Alexander Palace Forum

Discussions about the Imperial Family and European Royalty => The Imperial Family => Topic started by: on December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM

Title: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: on December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: sourcream on March 04, 2004, 11:39:54 PM
Can anyone shed more light on GD George, brother of the last Tsar? As someone who has read extensively about the Romanovs, I find that he is one figure who remains more or less in the shadows - we all know about his illness, his close companionship with his elder brother and last days in the Caucaus - but i was rather surprised to read Peter Kurth's assertion in The Last Tsar that he was a homosexual, along with many other near relations - uncles & cousins far beyond Grand Dukes Sergei Alexandrovitch, Konstantin Konstantinovitch, Alexis Michailovitch, Ernest of Hesse & the Greek & Danish relations. In fact, the literature seems to suggest that perhaps it ran in the Vladimir clan as well. Peter Kurth even goes as far as to say that before the sabre attack on Tsarevitch Nicholas in Japan, that he & his Greek cousin George visited an all-male brothel. Is any of this true, and what is this information based on - documents in the Russian archives, diaries, letters or just hear-say?
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Robert_Hall on March 05, 2004, 02:07:17 PM
Well now, to perhaps open a few minds..homosexuality is not hereditary. So it did not  "run" in any particular branch of any family.  Any large, extended family is bound by the simple statistics to have a few gay/lesbian members.
As far as the "all male brothel".  I think this is often mis-understood. In Japan, public bathhouses were/are pretty common. They are, of course, sexually segregated.  I rather doubt that the reality is the same as conjured up in current imagination. Actually, public baths are still pretty common in Eastern Europe.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Louise on March 05, 2004, 02:39:22 PM
As in any extremely large extended family there are a few gays and lesbians sprinkled here and there in the family tree. As Robert said, being gay does not run in the family.

There are so many family members of the Romanov clan that I would love to discover more about.

Louise
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: masha on March 05, 2004, 08:35:28 PM
I think the intent of the initial statement was not meant to offend anyone, or to express any disdain toward homosexuality, but rather to find out the source behind the statments alledged by Mr. Kurth, as no other publication about the family suggests, never mind states, what Mr. Kurth states about either of the Georges. I too have found much here and there in the literature about the Saxe-Coburgs as well as the Romanovs to suggest that alot of homosexual activity occured among many of the male royalty of the day - regardless of their true sexual orientation. A Fatal Passion also strongly suggests that GD Victoria (Ducky) was doubley struck by lightening in both her marriages in this regard by discovering some shocking secrets about her husbands. By the way, I should add that the Orthodox Church does not condemn an individual who is homosexual, just as it does not condemn one who is heterosexual. Rather, what is seen as a failing is one who gives into temptation & acts upon one's desire. The following article say it all - please read it http://www.orthodox.net/articles/homosexuality.html Does this clear the air?
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Robert_Hall on March 05, 2004, 09:22:10 PM
No offence was taken by me, but I have heard this sort of comment before. It can be very difficult for  "Now Westerners" to see some of the extremely flowery language  & expressions of affection of the "Victorian" era as non-sexual.
The way some  people, same sex or otherwise, wrote to each other, or posed for photographs, could lead one into imagining all sorts of torid affairs.
It is still fairly common in a lot of cultures for same sex couples to be seen holding hands, embracing, etc. isn't it.
I agree that Peter Kurth  explored the topic a lot more than any other.  Personally, I reckon: why not? Everything else about their [the Romanovs] lives has been discussed....
A few things that Greg & Penny  mentioned certainly raised a few eyebrows, yet it was there all along
As for George himself.  well,  gay or not, there is simply not enough known about him to make any insightful discussions.
That is, all I have have read, personally, is the rather non-objective feelings of others.  Sympathetic, of course.  I know of no diaries, lettres or outside recollections of him. Would welcome them, though.

Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: masha on March 05, 2004, 11:00:14 PM
Hi Robert_Hall,
Not sure who you mean by Penny & Gregg in your last reply. Please elaborate with who they are & whar they mention. Thanks in advance.
Also, as I once heard some royalty reporter/writer on a television program RE: the current British royalty say - the aristocracy are not like you, I & the next door neighbor. Their background is sooooooooo different from the majorityof us, their values are vastly different from ours, & so it should come as no surpise that their behaviour & mores are not things we would accept as normal. And so of course this would apply to the bedroom.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: LisaDavidson on March 05, 2004, 11:15:16 PM
Greg and Penny are Greg King and Penny Wilson, authors of the Fate of the Romanovs. They also post on this board.

As to Peter Kurth's sources, why don't you write him if they're not noted in his text?
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Greg_King on March 06, 2004, 03:05:47 AM
Quote
Can anyone shed more light on GD George, brother of the last Tsar? As someone who has read extensively about the Romanovs, I find that he is one figure who remains more or less in the shadows - we all know about his illness, his close companionship with his elder brother and last days in the Caucaus - but i was rather surprised to read Peter Kurth's assertion in The Last Tsar that he was a homosexual, along with many other near relations - uncles & cousins far beyond Grand Dukes Sergei Alexandrovitch, Konstantin Konstantinovitch, Alexis Michailovitch, Ernest of Hesse & the Greek & Danish relations. In fact, the literature seems to suggest that perhaps it ran in the Vladimir clan as well. Peter Kurth even goes as far as to say that before the sabre attack on Tsarevitch Nicholas in Japan, that he & his Greek cousin George visited an all-male brothel. Is any of this true, and what is this information based on - documents in the Russian archives, diaries, letters or just hear-say?


I presume you are referring to "Tsar: The Lost World of Nicholas and Alexandra"?  Peter doesn't quite say what you write above.  On page 40, he writes: "Gossip spread like wildfire, since both of the Georges in Nicholas's company, his brother and his cousin, were homosexual.  There was talk of male brothels and 'unspeakable acts,' and the rumor even got around that George of Greece had played a role in provoking the attack by insulting the honor of a Japanese boy.  This story, unfounded, was favored by Queen Victoria."

Peter clearly says these were rumors-and indeed I've encountered a lot of similar gossip about Prince George of Greece on the trip in a variety of sources.

That Prince George of Greece was gay was well known-he had an enduring relationship with another close royal male relative.

The idea that Grand Duke George Alexandrovich was gay is less easy to sustain, though again there have been a lot of rumors and family gossip.  I suspect Peter, from his close association with many members of the present day Romanov Family, has heard the stories firsthand.

But George Alexandrovich was named a few years back as homosexual in a scholarly article by a respected Russian historian, Simon Karlinsky.  He wrote an article (publication was in something like the Hoover Institute Digest, though I could be wrong on this) called "The Seven Gay Grand Dukes," in which he named George Alexandrovich; Konstantin Konstantinovich; Dimitri Konstantinovich; Serge Alexandrovich; and-if I recall-Dimitri Pavlovich, and two others I cannot remember-I think one was Nicholas Mikhailovich and the other may have been Serge Mikhailovich, though I am not at all certain.  So George Alexandrovich's homosexuality has certainly been asserted by others than Peter Kurth.

But that's balanced again George's time in the Caucasus, where he was said to have contracted not one but two morganatic marriages, the first with a native Caucasian woman in 1893 shortly after arriving at Abbas Touman.  The union, said to have produced a child, was dissolved after two years.  In 1894, he was believed to have contracted a second morganatic marriage, this time with a local woman, Mlle. Orkovska, who bore him two sons and a daughter.  These children, allegedly given the surname of Romanovsky, as well as firm evidence to support either of the two unions, disappeared after the Revolution.  I do know one gentleman who lives in the United States and says he is a grandson, I think.  I've never asked for evidence, but he has provided it to some well-placed friends who have no doubt that his claim is true.  Of course, having offspring doesn't preclude one being gay-witness Grand Duke Konstantin Konstantinovich or Felix Yusupov.  But there are a number of claims about George that will probably never be resolved, given the lack of documentation.

Greg King
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: masha on March 06, 2004, 01:19:40 PM
Greg,
Thank you so very much for your response and for all the research you share with us. I will pass on your information to Sour Cream, who I know will also be very grateful for your help.

Lady Colin Campbell in her book Royal Marriages states on page 60: "... for the custom among Continental noblemen and royals was for them to have ourside interests, which the indelicate termed mistresses....Indeed, a lady or two on the side was hardly anything to rant about, not when the Danish and Greek royal families were a study in marital infidelity and odd sexual liaisons. There was Prince George of Greece who was besotted by his decade-older uncle, Prince Waldemar of Denmark."  I have to run now, but will be back with more comments later in the day. Again, cheers!
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Jorge Saenz on March 06, 2004, 01:19:48 PM
Just my two cents on Grand Duke Georgy's alleged marriage: in the Enciclopedia Universal Europeo Americana, a very reliable and most detailed encyclopaedia published in 70 volumes in Madrid in 1905-1930, which is full of biographical data on royals, it is said that Grand Duke Georgy Alexandrovich "married morganatically princess Orkowska, who gave him three children". When I first read that in the encyclopaedia, I thought it was just a mistake, since the Gotha and other reliable sources made no mention of such wedding. However, reading Mr. Greg King's post, now I guess it was a somehow widespread rumor in the early XXth century.
Who made mlle. Orkowska a princess for the encyclopaedia, that I don't know...
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: masha on March 06, 2004, 07:50:07 PM
Hello again, Greg

Just a few more observations about both Georges:
To pick-up again about Greek Georgie, I’ll refer again to Lady Colin Campbell in Royal Marriages pg. 51, who states that his reputation had been dealt a deadly blow over the Otsu sabre incident in 1891 during his tour of the Orient with his cousin Nicky, when one of the policemen attacked the Tsarevitch. “As is the way with royal courts, the Tsarevitch’s entourage tried to deflect any hint of blameworthiness, which might devolve upon the future Emperor as a result of policies that had instilled such hostility in the Japanese, and blamed George for provoking the attack. This sullied his honour in an age when a man’s reputation was his most prized possession, and George never recovered from the blow.”  
One wonders if the two cousins’ relationship warbled any as a result of this incident, and if they truly remained firm friends for life – just wondering if you can shed light on this Greg, as I don’t recall ever seeing any pictures of them together after this trip, and most particularly when they were married men.

Picking up the thread with GD George, I had forgotten about the rumours of his morganatic marriages. Now, this is an interesting mystery, especially when one recalls all the huffing and puffing that occurred when his younger brother Michael ran off to do the unthinkable with Natalia Wulfurt. SO, when you say that the documentation about George is lacking, I take it to mean, among other things, that the Empress Maria was rather cryptic in her diaries about this?

Masha
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Greg_King on March 07, 2004, 01:12:39 AM
Dear Masha-

I'd forgotten about Lady Colin Campbell, but there are other references in a number of things I've come across in the years.  Unfortunately, I just don't know enough about the issue of Grand Duke George Alexandrovich's possible morganatic marriages to comment above and beyond what I posted.  I suppose that, had they taken place, one might expect to find some documentation in the Dowager Empress's diaries, IF she knew about them-and that's the rub-I don't know when the story surface-maybe Jorge can let us know when the volume containing the reference he has was published?  If prior to the Revolution, then one would expect that there would be some reference among the family papers.  But if after, then it's possible he managed to keep it a secret and it only leaked out later.

It's an enigma at the moment, and certainly calls for further investigation!

Greg King
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: ENCYCLOPAEDIA on March 09, 2004, 07:01:11 PM
Dear Greg,

The Spanish encyclopaedia's volume (28th) containing the article on Grand Duke Georgy Alexandrovich and the reference to his alleged marriage and children has no specific printing data. However it has a copyright of 1926, and reading other articles in the same volume, for instance about Japanese politics, I guess 1926 could be certainly the printing year as well.

Of course, the article may have been written a longwhile before the actual printing. Nevertheless, the Grand Duke is mentioned in the article as younger brother of "the unfortunate Nicholas II", so I guess the article was written after the Ekaterinburg murders.  

Comparing the articles on his brothers, who may have been written by the same person, makes me guess the text on Grand Duke George was possibly written in the late 1918. The article on his brother Michael (volume 35 of the encyclopaedia, published later than the 28th and including an interesting photo of Michael in traditional Russian dress, may be for the 1903 costume ball), doesnt mention Michael's execution and seems to be written while he was alive or believed to be alive. The article on Nicholas II (volume 38) mentions the Tsars' execution, refers to Alexis has passing away in 1918 too, and says "there have been negotiations (August 1918)  so that the Tsars widow and daughters may come to live in Spain", so I guess it was written in the very same year of 1918, probably in September or so -and certainly much before the Sokolov report came out in 1924.

Regards,
Jorge


Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: KentKim on February 24, 2005, 12:35:25 AM
I remember reading somewhere that George's remains were exhumed, did this have anything to do with the DNA tests for the bones found, which were then believed to be the Romanovs? I'm asuming it was.

Is anything known about George's life, other than that he died in 1899, and suffered from TB? I read that he spent the majority of his life living in the mountains of the Caucasus. What did he do while there? Is anything at all really known about him?
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: LisaDavidson on February 24, 2005, 01:36:04 AM
I have written a biographical sketch of George for possible inclusion in Arturo's  Grand Dukes book which I believe will be coming out later this year.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Eurohistory on February 24, 2005, 09:44:21 AM
And a nice biography it is Lisa...congrats!

The Grand Dukes: The sons and grandsons of Russia's Tsars is scheduled to come out in July 2005.  Famed Romanov author, Zoia Belyakova, signed on last week to be also a contributing author in the book!

Arturo Beéche
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Lisa on February 24, 2005, 10:37:55 AM
some portraits...
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v248/lyzotchka1/5319.jpg)
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Lisa on February 24, 2005, 10:38:25 AM
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v248/lyzotchka1/georges1.jpg)
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Lisa on February 24, 2005, 10:38:57 AM
and younger...
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v248/lyzotchka1/georges2.jpg)
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: AGRBear on February 24, 2005, 11:32:51 AM
Quote

...[in part]....

But that's balanced again George's time in the Caucasus, where he was said to have contracted not one but two morganatic marriages, the first with a native Caucasian woman in 1893 shortly after arriving at Abbas Touman.  The union, said to have produced a child, was dissolved after two years.  In 1894, he was believed to have contracted a second morganatic marriage, this time with a local woman, Mlle. Orkovska, who bore him two sons and a daughter.  These children, allegedly given the surname of Romanovsky, as well as firm evidence to support either of the two unions, disappeared after the Revolution.  I do know one gentleman who lives in the United States and says he is a grandson, I think.  I've never asked for evidence, but he has provided it to some well-placed friends who have no doubt that his claim is true.  Of course, having offspring doesn't preclude one being gay-witness Grand Duke Konstantin Konstantinovich or Felix Yusupov.  But there are a number of claims about George that will probably never be resolved, given the lack of documentation.

Greg King


I wonder what the ages of Georg's children would be when Nicholas II abdicated in 1917.

I'm not near any books today, so,  I hope someone might pull out the death date of Georg.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: AGRBear on February 24, 2005, 11:36:41 AM
Quote
Just my two cents on Grand Duke Georgy's alleged marriage: in the Enciclopedia Universal Europeo Americana, a very reliable and most detailed encyclopaedia published in 70 volumes in Madrid in 1905-1930, which is full of biographical data on royals, it is said that Grand Duke Georgy Alexandrovich "married morganatically princess Orkowska, who gave him three children". When I first read that in the encyclopaedia, I thought it was just a mistake, since the Gotha and other reliable sources made no mention of such wedding. However, reading Mr. Greg King's post, now I guess it was a somehow widespread rumor in the early XXth century.
Who made mlle. Orkowska a princess for the encyclopaedia, that I don't know...


