said Tammet-Romanov's story is ridiculous. [my emphasis]

'I've known about this man and his claims since the mid-1970s,' said Lyons, who now lives in Richmond, B.C.

'This is all make-believe.'"

Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Ra-Ra-Rasputin on November 16, 2006, 05:18:33 PM
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Features/2006/09/30/1924843-cp.html

You got there before me, Tsarfan- above is the link.

It seems Lord Mountbatten asked Marvin Lyons to send out the police to this man because they feared for his mental health more than anything else, and wanted him to stop bothering the royal family.  Anyone who drops his pants to show an undescended testicle and a random scar as 'proof' of his claim to be a dead Tsesarevich has got to be a few sandwiches short of a picnic.  I would imagine that Lord Mounbatten was worried about what this man might be prepared to do to publicise his claim, and didn't want him embarrassing or possibly harming the royal family.  Obviously one can read into this what one chooses, but I believe my interpretation is the most likely.  I hardly think the royal family has ever taken this claim seriously.

Rachel
xx
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 16, 2006, 07:08:08 PM

If you must know, they were looking for bayonet scars.


So let me get this straight, are you saying there was no dropping of trousers involved then? Why did Mrs Tammet-Romanov state that her husband's testicles were examined by the reporters, who confirmed he only had one (testicle)? Does anyone else remember this, or am I imagining the entire thing? Wasn't this information in the article that Belochka posted (which I can't find right now)?

So did they find any bayonet scars on Mr. Tammet, and if they did, then where?




Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Tsarfan on November 16, 2006, 08:12:24 PM

You want proof..

Just two months ago, the historian Mr. Marvin Lyons had admitted during an interview with the Canadian Press reporter Jeremy Hainsworth that he was the one who had called on the police to investigate... at the behest of his friend Lord Louis Mountbatten.

That one you can verify... without my help.


Mr. Kendrick, you really do beat all.  After repeatedly protesting on this board that you have not taken a personal position on the veracity of Tammet's claim, you refer us to a news article that clearly states you believe the claim.

Moreover, you seem to be implying that, since a reputable historian called in the police at the behest of Lord Mountbatten, they must have been taking Tammet's claim seriously.  In fact, the article makes it clear that Lyons thought -- and still thinks -- Tammet was a complete, albeit rather harmless, flake.  To use Lyons' own words:

"'There are all kinds of these people around,' Lyons said. 'Most of them are not criminals. They're not even mentally ill in the normal sense of the word.  They're just people who are unhappy about their role in life and are trying to create something that is more interesting.'"

I can only think of seven possible reasons you would try to bolster your case by referring us to the Hainsworth article:


Since almost all of these possible reasons would render any answer from you meaningless, I guess each reader will have to decide for himself or herself.


And, by the way . . . the Hainsworth article said Tammet's scar was from a rifle butt, not a bayonet as you reported, Mr. Kendrick.  I wonder exactly how one could identify a 54-years-old scar as having come from a rifle butt instead of any number of objects.  Oh, never mind.  I really don't wonder.  You're obviously making some of this up as you go.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 16, 2006, 08:21:53 PM
I really do think this is a tease.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: skirt on November 16, 2006, 08:31:34 PM
Is it necessary to personally insult the man? attack the ideas, the theorys, his research -whatever/ this is exasperating...its not worth repeating...
*cyber-chucks tsar-fan into the boards*   ( ;))
He has admitted in the past that it is not the 'result' that makes the story newsworthy...
and he certainly keeps posters glued to his responses.  
I would love to hear what that Dr.Ivanov has to say about the tests.. love to see those telegraphs...wish that
Mr.Kendrick would answer all of our questions and supply us with all that we request.
How-ever, that wouldn't make for a good story- and I don't think that anyone would be nearly as interested
if that thread of hope that Alexei survived was dashed out completely.
This does make for enjoyable cat and mouse...
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: J_Kendrick on November 16, 2006, 08:50:30 PM

If you must know, they were looking for bayonet scars.


So let me get this straight, are you saying there was no dropping of trousers involved then? Why did Mrs Tammet-Romanov state that her husband's testicles were examined by the reporters, who confirmed he only had one (testicle)? Does anyone else remember this, or am I imagining the entire thing?


Yes. You are imagining it.

No such statement was ever made.

No such episode ever took place.

... and I ask again...

Where did you get this idea?

... and...

Why are you so obsessed with the question of a cryptorchidism?
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: J_Kendrick on November 16, 2006, 09:19:09 PM

You want proof..

Just two months ago, the historian Mr. Marvin Lyons had admitted during an interview with the Canadian Press reporter Jeremy Hainsworth that he was the one who had called on the police to investigate... at the behest of his friend Lord Louis Mountbatten.

That one you can verify... without my help.


Mr. Kendrick, you really do beat all.  After repeatedly protesting on this board that you have not taken a personal position on the veracity of Tammet's claim, you refer us to a news article that clearly states you believe the claim.


I was not referring to the article

I was referring to the fact that Mr. Lyons's own admission that he was the one who had called police at the prompting of Lord Mountbatten... now *confirms* that the RCMP Security Service investigation we have been discussing here actually did take place.

.. and I, personally, did not use the word "believe"...  and never would.

The use of that word in that article was solely the choice of the article's author Mr. Hainsworth.

Can you ever actually manage to read any of these posts accurately... at least once... without deliberately twisting my words to suit your own argument against this case?

Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Bev on November 16, 2006, 09:25:36 PM
Where are the documents, Kendrick?  We're waiting...
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Tsarfan on November 17, 2006, 05:14:38 AM

I was not referring to the article

I was referring to the fact that Mr. Lyons's own admission that he was the one who had called police at the prompting of Lord Mountbatten... now *confirms* that the RCMP Security Service investigation we have been discussing here actually did take place.

.. and I, personally, did not use the word "believe"...  and never would.

The use of that word in that article was solely the choice of the article's author Mr. Hainsworth.

Can you ever actually manage to read any of these posts accurately... at least once... without deliberately twisting my words to suit your own argument against this case?


You are the one twisting words, Mr. Kendrick.

First, no one on this board has denied that the police investigated Mr. Tammet.  However, we have disagreed with the implication of why the police investigated him.  Most of us think they were sent in to investigate a crackpot who was pestering with Windsors with attempts to make contact.  You apparently think they were investigating him to ascertain whether he really was the son of Nicholas II.

Hainsworth might have chosen his own words in the news article.  But surely you chose your own words in the article you authored in 1998, in which you most definitely said that Tammet really was Alexei.  I know you invariably dodge any references to that article, but the unavoidable fact is that you put yourself on the record in your belief that Tammet was Alexei.

And it's incredibly disingenuous of you to say you did not refer us to the Hainsworth article.  You wrote that Hainsworth interviewed Lyons a couple of months ago.  You then wrote, "That one you can verify... without my help."  So, we took your invitation and tracked down the article that resulted from that interview.

These transparent dodges, illogical leaps, and bizarre segues may impress Skirt as a compelling presentation of a coherent argument, but pretty much everyone else thinks this whole thing must be a colossal joke.  And we're keeping it going for the sheer entertainment value, since you seem quite happy to play along. 
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Phil_tomaselli on November 17, 2006, 08:59:33 AM
There is an interesting parallel to this (the Police investigation) in a book published about 10 years ago called (I think) "Heir Imperial" by a chap whose pseudonym was Charles Grey.  Sorry to be vague about details but I'm 5 miles away from my copy of the book.

Anyway, the author produced a long screed alleging that he was Alexei's son (based on some appallingly bad misinterpretation of various facts) and claimed that he had been secretly investigated by Special Branch when he wrote several times to the Duke of Kent.  His "evidence" for the investigation was scant, but given that he was living in Northern Ireland long before any of the cease fire or peace process began, one has to say one hopes the police DID investigate him.  If they didn't they wouldn't have been doing their job...........

Presumably, as it never seems to have been followed up one must assume that they eventually dismissed him as a crank.  I've often wondered if he's lurking somewhere on this board using another pseudonym............

Phil Tomaselli (not a pseudonym)
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 17, 2006, 09:13:39 AM
Where are the documents, Kendrick?  We're waiting...

Bev... How many times does Mr. Kendrick have to tell you? He has better things to do than to entertain the likes of us.


Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: skirt on November 17, 2006, 10:50:28 AM
Quote
These transparent dodges, illogical leaps, and bizarre segues may impress Skirt as a compelling presentation of a coherent argument, but pretty much everyone else thinks this whole thing must be a colossal joke.  And we're keeping it going for the sheer entertainment value, since you seem quite happy to play along.

I never once said that I found his presentation compelling, nor did I say that his arguement was coherent.
I simply defend someone who enjoys this topic as much as everyone else here- and has obviously worked for a long time on what he beleives.  I defend the person because I beleive that everyone is entitled to his/her own opinions.  It doesnt matter if I agree or not with that opinion ( In this case I've NEVER said that I agreed or disagreed).
I beleive that someone should be able to uphold ones opinions without being called a moron, stupid, con-man, delusional etc.
I could care less if you think you are the GD Anastasia reincarnate (wait someone already claimed that...) or Buddha- not my problem sweetheart.. I just like a clean game. 
Do NOT make presumptions about me.

I too am waiting for Mr.Kendrick to produce these documents...
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Tsarfan on November 17, 2006, 11:21:16 AM
A fair point in reference to your own views, skirt.

However, I did not actually call Mr. Kendrick a moron.  I listed that only as one of seven possibilities that could explain the structure of his argument.  There were other choices, including his being a prankster or his belief that his readers are the morons.  I only said that each poster will have to make his or her own determination.  And I could have missed some possibilities.  Feel free to make any additions.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: skirt on November 17, 2006, 12:56:39 PM
roflmao   ;D
alright Tsarfan, point taken.
However, I was refering to MANY different names, slurs and insults thrown at my fellow canuck
not just the particular options you gave us.
I prefer the possibility that I presented with regards to explaining the structure of his arguement.
That perhaps, just perhaps, Mr.Kendrick is a reporter with purpose of keeping readers interested in the
conspiracy and the chase-  that is what he has told us himself, that is what is newsworthy.
I for one, never enjoyed the book the Da Vinci Code- I simply dont have the patience to follow all the clues to
get to the end of the chase - only to be disappointed (in a work of fiction of course) or delighted in the result.

skirt
xxx



Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: AaronGlaeser on November 17, 2006, 01:25:52 PM
Phil,

I received an advanced copy of the novel, prior to its release, by the publisher and author.  This was due to my screenwriting project (The Testament).  The book was a complete joke.  I laughed constantly from start to finish.  The laughing started when I saw the family tree on the front inset.  They even got the FAMILY TREE WRONG!!!

I mean, honestly.  I kept it though, if only as a reminder.  It motivates me to NEVER . . . EVER . . . write so badly ever in my life.

As for Mr. Kendrick's claim and story.  As I mentioned before, I absolutely do not agree with the Heino-Tammet(sp?) claim, but I do applaud his fervor and dedication to this story.  He shares the heart and dedication to the Romanovs that all of us share.  This is more than evident given the years he has put into this. 

I just pray that he will share the humility that Peter Kurth expressed when Anna Anderson was proven to not be Anastasia.

Aaron
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Tsarfan on November 17, 2006, 01:33:32 PM
Let me ask you this, skirt . . .

Say you went to a play and found the production to be a complete mess:  the actors flubbing their lines, props not working, pieces of the set falling over, lighting effects coming on at the wrong time and place.  Would you feel the play should nevertheless receive accolades because the producer and director tried really, really hard?  Or would you acknowledge that some people should not be in the theater business?