The name Orkowska rings a bell.  Anyone reconize this family name?

AGRBear
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: AGRBear on February 24, 2005, 11:47:30 AM
Quote

...[in part]....

But that's balanced again George's time in the Caucasus, where he was said to have contracted not one but two morganatic marriages, the first with a native Caucasian woman in 1893 shortly after arriving at Abbas Touman.  The union, said to have produced a child, was dissolved after two years.  In 1894, he was believed to have contracted a second morganatic marriage, this time with a local woman, Mlle. Orkovska, who bore him two sons and a daughter.  These children, allegedly given the surname of Romanovsky, as well as firm evidence to support either of the two unions, disappeared after the Revolution.  I do know one gentleman who lives in the United States and says he is a grandson, I think.  I've never asked for evidence, but he has provided it to some well-placed friends who have no doubt that his claim is true.  Of course, having offspring doesn't preclude one being gay-witness Grand Duke Konstantin Konstantinovich or Felix Yusupov.  But there are a number of claims about George that will probably never be resolved, given the lack of documentation.

Greg King


I wonder what the ages of Georg's children would be when Nicholas II abdicated in 1917.



AGRBear
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Helen_Azar on February 24, 2005, 11:59:41 AM
Quote
I remember reading somewhere that George's remains were exhumed, did this have anything to do with the DNA tests for the bones found, which were then believed to be the Romanovs? I'm asuming it was.


Yes, George's remains were exhumed in order to do comparison DNA testing with the remains thought to be Nicholas II's. This test confirmed that these remains were those of Nicholas.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: AGRBear on February 24, 2005, 01:03:16 PM
I'm glad you drew my attention to GD Georg.  So, thank you.  :)

Here is another post:
Quote
Just my two cents on Grand Duke Georgy's alleged marriage: in the Enciclopedia Universal Europeo Americana, a very reliable and most detailed encyclopaedia published in 70 volumes in Madrid in 1905-1930, which is full of biographical data on royals, it is said that Grand Duke Georgy Alexandrovich "married morganatically princess Orkowska, who gave him three children". When I first read that in the encyclopaedia, I thought it was just a mistake, since the Gotha and other reliable sources made no mention of such wedding. However, reading Mr. Greg King's post, now I guess it was a somehow widespread rumor in the early XXth century.
Who made mlle. Orkowska a princess for the encyclopaedia, that I don't know...


So, Georg had two wives and four children before his death:
After spending his final years remote from the court, Georgy Alexandrovich died at Abas-Tuman on 28 June 1899.  So, by 1918 the four children would have been older than 17 years of age.

Surly someone must know about these children.  The eldest would have been abt. 24.  Do we know if the first child was a girl or a boy?

AGRBear
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Sarai on February 24, 2005, 03:12:45 PM
Quote
I'm not near any books today, so,  I hope someone might pull out the death date of Georg.


He died on July 10, 1899.

Modified to say: This is the new style date, actually. The old style date is June 28, 1899.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Georgiy on February 24, 2005, 09:04:19 PM
However, if he'd been married, (and surely it would have got to be known), and it wasn't to someone Royal, he could not have remained as tsarevich. So I am disinclined to believe those rumours.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: AGRBear on March 02, 2005, 07:19:09 PM
Here is what Penny wrote about one of the great grandson's of GD George:

Quote

... in part...

At least one of them did.  A grandson (or great-grandson, I forget which) lives out West here.  This is the man with the impeccable references that Greg mentioned.  There's virtually no doubt that this little family is the real deal.

...


So, he was married and did have  at least one surviving child who lived to be an adult  who had child... who had a child.....

AGRBear
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Georgiy on March 03, 2005, 02:10:03 PM
If so, (and I guess if need be they could check by DNA) would not this man have greater claim on the (vacant) Russian throne than any other pretender? (or would the presumed illegitimacy of his ancestor preclude this).
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: AGRBear on March 03, 2005, 02:56:14 PM
The children of Georg's were born within "morgantic" marriages.  Those born within these rules agree before marriage that their issue does not inherited rights, titles and properties which they would had the marriage been given the permission of the Tsar.  In legal terms,  no,  Georg's children were not part of the succession to the throne.  

AGRBear
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Dominic_Albanese on March 05, 2005, 04:08:19 PM
This is the 1st I've heard of George being married and having children.

It seems odd to me - but certainly possible I guess.

Why wouldn't this have come up in the diaries of N&A, GD Konstantine and Empress Maria?

It rings odd to me, based on what I've read in the past.  Do others think this is hard to believe as well or am I alone on this one?

dca
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: LisaDavidson on March 08, 2005, 12:58:16 AM
Dominic: I also doubt these rumors are true. George was quite ill. While he may have wanted to have a family, it would be doubtful that he married someone morganatically.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Sunny on March 08, 2005, 06:06:37 AM
Quote
This is the 1st I've heard of George being married and having children.

It seems odd to me - but certainly possible I guess.

Why wouldn't this have come up in the diaries of N&A, GD Konstantine and Empress Maria?

It rings odd to me, based on what I've read in the past.  Do others think this is hard to believe as well or am I alone on this one?

dca


...Two marriages, and four children born to the son of a Tsar, and court gossips never mentioned it...I agree with Lisa. You aren't alone on this one Dominic.

Sunny
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: felix on March 08, 2005, 06:33:59 AM
I agree with Sunny and Lisa. Marie F. met Michaels son in London. Why would this have been kept so  hush hush.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: AGRBear on March 08, 2005, 12:33:32 PM
GD Georg was living in a isolated area, he was very ill, and, maybe, everyone just wanted him to live out his life as peacefully as he could.

No one in the family has called the granddchildren of GD Georg imposter, why should any of us?

As I've tried to explain over and over, there are many things about the Romanovs we do not and will not ever know.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Eurohistory on March 09, 2005, 12:53:33 PM
But how feasible could t have been for george to get married twice and no one in the family mention it in any correspondence and Nichlas II taking zero action to address the position of these marriages and their offsrping within the family and succession?  My gutt feeling is that these were fiction and never took place.

Arturo Beéche
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: AGRBear on March 09, 2005, 01:06:16 PM
All I can say is, Penny Wilson, told us on another thread that GD George's ancestors live on the west coast of the USA.

And,  if the children proved to be no threat to the other Romanovs, which evidently they did not, AND, if they did not live near any of the other Romanovs, then there was no contact.

It's call "live and let live".

If there was any contact, it was through what our family called, "by the back door".  There was no fuss, no bother, and they left.
Simple.  Quiet.  And that was it.

Unless you lived in that society,  it's difficult to understand this attitude and the lack of information.  But, when the Royal family wanted a secret kept, it was kept, or a person paid the consequences of "letting the cat out of the bag".  

AGRBear
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: jfkhaos on March 09, 2005, 02:39:06 PM
I can't imagine that George had two marriages and a handful of children without any mention from the sources above.  I can understand that George was ill, and perhaps they did just want him to live peacefully, but then again every other marriage and resulting offspring was mentioned in some context or other.  If that theory is held to be true, why couldn't the Imperial women, who had no claim to the throne, live out their lives peacefully as well with no fuss or mention?
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Eurohistory on March 09, 2005, 10:18:01 PM
Why would there be no mention of this rather important fact in the correspondence of ANY other member of the family...do you honestly think that Maria Feodorovna would have never mentioned it to anyone, that Alexander Michaelovich and Xenia, Olga, Alexandra Feodorovna (imagine her keeping something like this from her sisters in their private correspondence), imagine Maria Alexandrovna keeping it from her own daughters in correspondence in which they discussed the most private and intimate details of their lives...seriuosly...is this going to become the new sacred cow of those who so wantonly wish to believe these conspiracy theories?

When is there an end to these endless claims of secret descendants no one had ever known about...truly...

I know of someone who claims to be the son of Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna's Putiatine son...a baby who died at an extremely young age, who miraculously survived, even though his mothe rnever mentioned him again, and miracle of miracles had descendants who...yes...you guessed it...live in the good ol' U S of A!

Arturo Beéche
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 09, 2005, 10:31:27 PM
Quote
Penny Wilson, told us on another thread that GD George's ancestors live on the west coast of the USA.


I think you mean "descendants" not "ancestors"?

Do you remember what Penny's source was? I couldn't find the thread where she posted this, did she say where she got this info from?

Quote
...when the Royal family wanted a secret kept, it was kept, or a person paid the consequences of "letting the cat out of the bag".  


Obviously the secret wasn't kept that well if Penny found out about it  ;)
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Janet_W. on March 09, 2005, 10:52:43 PM
I recall reading that George was very probably homosexual. I apologize for not having a reference at hand to back this up. Perhaps someone else does, or perhaps what I've just mentioned can be refuted?
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Tsaritsa on March 09, 2005, 11:05:26 PM
I must agree.  George would not have remained Tsarevich if he married morganatically.  

Considering the scandal over Misha's marriage, he was only the Tsar's brother not the Tsarevich at the time.  Though the "reason" for his marriage was Alexei's near death at Spala.

I can't imagine George would contract such a marriage.  Or that if such a marriage occurred no one would know about it or mention it.

As much as this family wrote and corresponded, something would have become known.  


Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 09, 2005, 11:12:02 PM
I just found a post made by Greg King that talks about George's homosexuality and his supposed morganatic marriage and children:

Quote
...George Alexandrovich was named a few years back as homosexual in a scholarly article by a respected Russian historian, Simon Karlinsky.  He wrote an article (publication was in something like the Hoover Institute Digest, though I could be wrong on this) called "The Seven Gay Grand Dukes," in which he named George Alexandrovich; Konstantin Konstantinovich; Dimitri Konstantinovich; Serge Alexandrovich; and-if I recall-Dimitri Pavlovich, and two others I cannot remember-I think one was Nicholas Mikhailovich and the other may have been Serge Mikhailovich, though I am not at all certain.  So George Alexandrovich's homosexuality has certainly been asserted by others than Peter Kurth.

But that's balanced again George's time in the Caucasus, where he was said to have contracted not one but two morganatic marriages, the first with a native Caucasian woman in 1893 shortly after arriving at Abbas Touman.  The union, said to have produced a child, was dissolved after two years.  In 1894, he was believed to have contracted a second morganatic marriage, this time with a local woman, Mlle. Orkovska, who bore him two sons and a daughter.  These children, allegedly given the surname of Romanovsky, as well as firm evidence to support either of the two unions, disappeared after the Revolution.  I do know one gentleman who lives in the United States and says he is a grandson, I think.  I've never asked for evidence, but he has provided it to some well-placed friends who have no doubt that his claim is true.  Of course, having offspring doesn't preclude one being gay-witness Grand Duke Konstantin Konstantinovich or Felix Yusupov.  But there are a number of claims about George that will probably never be resolved, given the lack of documentation.

Greg King

Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Eurohistory on March 10, 2005, 09:42:19 AM
Quote
I just found a post made by Greg King that talks about George's homosexuality and his supposed morganatic marriage and children:



I contacted karlinsky several years ago when i found out this article and he refused to talk about it saying that since more information had become available he would not stand by whhat he had written and that was that...

Arturo Beéche
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: felix on March 10, 2005, 10:35:51 AM
Could George Alexandrovich some times  be confused with George of Greece? I saw this once concerning the attack in Japan.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 10, 2005, 10:51:13 AM
Quote

I contacted karlinsky several years ago when i found out this article and he refused to talk about it saying that since more information had become available he would not stand by whhat he had written and that was that...

Arturo Beéche


Thanks, Art. Do you know by any chance what additional info Karlinsky was talking about?

H
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Eurohistory on March 10, 2005, 01:09:17 PM
I have a copy of the Karlinsky article actually...somewhere in my files, all of which are still in boxes.  But he mentions Serge Alexandrovich, Serge Michaelovich, Konstantin Konstantinovich JR and four others, including George Alexandrovich.

I do think that Professor Karlinsky assumed that if they were not married, then that wasa sign of their homosexuality, which is of course a flawed approach.

Arturo Beéche
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Eurohistory on March 11, 2005, 09:18:22 AM
Poor george such a short life, so much he purportedly accomplished...in twenty-eight years of life some have him marrying twice, producing four children, and being an active homosexual, all while he battled the debilitating disease that eventually took his life.

George was a very busy boy if one believes all these things...  ::)

Arturo Beéche
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: AGRBear on March 11, 2005, 01:33:55 PM
Perhaps Georg was bisexual or maybe, people just confused his name with the other George.  I don't know.  However, if he has grandchildren here in the USA then there was a woman or two involved with him.

Until proven otherwise,  I'll go with the two morgantic marriages.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 11, 2005, 02:50:55 PM
Quote
... if he has grandchildren here in the USA ....


We still don't know what Penny's source was for this info, and the only thing we can make out from Greg's post is that "he was said to..." and "he was believed to.. " and a gentleman on the west coast who claims to be George's son and who allegedly provided evidence to some "well placed friends".

All that is a little too vague for me, so I am going to go with no marriages for George, unless proven otherwise.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Eurohistory on March 12, 2005, 10:20:40 AM
Those who assume a rumor is true until proven otherwise set themselves up for a fall...

Let's assume Nicholas II had several mistresses...why not...I can argue that "it was believed that he had them"..."I was told" by a "source" close to "the family."  And under this guise you can just about come up with any kind of nonsensicel and disreputable rumor just about anyone...if that is historical research, Lord have mercy of us.

Sources, sources, sources...just because some gentleman on the west coast makes these rampant allegationsa and claims, to go about assuming that they were true...my...it is all so very reminiscent of the Anna anderson lore...so sad really...

Arturo Beéche
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: AGRBear on March 12, 2005, 01:31:13 PM
There is no reason to twist my words into something which make me appear to be grabbing at rumors, because my source was Enciclopedia Universal Europeo Americana, Penny Wilson and Greg King....  I have stated this and have quoted Penny earlier on this thead.  Since Enciclopedia Universal Europeo Americana, Wilson and King are reliable sources,  I saw no reason why I shouldn't reply on what they tell us.  

Some of you have a different opinion than I, which is fine.  But I'll match my sources to your opinions any day.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Eurohistory on March 12, 2005, 05:23:46 PM
Quote
There is no reason to twist my words into something which make me appear to be grabbing at rumors, because my source was Enciclopedia Universal Europeo Americana, Penny Wilson and Greg King....  I have stated this and have quoted Penny earlier on this thead.  Since Enciclopedia Universal Europeo Americana, Wilson and King are reliable sources,  I saw no reason why I shouldn't reply on what they tell us.  

Some of you have a different opinion than I, which is fine.  But I'll match my sources to your opinions any day.

AGRBear


As respected as Ms Wilson and Mr King are, they are not the ultimate source on all matters Romanov.  Many an historian believed that Alfred of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha committed suicide and was married "secretly," both of which were not true.  There have been many mistaken "facts' published by reputable books and encyclopedias which have turned out to be erroneous, and based on rumor and hearsay as is the case with this particular aspect of George Alexandrovich's life.

I wonder, for example, why in her correspondence with her daugter, Maria Alexandrovna never said a word of this to Marie of Romania. The Duchess of Saxe-Coburg discussed many extremely private matters (several of these sexual in nature), never mentioned a peep about these alledged four children, two marriages and homosexuality of a poor invalid who died at the age of 28.  For someone who was as weak as George, he surely would have been rather busy in some realms if one is to believe these sources...ney, rumors.

In all the memoirs written by various family members, not one peep of these marriages and children...not one...in private correspondence between family members, not one peep...in every reputable book published about the family, and there have been many, not one peep...humm...

Arturo Beéche

Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Belochka on March 12, 2005, 07:54:29 PM
Since there is lack of substantive evidence that George contracted not one but two marriages, fathering a number of children, all whilst suffering TB, then such speculation is only cause for despicable  baseless rumors.

SPb society would have relished such gossip. No memoirists close to the family, nor had his own mother, or  brothers had ever hinted that such events ever occurred. It would have been not only scandalous but heartbreaking for George's family to admit that George committed these indiscretions against his own family. His terminal condition caused enough grief.

Although Penny Wilson wrote on 2 March:

There's virtually no doubt that this little family is the real deal.

Without genuine marriage and birth certificates I would contend that that there is indeed reasonable doubt.

Perhaps a work of tasteless fiction would be a more appropriate course of action? :-/
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 12, 2005, 07:57:36 PM
Quote
Since Enciclopedia Universal Europeo Americana, Wilson and King are reliable sources,  I saw no reason why I shouldn't reply on what they tell us.  
Some of you have a different opinion than I, which is fine.  But I'll match my sources to your opinions any day.

AGRBear


I still would like to hear what, or who, were the sources for this information - I don't mean secondary sources, I mean the primary ones (there is a difference). And I don't mean the gentleman in the US who claims to be the grandson. Many people "claim" many things, I think we need something more than that. Maybe if Penny can present a credible primary source to us, we would change our minds about George's marriage!
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Belochka on March 12, 2005, 08:03:09 PM
Quote
I still would like to hear what, or who, were the sources for this information - I don't mean secondary sources, I mean the primary ones (there is a difference). And I don't mean the gentleman in the US who claims to be the grandson. Many people "claim" many things, I think we need something more than that. Maybe if Penny can present a credible primary source to us, we would change our minds about George's marriage!


This "chap" on the west coast of US must surely possess the primary documentation? ??? :o :-/ Why did he remain silent after all these years?

Why did he not attend the "family" funeral in SPb in 1998? ???
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 12, 2005, 08:26:56 PM
Quote
I'd posted quite a bit on his illness (beginning through the end) and his family's reaction on this thread:

http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=family;action=display;num=1104973729;start=10#10


Thanks, GDella for the link. I am going to paste some excerpts here:

1895, right around the time when George was allegedly getting divorced and contacting his second mortganatic marriage and having his second or third child (?):

"After her widowhood, MF tried to spend more time with G for his sake and her own. They would make a visit to Denmark in August 1895 which would come to a frightening conclusion. She would write to N about a sudden turn for the worse on G's part: 'Yesterday in the garden he expectorated some blood; that frightened me again more than I can tell--the surprise of it was shocking, because he had been so well of late, so happy...it really is _too_ sad and I am utterly miserable about it and grieved to the heart to part with him again, but I wish now he were already safely back [in the Caucuses]...Doctor Chigayeff is very reliable and has Georgie's confidence, which is very fortunate. The haemorrhage, he assures me, does not alarm him much--it is the railway journey he is really very anxious about; that is why he wants to keep Georgie quietly to his bed here till he has quite recovered...Fortunately, he has no temperature and the last two days has been coughing much less...he is as patient and sweet as a lamb...He must not talk, but he likes people to come and see him and to hear them talk. Victoria and Maud are so nice and kind to him--they stay in his room often and humour him as much as they can.' "

1896:

"G would return to the Caucuses and MF again join him in between Olga's birth and the coronation where she found him in good condition (Mar 1896) and they would journey onto the South of France for physical and mental relief. 'Thank God Georgie is better again and spent some time sitting on the balcony..He is so careful now...never does anything imprudent, just sits quietly in his armchair and does not even go out into the garden, although it is so beautifully warm there. I am certain fresh air can do him nothing but good, but I think he is afraid that the slightest movement might upset him, which is quite natural, of course, after having been so ill twice and forced to keep to his bed. But it is more than annoying, as it makes himlead such a secluded life, never leaving his room.' "

It seems that during the time when George was supposed to have been contracting two mortganatic marriages and having four children, he was either gravely ill or just generally confined to his room most of the time due to his poor health :-/. The main issue in his life seems to be his health.


Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Belochka on March 12, 2005, 10:53:32 PM
To settle this matter conclusively it would be imperative that the "westcoast chap" submit to a DNA profile. Until he submits to this simple and conclusive scientific formality, his contentions are short on veracity.

We await these results with interest ... ;D
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Robert_Hall on March 13, 2005, 12:08:10 AM
Would not the best opprotunity for that have been when Georgi was exhumed for dna testing with the Ekaterinburg remains ? Anyway, he could be proved false any 100 ways up & down, there would still be those crawling around with conspiracy theories and "deprived by greedy relatives" stories. If there were any "bolshie commies" left they would blame them as well.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Belochka on March 13, 2005, 12:58:14 AM
George's recorded DNA profile can be "matched" against this new claimant very easily any time at his convenience. Readings can be repeated in different accredited laboratories around the world to minimize any perception of bias and to guard against any possible perceptions of deliberate mismatching.  

No correlations then this chap can go away and continue dreaming. ;D
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 13, 2005, 01:40:30 AM
Quote
Sources, sources, sources...just because some gentleman on the west coast makes these rampant allegationsa and claims, to go about assuming that they were true...my...it is all so very reminiscent of the Anna anderson lore...so sad really...

Arturo Beéche


Not at all, Arturo -- this gentleman is making no "rampant allegations and claims."  He is a private citizen of this country, and does not "trade" on his roots.  You don't have to believe his backstory -- it's not a requirement.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 13, 2005, 01:42:03 AM
Quote


Without genuine marriage and birth certificates I would contend that that there is indeed reasonable doubt.
 


How would you like him to present to you his birth certificate?  Assuming, of course, that he wants to court the satisfaction of people on this board?  

He's not making any "claims."  He simply is who he is.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 13, 2005, 01:42:29 AM
Quote

This "chap" on the west coast of US must surely possess the primary documentation? ??? :o :-/ Why did he remain silent after all these years?

Why did he not attend the "family" funeral in SPb in 1998? ???



Because he's not interested.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 13, 2005, 01:43:45 AM
Quote

As respected as Ms Wilson and Mr King are, they are not the ultimate source on all matters Romanov.  


True, but then, neither are you, Art.  No-one is -- the subject is simply too big.  But just because Greg and I aren't the "ultimate source" doesn't mean we are wrong on this.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 13, 2005, 01:45:51 AM
Quote
Maybe if Penny can present a credible primary source to us, we would change our minds about George's marriage!


Family members.  But it's the private business of a private man -- so that's all I have to say about this.

It's not necessary that anyone here believe or have their minds changed.  The issue simply hasn't been tabled for debate.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 13, 2005, 02:11:39 AM
Quote
To settle this matter conclusively it would be imperative that the "westcoast chap" submit to a DNA profile.


Imperative for who?  You are assuming that he needs to prove anything.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 13, 2005, 02:23:23 AM
Quote

Obviously the secret wasn't kept that well if Penny found out about it  ;)


We weren't actually looking for this "secret."  While researching FOTR and also the pretenders project, we had occasion to speak to one extraordinarily well-placed individual, and the conversation turned to Anna Anderson.  This person told us that at the time AA appeared in Berlin, when the family was wrangling in Denmark over whether or not to send someone to see her -- this was prior to Olga's visit, and prior even to Alexis Volkov's visit -- the issue of her pregnancy and presumed illegitimate child arose.  This, in turn, raised the hackles of Thyra, Duchess of Cumberland -- who had had her own illegitimate child -- and she had quite a disagreement with her sister, the Dowager Empress over the appropriate attitude to take towards such things.

The conversation then moved on to other illegitimate Romanov off-spring, and this Californian man was introduced as "You MUST know so-and-so.  His grandfather [or great-grandfather, I misremember which] was George Alexandrovich's son..."  This was the first we had heard of it, but a phone call was placed, we were put in touch, and soon he was subscribing to Atlantis.  We have never raised the issue of his family background with this man, because our informant's word is enough for us.  Besides, how rude would it be to demand "proof"?  What right have we, when he has made no claims or demands?  I think we have no right at all...
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Belochka on March 13, 2005, 03:16:18 AM
Quote
Besides, how rude would it be to demand "proof"?  What right have we, when he has made no claims or demands?  I think we have no right at all...


From Greg King's statement Mar 6th, 2004, 3:05am:

_____________________________________________

"I do know one gentleman who lives in the United States and says he is a grandson, I think, I've never asked for evidence, but he has provided it to some well-placed friends who have no doubt that his claim is true.

_____________________________________________

With respect Penny, how rude is it to deceive the world, on such an important historic matter? It is erroneous to suggest that this "chap" does not care about his alleged Imperial roots. Had he genuinely cared little about this most sensitive personal detail, he would have maintained his silence from his own circle of associates. Yet he selectively chose to disclose his presuppositions.

It is not the first time that "well placed gentlemen" can be incorrect or deceived.

How amusing are the games which some choose to play! :-/
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Belochka on March 13, 2005, 03:34:17 AM
Quote
Imperative for who?  You are assuming that he needs to prove anything.


Indeed he does have something to prove. You are, aware that there is a group of monarchists who strongly contend that the Imperial Family have never been found and that the remains buried in SPb in 1998 belong to victims of the civil war. This fallacious contention comes despite the conclusive DNA evidence.

So yes it is very much the case here, that DNA profiling is indeed imperative.

To place excuses ahead of consenting for a definitive scientific answer only muddies this "chap's" credibility before all with whom he meets.  :-/
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 13, 2005, 07:46:29 AM
Quote
George's recorded DNA profile can be "matched" against this new claimant very easily any time at his convenience.


Unfortunately this may not work with the existing DNA profile they have of George since they only did his mtDNA. If they will do any paternal type testing (Y-linked), they will have do another DNA profile. If it will ever come down to it with this gentleman claimant (which I doubt), then hopefully they saved George's tissue sample that they can use, since I doubt anyone will be allowed to exhume him again, especially for something like this....

Quote
Family members.  But it's the private business of a private man -- so that's all I have to say about this.
It's not necessary that anyone here believe or have their minds changed.  The issue simply hasn't been tabled for debate.


In which case, why post this private information here as if it were a proven historical fact, and then refuse to back it up? There is no reason to say anything about it one way or another, especially to imply that it is now a proven fact. This is what tabloid papers tend to do and you are not a tabloid reporter but a serious historian. Surely you realize that if you make statements like these, your peers will question your sources and will not accept the answer "a reliable well-placed person told me" or a "reliable family member told me"? If you would rather not provide these sources, than why post this information in the first place and set yourself up to be challenged?

Quote
We have never raised the issue of his family background with this man, because our informant's word is enough for us.  Besides, how rude would it be to demand "proof"?  What right have we, when he has made no claims or demands?  I think we have no right at all...


You should demand some sort of proof if you will post this information as fact on a public forum that many people use as a historical research tool. "Rude" to ask for proof? Penny, you are a historian, not a "claimant groupie". What's rude is to mislead people who accept what you state as undeniable proof because they consider you a serious historian.

Actually, it's not rude, it's irresponsible. Most people here genuinely would like to learn real historical facts, and I am sorry, but posting controversial information like this without appropriate back-up makes this forum take on the quality of a tabloid rag.

Quote
How would you like him to present to you his birth certificate?  


If this information is going to to be accepted as historical fact, I would prefer DNA evidence of course, but short of that, yes,  why not, he should at least be able to present something like a birth certificate as proof of his contention. Until then, it is just rumor, nothing else. But some kind of solid proof needs to be provided, not a "he said-she said" type of argument, if this information is going to be presented here as historical fact - and gullible people like the Bear will now accept it as factual and use it in their other postings as if it were factual... And if you can't provided substantial proof, then you probably should not post such info here. What I still don't understand is why you often become so defensive when people, justifiably, ask you for proof of your statements...  ??? You are a professional after all, and this is expected of all professionals by their peers.
__________________________________________

This "George's descendants" story sort of reminds me of the recent British "claimant" who contends that he is the illegitimate son of the late Princess Margaret. What he apparently has as his "proof" are some "childhood memories" and an old picture, taken of him as a child, allegedly by his "mother", Princess Margaret. The "proof" in the picture consists of the fact that in the photo you can make out a reflection of the person taking the photograph, which vaguely looks like a woman with an upswept hairdo and a couple of spikes sticking up, so that, if you have good imagination, they can be interpreted as a tiara on her head.
This story was picked up by some British tabloids, and I am sure this guy will gather quite a following because such is the nature of things like this. Oh well...  ::)  :-X
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Arleen on March 13, 2005, 08:40:10 AM
I hate the way some people get hounded on this forum about every little thing that they say, Penny forinstance.  I too am really interested in the George relatives question, and am glad that Penny at least told us that there are relatives out there.  I understand the need to be private for these people, look how everyone famous gets bothered.  I know enough about Penny to BELIEVE what she says, I know she wouldn't throw it out there if she herself had doubts, I don't have to have PROOF Penny....in the ENTIRE ROMANOV QUESTION how much proof is there really on anything??  That is a good part of our interest for  hundred years......thanks Penny for sharing what you do know.          ..Arleen
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 13, 2005, 09:09:03 AM
Quote
I hate the way some people get hounded on this forum about every little thing that they say, Penny forinstance.  I too am really interested in the George relatives question, and am glad that Penny at least told us that there are relatives out there.  I understand the need to be private for these people, look how everyone famous gets bothered.  I know enough about Penny to BELIEVE what she says, I know she wouldn't throw it out there if she herself had doubts, I don't have to have PROOF Penny....in the ENTIRE ROMANOV QUESTION how much proof is there really on anything??  That is a good part of our interest for  hundred years......thanks Penny for sharing what you do know.          ..Arleen


Arleen, I am sure Penny believes what she says, but Penny has been wrong before, as have many people including myself. The only way to be able to figure out if something is credible or not is to have the sources for peer review. In order to come off as credible and prefessional and to be able to present something as fact, everyone, not just Penny, must provide appropriate back-up sources. The reason Penny gets challenged so much here is because she often does not present appropriate evidence for her statements, therefore people do not accept her statements as fact, which is the way it works in the professional world, in any field. This is the way we separate serious research from tabloid garbage. It is ok to read tabloid information for fun, as long as you know what it is, but if you want serious information, there is absolutely no other way but to have appropriate sources. Otherwise every tabloid rag story would be accepted as proof of whatever they are claiming.  

Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 13, 2005, 09:45:34 AM
Quote

Unfortunately this may not work with the existing DNA profile they have of George since they only did his mtDNA. If they will do any paternal type testing (Y-linked), they will have do another DNA profile. If it will ever come down to it with this gentleman claimant (which I doubt), then hopefully they saved George's tissue sample that they can use, since I doubt anyone will be allowed to exhume him again, especially for something like this....


In which case, why post this private information here as if it were a proven historical fact, and then refuse to back it up? There is no reason to say anything about it one way or another, especially to imply that it is now a proven fact. This is what tabloid papers tend to do and you are not a tabloid reporter but a serious historian. Surely you realize that if you make statements like these, your peers will question your sources and will not accept the answer "a reliable well-placed person told me" or a "reliable family member told me"? If you would rather not provide these sources, than why post this information in the first place and set yourself up to be challenged?


You should demand some sort of proof if you will post this information as fact on a public forum that many people use as a historical research tool. "Rude" to ask for proof? Penny, you are a historian, not a "claimant groupie". What's rude is to mislead people who accept what you state as undeniable proof because they consider you a serious historian.

Actually, it's not rude, it's irresponsible. Most people here genuinely would like to learn real historical facts, and I am sorry, but posting controversial information like this without appropriate back-up makes this forum take on the quality of a tabloid rag.