Mr. Kendrick can be the hardest-working "investigative reporter" in the world.  But if his conclusions are fundamentally illogical and based on comically-strained interpretations of some evidence and outright manufacturing of other evidence (such as his virtually-ignored treatise on hemophilia), one is confronted with the same question I asked about that mess of a play.

Mr. Kendrick can try to keep the facade hanging together by continual hints of undisclosed and dispositive evidence.  But until we actually see the telegram that Princess Anne personally signed, the letter by which Dr. Ivanov requested  Tammet's teeth, and the list of medical professionals  who bought his premise about Alexei's disease, I think we're on much better ground relying on the assessment of Mr. Lyons, Lord Mountbatten's good friend and police dispatcher, that the claim is "ridiculous" and the people advancing it -- while "not mentally ill in the normal sense of the word" -- are "unhappy about their role in life and are trying to create something that is more interesting".
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Phil_tomaselli on November 17, 2006, 01:57:14 PM
Just to clear up a couple of points, and please excuse me getting it wrong due to premature senility.

The book I was talking about is "Blood Relative"  by Michael Gray published by Victor Gollancz in 1998.

If you want a good laugh please try and find this ina remainder bin near you.

Phil T
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Tania+ on November 17, 2006, 02:01:36 PM
i can't help after viewing this thread and others, but rofmao myself when i see people trying to figure out who people are as Heino tammet, when most of the people here are not able to even give their real names; now that is a laugh and a half isn't it ? some threads really are a hoot!

Tatiana+
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 17, 2006, 02:15:11 PM
It seems a fair trade. You have certainly provided enough amusement for all of us.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: skirt on November 17, 2006, 02:55:20 PM
I truely understand your point Tsarfan.  And I actually agree that one should know ones' limitations. Personally know ones limitations and strive to improve- acknowledgement of failure does not come easily for all.
But using the same type of example..
If your daughter / son worked for hours on a school project- poured heart and soul into it and felt very good about it.. but yet was mocked, critisized and bullied for receiving a less then favourable grade..would you tell them how horrible they did when they came home battered? perhaps add to the ridicule and throw salt on the wound? tell them to drop out of school right? Or would you perhaps deal with your child with compassion, and understanding.
Mr.Kendrick is not a child/ hopefully not a relative but is still entitled to courtesy.
My point is that perhaps a little sensitivity, manners and kindness doesnt hurt. You absolutely have the right to agree or disagree with his work- but why bash the guy? If he's wrong who cares?! He's just one of many of us who makes mistakes.

I suppose we all need a critic and a cynic to shove it in our faces when we are misunderstood or out-right screw up...
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Mazukov on November 17, 2006, 02:59:12 PM
Can we for a second stop and think of what had taken place that night in the basement room. First the WHOLE family was taken down to this room, they all faced men with weapons who fired POINT BLANK at them. Then to add to it each one of them got stabbed, then after that they had acid poured over them, they were burned, basically torn apart.

Now excuse me for thinking this way, but you had to be the man of steel "superman" in order to survive that ordeal No one did, not Mr. T, not AA, no one.

The disposal of the remains had been done half assed, it was messed up and botched up, so if a body or two had been left at sight 1, rather than at Sight 2, that is my friends what happened. But for anyone to say Hey all Iím the real Alexi, Iím the real Anastasia, or anyone else in the family is feeding us the same bull that all governments feeds us everyday.  No one made it out alive, they all perished a horrendous death.

As sad as it is, and even sadder now that anyone could have the audacity to come out and say Iím the real so and so Romanov. Please donít take us for fools, the facts are the facts, and the one fact that is true is that  the whole family was slaughtered .

If someone lays claims that they survived that horrendous slaughter, then offer up proof, in the way of DNA . if not than itís a flat tire.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: AGRBear on November 17, 2006, 03:32:40 PM
If you had bothered to read the posts on this topic, Bear, you would know the following:

  • Kendrick's article -- published as a "historical note" in a minor journal -- drew almost no attention in subsequent medical literature.
  • One professor emeritus of medicine took issue with Kendrick's analysis of Rasputin's involvement with Alexei's illness.
  • Two other people with medical credentials challenged Kendrick's analysis.  One challenger has a graduate degree in medical science, with a specialization in pathology.  She also worked in two hematology/immunology laboratories.  The other challenger has a masters degree in biochemistry.
  • Mr. Kendrick is a journalist who has failed to answer questions about his medical credentials.
  • No cites in support of his hypothesis have thus far been found by other posters -- despite their looking -- and Mr. Kendrick has failed to provide any such cites, despite several requests.


...[in part]....


Tsarfan:  "Kendrick's article -- published as a "historical note" in a minor journal -- drew almost no attention in subsequent medical literature."

Bear: I'm not sure what is proven by the fact that Kendrick's article hasn't been noticed by the medical world when the article was written as a "historical note".

Tsarfan " One professor emeritus of medicine took issue with Kendrick's analysis of Rasputin's involvement with Alexei's illness,"  wrote Tsarfan.

Bear: One.  Just one?   Are there others?  

I haven't read the Rasputin threads for a long time so I don't remember what Kendrick said about Rasputin.  I do recall someone saying that Rasputin had asked that Alexei not be given anymore aspirn which would have thinned his blood even more and hardly something a hemophiliac should swallow at any time.  So, this act alone helped Alexei.

Tsarfan:  "Mr. Kendrick is a journalist who has failed to answer questions about his medical credential"

Bear: I believe it is true:  "Mr. Kendrick is a journalist" and has voiced his interest in this subject.  Can you quote for me any of his words where he claims to have  a medical degree?  I don't think he has.  So why do you and others keep asking him this?  If he has said he has a medical degee,  I don't think  Helen and others would jump up and agree with his conclusions.  I may be wrong.  Could  one of you quote it here for all of us to see this claim of a medical degree?

Tsarfan: "Two other people with medical credentials challenged Kendrick's analysis.  One challenger has a graduate degree in medical science, with a specialization in pathology.  She also worked in two hematology/immunology laboratories.  The other challenger has a masters degree in biochemistry"  

Bear:  Since I knew absolutely nothing about blood disorders or DNA,  I have learned a great deal from Helen and the others .  There are, however,  a few experts who don't always agree with Helen and the others.   I'll let the experts figure out who is right.  Meanwhile,  I just keep on asking questions  to learn as much as my wooly brain will tolerate.

So, I have asked questions about the different types of blood disorders which would have the same symtoms as hemophilia.  I was told there were some with the same symtoms.   Most of the blood disorders known, now,  were not known then.  Medicine has traveled a great distance since then.   I just saw the miracle surgeons have done with my mother in her triple by-pass.  So,  I did ask:  How can some of you be so positive that Alexei 's diagnosis would be the same today after  all the lab work was done and todays doctors had viewed the tests?

Just because I wonder what  modern doctors diagnosis would be today,  doesn't mean that I think Tammet  was Alexei, because I do  NOT,  nor do I have any evidence that  Alexei didn't have hemophilia, because it appears that he did, and, if he didn't  have hemeophilia  he certainly had some kind of  serious blood disorders.

Oh,  and,  last but not least,  I've not seen any actual medical reports by the doctors who treated Alexei before 1918,  have any of you?

Yes,  I understand there are letters written by Gilliard which talks about doctors telling him that  they thought Alexei had hemophilia, but,  this is not something written by any of the doctors.

By the way,  just because Gillard or some  newspaper reporter tells the world that  one of Alexis doctors had told  that Alexis had hemophilia,  doesn't mean one of the doctors had told him / them or told anyone else.  I suspect  Gilliard/the reporter may have assumed this was what Alexis had since other members of the family was said to have had or had hemophilia.  The words used may have been "blood disorder".  

Please,  tell me if I'm wrong,  because I believe, just because other members of the family had hemophilia  doesn't mean Alexei had hemophila.   And,  of course,  I understand that because other members had hemophilia, this does  helps to prove that it is quite possible that Alexis had hemophilia.  I understand this line of logic.

As for the telegram,  I  think Kendrick's  has stretched too far  and has gone in  the wrong direction on this and has ended up in one of my DEAD END ZONES. ;)

AGRBear
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Tsarfan on November 17, 2006, 03:53:09 PM

My point is that perhaps a little sensitivity, manners and kindness doesnt hurt.


There are different ways to insult people, skirt.

For instance, you can look someone in the eye and say, "I think you're stupid."  Or you can talk to them in a manner that telegraphs your view that they are stupid.  It's an insult either way.

Take the issue of whether Mr. Kendrick ever stated his personal belief that Tammet was Alexei.  He said in one post that he never  made such an assertion.  I then found an article he wrote in 1998 where he clearly stated that Tammet was Alexei, and I posted such on this board.  He ignored that post and then just recently posted again that he never  said he believed the claim.

I find his continuing to insist he never took a position -- when he himself put that position on the record, and when he knows we know he did so -- to be as direct an insult to our intelligence as saying outright, "you're too stupid to grasp the meaning of plain English".

Ditto for his assuming we are too stupid to see through that telegram scenario.  Ditto for his deliberate mischaracterization and diminution of the credentials of the two people who authored a paper challenging his theory of Alexei's blood disorder.  Ditto for his referring to an interview with Marvin Lyons to bolster his case, knowing full well that Lyons thought Tammet's claim to be absurd.

These are all open insults to the intelligence of people who join this Forum to explore history.  I for one would prefer that he have the guts to say, "I think you're all stupid" rather than post things that obviously assume we are.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 17, 2006, 03:56:19 PM
Bear,

Mr. Kendrick has introduced the topic of Alexei's disease. It is fair to ask him what medical expertise he possesses that allows him to either diagnose Alexei, or interpret others' diagnoses of the boy.

You left out the salient part of Tsarfan's original post in your quoted excerpt, which is your propensity to arrive on a thread, do no reading or research at all, ask a series of questions which are at best rhetorical and at worst silly, and grind the entire process to a halt.

Frankly, it doesn't bother me all that much on this thread, because it seems to have ground to a halt already. But for the record, the thread isn't about whether Alexei had hemophilia, the thread is about whether Tammet was Alexei.

And Skirt, your interpretation of how Mr. Kendrick has been treated is incredibly condescending to him. He is not a child, and he has demonstrated many times on this thread that he has no intention of providing the information requested.

Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Tsarfan on November 17, 2006, 03:57:30 PM
You're right, Bear.

Kendrick is on the up-and-up.  Tammet was Alexei.

Thanks for your disciplined examination of this very difficult subject and for providing the light that brings us to this realization.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: AGRBear on November 17, 2006, 04:34:37 PM
You're right, Bear.

Kendrick is on the up-and-up.  Tammet was Alexei.

Thanks for your disciplined examination of this very difficult subject and for providing the light that brings us to this realization.


???  ???   ???

I thought you agreed with me that Tammet was NOT Alexei?

What did  Kendrich say  which swayed you his way?

AGRBear

Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: skirt on November 17, 2006, 04:36:54 PM
Thank you for explaining your feelings Tsarfan- I am beginning to feel your frustration.
In my opinion I do not beleive that Kendrick intentionally means to insult anyone- but is merely playing the game.  Intentions (IMHO) are everything, and will continue to turn the other cheek, looking for the good....
I do not feel comfortable in looking someone in the eye and telling them they are stupid or wrong- perhaps that means I am lacking assertiveness.  I would far rather keep my unsavoury comments to myself.  I'm beginning to feel like the only one..