If this information is going to to be accepted as historical fact, I would prefer DNA evidence of course, but short of that, yes,  why not, he should at least be able to present something like a birth certificate as proof of his contention. Until then, it is just rumor, nothing else. But some kind of solid proof needs to be provided, not a "he said-she said" type of argument, if this information is going to be presented here as historical fact - and gullible people like the Bear will now accept it as factual and use it in their other postings as if it were factual... And if you can't provided substantial proof, then you probably should not post such info here. What I still don't understand is why you often become so defensive when people, justifiably, ask you for proof of your statements...  ??? You are a professional after all, and this is expected of all professionals by their peers.
__________________________________________

This "George's descendants" story sort of reminds me of the recent British "claimant" who contends that he is the illegitimate son of the late Princess Margaret. What he apparently has as his "proof" are some "childhood memories" and an old picture, taken of him as a child, allegedly by his "mother", Princess Margaret. The "proof" in the picture consists of the fact that in the photo you can make out a reflection of the person taking the photograph, which vaguely looks like a woman with an upswept hairdo and a couple of spikes sticking up, so that, if you have good imagination, they can be interpreted as a tiara on her head.
This story was picked up by some British tabloids, and I am sure this guy will gather quite a following because such is the nature of things like this. Oh well...  ::)  :-X


Then forget everything Greg or I have said on the matter. We were just sharing what we know, and what we heard -- I certainly wouldn't have joined in the conversation if I had known that it would become a witch-hunt.  

I would like to request that the Forum Admin remove the parts of this thread and others that are offensive to those who know better than Greg and I.

Rob, would you clarify if Greg and I are allowed to make casual, passim comments on this board, or if we have to prepare dossiers of "proof" to back up every single statement.  
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Arleen on March 13, 2005, 09:46:27 AM
Thanks Helen!  I totally agree with what you posted and appreciate it so much, I feel exactly like you do about the facts.  I love FACTS....and I read 15 to 20 newspapers worldwide every day.  But you know what?  In my old age, maybe senility is setting in I have discovered I believe less and less what I read and sometimes not at all....and more and more between the lines (especially anything from our own government these days).  .....And the funny thing is that my intuition means more and more to me.  Check out all of the AA and AF pages....all of the fussing and anger, when no one can really prove much of anything. I believe AA was not AN and don't care a wit about AF....Peter Kurth whom I love his books, BELIEVES AA is AN!  
Round about way to get to my point....my intuition tells me Penny does know a GD George relative and I KNOW she is not able to prove it and neither one of us care.  To hide the identity of this gentleman is too important than to prove a point.
But on the other hand I am with you.....I love facts too! But we are never going to know the absolute truth about much of anything when it comes to Romanov's, and therein lies our huge interest!
..Arleen

Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 13, 2005, 09:52:32 AM
Quote

Arleen, I am sure Penny believes what she says, but Penny has been wrong before, as have many people including myself. The only way to be able to figure out if something is credible or not is to have the sources for peer review. In order to come off as credible and prefessional and to be able to present something as fact, everyone, not just Penny, must provide appropriate back-up sources. The reason Penny gets challenged so much here is because she often does not present appropriate evidence for her statements, therefore people do not accept her statements as fact, which is the way it works in the professional world, in any field. This is the way we separate serious research from tabloid garbage. It is ok to read tabloid information for fun, as long as you know what it is, but if you want serious information, there is absolutely no other way but to have appropriate sources. Otherwise every tabloid rag story would be accepted as proof of whatever they are claiming.  



I had no idea I was guilty of "tabloid garbage." Thank you very much, Helen, for your unsolicited opinion of my work.  Please tell me where else I have neglected to provide sufficient sources for my statements, and I will do so, if I can.  Anywhere where I am unable to provide sources -- for reasons of privacy of others or on-going research -- I will remove the post and be careful not to share incomplete work again.  Perhaps Rob could set me up a private, Penny-only page, where I can scan the documents, etc., that I will need in order to prove myself to you.

I HAD thought that this was a casual site for historical discussion -- but clearly, this casual atmosphere is not a courtesy that will be extended to me.  So please do tell me where I have erred in your opinion, in not providing "proof" enough for you, and I will rectify the error.  Then, perhaps, you will remove this post as insulting to me, both personally and "professionally."
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 13, 2005, 09:53:07 AM
Quote
I certainly wouldn't have joined in the conversation if I had known that it would become a witch-hunt.  
 


There is absolutely no need to get so defensive when someone asks you to back up your statements. This reaction is certainly unworthy of a professional historian.

Quote
Rob, would you clarify if Greg and I are allowed to make casual, passim comments on this board, or if we have to prepare dossiers of "proof" to back up every single statement.  


When these casual statements are taken as absolute historical proof (see Bear's posts) because this is the way you presented them, then yes, you should also present some reasonable proof of them. This is not by any means an unreasonable request and there is no need to throw tantrums about it.  

Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 13, 2005, 09:55:31 AM
Quote
I had no idea I was guilty of "tabloid garbage."


I did not say that and you know it. I was speaking in generalities to try to explain to people why we need to have back-up sources for the information presented. No one called your research "tabloid garbage", all we asked for is not to state something as fact unless you can provide reasonable back up sources. I don't understand why we are even having this conversation, this is supposed to be a given.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 13, 2005, 09:59:41 AM
Quote

What I still don't understand is why you often become so defensive when people, justifiably, ask you for proof of your statements...  ??? You are a professional after all, and this is expected of all professionals by their peers.



What I don't understand is why you people feel it necessary to dog-pile me as you do.  How do I provide "proof" enough for you?  As I've suggested elsewhere -- a page for me to scan and post documents?  Then what?  Wave-files of people's testimony?  How can I prove this all sufficiently for you, since my word that I have proof -- or in this case trust the person who HAS the proof -- is not enough for you?  Do you know how much time this would take me?

And I am not always "on" as an historian.  Sometimes I like to shoot the breeze about things -- can I do that here?  I am beginning to seriously doubt that I will be "allowed" to post by my "peers" here without the requirement of footnotes, endnotes, affadavits, testimonial documents, notarization, etc., etc.  Greg has already decided that this is not a board where he can post;  I am again doubting my own welcome here.

Edited to correct quote...
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 13, 2005, 10:08:28 AM
Quote

There is absolutely no need to get so defensive when someone asks you to back up your statements. This reaction is certainly unworthy of a professional historian.


When these casual statements are taken as absolute historical proof (see Bear's posts) because this is the way you presented them, then yes, you should also present some reasonable proof of them. This is not by any means an unreasonable request and there is no need to throw tantrums about it.  
 



Oh, will you STOP with the "professional historian" stuff?  It's early on a Sunday morning, and already I am under attack, and not allowed to respond, lest I not be a "professional historian."  This is a convenient straw-man for you, when you don't like my responses to your attacks.  For attacks they are, when you use the words "tabloid," "garbage" -- and even "unprofessional," when as I have said, I am not always "on duty."

Helen, would you, personally, like it if I stopped coming here?  Because it sure seems like it to me.

All I have said here on the George issue is that we met a highly-placed person in the family; this person mentioned him, believes in him without a question, and has apparently know of the existence of his part of the family for two or three generations.  I cannot prove this, because I am NOT going to ask the gentleman for documents to post here, because he has not asked ME to believe anything.  Greg first, and then I, made passim comments about this information that came our way -- as unsupported as it may appear to you.  We did not, at that time, know that this would create such a firestorm, or we would not have done so.  We just thought that you guys would like to tuck this piece of info away, and you can believe it or not.  We don't care. That's all this is, and look what has become of it.  
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 13, 2005, 10:08:48 AM
Numerous times, when I posted certain things on this forum, I have been challenged and asked for proof or references, often by FA himself. I have always provided them. I usually don't claim to know things for a fact, I just say "I read this here" and then provide the reference, if asked. And that is usually the end of it. I don't get offended, and I don't ask for my info to be accepted as gospel truth without backing myself up, and not even then.

What makes it somewhat different for you, is the fact that you are a professional, which means that the things you casually say here will be taken by some people as "gospel truth": again, see Bear's postings. This is why you have the extra responsibilty to be careful of what you say here and you shouldn't just casually thow out serious historical information unless you can back it up. This is the difference between what you post and what many others post, including myself. Being a professional historian and a published author, you do have this extra responsibilty and a burden to be extra careful. Maybe it would be a good idea for you to sometimes post under a fake name (when you don't feel like posting under "Penny Wilson the historian") and then you can say what you like and not be held responsible for your statements as you would when you post under your real name....
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 13, 2005, 10:11:44 AM
Quote

I did not say that and you know it. I was speaking in generalities to try to explain to people why we need to have back-up sources for the information presented. No one called your research "tabloid garbage", all we asked for is not to state something as fact unless you can provide reasonable back up sources. I don't understand why we are even having this conversation, this is supposed to be a given.



Then define for me now, Helen, what constitutes "reasonable back up sources" for you.  Provide me a list, please. I will then consider you the arbiter of what I may and may not post on this board, and I will make no more comments or posts that cannot be supported by your list of requirements.  And I'm serious about this, because I like posting here, and I don't want to offend anyone with my knowledge -- so please help me to present it in a form acceptable to you (and presumably the many, many others that you speak for).
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 13, 2005, 10:11:57 AM
Quote

Helen, would you, personally, like it if I stopped coming here?   


No, not at all. I enjoy many of your posts. What I would like is if you acted more professionally when challenged, that's all.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 13, 2005, 10:12:49 AM
Quote
Numerous times, when I posted certain things on this forum, I have been challenged and asked for proof or references, often by FA himself. I have always provided them. I usually don't claim to know things for a fact, I just say "I read this here" and then provide the reference, if asked. And that is usually the end of it. I don't get offended, and I don't ask for my info to be accepted as gospel truth without backing myself up, and not even then.

What makes it somewhat different for you, is the fact that you are a professional, which means that the things you casually say here will be taken by some people as "gospel truth": again, see Bear's postings. This is why you have the extra responsibilty to be careful of what you say here and you shouldn't just casually thow out serious historical information unless you can back it up. This is the difference between what you post and what many others post, including myself. Being a professional historian and a published author, you do have this extra responsibilty and a burden to be extra careful. Maybe it would be a good idea for you to sometimes post under a fake name (when you don't feel like posting under "Penny Wilson the historian") and then you can say what you like and not be held responsible for your statements as you would when you post under your real name....



Clearly, you are a much, much better person and historian than I am.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 13, 2005, 10:15:16 AM
Quote


Then define for me now, Helen, what constitutes "reasonable back up sources" for you.  

You can start by giving us the source of your information about George's marriage and children other than saying "a well placed gentleman told us" or that "you heard"?  If you can't do that due to privacy issues, than you should not present this information at all or present it as alleged information, not historical fact. After all, you don't know this for sure yourself, you are just placing your faith in this high placed gentleman, who could be wrong. This makes this information alleged, not factual.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 13, 2005, 10:16:16 AM
Quote


Clearly, you are a much, much better person and historian than I am.


This type of sarcasm is very immature and is unworthy of you. Don't you have anything else to say?
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 13, 2005, 10:19:32 AM
Quote

No, not at all. I enjoy many of your posts. What I would like is if you acted more professionally when challenged, that's all.



Again, you are clearly a much, much better person and historian than I am.  And "challenged."  What an innocuous word.  If you guys only "challenged" me, it would be ok.  But you don't.  You attack.  You gang-up and dog-pile, and you don't merely ask the question.  Then the answer is not sufficient for you, you start the insults -- such as in this case, the subtle comparison to "garbage" and "tabloid."  Do you have any idea how damaging this is to me -- both personally and "professionally," as you are so concerned with my professional existence?  Yet you let these comments stand -- why?  So that you can say you "scored" against me?  Just ask the questions, if you have them, and leave the insults and insulting commentary at home.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 13, 2005, 10:23:02 AM
Quote
You can start by giving us the source of your information about George's marriage and children other than saying "a well placed gentleman told us" or that "you heard"?  If you can't do that due to privacy issues, than you should not present this information at all or present it as alleged information, not historical fact. After all, you don't know this for sure yourself, you are just placing your faith in this high placed gentleman, who could be wrong. This makes this information alleged, not factual.


Well, I'm not going to tell you, for reasons of family privacy.  And the information came from a lady, not a gentleman.

I am going to ask Rob to remove all my posts, starting from day one, since they are so obviously offensive to you, and once you provide me with a list of Penny's Posting Requirements, I will start again.  I really do not want to offend anyone here, so I think I will take a do-over.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 13, 2005, 10:24:31 AM
Quote


Again, you are clearly a much, much better person and historian than I am.  And "challenged."  What an innocuous word.  If you guys only "challenged" me, it would be ok.  But you don't.  You attack.  You gang-up and dog-pile, and you don't merely ask the question.  Then the answer is not sufficient for you, you start the insults -- such as in this case, the subtle comparison to "garbage" and "tabloid."  Do you have any idea how damaging this is to me -- both personally and "professionally," as you are so concerned with my professional existence?  Yet you let these comments stand -- why?  So that you can say you "scored" against me?  Just ask the questions, if you have them, and leave the insults and insulting commentary at home.


I am sorry you see it that way, but this is just your perception. When questions are asked, you just tend to get aggressively defensive and it all goes downhill from there. For some reason you often perceive yourself as being attacked when you are not. No one here insulted you or your work, we merely challenged it. It's too bad you don't have the capability to see that.

I think I've had enough of this exchange since it is obviosly not going to get us anywhere.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 13, 2005, 10:36:21 AM
Quote
I am sorry you see it that way, but this is just your perception. When questions are asked, you just tend to get aggressively defensive and it all goes downhill from there. For some reason you often perceive yourself as being attacked when you are not. No one here insulted you or your work, we merely challenged it. It's too bad you don't have the capability to see that.


I have written to Rob, and hopefully we can work something out where I can continue to post here. And about the "attacking," Helen -- is your last sentence above intended as anything other than an insult?  It's too bad that you can't simply be nicer in your approach.  You could start by sending me a list of your source requirements -- and I would genuinely like you to do this.  Anything that keeps you happy will stop any further unpleasantness.  So please do tell me what I have to do in order to conform to posting requirements, i.e., what sort of documents do you require?  Do I have to just see them, or do I have to scan them?  What sort of provenance makes a document acceptable as proof? Etc., etc.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Forum Admin on March 13, 2005, 10:37:31 AM
Time out.
OK, Penny made a statement SHE believes to be true based on the information she has. Some "background" proof was requested. Penny can't provide it publicly, as the person is a private individual. That should be the end of the story. We can't force private people to be dragged into the public against their will.

On this one, I have to agree with Penny. Bob and I are well acquainted with private people who are very "first hand" knowledgeable about Romanov family history, and we can't publicly cite them as they wish to remain private. Linda D. is in the same boat.  It just has to be accepted for what it is. If you wish to reject it without further proof, that is your personal choice. So just accept it or not for what it is. It should NEVER turn into an argument.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 13, 2005, 10:52:26 AM
Quote

Indeed he does have something to prove. You are, aware that there is a group of monarchists who strongly contend that the Imperial Family have never been found and that the remains buried in SPb in 1998 belong to victims of the civil war. This fallacious contention comes despite the conclusive DNA evidence.

So yes it is very much the case here, that DNA profiling is indeed imperative.



But I think that in the serious -- and even in the not-so-serious -- realm of Romanov history, everyone accepts that these are the Romanov remains.  Even absent the DNA, what were the calculated odds of another grouping of people (correct number and sex of adults, three young women) being killed and buried in the exact same spot? I think it was something in the millions, unless these bones were a deliberate plant -- and there has never been any evidence, credible or not -- to support this theory.  The DNA is simply one piece of the evidence.  And again, it's not only Hessian and Romanov DNA that was matched -- Dr Botkin's and either Trupp's or Kharitonov's DNA was identified too.

So I don't think we can seriously consider the opinions and desires of this monarchist group when it flies in the face of all known evidence.  And as a monarchist group, they would, I am sure, make a difference in legitimate Romanovs and illegitimate/morganatic ones.  And as the descendant of one of the latter -- plus a couple of "unequal" marriages later -- this gentleman can be of no interest to them.  Especially as he makes no claims -- and remember, he didn't make claims to us.  His relative told us about him. And it's not as though he's a big family secret, he's just a private man who doesn't play in this game at all.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 13, 2005, 10:54:26 AM
Quote
I hate the way some people get hounded on this forum about every little thing that they say, Penny forinstance.  I too am really interested in the George relatives question, and am glad that Penny at least told us that there are relatives out there.  I understand the need to be private for these people, look how everyone famous gets bothered.  I know enough about Penny to BELIEVE what she says, I know she wouldn't throw it out there if she herself had doubts, I don't have to have PROOF Penny....in the ENTIRE ROMANOV QUESTION how much proof is there really on anything??  That is a good part of our interest for  hundred years......thanks Penny for sharing what you do know.          ..Arleen



Thank you for understanding my intentions, Arleen!  ;D
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 13, 2005, 11:01:40 AM
Quote

This type of sarcasm is very immature and is unworthy of you. Don't you have anything else to say?



It's not meant as sarcasm.  Clearly, you ARE a much better individual than I am.  And what else is there to say, since I don't live up to your standards?
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: grandduchessella on March 13, 2005, 11:27:01 AM
Quote


All I have said here on the George issue is that we met a highly-placed person in the family; this person mentioned him, believes in him without a question, and has apparently know of the existence of his part of the family for two or three generations.   


If this involved say my brother (so I would be a 'highly-placed' figure) and someone showed up who claimed to be his son, grandson,  why would I believe it? In other words regards the claimant in this case, what would've been an additional reason to believe? Did (does) the man resemble GA in anyway, was there something going on in GA's life that would lend credence, were there pre-existing rumors floating around the family, etc... that would lead me to believe the story without demanding a birth certificate, etc...? If a BC or DNA test wasn't required by the 'highly-placed' source what would've led them to the conclusion?
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 13, 2005, 11:53:36 AM
Quote

If this involved say my brother (so I would be a 'highly-placed' figure) and someone showed up who claimed to be his son, grandson,  why would I believe it? In other words regards the claimant in this case, what would've been an additional reason to believe? Did (does) the man resemble GA in anyway, was there something going on in GA's life that would lend credence, were there pre-existing rumors floating around the family, etc... that would lead me to believe the story without demanding a birth certificate, etc...? If a BC or DNA test wasn't required by the 'highly-placed' source what would've led them to the conclusion?


It was my impression that George's descendance has always been known to the family.  It's not as though they suddenly surfaced -- our source knew this man and his parents and knew of his grandparents (if not his great-grandparents).  If I were forced to make a comparison, I would say that it would be like a distant cousinship -- you know they're there, your parents and grandparents knew their parents and grandparents, and you have a casual family relationship, but you've always known of them, so why start demanding DNA tests and birth certificates?

PS. And OT.  I'm glad to see your sig.  I think I have thought of Matt Maupin every day for the last couple of months - -ever since I read in Time or Newsweek that he was still POW and MIA...
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 13, 2005, 12:04:10 PM
Quote
Time out.
OK, Penny made a statement SHE believes to be true based on the information she has. Some "background" proof was requested. Penny can't provide it publicly, as the person is a private individual. That should be the end of the story. We can't force private people to be dragged into the public against their will.

On this one, I have to agree with Penny. Bob and I are well acquainted with private people who are very "first hand" knowledgeable about Romanov family history, and we can't publicly cite them as they wish to remain private. Linda D. is in the same boat.  It just has to be accepted for what it is. If you wish to reject it without further proof, that is your personal choice. So just accept it or not for what it is. It should NEVER turn into an argument.

Rob, you very well know that this forum is read by many serious people who are looking for serious historical information. Many times you have stated that here and asked people for appropriate sources for their statements. Why is this case any different? All I did (and others too) was ask for sources of information that was presented as fact - I am not the one who turned it into an argument. We do this all the time, with many people and it never seems to be a problem. Why should this case be any different?  Why do some people's egos need to be stroked to a point where anything goes?  

Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: rskkiya on March 13, 2005, 12:16:10 PM
Penny W. ET AL (everyone)

    Perhaps it would be a bit more politic for people who are unable or "unwilling" to provide sources for their exciting, radical historical comments to simply not post them or to express them as simply an idea! That way, no one is being unprofessional and visitors to this site don't feel 'tricked' or teased.

   This is an "attack" on poor research or privacy issues  ONLY --If 'Prince Fillipillov" doesn't want to publish it, but told "X" in confidence then don't print it here!

rskkiya
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 13, 2005, 12:18:43 PM
Quote
Penny W. ET AL (everyone)

     Perhaps it would be a bit more politic for people who are unable or "unwilling" to provide sources for their exciting, radical historical comments to simply not post them or to express them as simply an idea! That way, no one is being unprofessional and visitors to this site don't feel 'tricked' or teased.

rskkiya


This was exactly my point, Rsskiya!  You can state anything you want, as long as you make sure to point out that it is a conjecture or that it is based on someone's claims (whom you can't name). To state it as fact is simply irresponsible unless credible evidence can be provided. I don't understand why this is even an issue.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: grandduchessella on March 13, 2005, 12:22:35 PM
Quote

It was my impression that George's descendance has always been known to the family.  It's not as though they suddenly surfaced -- our source knew this man and his parents and knew of his grandparents (if not his great-grandparents).  If I were forced to make a comparison, I would say that it would be like a distant cousinship -- you know they're there, your parents and grandparents knew their parents and grandparents, and you have a casual family relationship, but you've always known of them, so why start demanding DNA tests and birth certificates?

PS. And OT.  I'm glad to see your sig.  I think I have thought of Matt Maupin every day for the last couple of months - -ever since I read in Time or Newsweek that he was still POW and MIA...


Thanks for the clarification--makes the circumstances more understandable to me. So he apparently didn't just 'pop up' but was thought of as a descendant by at least certain members of the family.

Do you know if there was any additional documentation, ie letters, diaries, that mentioned him? For instance anything letter from MF to another relative? Thyra's illegitimate child was just speculated on for a long time it seems because the Danes didn't allow review of some of the archival material. Do you think there's something like that that just hasn't been seen or was it not known to most of the family or did MF live in a sense of denial?  One would think that she would've wanted to think that part of GA lived on. I can understand the respect for privacy now but did people ignore it the stories then or just not WANT to acknowledge it? It does seem that things that weren't spoken of/acknowledged back in the day (ie relationship of Waldemar/George) seem to be more readily acknowledged now.

I am curious as to a point made in  Helen's previous post where she'd excerpted some entries I'd made re: GA's illness. Granted men seem to be able to father children regardless of age or health but he does seem to be in awfully bad shape during this period and also out of the Caucuses for stretches of time while in the South of France.

I have to admit I'm doubtful of the claim (but I don't know much of the circumstances) but I guess if the man's living a private life (unlike AA) and making no claims it really does no one any harm--it's certainly not going to be an AA issue or an issue regarding any claims to the 'throne'. Also could it be that HE believes it because he was told that (in other words isn't a liar or charlatan) but it's just not the case.

This is all probably pretty rambling but I'm in a Sun morning funk for some reason.  :)

Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 13, 2005, 01:55:49 PM
Quote
You could start by sending me a list of your source requirements -- and I would genuinely like you to do this.  Anything that keeps you happy will stop any further unpleasantness.  


I just want to add one more thing. It is not a matter of "keeping me happy". These are not my  requirements and I don't know why you want to present them as such. These are "rules" that have been around for a long time. Generally, when a serious researcher/scholar presents information from his or her research, it is understood that before it is accepted as fact (especially if it goes against the accepted status quo) it has to withstand some scrutiny by the colleagues in the field. This starts with providing credible sources of this information. This is always the case, unless this information is clearly presented as a personal conjecture or idea, not as fact.

Before presenting this info, this scholar should already be anticipating in advance that his "new" ideas will be challenged and have the appropriate evidence and facts to back himself up. These facts have to be something other than "I know, but I can't tell you" or "Someone told me but I can't tell you who it was". If this is the case, then it is probably better, as we already said many times, for this serious scholar not to make any statements at all unless, or until, credible evidence can be presented.

Again, these are not my requirements, this is the accepted practice in the academic world. This is why I am astounded by the fact that I am being personally attacked for trying to hold up this accepted practice, by someone who is undoubtedly familiar with the way things are normally done.  This is just plain unfair, and in fact, puzzling...   ???

And now I hope we can continue with this discussion without further drama.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Arleen on March 13, 2005, 03:12:16 PM
Bottom line is:  Its really SAD when a person like Penny cannot post here without the pack jumping on her, disecting and challenging every word.  Makes you wonder why....
..Arleen
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Eurohistory on March 13, 2005, 03:21:15 PM
Quote

True, but then, neither are you, Art.  No-one is -- the subject is simply too big.  But just because Greg and I aren't the "ultimate source" doesn't mean we are wrong on this.


Dear Penny...never have I presented myself as the "ultimate" source of anything related to the Romanovs....

Arturo Beéche
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Dominic_Albanese on March 13, 2005, 04:08:28 PM
Folks - I've been off line and just realized that this all was going on.  You may remember I started this by suggesting that it seemed odd (ok I think it's almost impossible) to me that GD George could have had two marriages and children without it being mentioned somewhere by someone.

Having just read this whole thing I want to defend Penny while disagreeing with her at the same time.

Penny was brought into this thread by someone else - "Penny Said in another forum..." Let Penny speak for herself when she wants to.  She didn't jump into this - she was brought into it and than she was challenged, aggressively in my view.

Penny and I have wrangled before and I think we have a healthy respect for one another (atleast I do for her).  But anyone who has read her posts here and FOTR *must* respect her for her historical work.  She is generous in sharing what she's learned and and always willing to back it up when requested to.

Now, its true I still don't agree with her that GD GEorge could have had such a prolific family life - but hell - why get into a knock down drag out of it?  She believes it, I don't - I still have *enormous* respect for her and hope she will continue to post here.

Penny - I *know* you are very able to take care of yourself and don't need me to defend you but I felt like because I started this and had read the entire exchange from scratch I should weigh in.  Even though we've argued before I do hope you keep posting - you bring alot to this board and I for one would be sorry to see you (or any of the other folks who've posted on this subject) go anywhere.

Here's an idea - Maybe there is a research paper here or a book by one of our Romanov writers.  I've been squaking for months that we need a new, good biography on Alexander III and those members of his family that haven't been written to death about already!

best to ALL,

dca
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 13, 2005, 04:48:57 PM
Quote
Penny was brought into this thread by someone else - "Penny Said in another forum..." Let Penny speak for herself when she wants to.  She didn't jump into this - she was brought into it and than she was challenged, aggressively in my view.

Dominic, you are absolutely right, Penny was brought into this discussion because someone used her as a source, which was then questioned by some of us. While I respect a lot of Penny's work, among that FOTR (and Penny herself knows that I have given her very positive feedback about that book, as I have often mentioned on this forum as well as in private emails to her). That doesn't mean however, that I will accept everthing she says without ever challenging it. What bothered me about today's incident was the fact that the information that Penny presented was now being used as historical fact, and Penny's posts were being cited instead of any primary sources. This is the only issue I had with this, but unfortunately somehow it escalated into something bigger. If Penny had originally said, "this is my belief based on whatever, but I cannot say any more than that", that would be fine. In which case everyone would understand that this is not yet a historical fact, but personal belief/opinion. When Bear started making posts where she presented this information as historical fact and cited Penny as a source, this is when it needed to be challenged, which it was, by more than one person. This is normal. I never said I thought that Penny lied. Maybe Penny's information is correct, or maybe it isn't, that's not really the point here. Fact is, we can't judge either way, because we have no information, and are unlikely to ever get it. Unless we are willing to accept it - no questions asked - in blind faith, this information has to be considered someone's opinion/belief, not historical fact. This was my only issue with this subject. Whenever anyone states his or her belief, they should make it clear that this is all it is, otherwise people get confused and get the wrong idea about it being unquestionably factual, as we saw happen here.

Having said that, I want to add that it is not my intention, nor anyone else's (I don't think), to prevent Penny from posting here. I also hope that she stays and continues to post. However, if people are accepting Penny's  admittedly casual comments as fact, and if she does not make it clear that it is still only personal opinion, then I will of course challenge it. Sorry.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Arleen on March 13, 2005, 04:49:59 PM
Dominic, I like what you said.....
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Marlene on March 13, 2005, 06:08:22 PM
Quote
Here is what Penny wrote about one of the great grandson's of GD George:


So, he was married and did have  at least one surviving child who lived to be an adult  who had child... who had a child.....

AGRBear



Grand Duke George never married, and did not have issue.  I am surprised by all the posts here because George did not have children - never married.  He died at the age of 28, and to be married twice (morganatically) by that age - and to be so ill - is rather unbelievable.   Moreover, it would have been difficult to contract one morganatic marriage, let alone 2, without the entire world finding out about -- and the Romanovs, all of whom were notorious gossips, would have been discussing it -- and certainly the marriages would have been discussed in the media of the day.  (There is one NYT article that refers to George being married - but negates the information soon afterward.)

Nicholas II would have tightened the family laws before 1913 -if George had married morganatically.  Think of the fuss over Michael's marriage to Mrs. Wulfert.

I've gotten letters and phone calls from people claiming to be descendants of Queen Victoria ... and in all cases, well, they are California dreamin'
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Dominic_Albanese on March 13, 2005, 06:10:07 PM
Thanks to both Helen and Arlene -

best,
dca
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Marlene on March 13, 2005, 06:13:49 PM
Quote
Perhaps Georg was bisexual or maybe, people just confused his name with the other George.  I don't know.  However, if he has grandchildren here in the USA then there was a woman or two involved with him.

Until proven otherwise,  I'll go with the two morgantic marriages.

AGRBear


Considering all the attention given to the morganatic marriages made by other members of the family, and how Nicholas tightened the family rules because of his brother Michael, don't you think Nicholas would have read George the riot act ... and that such marriages would have been discussed in the family.

There is a splendid book on the illegitimate lines of descent from the Romanovs - including children born to mistresses or morganatic marriages -- and this book is well-researched - and nothing about George ...
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 13, 2005, 06:26:37 PM
Quote

Considering all the attention given to the morganatic marriages made by other members of the family, and how Nicholas tightened the family rules because of his brother Michael, don't you think Nicholas would have read George the riot act ... and that such marriages would have been discussed in the family.

There is a splendid book on the illegitimate lines of descent from the Romanovs - including children born to mistresses or morganatic marriages -- and this book is well-researched - and nothing about George ...


That's a good point, Marlene. Why would George's two morganatic marriages be kept so hush-hush (to this day!), if everyone else's in the family were discussed openly? One may say, it was because he was the heir to the throne. Well, so was Michael at the time he eloped with Olga's lady in waiting, and everyone knew about that almost immediately! His later  morganatic marriage was not kept a secret by far either. How and why would they have kept it such a secret with George (with two marriages no less, and four children, all this while he was gravely ill with TB!), until this gentleman in California came along and claimed to be George's grandson, which is supposedly an open secret to the Romanov family members. And we are supposed to just accept this information, no questions asked... I am sorry, that's a little too much to ask for and it makes no logical sense.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Belochka on March 13, 2005, 06:31:36 PM
Quote
However, if people are accepting Penny's  admittedly casual comments as fact, and if she does not make it clear that it is still only personal opinion, then I will of course challenge it. Sorry.