As far as being incredibly condescending to Mr.Kendrick- perhaps I was.  For that I apologise for my unsavory and juvenile (Dick and Jane) example of how one could use concideration with one another.
It appears on this board that vocalizing uncontrolled frustration and lack of manners by resorting to insults and name-calling is more appropriate  ;)
I too would like an explaination concerning the lack of requested information- but I'm not holding my breath.  He has better things to do then entertain us. right?
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: AGRBear on November 17, 2006, 04:38:16 PM
Bear,

Mr. Kendrick has introduced the topic of Alexei's disease. It is fair to ask him what medical expertise he possesses that allows him to either diagnose Alexei, or interpret others' diagnoses of the boy.

.. [in part]...


I agree.   And, he has told us,  if my memory serves me correct.y, and he said he did not have a medical degree. 

With or without a medical degree,   he can  asked questions about the diagnosis.   Is there any reason he can not?

AGRBear
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: skirt on November 17, 2006, 04:44:50 PM
It just occured to me (oddly humourous) that there is only ONE person that has posted here that openly believes that Heino Tammet was Alexei!! Five pages in this thread alone ..

Is anyone going to contact that Dr.Ivanov guy?
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 17, 2006, 04:48:27 PM
Thank you for explaining your feelings Tsarfan- I am beginning to feel your frustration.
In my opinion I do not beleive that Kendrick intentionally means to insult anyone- but is merely playing the game.  Intentions (IMHO) are everything, and will continue to turn the other cheek, looking for the good....
I do not feel comfortable in looking someone in the eye and telling them they are stupid or wrong- perhaps that means I am lacking assertiveness.  I would far rather keep my unsavoury comments to myself.  I'm beginning to feel like the only one..

As far as being incredibly condescending to Mr.Kendrick- perhaps I was.  For that I apologise for my unsavory and juvenile (Dick and Jane) example of how one could use concideration with one another.
It appears on this board that vocalizing uncontrolled frustration and lack of manners by resorting to insults and name-calling is more appropriate  ;)
I too would like an explaination concerning the lack of requested information- but I'm not holding my breath.  He has better things to do then entertain us. right?


Gee, passive-aggressive much?
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 17, 2006, 04:50:05 PM
Bear,

Mr. Kendrick has introduced the topic of Alexei's disease. It is fair to ask him what medical expertise he possesses that allows him to either diagnose Alexei, or interpret others' diagnoses of the boy.

.. [in part]...


I agree.   And, he has told us,  if my memory serves me correct.y, and he said he did not have a medical degree. 

With or without a medical degree,   he can  asked questions about the diagnosis.   Is there any reason he can not?

AGRBear

If you ever get around to actually reading this thread, you will notice that Mr. Kendrick is not asking questions, Bear, he is making assertions.

Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: skirt on November 17, 2006, 05:02:22 PM
Thanks YES!! can you help with this one??? ::)
BTW- the manifestation of passive aggressive behaviour is underlying AGGRESSION.\

*drops the gloves*

you wanna take this outside!?!?

runs and cowers in the corner.  hows that for a demonstration of passive aggressive?

Your funny Louis_Charles, I will refrain from name-calling, as being overly opinionated isnt lady-like! lol

Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 17, 2006, 05:05:29 PM
You're a woman?

Anyway . . . you are exactly right about the underlying motivation of passive/aggressive behavior. Which is, of course, my point.

Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: skirt on November 17, 2006, 05:24:08 PM
 ;D

I am so grateful that we agree on your point.
I am fully aware of the definition of passive/aggressive behaviour. I absolutely LOVE that motivation.
Did you actually have anything to add to this topic that we are discussing?
You usually have something useful, witty and insightful to add
(other then cyber-smacking other posters..)
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Louis_Charles on November 17, 2006, 06:02:42 PM
Nope, that's about it. Last one off the thread, turn out the lights.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: AGRBear on November 17, 2006, 06:19:21 PM
Bear,

Mr. Kendrick has introduced the topic of Alexei's disease. It is fair to ask him what medical expertise he possesses that allows him to either diagnose Alexei, or interpret others' diagnoses of the boy.

.. [in part]...


I agree.   And, he has told us,  if my memory serves me correct.y, and he said he did not have a medical degree. 

With or without a medical degree,   he can  asked questions about the diagnosis.   Is there any reason he can not?

AGRBear

If you ever get around to actually reading this thread, you will notice that Mr. Kendrick is not asking questions, Bear, he is making assertions.



It appears I have to find another link to understand this link and  probably go and find just about everything Kendrick has posted so I can undesrstand the emotions of other posters which surround his posts.   Where would be a good place to start,  Louis-Charles (Simon)?

AGRBear

Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Tsarfan on November 17, 2006, 07:57:20 PM
Start with the Mounties examining the testicles.  I think it was the testicles that made things so emotional.  We just don't get to talk about them much on this board.  Yep . . . the more I think about it, it was definitely the testicles.

But wait.  Maybe it was Princess Anne's telegraphic recognition of her long-lost cousin?  Or finding out Heino Tammet was a secret code name referring to the English Restoration?

No . . . it was the testicles.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Belochka on November 17, 2006, 10:53:02 PM
Moving over the Canadian article I posted on another thread:

See: http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Features/2006/09/30/1924843-cp.html

Missing heir to Russian throne buried in Burnaby: widow

By JEREMY HAINSWORTH

BURNABY, B.C. (CP) - Tucked next to a hedge in a cemetery rests a simple headstone covered in grass clippings, a grave that poses a complex historical question.

The marker bears the double-headed eagle of the Russian Imperial Family. Below the flag is the name Romanov His Imperial Highness Alexei Nicolaievich Czarevitch Sovereign Heir Grand Duke of Russia.

If the remains beneath the stone are those of that Alexei, he was son of Czar Nicholas II, heir to the Russian throne.

Alexei was allegedly killed with his family by the Bolsheviks in 1918 following the Russian Revolution the previous year, but his remains have never been identified, creating another mystery around a family that has many.

The Burnaby grave belongs to Alexei Tammet-Romanov, who died June 26, 1977.

..... snipped

Vancouver journalist and period historian John Kendrick believes Tammet-Romanov is the czarevitch.

Not so, say the academics.

Michael Futrell, a retired University of British Columbia professor, firmly believes Alexei Romanov died in 1918.

"There's been so many crooks and lunatics and swindlers involved in this thing for so many years," he said.

And he's got a friend of the Romanov Imperial family in his corner.

Marvin Lyons, also a historian, said Tammet-Romanov's story is ridiculous.  

"I've known about this man and his claims since the mid-1970s," said Lyons, who now lives in Richmond, B.C.

"This is all make-believe."  

Tammet-Romanov said her husband expected people would not believe his claims of nobility.

"'I know who I am,"' she says he told her. "'No one can say who I am or not."'

Tammet-Romanov could not forgive the Communists for the executions.

"'To kill father and myself (was acceptable given their positions), but to kill my mother and my beautiful sisters, I cannot forgive,"' she recounts him saying.

On Thursday, the remains of Maria Feodorovna, mother of Nicholas II, were returned to Russia and interred in the Imperial family tomb in St. Petersburg. She fled Russia after the Revolution and lived in Denmark, where she was buried after her death in 1928.

She would have been Tammet-Romanov's grandmother, if he is who Kendrick and his wife believe he is.

Kendrick readily acknowledges stories about pretenders to thrones often lack credibility.

But he said there are too many things about Tammet-Romanov he wants answers to.

When the Duke of Windsor died in 1972, Tammet-Romanov sent a letter of condolence to the Queen, signing it with his royal title.

The RCMP arrived at Tammet-Romanov's Burnaby home soon after.  

He showed them a scar he said came from the butt of a rifle during the executions. He also showed them he had an undescended testicle, as did the czarevitch, his widow explains.

"You cannot have so much wound up in one person unless it is that person," she said.

It was Lyons who called the RCMP after the letter to the Queen.

He did so after being asked to look into Tammet-Romanov by Lord Louis Mountbatten, uncle to the Queen's husband, Prince Philip.

"There are all kinds of these people around," Lyons said. "Most of them are not criminals. They're not even mentally ill in the normal sense of the word.

"They're just people who are unhappy about their role in life and are trying to create something that is more interesting."

A year later, when the Queen's daughter, Princess Anne, married Mark Phillips at Westminster Abbey, Tammet-Romanov again sent a telegram.

A thank-you telegram came back addressed to Alexei Nicolaevich, Czarevitch, Grand Duke of Russia.

The same thing happened when King Carl Gustav of Sweden married Queen Silvia in 1976.

Kendrick asks why the crowned heads of Europe and their families would be responding to this man, addressing him with the titles of the heir to the Russian throne.
 
.... snipped

"Kendrick, however, remains mystified about one thing.

He said Tammet-Romanov's widow sent two of her husband's teeth for DNA analysis in England so the mystery could finally be solved, but the results have never been released.

Kendrick believes nothing will be released until after Tammet-Romanov's sons from one of his previous marriages have died.

"If he's for real, they are heirs and they can claim czar's rights," Kendrick said.

The RCMP must have been miffed about Tammet revealing a State secret. Was he arrested for this exposure?  ;D
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Forum Admin on November 17, 2006, 11:26:02 PM
His Title was "Tsetsarevich".  Alexei would, of course, have known this perfectly well.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Belochka on November 17, 2006, 11:30:40 PM
Mr Kendrick,

There is really one valid absolute in this fiction that you persist with.

The Estonian-Canadian selected the wrong title for himself.

After the Emperor of Russia, Nikolai II had bypassed His son in His signed Abdication document, Alexei was no longer:

Его Императорское Высочество Наследник Цесаревич etc.

Your man was a delusional individual who required counselling, a lesson or two in Russian Imperial history and not exposure.  :o

Margarita
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 19, 2006, 10:10:42 AM
Start with the Mounties examining the testicles.  I think it was the testicles that made things so emotional.  We just don't get to talk about them much on this board.  Yep . . . the more I think about it, it was definitely the testicles.

But wait.  Maybe it was Princess Anne's telegraphic recognition of her long-lost cousin?  Or finding out Heino Tammet was a secret code name referring to the English Restoration?

No . . . it was the testicles.

It was definitely the testicles, or the testicle (singular)  - as the case was.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Tania+ on November 19, 2006, 12:41:33 PM
FA...

obviously, some posters are getting credentialed status confused with offering real historical facts with hysterical meandering...This is really getting stale to most readers in some posters deliberate focusing on the 'big T' issue, and as an adult one would think one would really abide by the center of focus in addressing the subject matter...how many times must posters be looking at this over and over ????  get a grip, or should two slices be provided for those without ?  :D

Children are still coming to these threads, so kindly think before you post, thank you !

Tatiana+
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Helen_Azar on November 20, 2006, 07:43:28 AM
Thanks for another sermon, Tania. That was very nice, although as usual it makes very little sense...

Now... may I be the one to turn off the lights? (But I am sure that's too much to hope for...)   


Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: LisaDavidson on November 20, 2006, 04:12:07 PM
I am going to allow "the t word" as it is pertinent to discussions about Alexei Nicholievich. It is not being used inappropriately and school students accessing this Forum I trust have proper adult mentors who can answer any questions. Children of today, whether we like it or not, are fairly used to this terminology and worse when in comes to describing this part of the male body.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Tsarfan on November 20, 2006, 05:12:09 PM

Children are still coming to these threads, so kindly think before you post, thank you !


As the chief offender, I will desist from further use of "the word".

However, I think the real risk to the "children" who come onto these threads lies in the more-experienced students of history treating these specious claims based on flimsy -- even ludicrous -- evidence as if they merited a serious examination or discussion.

The study of history is not about showing respect to every crackpot theory that comes down the pike.  It's about treating tenable claims seriously, with disciplined examination, and debunking absurd claims for the jokes they are.

So, yes, Tatiana . . . "think before you post".  Children should not be taught that all claims are worth respect just because they were made . . . or that history can best be understood by metaphysical musings and rapturous summonings of idealized images of a past that never actually existed.

History is gritty stuff.  Went it drops you off on Fantasy Island,  it's no longer history.  It's daydreaming with an agenda.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Forum Admin on November 20, 2006, 05:19:58 PM
Lisa is quite right, and lets be honest, all the boy users have them, so they should at least already know the word...We did allow the thread about Alexei's condition to stand.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: AaronGlaeser on November 24, 2006, 01:30:08 PM
I agree with the FA and Lisa.  It is a medical condition.  If we were discussing other medical conditions such as cancer, AIDS, asthma or the like, there would be no objection.  Yet it should be noted that if the use of derogatory slang terms, which I have fortunately not seen on this forum, would be used in this discussion that would be completely inapropriate.  This would be as inapropriate as using slang or derogatory terms to discuss an illness such as AIDS. 

If the, 'T word', is used in its true form and by not using profane and derogatory slang equivalents, then it is completely acceptable. 

Best Wishes,

Aaron
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Baby Tsarevich on February 01, 2007, 06:05:47 PM


Alyoshenka was shot close range in the right temple, and I think that would do more to a person (let alone a hemophiliac) than than deafen him.

entified the Grand Duchesses. You would think someone that close to them could tell hih "sisters" apart from one another.

I read somewhere that the account of him being shot in the temple might of been made up by Ermakov and Yurovsky to cover up the fact that he was missing. If you read their accounts of the murder, when they describe something on the bodies, they never mention Alexei and didn't they send a search party out to search for missing bodies?

-Anya
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: discover212 on February 09, 2007, 03:42:24 PM
Hi,
following some mail exchanges with mrs. Romanov and some very easy searchs and correspondence outside Canada....nothing is convincing in her arguments !


prince
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: lexi4 on February 09, 2007, 05:43:39 PM
How were you able to get her email address? Have you communicated with Mr. Kendrick?
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: discover212 on February 10, 2007, 11:58:34 AM
It was rather easy to have her address.on the other hand I 've not been really convinced by Kendricks... :-\





prince
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Kurt Steiner on February 10, 2007, 01:39:25 PM
 Alexei Poutziato, Joseph Veres, Heino Tammet, Vassili Filatov...  who's next?

 
   
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Robert_Hall on February 10, 2007, 01:43:44 PM
Mical Goleniewsky & Michael Gray come to mind...
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: discover212 on February 11, 2007, 10:52:37 AM
Anyway...all we have until now from JK and Mrs.Brown is words...words...words. Nothing else.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: strom on April 18, 2007, 01:52:19 PM
Quote
Filatov's family does seem to bear a striking resemblance to the Alexandrovich.  Moreover, there seems to be strong reason to believe that Alexei survived.  Whatever happened during those last hours in the Ipatiev house, and I suspect there are a number of separate and competing threads to the story, what was put over as history by the Western and Soviet authorities --intellectual and otherwise, is not what happened.  

Whomever he is,  he apparently believes in Filatov's claim.  And, apparently thinks Alexei escaped and hopes to prove that something else occured than what Yurovsky and the others claimed.

I can agree on that there might have been an escape, however, like many others,  I don't see anything that gives me reason to believe that Filatov was Alexei.  I think it was his height [Fliatov was far too short] that convinced me.....  But I'm just one person and I've not really gone into his story accept for what's been on the various threads.

As for children being born out of wedlock in the royal Romanovs.  I'm sure that it occured.  I doubt that anyone kept records.  DNA testing can quickly establish relationships these days, so, if there is a question,  it can be shown through such testing.

AGRBear

PS:  Over on the following thread are photographs:
http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=loonies;action=display;num=1089372646;start=0#0
PSS  Welcome to our forum MariaR.  It is always good to hear new voices and if anyone "flames" you,  send me a PM [personal message] and let me know when and where because I know what it feels like   ::) .....

There are many aspects of the 'Filatov' family narrative that point to a close affinity with the Imperial Family.  As regards his resemblance (and that of his children) to the Alexandrovich it must be granted that the man suffered much --far more than we can even imagine if his story is true.  That fact can change a man.  One cannot but wonder how much the Soviets knew of him and his real identity.  Is that why the Putin government keeps a security guard on his son? 
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Bob_the_builder on May 18, 2007, 07:58:05 PM
To answer the topic, No.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: discover212 on June 18, 2007, 07:32:46 PM
The story of Tammet is as stupid as the one of Vasily Filatov...Both almost identical ! ??? ???
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Cody on February 07, 2008, 11:55:20 AM
I was wondering if anybody has heard what ever became of the claim from Vassili Filatov's family that he was Tsarevich Alexei?  I have a copy of his story, that came out in 1998, and it shows his son giving a sample of his blood for DNA testing.  Just curious if anyone knew what became of it?
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 07, 2008, 12:29:13 PM
I was wondering if anybody has heard what ever became of the claim from Vassili Filatov's family that he was Tsarevich Alexei? 

Nothing, I think... Not even sure if they ever performed the DNA tests on them...
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: ChristineM on February 27, 2008, 08:53:35 AM
I've met him as well as interviewed him for a British national newspaper.

He managed to convince some members of the Russian Orthodox clergy of the claim - that is how I was introduced to him.   I haven't heard anything of either him or his sister, Irina. for some time.

ChristineM
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 27, 2008, 09:13:10 AM
I've met him as well as interviewed him for a British national newspaper.

He managed to convince some members of the Russian Orthodox clergy of the claim - that is how I was introduced to him.   I haven't heard anything of either him or his sister, Irina. for some time.

ChristineM

Did they ever do any genetic testing on him? I assume no, because we probably would have heard about it (?).
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: LisaDavidson on March 25, 2008, 05:54:00 PM
I heard the tests were negative. No surprise there.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Cody on March 26, 2008, 02:06:09 AM
I heard the tests were negative. No surprise there.

But I'll have to at least give something for conviction.  I mean, his children certain thought there was some truth to his story--and one has to wonder why he would have lied near the end of his life?  Regardless of which, theories like this will probably be a thing of the past within a couple of months.

Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: LisaDavidson on March 27, 2008, 01:29:29 AM
I heard the tests were negative. No surprise there.

But I'll have to at least give something for conviction.  I mean, his children certain thought there was some truth to his story--and one has to wonder why he would have lied near the end of his life?  Regardless of which, theories like this will probably be a thing of the past within a couple of months.



Don't bet on it. I think it has been abundantly clear that the family died that night for a very long time - but people will continue to come out of the woodwork saying they are related to them.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Grand_Duchess_Aminta on April 16, 2008, 07:22:52 AM
I was thinking that if anyone has a bigger picture of Heino Tammet? I would really like to see how he looked like because I have seen only one small photo of him and it didn`t give me a general picture of him.
I really don t know why but I see something interesting in this case. I am estonian too so I think it is the answer why this story is quite fascinating to me.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Alixz on April 17, 2008, 01:48:26 AM
Isn't the plural "testes"?   Testis (plural, Testes) meaning including Testis (plural, Testes) definition and what Testis (plural, Testes) actually means!
www.biologyglossary.net/definition/3006-Testis_plural,_Testes - 12k

Sorry, couldn't resist.

I am interested is all reports of "survivors" just because each has its own unique way of expxlaining what didn't happen.  Such mastery of fiction is quite interesting.  Such imagination!
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Annie on April 17, 2008, 05:54:26 PM
There was a very informative myspace devoted to him, but I just checked, and it appears to be gone.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: constance on June 08, 2008, 02:30:47 PM
I truly believe that Vassill Failatov was the Czar.  For a very long time, I have been reading everything I can get my hands on about the family and there is just too much unanswered still.  After working on it for awhile, I actually get depressed - really.  Why I do not know,  Usually when this happens it is because there is something I know (deep inside me) and I can't find it to help the situation.

In my reading, there are so many different situations and one must do the best they can to sort everything out.  I cannot imagine why any individual would carry this burden with them for most of their life and then - near the end - tell his family.  He doesn't even come right out and tell them, he still keeps a bit of reservation with his comments, like he is afraid something will happen to either himself or his family if the truth gets out.  That is a hugh burden to carry for your entire life.  Why would he put his family through this - at this point.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: LisaDavidson on June 08, 2008, 09:46:56 PM
I truly believe that Vassill Failatov was the Czar.  For a very long time, I have been reading everything I can get my hands on about the family and there is just too much unanswered still.  After working on it for awhile, I actually get depressed - really.  Why I do not know,  Usually when this happens it is because there is something I know (deep inside me) and I can't find it to help the situation.

In my reading, there are so many different situations and one must do the best they can to sort everything out.  I cannot imagine why any individual would carry this burden with them for most of their life and then - near the end - tell his family.  He doesn't even come right out and tell them, he still keeps a bit of reservation with his comments, like he is afraid something will happen to either himself or his family if the truth gets out.  That is a hugh burden to carry for your entire life.  Why would he put his family through this - at this point.

You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but there has been no tsar in Russia since 1917 - so no one - not Filatov, not any of the Romanov heirs - none can be said to be "The Tsar".

I too used to wonder why someone would say they were related to the Imperial Family, especially at the end of his/her life. But, sometimes people, especially people who won't be around long, feel they have nothing to lose, and also that by themselves, they are not so interesting.

It is entirely possible that Filatov was living in Ekaterinburg when the IF was there, and that at least part of his story was true.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Martinqm on July 01, 2008, 11:17:55 AM
As I was looking through an autobiography my mother wrote before she died, I came across a couple of paragraphs, which inspired me to look up on Google and hence find this forum.
My mother when she was about 12 in 1932 she attended a convent school called St. Michaels in Cirencester, Gloucestershire. While she was there she met a  Russian girl called Iya Zmeyova, who was 14 "but so small that she had the stature of a girl of about nine or ten". This girl "spoke very little English, but had very good French". My mother was fluent in French and so was assigned as Iya's guardian. She continues: "She had a fascinating history. It appeared that her family had been murdered by the Bolsheviks when she was two, but she had been hidden by her uncle, then a boy of fourteen. Somehow they managed to escape together out of Russia and reached Yugoslavia. The uncleís name was  Nicolai Tchebotarev and he must have been a pretty remarkable boy to have made such a perilous journey with a baby of two. She was always talking about him and saying how wonderful he was. One day, I was asked to go to the ante-room as there was someone there who wanted to see me. When I got there, I found Sister Ursula with Iya and an extremely good-looking young man. This turned out to be the famous Nicolai, who was then about twenty-six. I thought I had been privileged to meet him because I had been looking after Iya, but it then turned out that there was another strange coincidence. Nicolai had somehow finished up in Ireland, although I never discovered whether Iya had gone with him or whether she had been left behind in France. He got himself a job working with horses and of all the strange things met my uncle, Gerald Wynter, in Co. Wexford. I was amazed, especially as there were a lot of discrepancies that did not add up. Nicolai eventually brought Iya to England, but I do not think that it was anything to do with me that she finished up at my school. I presume that Uncle Gerald had mentioned my family and me in some connection, but I find it hard to believe that he ever told Nicolai where I was at school."
After googling a bit I came up with Nicolai Chebotarev, who was the subject of a book called Blood Relative by Michael Gray. I have not read the book but what I have gleaned is that there was a Nicolai Chebotarev, who was at some point in Ireland, who has some mystery in conection with Russian royalty. It seems highly likely that the two are one and the same and that at least some of Gray's claims are based on fact, as I have absolutely no reason to doubt my mother's version of events. In fact she never claims any knowledge about any further history other than the boy and his baby niece managed to arrive in Yugoslavia and spent much of their subsequent time in France. In fact the tale ends with the following "She owed her tiny stature to the malnutrition and privations, which she suffered as a small child. I was always puzzled as to how Nicolai was able to send her to a private Anglican convent and how he was able to pay for it. Perhaps it was for this reason that she did not stay long at the school and that was the last we ever saw of her and Nicolai". This innocence of why the couple disappeared ie for financial reasons, would imply she had no inkling about any other motives for just disappearing, especially as Iya and my mother appear to have been quite close.
I have become extremely interested in this story and wonder if anybody has any more information. To escape from Bolshevik Russia as a 14 year old with a two year old baby in tow, must have been recounted somewhere. I hope someone can follow this up and I look forward to hearing from him.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: LisaDavidson on July 07, 2008, 04:09:24 PM
There were doubtless many members of the nobility in Russia who suffered during the Revolution and escaped out of Russia. That is probably the case with these two - not Imperial Family members, but people torn from their native lands.