Helen, this a fair and reasonable expectation.

This is a discussion forum. It would be wrong to presuppose that when a published author provides a new piece of information, that we on this forum are not expected to provide our learned opinions. We should not merely accept what is given here without question.

Helen and I are professionals in our fields. Our own training has taught us to question material which we believe appears incomplete or simply incorrect.

When material is presented, FA has often requested that references are provided. This technique aids others who are researching, to go back to the source material, and it also provides some form of legitimacy for their statements. This is a standard practice.

But when a new piece of very contentious information is presented on this public forum,  then why is it now unreasonable for some us to question its veracity?

We have encountered far too many pretenders over the decades. Some of these pretenders have published their claims to make a few $'s. We are all familiar with such cases.

There also are a smaller group of people who prefer to remain relatively silent about their roots, not using the public media. We respect those wishes without reservation.

It is unfair and unprofessional to present information which later, cannot be publically challenged due to apparent privacy issues. Accepting this statement on its own merit, then why may I ask present the information here in the first place?
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Belochka on March 13, 2005, 06:46:02 PM
Quote
Grand Duke George never married, and did not have issue.  I am surprised by all the posts here because George did not have children - never married.  He died at the age of 28, and to be married twice (morganatically) by that age - and to be so ill - is rather unbelievable.   Moreover, it would have been difficult to contract one morganatic marriage, let alone 2, without the entire world finding out about -- and the Romanovs, all of whom were notorious gossips, would have been discussing it -- and certainly the marriages would have been discussed in the media of the day. Nicholas II would have tightened the family laws before 1913 -if George had married morganatically.  Think of the fuss over Michael's marriage to Mrs. Wulfert.


Hi Marlene,

Your comments are very sensible. In one of my previous postings I also brought up the matter of SPb gossip. Such titillating details would not have gone unnoticed had there been any semblance of truth or otherwise. Nothing like a good scandal, especially if it related to a member of the Romanov family. Yet there was silence.

It is appauling to smear G. D. George in this manner over a century later, when he was terminally ill. The very nature of his disease made him INFECTIOUS to anyone who may have lived with him in closed quarters.  Clearly any children would have been placed into grave danger, as would any personal relationships with these alleged "wives".
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Robert_Hall on March 13, 2005, 06:53:59 PM
OK, this is not my subject, but I find it amusing. First, to be fair- Penny made it quite clear that this fellow is not pretending nor claiming anything. He apparently cares not a fig what any of us think. So be it.  On the other hand, why even bring it up inm the first place? Is it just something along the lines of "I knew a man man who danced with a man...[wrong scenario, but you get the point] ? If so,  Just leave it as Penny opened it, a toss of a comment. If she wishes to elaborate further in a published forum, I am sure she will be very forthcoming with the sources.
Cheers,
Robert
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Dominic_Albanese on March 13, 2005, 07:00:27 PM
Quote
There is a splendid book on the illegitimate lines of descent from the Romanovs - including children born to mistresses or morganatic marriages -- and this book is well-researched - and nothing about George ...


Hi Marlene - what book are you speaking of here?

dca
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Belochka on March 13, 2005, 07:00:39 PM
Quote
hopefully they saved George's tissue sample that they can use, since I doubt anyone will be allowed to exhume him again


It is standard laboratory procedure to keep frozen a few vials of tissue samples, should re-testing be required years down the tract.

There would be no problem in running a DNA profile for George if the laboratory(s) who posseses these vials are legally compelled to do so. ;D  
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Belochka on March 13, 2005, 07:17:36 PM
Quote
 Just leave it as Penny opened it, a toss of a comment.


If we all provided comments which were to be "tossed", then this forum would become bogged down with details which bear little credibility or substance. When does fiction become a fact? How can such details be distinguished?

We could all "toss" a few comments, like morsels of tasty treats to a dog, but without providing credible referable sources, those "tosses" become rather suspect, and the treats become unappealing.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Robert_Hall on March 13, 2005, 07:19:17 PM
Well, has that not happened ad infinatum already ?
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 13, 2005, 07:59:02 PM
Quote
It is standard laboratory procedure to keep frozen a few vials of tissue samples, should re-testing be required years down the tract. There would be no problem in running a DNA profile for George if the laboratory(s) who posseses these vials are legally compelled to do so. ;D  



I didn't want to assume anything  ;) Well, if the standard lab procedure was followed, then the fellow in California can very easily prove his claims should he ever choose to do so...   ;)

Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 13, 2005, 08:17:55 PM
Quote
The very nature of his disease made him INFECTIOUS to anyone who may have lived with him in closed quarters.  Clearly any children would have been placed into grave danger, as would any personal relationships with these alleged "wives".


This is a very good point too, Belochka. I have forgotten about the nature of George's disease which indeed is very infectious. This, probably more than anything else, makes me doubt very much the idea that he may have married - twice, and fathered four children...
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: AGRBear on March 13, 2005, 08:41:46 PM
Quote
Time out.
OK, Penny made a statement SHE believes to be true based on the information she has. Some "background" proof was requested. Penny can't provide it publicly, as the person is a private individual. That should be the end of the story. We can't force private people to be dragged into the public against their will.

On this one, I have to agree with Penny. Bob and I are well acquainted with private people who are very "first hand" knowledgeable about Romanov family history, and we can't publicly cite them as they wish to remain private. Linda D. is in the same boat.  It just has to be accepted for what it is. If you wish to reject it without further proof, that is your personal choice. So just accept it or not for what it is. It should NEVER turn into an argument.


I agree with Admin. Forum.

"...accept it or not for what it is."


AGRBear
 




Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: rskkiya on March 13, 2005, 08:56:39 PM
Ye Gods...
   Any academician who is going to make 'radical new historical revelations' had better be willing to take some critical questions and debates - without being reduced to complaining of a Witch Hunt!  Be civil but be serious!

rskkiya
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Greenday on March 13, 2005, 09:02:48 PM
Quote

I agree with Admin. Forum.

"...accept it or not for what it is."


AGRBear
  

Right. What it is is A  bit of information that is just a rumor, or  personal opinion,  that can't be accepted or promoted as a historical fact.





Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 13, 2005, 09:05:46 PM
Quote

I agree with Admin. Forum.

"...accept it or not for what it is."

AGRBear


I have absolutely no problem "accepting it for what it is" as long as no one assumes it to be a historical fact. As I said previously, this is my only issue with these stories...
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: ashanti01 on March 13, 2005, 10:53:39 PM
I cannot believe how heated this topic got. I was very glad when the FA finally stepped in for a moment I really thought he was going to put a freeze on this thread.

I don't know if George married or had children. But I do know there must be several if not hundreds of Kings, princes, dukes and other noble men who had several children out of wedlock. If he did in fact have children it wouldn't be that big a suprise because one has to think how many Kings didn't have several offspring but never publicly or privately aknowledge them? And how many men really tell thier family, Oh, by the way I had a kid out of wedlock. Granted I do think there must have been some sort of rumor going around, and something must have reached the IF ear's but there is no proof to show this. I doubt the marriage theory, simply because there would have to be some sort of written proof but I cannot rule out the chance of him actually having formed a relationship with a woman long enough to have a child.

I agree with many that the only way to really know would be through DNA testing. If this person who states they are related to the Grand Duke doesn't want to push the subject then maybe neither should we.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Belochka on March 13, 2005, 11:27:19 PM
Quote
I agree with many that the only way to really know would be through DNA testing. If this person who states they are related to the Grand Duke doesn't want to push the subject then maybe neither should we.


Had this mysterious person had his privacy wishes respected fully, then the statements which were presented here earlier by another party, on a public forum, should never been divulged.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 14, 2005, 01:47:09 AM
Quote

Do you know if there was any additional documentation, ie letters, diaries, that mentioned him? For instance anything letter from MF to another relative? ...


I don't know about contemporary diaries, letters, etc because this isn't an area of particular interest for me, so I have done no primary research.  

But George's story is hardly news. I first heard it from our source when researching FOTR; shortly thereafter, I did a little noodling around in some books in a spare ten minutes -- and off the top of my head, I can tell you that this information has appeared in English language sources at least three times:  It appeared in George's obituary in the New York Times in 1899; much of it was recounted in Vassili's Behind the Veil at the Russian Court in 1914; and more recently, the subject was covered by Coryne Hall in Little Mother of Russia -- and all those who took issue with me mentioning it would know this, if only they had done a little bit of homework.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 14, 2005, 01:56:14 AM
Quote

Had this mysterious person had his privacy wishes respected fully, then the statements which were presented here earlier by another party, on a public forum, should never been divulged.



Oh, nonsense!  I didn't say that this person had "privacy wishes."  I said he was a private citizen who had made no "claims."  There's a difference.  And if I had violated his privacy, you would know his name -- and you don't.  All you know is that he's a "West Coast chap" -- and that's all you're going to hear from me.  Now -- you've had your say, and I've had my say, and the FA has had his say.  It's time for you to build a bridge and get over it.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Belochka on March 14, 2005, 04:06:29 AM
Quote
Now -- you've had your say, and I've had my say, and the FA has had his say.  It's time for you to build a bridge and get over it.


Ms Hall at  p 176 of Little Mother of Russia, quite cleary wrote:

... "According to one source George was 'married' to a woman whose name is unknown .... A child was supposed to have been born from this union."

These are hardly historic facts upon which any reasonable person can rely upon. Unfortunately the author fails to provide that single source.

The author continues on the matter of the alleged morganatic marriage in 1894 to Orkovskaya, (which is similar to what Greg reiterated on March 6, 2004) by ending her thoughts with this statement:

"However unlikely this sounds, it would be nice to think that George had the consolation of some female company, if not a wife, in his lonely exile."

_____________________________________________

On March 13, 2005, Marlene provided the following statement:

"(There is one NYT article that refers to George being married - but negates the information soon afterward.)"
_____________________________________________

Any suggestion that George contracted any female liasons which allegedly produced offspring, while being highly infectious, is all fluff and nonsense, and for this reason I agree with you Penny, it is indeed time to cross over the bridge and leave George in peace.   :)






Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 14, 2005, 08:07:05 AM
Quote
 I cannot rule out the chance of him actually having formed a relationship with a woman long enough to have a child.


Not to keep beating a dead horse, but the claim here was not just some casual relationship or two which resulted in an illegitimate child (or even two). The claim was that George was married, twice, morganatically, and had four children, some of whom are currently living in California, and that this was a known fact among the Romanov family, then and now. Talk about "selling someone a bridge".

Now that we've sold it and crossed it, we can demolish this bridge and move on.  ;)
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Eurohistory on March 14, 2005, 09:12:50 AM
Quote
I cannot believe how heated this topic got. I was very glad when the FA finally stepped in for a moment I really thought he was going to put a freeze on this thread.

I don't know if George married or had children. But I do know there must be several if not hundreds of Kings, princes, dukes and other noble men who had several children out of wedlock. If he did in fact have children it wouldn't be that big a suprise because one has to think how many Kings didn't have several offspring but never publicly or privately aknowledge them? And how many men really tell thier family, Oh, by the way I had a kid out of wedlock. Granted I do think there must have been some sort of rumor going around, and something must have reached the IF ear's but there is no proof to show this. I doubt the marriage theory, simply because there would have to be some sort of written proof but I cannot rule out the chance of him actually having formed a relationship with a woman long enough to have a child.

I agree with many that the only way to really know would be through DNA testing. If this person who states they are related to the Grand Duke doesn't want to push the subject then maybe neither should we.


We are not talking about your average Joe here...at issue is the man who was the heir to the Imperial Throne.  It is being stated as fact that he married twice, morganatically mind you, had four children; oh and icing on the cake, he was a homosexual! -got to throw that one in for further crowd pleasing!  And the poor young man achieved this by the age of 28 and managed to keep it a secret from the entire family, or at least, convince a notoriously gossipy bunch NOT to talk about it, not even in their private diaries and correspondence!

Wow...a truly amazing feat if you ask me!

If someone is going to state these issues as fact and base them on what some unidentified person claims, or what his fancy makes him believe, then they ought to be ready to be questioned, challenged and debated...nothing else, nothing more.  The questioning has been done here in a respectful manner, not a witch hunt as has already been insinuated in an effort to get the ball stopped.

What is expected of us is to accept these audacious claims ipso facto and end of story...I refuse to be led blindly across this bridge for I fear that once I step on it, the entire false structure is going to crumble under our feet!

Arturo Beéche
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 14, 2005, 11:18:29 AM
Quote

We are not talking about your average Joe here...at issue is the man who was the heir to the Imperial Throne.  It is being stated as fact that he married twice, morganatically mind you, had four children; oh and icing on the cake, he was a homosexual! -got to throw that one in for further crowd pleasing!  And the poor young man achieved this by the age of 28 and managed to keep it a secret from the entire family, or at least, convince a notoriously gossipy bunch NOT to talk about it, not even in their private diaries and correspondence!

Wow...a truly amazing feat if you ask me!

If someone is going to state these issues as fact and base them on what some unidentified person claims, or what his fancy makes him believe, then they ought to be ready to be questioned, challenged and debated...nothing else, nothing more.  The questioning has been done here in a respectful manner, not a witch hunt as has already been insinuated in an effort to get the ball stopped.

What is expected of us is to accept these audacious claims ipso facto and end of story...I refuse to be led blindly across this bridge for I fear that once I step on it, the entire false structure is going to crumble under our feet!

Arturo Beéche


What a dramatic performance, Arturo!  Kudos to you -- too bad you missed the Oscars last weekend...  ;)

Anyway -- this has become ridiculous.  You, Arturo, make statements based on conversations that you have with your "good friends" in various royal and former-royal houses.  Just re-read some of your contributions here in the area of Serbian Royalty.  All Greg and I are doing is reserving the same right for ourselves.

Again.  We did not raise the roof here.  We mentioned that we had heard from a highly-placed source -- certainly one better placed to know that any of you or us -- that George had a descendant here on the West Coast.  This highly-placed person, located in the center of the family, told us this -- and not being particularly interested in George, his homosexuality -- or not, his marital status -- or not, we made polite noises -- and moved on with our interview.  Later on, I checked it out in a few books that I had to hand -- and verified that it was not "news" at all, but rather had appeared in at least these three English languages sources.  Greg told me last night that it's also not news in the section of Russian noble society that he knows.  So there you are -- it's out there, people know, and we're hardly doing anything illegal, immoral or fattening in adding what we know to the little pool of knowledge on George's personal life.  Anyone truly interested in doing anything other that clutching their pearls and having vapors over the possibility that a sick young man found romance and love not once, but twice -- or in grasping this as the latest cudgel with which to beat Greg and I -- will get their boots on the ground in Abbas Tuman in particular and the Caucasus in general and start doing some real research.  The Lonely Planet and Rough Guides have some excellent travel advice.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 14, 2005, 11:31:50 AM
Quote

Any suggestion that George contracted any female liasons which allegedly produced offspring, while being highly infectious, is all fluff and nonsense...


Really?  Then please explain away the entry in the very highly regarded "Enciclopedia Universal Europeo Americana" --  a source located by Jorge Saenz.