Prince Rostislav Rostislavovich's mother was one such unfortunate - she was sent to a prison camp as a young girl after the Revolution. After her escape, she made her way to Chicago with her brother. She met Prince Rostislav Alexandrovich and married him - then gave birth to Rosti in 1939.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: angele on October 10, 2008, 02:01:14 PM
thanks i found that really interesting. I read Blood relative when it first came out (it was one of those books you think dont read because its ridiculous but the temptation was too much.) from the start i very much doubted even a close link with the romanovs but it was quite fascinating as to the unknown mystery in general behind it all as has been alluded to
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Papa on February 09, 2009, 02:52:51 PM
Hello, I am new to the site. I was doing an internet search on latest developments on the DNA tests of the two children's bodies that were found last July.  Does anyone know what the process used was, and the final results? The last item that I could find said that the results were not conclusive, pending foreign collaboration.

Also, I remember Peter Kurth's article in Vanity Fair, some years back saying that Russians believed that it was Anastasia's body found in 1991, but that many foreigners, British and American, believed it to be Maria.

Also, was Grand Duke Michael's body ever found, aliong with his secretary Johnson? I know that murder occured in Perm, not far from Ipatiev House.

Many thanks, and apologies if this was already posted, but since I am new . . .
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Forum Admin on February 09, 2009, 05:37:52 PM
The answers to all your questions are here in the Forum. Please use the search function, and I specifically point you to the DNA thread in this section for the latest results.

Welcome.

Rob
FA
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Papa on February 14, 2009, 03:49:23 PM
I think that maybe you have replied to my query/post writtten last week. I am not sure because I find your site somewhat difficult to manouever, but I will try. Thanking you in advance.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: LisaDavidson on February 15, 2009, 09:23:10 PM
Hello, I am new to the site. I was doing an internet search on latest developments on the DNA tests of the two children's bodies that were found last July.  Does anyone know what the process used was, and the final results? The last item that I could find said that the results were not conclusive, pending foreign collaboration.

Also, I remember Peter Kurth's article in Vanity Fair, some years back saying that Russians believed that it was Anastasia's body found in 1991, but that many foreigners, British and American, believed it to be Maria.

Also, was Grand Duke Michael's body ever found, aliong with his secretary Johnson? I know that murder occured in Perm, not far from Ipatiev House.

Many thanks, and apologies if this was already posted, but since I am new . . .

Grand Duke Michael's body has never been found, nor the remains of his secretary.

With the confirmation of the identities of the two bodies found in 2007 as being the son and a daughter of Nicholas and Alexandra, there is no longer any reasonable doubt that the family perished together. I am not a scientist or a DNA expert, so I don't know the particulars of the studies.

And, we can never be conclusively sure which daughter was in the two bodies grave - because the remains were in such poor condition.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Maria Romanova on May 19, 2009, 03:58:12 AM
(http://i597.photobucket.com/albums/tt58/tatianabettergirl/marc_alexei-1.jpg) A claimant of Alexei. (Marc Romanov) :)
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Maria Romanova on June 28, 2009, 02:21:54 PM
Marc Romanov = In 1943 in Moscow a man named Marc said to be Alexei Romanov. In the 1945 Marc it dies of hemophilia and on his will (still addressed to all the alive members of the family Romanov) it says "I am Alexei Romanov. The 16 July of 1918 all of my family was shot. A soldier saved me and brought me to live to his house. This soldier blackmailed me: in exchange for his rescue I would have had to be violated sexually. For years this accursed history has lasted until, one day, I escaped. The name of the soldier that saved me is Piotr Ermakov. In 1923 I went me to Moscow. I began to work as a worker the most absurd job that could happen to a child of a king! Have married a woman named Antholit Jamickye, of originate English, that is dead two months later our marriage of a heart attack! Unfortunately I cannot leave heirs... And it is for this that I submit all of my goods to the few members of the Romanov family." Sorry for the bad English!
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Douglas on July 01, 2009, 06:25:35 PM
Sorry Marc, but members of the Imperial family can be spotted a mile away.  They all had that certain royal essence about them.  The Tsars' dear sister Olga had it....Anna Anderson didn't, not one drop.

If you were really the heir of the Romanov throne,  it would have been very obvious to everyone that ever came to within an inch of your being.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

Yes, *Tina*...very absurd.   I guess this is the silly season of early summer.....we all need some humor.

Douglas

Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Nayomini on July 20, 2009, 10:18:33 AM
Like all of you, I too am an avid Romanov fan and often cruise the net in search of more and more info and research on the IF. I happened to stumble upon a Canadian journalist's story which claims that the Tsarevich Alexei did survive the execution and went on to live in Canada. I am sure some of you may have seen it and maybe it is just fueling the conspiracy theory but I felt it was worth a read - the link is at   http://www.npsnet.com/tsarevich_alexei/index.html. With all of the open ended questions on the DNA tests used
 this maybe worth a read. No theories, just a read I guess. The claims about the illness not being what everyone though it was, I thought made some sense. Anyone's got any more to add to this? Thanks 
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Douglas on July 20, 2009, 11:55:15 AM
I really don't think the story is worth a read.  We've gone over this many times.  And besides that, the Heirs' remains have been located, DNA ID and were buried next to his parents.

I suppose one could read it for humor in a macabre sense.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Nayomini on July 21, 2009, 03:45:58 AM
Thanks Douglas. What concerned me really was all the info on his blood related illness which the author said was not what we all thought it was.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Alixz on July 21, 2009, 08:07:17 AM
This story has been going around for a long time.

All of the "survivors' are frauds as we know that all of the family and their retainers have been found.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Robert_Hall on July 21, 2009, 10:24:20 AM
Although it is fairly certain that the Heir had hemophilia, it would make no difference if he was misdiagnosed as he still ended up dead in that cellar in Ekaterinburg.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: J_Kendrick on July 21, 2009, 03:09:40 PM
Although it is fairly certain that the Heir had hemophilia, it would make no difference if he was misdiagnosed as he still ended up dead in that cellar in Ekaterinburg.

Sorry... but I just can't resist jumping in here....  ;-D

No matter what the latest DNA reports of both Drs. Coble and Rogaev may now say...

There is *still* no scientific laboratory evidence whatsoever of an X-linked blood disease in the Russian Imperial family.

... and yes...

It does make a very big difference if Alexei was, in fact, misdiagnosed.... because that same still totally unproven claim of the existence of Hemophilia in the Royal family line is now used to this day as the prime example of the basics of genetic inheritance in every medical and biology class that is now conducted at every university on the planet.

With no DNA proof whatsoever of the existence of an X-linked blood disease in those same Romanov remains, it is now very possible that every single one of the professors who are conducting those same university medical and biology lessons and the textbooks now used in those same classes are basing their lessons on a historically popular medical claim about Russia's Imperial family that is, in fact, totally false.

Cheers! ;-)
JK
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/109593773/ABSTRACT
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Alixz on July 22, 2009, 08:32:11 AM
Hello Mr. Kendrick.

You know that your opinions are always welcome here on the forum.

However, for those who have not followed this story as completely as you and the Forum Administrator have, please remember to let the new posters know that your opinions are just that.  Opinions.

The discovery of the remains of the Romanovs in Pigs Meadow and the reburial on those same remains in the Fortress of Sts Peter and Paul is the official and historical conclusion to all of the "myths and legends" of survivors.

The family and descendants of Heino Tammet have not yet given us confirmed proof of their story.  Until they do, it will remain a theory and an opinion.  There has been much "talk" over the years, but no one has yet produced proof that Heino Tammet was in any way related to the Imperial Family.

Please, do not start yet another contentious discussion about this "case".

Thank you,
Alixz
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Forum Admin on July 22, 2009, 09:03:24 AM
Yes, an opinion and case which can be conclusively proven if someone would just pony up the $1,000 for the DNA test on that tooth...we could know for certain if it matches the known Nicholas II and known Alexandra/Victoria line DNA, then there would be no contention.  But, that wouldn't be fun for JK anymore now would it??
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: J_Kendrick on July 22, 2009, 04:13:12 PM
Hello Mr. Kendrick.

You know that your opinions are always welcome here on the forum.

However, for those who have not followed this story as completely as you and the Forum Administrator have, please remember to let the new posters know that your opinions are just that.  Opinions.

The discovery of the remains of the Romanovs in Pigs Meadow and the reburial on those same remains in the Fortress of Sts Peter and Paul is the official and historical conclusion to all of the "myths and legends" of survivors.

The family and descendants of Heino Tammet have not yet given us confirmed proof of their story.  Until they do, it will remain a theory and an opinion.  There has been much "talk" over the years, but no one has yet produced proof that Heino Tammet was in any way related to the Imperial Family.

Please, do not start yet another contentious discussion about this "case".

Thank you,
Alixz

You have mis-read my post.

I am not responding here in regard to the case of any claimant.

I am only responding to the statement made here by the poster Robert Hall that claims: "It would make no difference if he (Alexei) was misdiagnosed"

It most certainly does make a very big difference if Alexei's disorder has been misdiagnosed.

Even with the discovery of a small number of bone fragments in the summer of 2007, there is *still* no scientific laboratory evidence whatsoever of an X-linked blood disease in the Russian Imperial family.

That is not a statement of opinion.  It is a statement of fact.

It is also a statement of fact -- and not a statement of opinion -- that... without any DNA evidence an X-linked blood disease at all from any of the Romanov remains... it is now very possible that every single history, medical and, biology lesson at every university on the planet... and every single textbook that is now used in those same lessons...  is still teaching a historically popular medical claim about Russia's Imperial family that may, in fact, be totally false.

For that one reason alone, the still unanswered obligation of those very same investigators who have identified the Romanov remains to actually prove the suspected presence of a suspected faulty Factor VIII gene once and for all... is now more important than ever before.

In truth, this same question of Alexei's very possible mis-diagnosis more properly belongs in a discussion thread about hemophilia... and not in a thread about claimants.

JK
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Robert_Hall on July 22, 2009, 04:20:57 PM
Mr Kendrick, with all due respect, you misunderstood the point of MY post- that is Aleksei died in the cellar.  No matter what his illness was, he was shot and killed there. He was not the first nor the last royal prince to have been diagnosed as a hemophiliac, he was not unique in that respect.  In any case, his illness is irrelevant to his fate- he died with his family. That is the only important issue in this discussion.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: J_Kendrick on July 22, 2009, 04:56:23 PM
Mr Kendrick, with all due respect, you misunderstood the point of MY post- that is Aleksei died in the cellar.  No matter what his illness was, she was shot and killed there. He was not the first nor the last royal prince to have been diagnosed as a hemophiliac, he was not unique in that respect.  In any case, his illness is irrelevant to his fate- he died with his family. That is the only important issue in this discussion.

In fact, it is a diathesis... and not a diagnosis... but be that as it may...

No matter how or where Alexei had died... the alleged diathesis has never been proved by any form of scientific laboratory evidence. Those very same investigators who have identified the Romanov remains are still now obliged to actually prove the long-suspected presence of faulty Factor VIII gene once and for all.

That now very necessary DNA evidence of an alleged X-linked blood disease has *still* not been found.

... and making that point clear was the only reason for my post.

JK

Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Michael HR on July 23, 2009, 07:08:17 AM
I think I am with Robert on this one. It really does not matter as the poor lad still ended up butchered in a dirty cellar room along with his family and retainers and at least one innocent beloved dog. Thus bringing to an end the Imperial House as was and then the end of Imperial Russia. He was not the first and not the last to die at the hands of the communists but shows how brutal they were at that time. Thankfully all the remains have been found and they will lie together at rest.

If they ever check the DNA profile of the heir for the confirmation or otherwise of the alleged condition then so be it. But as we know the imperial lines in Europe suffered now and then form this condition and it given all the facts and on the balance of probability the same is for Alexis.

I think it is time to allow the poor boy dignity, respect and peace in death
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Alixz on July 23, 2009, 09:04:04 AM
Since hemophilia was diagnosed within the House of Saxe Coburg Gotha and then brought into the royal houses of Hesse, Hohenzollern, and Spain, why would Alexei then be suffering from any other kind of blood disorder?

None of his "cousins" had anything but hemophilia so why should he.

And if the books are wrong, why isn't that "tooth" being tested for DNA to prove that Tammet was related to the Russian royal family?  Why is it incumbent upon the researchers who found and studied the bones to prove their case?  Why is it not Tammet's family who should do the proving?

Just think of your place in history, Mr. Kendrick, if you were the one to show the world that Alexei did not have hemophilia and that every text we now use is wrong!
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Pegschalet on February 02, 2010, 06:49:18 PM
Is there a link to this claimant?
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Alixz on February 03, 2010, 08:22:51 AM
You are the first to ask about him on his own.

I know that he has to have been discussed here on the forum, but when I did my research to put all of the claimants together, I don't remember finding much about him.

He is mentioned many times in Guy Richards fictional tale - THE HUNT FOR THE CZAR.

Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Alixz on February 03, 2010, 08:36:49 AM
I did a quick search in the AP search function and got Goleniewski twice.

Try that and you may get more.  Try spelling his name differently as some may not have used the correct spelling when posting.

Also, there is always Google.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Pegschalet on February 03, 2010, 02:54:20 PM
Thank-you.  I actually wanted to start a thread on him as I'm doing research for a paper.  The spelling is the way Guy Richards spelled it in his book, "Imperial Agent, The Goleniewski-Romanov Case", by Guy Richards.  Very interesting story so far.

Basically "G" was a Polish Army Officer, Intelligence Agent, possible KGB agent.  He annoymously helped the U.S. for about 3 years before defecting to the U.S.  After a time, when his use as an "informant" was over he began to share the story that he was "Alexei".  I don't believe he was the Tsar's son but his tale leaves me with alot of questions. 

1.  Where did he get the idea to "become Alexei", were there secret KGB or Polish intelligence files that gave him the idea? 

2.  Was this a "KGB" propaganda operation?  If so why, this took place in the 60's, early 70's, Guy Richards book was written in 1966.  At this time period there was a resurgence in interest about the Romanovs.  Robert Massie's "Nicholas and Alexandra" was published in 1967.  Not sure of the date but the Ipatiev House was destroyed I believe in 1970.  Of course the Romanov remains had not been found yet and there was no DNA evidence so it was an interesting period with various conspiracy theories floating around.

3.  Goleniewski just doesn't fit the profile of the usual claimants on this site.  He was not mentally unstable although he could be moody and confrontational.

Anyways

An interesting charactor andI would love to get some input from the forum on him.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Alixz on February 04, 2010, 08:01:11 AM
I have never read IMPERIAL AGENT by Guy Richards, but I have read THE HUNT FOR THE CZAR and I read it when it was new and everyone actually believed that there could have been survivors.

I don't remember which thread, but there were some postings from a forum member who knew Guy Richards and had spoken with him about Goleniewski.

Again you would have to use the search function.  Try Guy Richards or, again, Goleniewski.  There might be a lot of information that was posted long ago that you could find and use for your paper.  Some of the old stuff is very interesting and worth the search effort.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Pegschalet on February 04, 2010, 10:46:20 AM
Thank-you.  I did a search on Guy Richards but all that came up were my own posts.  I'm about 1/2 way through Imperial Agent.  I need to reread "The Rescue of the Romanovs."  It looks like Richards wrote "Imperial Agent" first and orginially he was investigating the spy.  It wasn't until later he learned that Goleniewski claimed he was "Alexei".  He became interested in the story and then wrote "The Rescue of the Romanovs".  What is interesting is that after learning
Goleniewski's story which is mostly just his( Goleniewski's) words Richards writes the next book and comes up with 250 sources for his story.  There is quite a bit of factual information which makes this so intriguing.  We now know that DNA has proved "without a shadow of a doubt" that the Romanovs all died in the Ipatiev House.  Yet there is alot of factual information floating around with no valid conclusion.

As soon as I finish Imperial Agent I will post a synopsis.  You can actually get it pretty cheap on Amazon now.  I paid around $7.

Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: stepan on February 04, 2010, 05:14:41 PM
William Clarke wrote a chapter on Goleniewski in his book Lost Fortune of the Tsars. There is a lot of information there. He made some research in Poland.

There is also a book in French by Pierre de Villemarest about Goleniewski written in the 1980īs.  I havenīt read that one.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Pegschalet on February 04, 2010, 07:44:16 PM
Thank-you.  I have the Lost Fortune of the Tsars so I will check it out.  I had forgotten that chapter.  Not familiar with the french book and my french is minimal.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Dr. Botkin on February 09, 2010, 07:12:18 PM
Yes, one Lt. Col. Michael M. Goleniewski transmitted information to western intelligence, but there is no way of knowing if the individual presenting himself as Goleniewsi at the American embassy in Germany was the same person.  It is possible that Polish intelligence discovered Goleniewski and sent someone in his place to cast doubt on the intelligence from real Goleniewski by claiming to be the Tsarevich. The Goleniewski claiming to be the Tsarevich would never discuss how he and his entire family escaped assassination and ended up in places like Poland and the United States, including Anastasia,who supposedly ended up as a beautician in a Chicago suburb. He disowned the Anna Anderson Anastasia.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Alixz on February 10, 2010, 06:02:00 AM
In Richard's THE HUNT FOR THE CZAR - Goleniewski is supposedly verified as the true tsarevich by a Mr. de Shishmarev (sp?) who claimed to have known Alexei and to have played with him at Tsarskoe Selo as a child.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: aleksandr pavlovich on February 10, 2010, 07:21:36 AM
Re  Reply #9:  Correct, "Alixz."   See my related entry (#3) under the thread " Author Guy Richards."  Kyril (de) Sishmarev and the "Heir" split up as time went on.  I believe that (de) Shishmarev died in 1975.  IMO, he seems to have been an interesting, valid character.  AP
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Alixz on February 10, 2010, 03:32:12 PM
I believed Kryill de Shishmarev to be a valid ex patriot Russian.

I don't know and don't understand his connection to Goleniewski or why he concluded that Goleniewski was the Tsarevich Alexei.


http://forum.alexanderpalace.org/index.php?topic=14570.0   Link to Author Guy Richards in the "books" sub forum.

Thank you AP
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Alixz on February 10, 2010, 03:37:39 PM
By the way - I am making this "sticky" to keep it up with the rest of the claimants.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Pegschalet on February 12, 2010, 05:43:19 PM
Thank-you for all the information.  I'm just about finished with Imperial Spy.  This is the 1st of Guy Richards' books.  I have "Rescue of the Romanovs" and I just ordered "Hunt for the Tsar".  All are available on Amazon for low prices.  Mr. Richards was a respected journalist so I don't believe he made up his information.  At the time he was writing, it was very easy to believe someone had survived.  It was the height of the Cold War and he had none of the documents we have had the privlege to read about and of course he had no DNA evidence.  Based on the information he uncovered I can see how he reached his conclusion.  I also find Shay McNeal's book, "The Secret Plot to Save the Tsar" fascinating.  She has quite a bit of information but just doesn't seem to know where to go with it.

Based on the DNA evidence, their conclusions are incorrect but yet there seems an element of truth to it.  There is a story here, I'm just not sure what "yet".   Was there a failed plan to rescue the Tsar?  Was it propaganda?  My first step is to research the sources and then go from there.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Alixz on February 13, 2010, 10:07:59 AM
Peg,

Good luck with your research.

I read THE HUNT FOR THE CZAR just after it was published and everyone thought that it was a true story.  I think that Richards did a lot of research and came up with what he thought was the truth.

RESCUING THE TSAR had not then been proven to be a hoax and a friend of mine and I actually went to the New York Public Library to see a copy of it.

I was very interested in it because the agent who was supposed to have rescued the Tsar and his family claimed to be descended from a Van Rensselaer and I have that name in my family.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: charley on February 27, 2010, 06:54:09 PM
Michael Goleniewski is listed on the CIA's website. Also I have an acquaintance who worked in Army Intelligence . She was stationed in Europe before the Iron Curtain came down. I asked her if she had ever heard of Michael Goleniewski . She said that she actually recognized the name.  She said that the Polish spies came through and were processed where she was working at one point.  I got excited to ask her more questions, but she got very nervous and said that she was not sure how much of what she did was declassified so she couldn't say anything else.  I didn't press the issue because I did not want to get her in trouble.

What other spellings have been used for him?
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Pegschalet on February 27, 2010, 08:47:12 PM
How fascinating Charley?  Could  you email me privately as I would love to interview your friend for my research?

Well the story is getting more and more interesting.  When Guy Richards was looking into Goleniewski he became aware of other groups who were investigating as well.  One was a group of Carmelite lay people.  The Carmleites are usually monks and nuns who live a cloistered life.  The lay people are devote Catholics who vow to live a life of prayer.  What is a group like this doing investigating a Polish spy who thinks he is the Tsar's son?

In "The Hunt for the Tsar" another Catholic character pops up, a priest by the name of Father Edmond Walsh, who bebops his way around Russia around the time of the Tsar's death.  He wrote a book about his experiences.  A later letter relates a story of seeing the Tsar and Empress alive coming off a gangplank of a ship followed by Father Walsh.  I need to track down his book. 
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: charley on February 27, 2010, 10:50:07 PM
How fascinating Charley?  Could  you email me privately as I would love to interview your friend for my research?
 