Quote
and for this reason I agree with you Penny, it is indeed time to cross over the bridge and leave George in peace.   :)


I have absolutely no doubt that George is perfectly at peace.   :D  But I'm certainly not going to let any of you people ride rough-shod over me and Greg and other viable sources with your collective facile and shallow dismissal of clues and pieces of evidence which really should be run down before any reasonable determination can be made regarding George's personal life.  You want to be real, "professional" historians?  Get on a plane.  Do some primary research in the pertinent places. Talk to people better placed to know than yourselves.  Then get back to me, and we can have a real discussion.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Marlene on March 14, 2005, 11:46:02 AM
Quote


I had no idea I was guilty of "tabloid garbage."

You are not guilty of tabloid garbage, by any stretch of one's imagination ... but I remain skeptical of a story about George marrying and having descendants because such things were never swept under the carpet ...
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Marlene on March 14, 2005, 11:48:00 AM
Quote

Not to keep beating a dead horse, but the claim here was not just some casual relationship or two which resulted in an illegitimate child (or even two). The claim was that George was married, twice, morganatically, and had four children, some of whom are currently living in California, and that this was a known fact among the Romanov family, then and now. Talk about "selling someone a bridge".

Now that we've sold it and crossed it, we can demolish this bridge and move on.  ;)


And Nicholas not having a reaction to it -- or other family members ...
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Marlene on March 14, 2005, 11:51:39 AM
Quote

I don't know about contemporary diaries, letters, etc because this isn't an area of particular interest for me, so I have done no primary research.  

But George's story is hardly news. I first heard it from our source when researching FOTR; shortly thereafter, I did a little noodling around in some books in a spare ten minutes -- and off the top of my head, I can tell you that this information has appeared in English language sources at least three times:  It appeared in George's obituary in the New York Times in 1899; much of it was recounted in Vassili's Behind the Veil at the Russian Court in 1914; and more recently, the subject was covered by Coryne Hall in Little Mother of Russia -- and all those who took issue with me mentioning it would know this, if only they had done a little bit of homework.



Penny -  "Paul Vassili" is hardly a primary source.  This is the nom de plume for Catherine Radziwill, hardly a source for authoritative information.  Moreover,  Coryne's book does not state that George had issue - it refers to a "source."  
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Eurohistory on March 14, 2005, 11:53:11 AM
Quote

What a dramatic performance, Arturo!  Kudos to you -- too bad you missed the Oscars last weekend...  ;)

Anyway -- this has become ridiculous.  You, Arturo, make statements based on conversations that you have with your "good friends" in various royal and former-royal houses.  Just re-read some of your contributions here in the area of Serbian Royalty.  All Greg and I are doing is reserving the same right for ourselves.

Again.  We did not raise the roof here.  We mentioned that we had heard from a highly-placed source -- certainly one better placed to know that any of you or us -- that George had a descendant here on the West Coast.  This highly-placed person, located in the center of the family, told us this -- and not being particularly interested in George, his homosexuality -- or not, his marital status -- or not, we made polite noises -- and moved on with our interview.  Later on, I checked it out in a few books that I had to hand -- and verified that it was not "news" at all, but rather had appeared in at least these three English languages sources.  Greg told me last night that it's also not news in the section of Russian noble society that he knows.  So there you are -- it's out there, people know, and we're hardly doing anything illegal, immoral or fattening in adding what we know to the little pool of knowledge on George's personal life.  Anyone truly interested in doing anything other that clutching their pearls and having vapors over the possibility that a sick young man found romance and love not once, but twice -- or in grasping this as the latest cudgel with which to beat Greg and I -- will get their boots on the ground in Abbas Tuman in particular and the Caucasus in general and start doing some real research.  The Lonely Planet and Rough Guides have some excellent travel advice.


Dear Penny,

Why is it that you always go through the roof when challenged?

Arturo Beéche
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 14, 2005, 12:04:16 PM
Quote

Dear Penny,

Why is it that you always go through the roof when challenged?

Arturo Beéche



Dear Arturo,

Defending my position vigorously is defined as "going through the roof"?

How ... interesting.

I could as easily ask questions about the way you present yourself here.

But instead of traveling into the area of discussing  my personality -- where I am sure some of you would like to set up camp -- and yours, let's stick to the topic at hand.  Which is George Alexandrovich, not Penny Wilson, and not Arturo Beeche.

These stories about George's personal life are not news.  There have been reports of these marriages at least from the time of his death, and certainly, they must have been known beforehand.  We know the name of Orkovskaya.  Why doesn't someone start some real research there?

And where, do you suppose, the "Enciclopedia" got its information?
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 14, 2005, 12:10:31 PM
Quote


Penny -  "Paul Vassili" is hardly a primary source.  This is the nom de plume for Catherine Radziwill, hardly a source for authoritative information.
 

Uh-huh.  I know Catherine Radziwill -- and she may indeed be as terrible as you think she is.  But she DOES repeat information that was afloat in Petersburg at reasonably contemporary times -- which was my point.

Quote

Moreover,  Coryne's book does not state that George had issue - it refers to a "source."  


I don't have Coryne's book to hand -- Greg has our copy in Seattle.  But he did offer to send me the pertinent parts of the text for inclusion here -- so I'll ask him to do that.  But again, my point was that this is not news.  Greg and I certainly don't deserve this group castigation for raising the topic.


Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Eurohistory on March 14, 2005, 12:14:56 PM
Dear Penny,

I can go back through the thread and read every message and in none of my postings are there personal attacks towards you...I cannot say the same about others extending the same courtesy to me.

Now...the topic at hand...Marlene has already told us that the NYT (correct me if I am wrong Marlene) had publshed this information about George Alexandrovich, then it was retracted by the same paper.

I have already emailed Ms. Hall asking that she provide the "source" for her statement on page 176 of LITTLE MOTHER OF RUSSIA.  It turns out to be a Swedish-language encyclopedia that recorded some rumors going about St. Petersburg's gossip mill, which by the way, were never substantiated, much less proven to be correct.  Furthermore, Coryne herself believes these claims based on gossip to be (and I quote) "unlikely."

Now we are back on track to discuss the topc at hand...

Arturo Beéche
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: grandduchessella on March 14, 2005, 12:27:04 PM
Does anyone else notice that admidst all the quarreling there are actually some nuggets of information here?

Penny:
--Enciclopedia Universal Europeo Americana"
--highly-placed family source
--no knowledge of family letters, etc...
--Count Paul Vassili as reference for any SPbg contemporary gossip
--stories which appeared in at least these three English languages sources
not news in the section of Russian noble society that he (Greg King) knows

Art & Marlene et al
--not many contemporary references
--those which mention rumors (ie NYT) later retract
--Coryne Hall's sourcing and her opinion that the stories probably weren't true
--no mention in various family letters, diaries, archives
--no physical proof (DNA/blood tests, birth certificate, marriage licenses)
--no 'major' gossip which would've gone along with such a huge story

So it's been laid out in the 2 camps what their beliefs are and can be decided amongst people. (This is separate from all the should've/could've/would've arguments going on).
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 14, 2005, 12:30:31 PM
Quote
Dear Penny,

I can go back through the thread and read every message and in none of my postings are there personal attacks towards you...I cannot say the same about others extending the same courtesy to me.


All I will say about this, Arturo, is that you have a very patronizing and belittling tone at times.

Quote
Now...the topic at hand...Marlene has already told us that the NYT (correct me if I am wrong Marlene) had publshed this information about George Alexandrovich, then it was retracted by the same paper.


I have seen the obit, but not the retraction.  Though again, I am not arguing the truth of the matter at the moment.  My point is that Greg and I were not the first people to raise this issue -- it has appeared in at least three English language sources before either of us ever posted on this board.  My related point in that neither Greg nor I have deserved the treatment we have received on this thread.

Quote
I have already emailed Ms. Hall asking that she provide the "source" for her statement on page 176 of LITTLE MOTHER OF RUSSIA.  It turns out to be a Swedish-language encyclopedia that recorded some rumors going about St. Petersburg's gossip mill, which by the way, were never substantiated, much less proven to be correct.  Furthermore, Coryne herself believes these claims based on gossip to be (and I quote) "unlikely."


What is the name of the Swedish encyclopedia?

You see, Arturo, it's not good history to just say as you have, "this un-named book was the source, but one author has dismissed it as gossip and unlikely."  Especially as that author used it as a source in her un-gossipy book.

So -- did Coryne give you the name of the Swedish book?  And did she tell you what research she had done on the source that led her to dismiss it as a reliable source?  

Quote
Now we are back on track to discuss the topc at hand...

Arturo Beéche


Well, let's try to keep it that way, shall we?
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Marlene on March 14, 2005, 01:16:08 PM
[quote author=Penny_Wilson


I have seen the obit, but not the retraction."

I just printed out the NYTimes and WPost stuff from 1899 regarding George's death.  There is no obit for George -but there are articles about his death - one article says he died after falling off his bike.  There is nothing in the news accounts of the GD's death about having a marriage and children ...  however, a few days later, there is a rather short article about a "letter" that talks about George having four sons - but it's rather dismissive (this what I meant as retraction.)  The WPost also has a story, by the way, but entirely different ..)

The "letter" apparently quotes Alexander III saying that George should enjoy happiness if he is dying ...   Later tonight - not at home now -- will quote the entire article.  It's short.

Considering the treatment meted out to Miche Miche for his marriage to Sophie von merenberg (whose father was royal,) it is unlikeky that George, second in line to the throne, would have gotten off lightly (and no one knowing about it.)

Nicholas' diaries have been read by hundreds of historians - and it seems he didn't ever mention it , let alone any other member of the family.  George was the Tsarevitch.  His marriage would have gotten attention, regardless of the status of the bride.
What is the name of the Swedish encyclopedia?

You see, Arturo, it's not good history to just say as you have, "this un-named book was the source, but one author has dismissed it as gossip and unlikely."  Especially as that author used it as a source in her un-gossipy book.

So -- did Coryne give you the name of the Swedish book?  And did she tell you what research she had done on the source that led her to dismiss it as a reliable source?  


Well, let's try to keep it that way, shall we?[/quote]
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Marlene on March 14, 2005, 01:18:34 PM

"You see, Arturo, it's not good history to just say as you have, "this un-named book was the source, but one author has dismissed it as gossip and unlikely."  Especially as that author used it as a source in her un-gossipy book."

Coryne is not saying that George had children ...she said a source (but did not say that the source was accurate.)   There are at least two books that say Nicholas had two kids with Mathilde K ... totally nonsense."

Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Marlene on March 14, 2005, 01:21:52 PM
" My related point in that neither Greg nor I have deserved the treatment we have received on this thread."

No you didn't and don't.  My point is - -the sources you cite are not really sources at all ...an article in the NYTimes, which is rather dismissive.  Vassilli - not a reliable source at all ...

But the places where one should and would find information - Nicholas' letters and diaries.  Other family members' memoirs, letters, etc.   George, as heir to the throne until his death, would not have been able to hide morganatic marriages.  If you look at the accounts of other such marriages, Miche-Miche, Paul, Michael -you will see that there is plenty of coverage both in Russia and in the West.   Nicholas went so far to tighten the rules after Michael. He would have done that a lot earlier if George had done the same thing.  


What is the name of the Swedish encyclopedia?

You see, Arturo, it's not good history to just say as you have, "this un-named book was the source, but one author has dismissed it as gossip and unlikely."  Especially as that author used it as a source in her un-gossipy book.

So -- did Coryne give you the name of the Swedish book?  And did she tell you what research she had done on the source that led her to dismiss it as a reliable source?  


Well, let's try to keep it that way, shall we?[/quote]
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 14, 2005, 01:33:13 PM
Quote
My point is - -the sources you cite are not really sources at all ...an article in the NYTimes, which is rather dismissive.  Vassilli - not a reliable source at all ...



And again, I am not arguing the truth of the matter at this moment.  My point was merely that Greg and I were not the first to raise this issue; it has been in print several times, both in English and Spanish -- and now a new Swedish-language contender has appeared.  Some sources are certainly going to be more "reliable" than others -- this isn't the issue for me.  My issue is that the story isn't "news" at all, and that Greg and I haven't shaken the earth by mentioning it here.

Thank you, by the way, Marlene, for being kind.

As for the truth of the story -- I don't know it.  Someone highly placed inside the family believes it, and given my lukewarm -- at best -- interest in George, I'm willing to allow this person her belief.  Plus I think it DOES carry at least a little weight, given her position.  

Anyone wanting to perform some actual research on the topic would have to start with the published information, probably travel to the Caucasus, interview family and friends, meet the "West Coast chap" -- and go from there.  This "anyone" will not be me.   :D  
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: AGRBear on March 14, 2005, 04:58:22 PM
LITTLE MOTHER OF RUSSIA by Coryne Hall wrote on p. 176:

"Rumours about George circulated widely in St. Petersburg. It was said that he was secretly married to a lady from Abbas Toumain and society, always avid for gossip, believed there was some genuine mystery surrounding the Grand Duke."

Hall continued: "According to one source George was 'married' to a woman whose name is unknown and whom he rejected in 1893.  A child is supposed to have been born from this union.  The same source says that George then contracted a morganatic  marriage in 1894 with a lady name Orkosvka (or Orkanowska), who was born in 1873.  From this marriage he had two sons and a daughter, who were given the surname of Romanovsky.  However unnlikely this sounds, it would be nice to think that George had the consolation of some female company, if not a wife, in his lonley exile."

Hall tells us the information was from Genealogy Gutha p. 396.  Provided and translated from Swedish by Ted Rosavall.

Arturo tells us: >> ...It turns out to be a Swedish-language encyclopedia<< and adds to this  that Hall didn't/doesn't believe GD George was married  [I think that is what Arturo was telling us].  

Hall's source is not an encyclopedia it is a book on Genealogy of the Royals.  We may be talking about two different books but I don't think we are.  And, if it is the one I know, believe me, you're name isn't in it because of rumors.

So, there are a number of sources mentioning the rumor and or possibility of one or two morgantic marriages for GD Georg.  One was an encyclopedia another a book on Genealogy of Royals....   Someone will have to find these two books and tell us their source/sources.  I just quoted Little Mother of Russia by Hall.  I don't have the other books mentioned.  However, I do recall having read these marriages in two other books but their names escape me but it was about the same amount of information and it was back in the 1980s.   I remember the one talked about the second wife having heard of  George's motorcycle accident, rushed to him and he died in her arms.  That bit of  romantic flare for his bitter ending always stuck in my mind.  When I recall the title of the book/books,  I'll let you know.

We have Penny and Greg telling us their source is "reliable".

Artuor's opinion  is that we're dealing with "rumors" and  nothing more.  He rejects the sources presented up to this point.

Helen wants "blood" for DNA.  And that just isn't going to happen.

If this was a perfect world we'd have perfect facts, but, this isn't a perfect world and facts always have flaws an imperfections.

One may never uncover all the truths and all the lies about GD George or Nicholas II  because all who knew the truth are dead, but we can try.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Eurohistory on March 14, 2005, 06:08:48 PM
Quote

Coryne is not saying that George had children ...she said a source (but did not say that the source was accurate.)   There are at least two books that say Nicholas had two kids with Mathilde K ... totally nonsense."



Coryne, from whom I had an email earlier this afternoon, agrees that the sourcing of this rumor is highly questionable and most likely not true.  She, in fact, has written a piece on George Alexandrovich, which will be in The European Royal History Journal later this Spring.  In it she mentions the rumors, but continues to express her belief that these rumors are unlikely to be true.

Now...just because a rumor makes it into an encyclopedia and some accept it as fact (well it was put in print after all!)...it does not mean that it is in reality what happened.  Again, let me remind you with an example, until recently many sources alleged that Hereditary Prince Alfred of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha had committed suicide in 1899.  For almost a century this was the suspected cause of his demise, a "fact" that was printed time and time again in reputable works of reference and books...however, we now know that was not the case and instead Alfred died of a virulent venereal illness.