No offense Pegschalet, but if she can't talk to me, I don't think she can or will talk to a complete stranger.

 I actually have Father Walshes book. He founded the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown. Apparently he was involved in the Papal Relief Mission in Russia 1922. When he was in Russia, he interviewed people related to the murder of the IF and had all kinds of info about the family. I thought it was strange that he was sent to Russia to feed the hungry and spent a lot of time looking into the IF. I wonder if he knew the family. I remember a picture of the Tsar and he was walking somewhere with a Catholic priest. HHMMMM!?!
Here is a picture of him with McArthur. He doesn't seem like a regular Catholic priest.
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a83/charley4/483px-Edmund_A_Walsh_and_Gen_MacArt.jpg)
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Pegschalet on February 28, 2010, 06:44:03 AM
Very interesting.  Is his book easily available or like most Romanov books very expensive?  Also I wonder if his papers are at Georgetown.  Worth looking into.  Thank-you.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Maria Romanova on October 31, 2010, 10:22:59 AM
Have you some information about this claimant of  Alexei? http://www.romanov-memorial.com/pretenders/pretenders_poutziato.htm  (http://www.romanov-memorial.com/pretenders/pretenders_poutziato.htm)  :?
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: aleksandr pavlovich on October 31, 2010, 11:12:07 AM
Reply to "Maria Romanova":   While I have not done much of an in-depth analysis/research on this particular youngster, VERY basic scanning of resources gives little-to-nothing in the way of information on him.  Essentially the same information (i.e.  including him in a listing) is given over and over.  Seemingly ONE thing IS established for him:  He was the first (allegedly) of the imposters to publically appear in the line of the Heir's pretenders.  After being discredited, he seems to vanish.  Obviously, these types (of YOUNGER people, especially) did not awaken suddenly one day on their own and declare that they were the Heir.  It is my feeling that they were definitely USED by others to further THEIR own cause/s.  IMO, when these young "false heirs" had made their attempt at recognition and had been soundly denounced, they undoubtedly became "expendiable," to the extent that their subsequent disappearance could most likely have been tragic indeed. After all, WHO (or what cause) has the need to be further associated with a "has-been", discredited, youngster who says he is the Heir?  (Please note that I have used throughout this reply the word "youngster" to differentiate them as unskilled, inept imposters, as opposed to the later OLDER ADULTS who could analyze, think "on their feet" and be more evasive/believable in their replies, etc.)  I wish you luck on your inquiries.  AP.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: DIANE on September 29, 2011, 03:22:15 AM
This was a member of the Cheka, G.I. Sukhorukov, who was assigned to go help dispose of the corpses of the Royal Family the next morning. On April 3, 1928 his memoir:... "It was necessary to begin digging up the corpses (after the attempt to burn them the previous night)...the first thing we came across was the leg of the last Nicholas.  He was removed successfully, and then all the others. To be precise, it can be said that everybody was naked, except for the heir, who had on a sailor shirt but no trousers."
hi! you say that Alexej was wearing a sailor shirt, but i always read and in movies is slways so that he had military uniform with hat too
am i wrong?
Sposibo
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: aleksandr pavlovich on November 11, 2011, 07:45:23 PM
This was a member of the Cheka, G.I. Sukhorukov, who was assigned to go help dispose of the corpses of the Royal Family the next morning. On April 3, 1928 his memoir:... "It was necessary to begin digging up the corpses (after the attempt to burn them the previous night)...the first thing we came across was the leg of the last Nicholas.  He was removed successfully, and then all the others. To be precise, it can be said that everybody was naked, except for the heir, who had on a sailor shirt but no trousers."
hi! you say that Alexej was wearing a sailor shirt, but i always read and in movies is slways so that he had military uniform with hat too
am i wrong?
Sposibo
 Since there has been no follow-up to your inquiry, presumptively you have found your answer by now since this has been commented upon several times previously on the Forum.  If not, then here is your answer:  the sailor shirt served the purpose (at least on this occasion) as an undershirt. If I remember correctly, a fragment of such was found in the second grave excavation.                                                                   Regards,  AP.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: TimM on March 07, 2012, 02:41:00 AM
Re:  Michael Goleniewski

How he think anyone would buy his story (Yurovsky helped them escape, yeah, right)?  Like AA, he was lucky that, at the time, the fate of the IF was still a mystery.

Besides, he was too young to have been Alexei.  In 1961, when he first made the claim, Alexei would have been 57.  Goleniewski did NOT look 57 in the pictures I saw.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: aleksandr pavlovich on March 07, 2012, 07:16:42 AM
Re:  Michael Goleniewski

How he think anyone would buy his story (Yurovsky helped them escape, yeah, right)?  Like AA, he was lucky that, at the time, the fate of the IF was still a mystery.

Besides, he was too young to have been Alexei.  In 1961, when he first made the claim, Alexei would have been 57.  Goleniewski did NOT look 57 in the pictures I saw.

 This seems to be a revival of an older topic here.
 I'm commenting on this basicly from memory, thus I could easily stand corrected.  After his defection to the West, when USA and other security obtained what they felt was most/if not all of the information that he had to offer them, they were nonplussed at his continually escalating his claim that he was the Heir.  If I recall correctly, one of his "handlers" said something to the effect that "he had flipped his wig."  Thus his "Imperial" antecedents story came to be treated "in house" as embarassed nonsense.  He was quickly pensioned off and he continued to draw up lists of funds world-wide that he felt were his.  He even found an (authentic) childhood playmate of the Heir (all this has been on the Forum before, name, etc.) who felt indeed that he WAS the Heir via memories of places, conversations, etc. This relationship quickly went downhill.
  He married in the USA, having his marriage performed by a descendant (son?) of Count Grabbe, and the Church chastised the priest for it:  Goleniewski had used the Heir's name on the marriage documents. Thus not everyone believed him and he slid eventually into oblivion.  
  His background in Poland had been checked, even to examining the birth registers/gravestones, etc. of the parents, etc., etc.  
  As to his "illness versus age/appearance", he said that his illness made him a "child twice over," thus he had a youthful appearance.  I'm not even certain that it was determined that he HAD haemophilia.
   Then of course there is the utter nonsense few meetings in the US with his "sister, Anastasia," known as "Eugenia Smith." Interestingly, at least the initial meeting was recorded by the son of a well-known small publishing house.
   All just "passing footnotes" in the pitiful saga of hoped-for survival.
   Amusingly, while Goleniewsi has gone, the Heir still lives!!   Like the quote re the American Santa Claus, "He's everywhere!"  Even on this Forum, the Heir has EARLIER appeared in the form of a no longer contributing member who has said (on several of his MANY little sites) that he has been "certified" by a medium to have the memories of the Heir!  The last time I checked the web site source of the "medium/certifier" who allegedly did the "certifications" ,  she posts at the end of her site under "Terms and Conditions," that "All content is for entertainment purposes only."  But the Heir still lives!     AP.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: TimM on March 07, 2012, 11:18:52 AM
Quote
As to his "illness versus age/appearance", he said that his illness made him a "child twice over," thus he had a youthful appearance

And he actually thought people would buy that silly story!?
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Jen_94 on March 07, 2012, 11:26:18 AM
Too add to that, he was born in 1922, making him a good several years younger than the Tsarevich, making him 34 (if I'm right) when he first made the claim. Such a silly story!
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: TimM on March 07, 2012, 11:30:36 AM
That is why he cooked up this "child twice over" story, to cover the fact that he was almost twenty years younger than Alexei  ::)
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Jen_94 on March 07, 2012, 11:34:40 AM
Yep, adds the silliness of the story definitely!
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Robert_Hall on March 07, 2012, 11:55:16 AM
Tim, people have bought far sillier and still do.
 I this guy's book and almost choked laughing. No way I could take it seriously. Especially his meeting with his "long lost" sister.  That said it all.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Jen_94 on March 07, 2012, 12:14:01 PM
Did Eugenia recognise Michael as Alexei, yet claimed that she was the only survivour at Yekaterinburg? Strange...
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: aleksandr pavlovich on March 07, 2012, 12:24:20 PM
Tim, people have bought far sillier and still do.
 I this guy's book and almost choked laughing. No way I could take it seriously. Especially his meeting with his "long lost" sister.  That said it all.

   Robert, I am certain that you are referring to GUY Richard's booK, "The Hunt for the Czar" (1970). I am unaware that Goleniewski himself wrote and/or published a book/memoir. Yes, agreed it is, IMO, a fallacious tale pieced together from truth and fantasy. One wonders just how much Mr. Richards actually/truly and unquestionably believed, but of course this was BEFORE more recent information became available from pertinent archives, the finding of the remains, etc.
   An addition/clarification I would add to my previous post:  The priest that conducted the marriage was Father Georgi, a NEPHEW of Count Grabbe.  I did not have materials in front of me at the time of last posting and had said "son?"   Regards, AP.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Kalafrana on March 07, 2012, 12:51:15 PM
One of the cases I was involved in when I was training as a solicitor was the HIV haemophilia litigation in the late 1980s. My main job was sifting the medical records of about 30 haemophiliacs treated at the haemophilia centre in Newcastle upon Tyne. All of them aged over 30 had had their knee joints in particular wrecked by bleeds and were having hip and knee replacements (the younger ones, who had grown up in the era of Factor VIII, were much less affected).

There is absolutely no way a haemophiliac of Alexei's generation could have reached adulthood in anything approaching normal health.

Ann
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Robert_Hall on March 07, 2012, 01:42:07 PM
AP, you are probably correct in that, it was Guy Richard's work but "The Imperial Agent was what I was remembering.. However, somewhere in my files I have a magazine article I clipped, LIFE most likely telling his story and the meeting with "Anastasia.  That I cannot access at the moment, my library is going through yet another renovation.
 There is also And Jen, yes,  Eugenia claimed she did not know he had survived. Of course they were both frauds.
 Then there are also "Blood Relative" by  Michael Gray and  "The escape of Alexei" by Petrov, et al.
 These stories are endless, proving Tim's point, people still buy them.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: feodorovna on March 07, 2012, 02:21:10 PM
I wonder where, having written these books that they presumably believe, the authors disappear to. I'm thinking especially of Michael Gray, who clearly believed himself to be the natural son of the Russian Tsarevitch and widowed British Duchess. I have some sympathy for him. As a fellow "adopted" I know how easy it is to latch onto the hope that ones' natural parents are in some way special, but by setting his sights so high, the anti climax, when it came must have been hard. Silly as it may sound, I really wanted his story to be true.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Robert_Hall on March 07, 2012, 03:05:30 PM
His book was better than most, I admit. A good read. But, to me, fiction.
 I know what you mean Feod. about being adopted.  I was pretty much farmed out to relatives and never really knew my father, so I made him a war hero.  Whether or not he was, I have no clue and now, do not care.
   Michael Gray.... I have not been able to find out anything about him recently so do not know waht he is doing now.  I was briefly in contact with him,  as I wrote to him and he responded [1998]  I think he was somehow invloved with John Kennedy [English] in the revival of the ill fated Almanach de Gotha.
 And the reasons ? Who knows ? Is it drive for attention or just to make some money ? The Romanovs have been an open field for this, for centuries, actually.  The false Dimitris, Pugachev, etc.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: aleksandr pavlovich on March 07, 2012, 03:45:56 PM
I wonder where, having written these books that they presumably believe, the authors disappear to. I'm thinking especially of Michael Gray, who clearly believed himself to be the natural son of the Russian Tsarevitch and widowed British Duchess. I have some sympathy for him. As a fellow "adopted" I know how easy it is to latch onto the hope that ones' natural parents are in some way special, but by setting his sights so high, the anti climax, when it came must have been hard. Silly as it may sound, I really wanted his story to be true.

  In the case of author Guy Richards, it is my understanding that he has been dead for some years now.   Regards,   AP.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Jen_94 on March 07, 2012, 04:07:50 PM
I would say it is a bit of both, for attention AND money. More so money, but that is just my own opinion.

And I have just been reading a little about Michael Gray on the internet.The whole story does sound well put together, but as Robert said, fictionalised. Does anyone have any photos of him at all?
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Robert_Hall on March 07, 2012, 04:25:55 PM
Only ones I are in his book, as a baby and at ages 18 and 28. Handsome young man, but no Alexei, IMO. Of course he was not claiming to be the heir, just his illegeimate progeny.
 Some one here on the Forum might though.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: TimM on March 07, 2012, 05:31:29 PM
I've been going through this "survivors" area and some of them just crack me up.  There was one lady here a while ago who claimed she was the great-granddaughter of Nicholas II, through his illegitimate son, George (chortle, snicker).

Then there was Gleb Botkin's son-in-law, Richard Schweitzer, who apparently STILL claims AA was Anastasia, depsite the DNA results.  He was one of those that believed some sinister cabal switched the tissue samples to corrupt the results.  When Rob called him out on this, of course, he wouldn't answer, of course.

As I have repeatedly said, the Flat Earth Society is alive and well.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Robert_Hall on March 07, 2012, 05:56:02 PM
So true, Tim. I have one here who is trying to sell HIS story- a  son of a  son of..... someone, I get lost which one he claims be.  And another in London who is claiming to be the long lost descendent of Alexandra fomr her German lover ! Put that in you pie and smoke it.
He really belongs in the booby hatch if anyone does.
 I hear from him now and then, but do not take him seriously in the least.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Jen_94 on March 07, 2012, 06:41:37 PM
Those stories of illegitimate grandchildren, great grandchildren, children of OTMAA, even that "fifth daughter" claimant are just ridiculous, every single one I've seen.

Tim, on the forum? I think I remember browsing through the old threads and seeing something along the lines of that, just ridculous!
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Robert_Hall on March 07, 2012, 07:07:27 PM
Yes, TimM. he is good at writing fiction, but he is honest about it, not trying to fool anyone.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: TimM on March 07, 2012, 11:45:19 PM
Quote
Tim, on the forum?

Yeah, I'm the same Tim.  When I joined this board in 2010, the name "Tim" was already taken, so I added the "M" (the first initial of my last name).
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Jen_94 on March 08, 2012, 01:14:12 PM
Ahhhh I know, I was asking about the claimant of the one that claimed she was the illegitimate great-grandaughter of NII :)

Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Yelena Aleksandrovna on March 14, 2012, 01:47:25 PM
Some other "dark Alexeis" from the Russian list:

1) Leonid V. Knyazev His daughter still continues to defend his claim its interests.

2) Francesco Fedele - younger brother Konchetta Fedele - "Olga" and Josephine Fedele - "Anastasia".  Recognition of his "rightful" as  "heir" continued with his children. "The resemblance to extant photographs clearly eliminates any doubt." The flight was carried out, as can be seen from quite dark hints contained on the website of the family Fedele, by secret agreements with Germany, apparently, as one of the "secret sections" of the Brest Peace . Later he lived with his sisters in Argentina.

3) Nicholas Nikolaevich Dalsky - according to this, the  nephew of the Tsar's cook  took him out of the Ipatiev house with the consent of Yurovsky . After saving the boy, he was sent to Suzdal and placed in foster family. His son Nicholas,  recently passed away.  He said that he was  "miraculously cured of hemophilia," and became an officer in the Red Army. -Weird indeed!-

I would like to know something else about the next:

4) Mark Polsrest

5) Sakubey Ivan Chamell

6) Andrew Giovanni Romanov

7) Alex Kutsyatoy-Dzhizubionsky

8 ) Marsester Ursuboy

Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: TimM on March 15, 2012, 04:38:28 PM
There was some guy here in Canada, out in B.C., who also claimed he was Alexei.  He died in the late 1970's.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Alixz on March 15, 2012, 04:50:48 PM
Wasn't that Heino Tammet?
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Jen_94 on March 15, 2012, 06:06:43 PM
Yes, I believe that was Heino Tammet.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Yelena Aleksandrovna on March 15, 2012, 06:26:31 PM
There was some guy here in Canada, out in B.C., who also claimed he was Alexei.  He died in the late 1970's.

Yes, must be H. Tammet, I don't remember any other else who lived in Canada, he died at 1977.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: aleksandr pavlovich on March 15, 2012, 07:46:16 PM
There was some guy here in Canada, out in B.C., who also claimed he was Alexei.  He died in the late 1970's.

Yes, must be H. Tammet, I don't remember any other else who lived in Canada, he died at 1977.

  If I remember correctly, Mr. Tammet has had a rather ardent individual who has been earlier on the Forum espousing his cause.  At one point supposedly a tooth from Mr. Tammet was submitted for laboratory analysis, but I think the results were never made public (if indeed the test WAS ever performed).  
  IMO, as science refines its investigatory procedures, more and more of these pretenders will fall by the wayside. Already this seems to have become the case/s. I believe that Eugenia Smith (aka "Anastasia N.") was offered DNA testing, but refused.  I also have not seen/know of the results of the testing of the children of the touted "Alexei N.," a certain Mr. Vasili Filatov, but I rather suspect that no link with the Emperor Nicholas II will be demonstrated.  
  I would be interested in seeing/reading authorative lab reports/ profile conclusions on the tooth of Mr. Tammet and the specimens submitted by the children of Mr. Filatov. Personally, beyond these points, I have virtually no interest.                          Regards,  AP.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Forum Admin on March 16, 2012, 09:35:07 AM
Yes it was Heinno Taimmet.  There was a self proclaimed "journalist" who was triumphing his case and demanding that Alexei really didn't have haemophilia!.  The tooth was never submitted for DNA analysis because the journalist refused to pay for it and nobody else cared enough to bother.  For some odd reason, Mr. Journalist has crawled back into his cave and never came back after the last set of remains were tested and the genetic marker for Haemophilia was in fact found.

Go figure.

Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: aleksandr pavlovich on March 16, 2012, 12:23:26 PM
Yes it was Heinno Taimmet.  There was a self proclaimed "journalist" who was triumphing his case and demanding that Alexei really didn't have haemophilia!.  The tooth was never submitted for DNA analysis because the journalist refused to pay for it and nobody else cared enough to bother.  For some odd reason, Mr. Journalist has crawled back into his cave and never came back after the last set of remains were tested and the genetic marker for Haemophilia was in fact found.

Go figure.


 Yes, thank you, Rob.  I thought I had remembered the rather vociferous stand that the "journalist" had earlier taken in a series of posts. I don't know if he has ever visited Russia, but perhaps he should personally visit the chapel at SS. Peter and Paul (when the other two groupings of remains are interred) and maybe experience a panic/hysterical conversion reaction as to the reality of the Family's death/s as one member apparently had there re the first burial.  THAT should be enough of a visual/environmental shock to put things in perspective.  IMO,one can only "passionately" rationalize just so much before meeting stark reality face-to-face.  
  Thanks also for the update on the Tammet "tooth episode."  Hopefully we will receive an authorative results statement source on the Filatov case.                                                                                                     Best regards,   AP.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: LisaDavidson on April 06, 2012, 01:14:57 AM
I have known John Kendrick for many years. He is a journalist for a certainty. He has posted here on and off for many years. I would request the courtesy he frequently shows others be extended to him on this Forum.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Romafan96 on August 19, 2012, 10:42:39 AM
Out of all the members of the Imperial Family Alexei seems the least likely to have escaped the massacre due to his condition. How could he have recovered from multiple gunshot and stab wounds when a mere fall nearly ended his life years earlier?
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: aleksandr pavlovich on August 19, 2012, 11:22:38 AM
Out of all the members of the Imperial Family Alexei seems the least likely to have escaped the massacre due to his condition. How could he have recovered from multiple gunshot and stab wounds when a mere fall nearly ended his life years earlier?

  IMO, the answer:  He simply could not have.  

  At the end, he was in frail (and probably dangerously failing) health, even unable to walk.  I am NOT a believer.   Regards.  AP.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Forum Admin on August 19, 2012, 11:28:24 AM
After years of dealing with claimants and their supporters, it all boils down to this: People will believe what they want to believe, and will massage the facts to fit their beliefs and ignore the things that don't support their beliefs.  Science, hard data, real evidence and most especially rational logic have nothing to do with it, to those who want to believe.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Romafan96 on August 19, 2012, 12:56:28 PM
Out of all the members of the Imperial Family Alexei seems the least likely to have escaped the massacre due to his condition. How could he have recovered from multiple gunshot and stab wounds when a mere fall nearly ended his life years earlier?

  IMO, the answer:  He simply could not have.  

  At the end, he was in frail (and probably dangerously failing) health, even unable to walk.  I am NOT a believer.   Regards.  AP.


Totally agree with this. Also, the executioners would probably have had Alexei on top of their hit-list after Nicholas because he was the heir. If Alexei had escaped he would have been the a legitimate threat to the whole Revolution. The daughters would not have mattered so much because at the time male members of the Romanov family were still alive and therefore came before them in terms of succession.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Kalafrana on August 20, 2012, 03:59:48 AM
Agree entirely. The chances of Alexei surviving the massacre are so low as to be non-existent. Even if by some chance he did, the chances of anyone getting him safely away were non-existent for the purely practical reason that he could not walk. A small child being carried about will escape notice, a tall and lanky teenage boy will not, and wheelchairs were not ubiquitous then as they are now.

Ann
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Jen_94 on August 20, 2012, 02:03:44 PM
I also very much agree with what has just been said. Alexei had very little chance of surviving.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: brookeb499 on November 06, 2015, 07:48:23 PM
Has anyone researched old newpaper articles regarding the survival of Tsar Nicholas II and family.I believe there was one out of France I found it once.
If anyone has access to historic newpapers could you reprint for everyone to review ?
Brooke
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: brookeb499 on November 06, 2015, 08:04:09 PM
Can someone post the very last years photograph's of Tsar Nicholas II's children ?
They were so much older than so many of the photographs always show. I would
also really like to see as many photographs anyone has of Alexei age 14,15 . I don't
know why they always show them very young when in fact...they weren't all that little.

Brooke
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Forum Admin on November 07, 2015, 09:15:56 AM
Those photos are all over this forum and the internet. Just search for them and they are easily found. Better than cluttering up this thread by repeating them.
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: Kalafrana on November 07, 2015, 11:09:37 AM
Note that Alexei was two weeks short of his fourteenth birthday at the time he was killed. There are few pictures of any of the family taken after they left Tsarskoye Selo in August 1917, just after Alexei's thirteenth birthday.

The last photographs of any of them were taken on the journey from Tobolsk to Ekaterinburg in April 1918. At the time Alexei had just had a major haemorrhage, and did not look anything like he did when in normal health.

Ann
Title: Re: Claimants of Tsarevich Alexei Nikolaevich
Post by: TimM on November 07, 2015, 11:21:04 AM
Yeah, even if Alexei hadn't been killed outright, he would have quickly bled out, due to his condition.