This book from which Coryne took the rumor, which may I remind you she believes not to be true anyhow, is an obscure work that not many of us have ever seen or count among our collections.  From there it has appeared as fact in other works...without ever having been proven to be true or substantiated...yet you and others give it as fact...well it was printed in an encyclopedia!  ???

I, and others, wish to see solid proof...not "reliable" sources that cannot be identified, nor words expressed by "highly-placed" people...all of which only serve to continue the argument without finding a solution to the conundrum at hand.

Many of us hold Ms. Wilson and Mr. King in high regard, but many of us also realize that to blindly be led accross a bridge lacking a solid foundation is not a wise move to make.  And just because a published author says that "A" is black and "B" is not, then are we supposed to accept this as veritas without proof, solid proof.  Not too long ago reputable authors believed that Anna Anderson was indeed Anastasia Nicholaievna...well they have been proven wrong...yet another example of the dangers involved in crossing a bridge blindfolded...don't you think?

Arturo Beéche
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Merrique on March 14, 2005, 06:19:03 PM
Quote

Coryne, from whom I had an email earlier this afternoon, agrees that the sourcing of this rumor is highly questionable and most likely not true.  She, in fact, has written a piece on George Alexandrovich, which will be in The European Royal History Journal later this Spring.  In it she mentions the rumors, but continues to express her belief that these rumors are unlikely to be true.

Now...just because a rumor makes it into an encyclopedia and some accept it as fact (well it was put in print after all!)...it does not mean that it is in reality what happened.  Again, let me remind you with an example, until recently many sources alleged that Hereditary Prince Alfred of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha had committed suicide in 1899.  For almost a century this was the suspected cause of his demise, a "fact" that was printed time and time again in reputable works of reference and books...however, we now know that was not the case and instead Alfred died of a virulent venereal illness.

This book from which Coryne took the rumor, which may I remind you she believes not to be true anyhow, is an obscure work that not many of us have ever seen or count among our collections.  From there it has appeared as fact in other works...without ever having been proven to be true or substantiated...yet you and others give it as fact...well it was printed in an encyclopedia!  ???

I, and others, wish to see solid proof...not "reliable" sources that cannot be identified, nor words expressed by "highly-placed" people...all of which only serve to continue the argument without finding a solution to the conundrum at hand.

Many of us hold Ms. Wilson and Mr. King in high regard, but many of us also realize that to blindly be led accross a bridge lacking a solid foundation is not a wise move to make.  And just because a published author says that "A" is black and "B" is not, then are we supposed to accept this as veritas without proof, solid proof.  Not too long ago reputable authors believed that Anna Anderson was indeed Anastasia Nicholaievna...well they have been proven wrong...yet another example of the dangers involved in crossing a bridge blindfolded...don't you think?

Arturo Beéche


I'd have to agree with you Arturo.You make some very valid points.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Belochka on March 14, 2005, 06:24:09 PM
Quote
Greg told me last night that it's also not news in the section of Russian noble society that he knows.  So there you are -- it's out there, people know, and we're hardly doing anything illegal, immoral or fattening in adding what we know to the little pool of knowledge on George's personal life.


Simply because a few members of the Russian nobility possess the common knowledge regarding the origins of the "Westcoast chap" can not be held to be an indication that there is any truth in that knowledge.

A few members of the Nobility do not even want to believe that the last Emperor of Russia remains were authentic despite the conclusive evidence.

It is a divided 'noble' community who apparently choose to believe what suits them.  

Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Eurohistory on March 14, 2005, 06:36:17 PM
Quote

I'd have to agree with you Arturo.You make some very valid points.


Thanks...Arturo Beéche
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: AGRBear on March 14, 2005, 06:52:29 PM
Quote
... [ in part]...
Coryne, from whom I had an email earlier this afternoon, agrees that the sourcing of this rumor is highly questionable and most likely not true.  She, in fact, has written a piece on George Alexandrovich, which will be in The European Royal History Journal later this Spring.  In it she mentions the rumors, but continues to express her belief that these rumors are unlikely to be true.

Arturo Beéche
....


Why is C. Hall repeating this "rumor" about GD George if there is so much evidence that reveals  his morgantic marriages are a fabrication?

Confused Bear  :-[

AGRBear
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: AGRBear on March 14, 2005, 06:59:10 PM
Quote

...[in part]...
It is a divided 'noble' community who apparently choose to believe what suits them.  



I hardly think this is a fair statement.

 Noblity or commoner, we all have our brains to think and create our own opinions.

Quote
..[in part]...

....yet another example of the dangers involved in crossing a bridge blindfolded...don't you think?

Arturo Beéche
....


Arturo, it is, just as unfair to think those of us who disagree with you are blindfolded by Penny or by anyone else.

Can't we just talk about our sources and leave out these kind of remarks???

I had asked about C. Hall's reference: >>Hall's source is not an encyclopedia it is a book on Genealogy of the Royals.  We may be talking about two different books but I don't think we are.  And, if it is the one I know, believe me, you're name isn't in it because of rumors.<<  Are we talking about the same book?

AGRBear
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Belochka on March 14, 2005, 07:12:47 PM
Quote
Really?  Then please explain away the entry in the very highly regarded "Enciclopedia Universal Europeo Americana" --  a source located by Jorge Saenz.


Penny,

1. As a "professional historian" you must surely be aware that not all that is in print must be accepted as truth.  Encyclopedias would fall into this category.

As Arturo kindly stated earlier today:

_____________________________________________

.. "I have already emailed Ms. Hall asking that she provide the "source" for her statement on page 176 of LITTLE MOTHER OF RUSSIA.  It turns out to be a Swedish-language encyclopedia that recorded some rumors going about St. Petersburg's gossip mill, which by the way, were never substantiated, much less proven to be correct."
_____________________________________________

2. Further comments:  

_____________________________________________

Penny Wilson's quote on 14 March @ 11.31 AM regarding my previous posting:

... "But I'm certainly not going to let any of you people ride rough-shod over me and Greg and other viable sources with your collective facile and shallow dismissal of clues and pieces of evidence which really should be run down"    

and this comment:

... "You want to be real, "professional" historians?  Get on a plane.  Do some primary research in the pertinent places. Talk to people better placed to know than yourselves.  Then get back to me, and we can have a real discussion."
_____________________________________________

Such disparaging remarks are unnecessary and unworthy. Kindly respect posters who may not be "professional historians" and of whom you know very little.

Thank you.


Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 14, 2005, 07:19:21 PM
Quote

This book from which Coryne took the rumor, which may I remind you she believes not to be true anyhow, is an obscure work that not many of us have ever seen or count among our collections.  From there it has appeared as fact in other works...without ever having been proven to be true or substantiated...yet you and others give it as fact...well it was printed in an encyclopedia!  ???


So is this book an encyclopedia?  Or is it, as the title suggests, a genealogy?  I've never seen it either, but I'm not going to dismiss it out of hand because I haven't.  And how many people need to possess this book in their collections before it can be considered a source?  It might, indeed, be less intriguing if it were "only" an encyclopedia.  But if it's a genealogy, then what we have is TWO genealogies -- the Swedish one and the one that Jorge Saenz referenced -- that state that George had descendants.

Quote
I, and others, wish to see solid proof...not "reliable" sources that cannot be identified, nor words expressed by "highly-placed" people...all of which only serve to continue the argument without finding a solution to the conundrum at hand.


But don't you see that I am not requiring that any of you believe anything?  Look, this started months ago when first Greg, and then I, referenced a conversation (and the answers to a few subsequent questions asked here and there -- of books and other people) we had with a member of the family.  We don't know if what this person said it true -- but given who she is, WE think that her belief carries some weight.  You don't have to believe that this person is even able to cross the road by herself, let alone that she has the ability to identify her own relatives.  It simply doesn't matter.

All Greg and I wanted to do was share a little information that came from what we believe is a reasonable source.  Trust us or not, it really doesn't matter.  It was a piece of info that is useless to us, given our non-George interests -- but maybe someone else might have interest enough to follow up.

Quote
Many of us hold Ms. Wilson and Mr. King in high regard, but many of us also realize that to blindly be led accross a bridge lacking a solid foundation is not a wise move to make.  


We're not leading anywhere, Arturo.  We gave a piece of information that has been in the public domain for over a hundred years -- and we have been totally abused because of it.  And this is what I take issue with.  It's becoming absolutely farcical; it seems that every time I raise my head here to say something, a certain group of people try to shoot it off.  I refuse to be treated as less than an equal on this board, and I will continue to assert my right to express myself without regard to how many people might "believe" me.  I think that both these things are reasonable, and so does the FA, whose opinion is the one that matters around here.

Quote
And just because a published author says that "A" is black and "B" is not, then are we supposed to accept this as veritas without proof, solid proof.
 

And because another author says a seldom-seen source is not worthwhile, are we to accept this as veritas?  You see how this approach can be twisted, can't you?  This is why it's important for us all to make up our own minds based on what we know.  In this particular case, the question is: Did Grand Duke George have issue?  And the answer is, I don't personally know, but:

1. At least one genealogy apparently says that he does.
2. At least one family member believes she has relatives through George's line
3. At least two noble families believe this story implicitly.

If I were interested in George, this would be enough for me to begin some research.  How would it turn out?  Well, whatever the verdict of history -- whether the conclusion was that George had or had not children --  I think such research would turn out positively, because it would answer the question.  And that's a success, in my mind.

Which brings me to:

Quote
Not too long ago reputable authors believed that Anna Anderson was indeed Anastasia Nicholaievna...well they have been proven wrong...yet another example of the dangers involved in crossing a bridge blindfolded...don't you think?


This is a fallacy, Arturo.  Because "not too long ago," we did not have the benefit of DNA testing, did we?  So "reputable authors" had to go on what was available, and yes, bodies of work were built up containing all the pieces of evidence available.  Do you consider this some sort of failure?  Because I don't.  Thanks to these "reputable authors" who performed this herculean work, we now know a whole heck of a lot about Anna Anderson, who -- whoever she was -- was one fascinating individual, and probably unique in twentieth century history.

It's not always possible to come down on the side of being "right," but I don't think that in the discipline of history ANY reasonable work on a subject is a failure or a waste of time.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 14, 2005, 07:25:47 PM
Quote

Penny Wilson's quote on 14 March @ 11.31 AM regarding my previous posting:
 
... "But I'm certainly not going to let any of you people ride rough-shod over me and Greg and other viable sources with your collective facile and shallow dismissal of clues and pieces of evidence which really should be run down"    
 
and this comment:
 
... "You want to be real, "professional" historians?  Get on a plane.  Do some primary research in the pertinent places. Talk to people better placed to know than yourselves.  Then get back to me, and we can have a real discussion."
 
_____________________________________________
 
Such disparaging remarks are unnecessary and unworthy. Kindly respect posters who may not be "professional historians" and of whom you know very little.
 
Thank you.
 


And in turn, would you kindly respect me?  I'm a human being you know, not a punching bag.  

And the advice above was heart-felt -- don't dismiss evidence out of hand based on a "feeling" or what you would like to believe; and do a little primary research and get your hands dirty in an archive -- or sip tea with the elderly and knowledgeable -- you might learn something.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Georgiy on March 14, 2005, 07:28:23 PM
The only way this mystery could be cleared up is with a DNA test, and if that isn't likely to happen, we will never know. I personally don't think it is likely that George had children as surely, somewhere, a close relative would have left some written evidence about it, especially as he was Tsarevich at the time. It is not beyond the realms of possibility though - he might have had a 'fling', with an unexpected/unwanted outcome, but was never married to the woman in question, and then the rumour mill starts to grind. His alleged homosexuality doesn't really preclude it either - physically, surely he was still capable, and I don't think it makes any difference as to whether he could have had a marriage/child/whatever.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: AGRBear on March 14, 2005, 07:35:56 PM
Penny wrote: >>Anyone wanting to perform some actual research on the topic would have to start with the published information, probably travel to the Caucasus, interview family and friends, meet the "West Coast chap" -- and go from there.  This "anyone" will not be me.<<


It's true, in order to find out more than what we have, now, someone is going to have to dig up some new evidence.  Otherewise,  lt me call this conversation about marriages
A DRAW.

Or is that wishful thinking    ;D

AGRBear
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Eurohistory on March 14, 2005, 07:36:49 PM
Quote

And in turn, would you kindly respect me?  I'm a human being you know, not a punching bag.  

And the advice above was heart-felt -- don't dismiss evidence out of hand based on a "feeling" or what you would like to believe; and do a little primary research and get your hands dirty in an archive -- or sip tea with the elderly and knowledgeable -- you might learn something.


I still wonder Penny why you overreact so, when anyone dares question you...nobody but yourself is making you out to be a "punching bag."  I have not called you names, I have not questioned your honor, I have not doubted your expertise.  I HAVE doubted the sources at issue here, plain and simple.  You believe one thing, I believe another.

Arturo Beéche

Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: AGRBear on March 14, 2005, 07:38:04 PM
Yep, wishful thinking  ;D

AGRBear
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Eurohistory on March 14, 2005, 07:41:27 PM
Quote
The only way this mystery could be cleared up is with a DNA test, and if that isn't likely to happen, we will never know. I personally don't think it is likely that George had children as surely, somewhere, a close relative would have left some written evidence about it, especially as he was Tsarevich at the time. It is not beyond the realms of possibility though - he might have had a 'fling', with an unexpected/unwanted outcome, but was never married to the woman in question, and then the rumour mill starts to grind. His alleged homosexuality doesn't really preclude it either - physically, surely he was still capable, and I don't think it makes any difference as to whether he could have had a marriage/child/whatever.


Wouldn't that be just perfect...but I have my doubts that there will ever be DNA tests...rarely do these claimants ever subject themselves thus...the chance of being uncovered as fakes would just brake their dreams of having imperial blood...and when discovered as fakes, then their defenders claim conspiracies, tainted samples, secret cabals...

Arturo Beéche
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Belochka on March 14, 2005, 07:44:41 PM
Quote

And in turn, would you kindly respect me?  I'm a human being you know, not a punching bag.  


Penny I believe I have never given you cause to think otherwise. I believe I have always been polite and on point, an element referred to as a rebuttal of contentious material presented on this thread.

Nothing more was ever implied. :)


Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Belochka on March 14, 2005, 07:49:02 PM
Quote
... do a little primary research and get your hands dirty in an archive -- or sip tea with the elderly and knowledgeable -- you might learn something.


Thank you Penny for your professional advice.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Georgiy on March 14, 2005, 07:51:23 PM
Quote
I have my doubts that there will ever be DNA tests...rarely do these claimants ever subject themselves thus...the chance of being uncovered as fakes would just brake their dreams of having imperial blood...and when discovered as fakes, then their defenders claim conspiracies, tainted samples, secret cabals...


Hmmm, that all sounds very familiar. Really if they truly believe themselves to be who they are, they should have themselves tested! OK, OK, I know it's not some inexpensive procedure that one's local GP can perform, but they would impress me more if they went to the bother of being tested - show they have, at least, strong convictions.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 14, 2005, 08:14:49 PM
Quote

I still wonder Penny why you overreact so, when anyone dares question you...nobody but yourself is making you out to be a "punching bag."  I have not called you names, I have not questioned your honor, I have not doubted your expertise.  I HAVE doubted the sources at issue here, plain and simple.  You believe one thing, I believe another.

Arturo Beéche




I suggest, Arturo, that when people dogpile you and launch words like "tabloid," "garbage," and "unprofessional" against what was a fairly casual comment made, you will have a different opinion.  It's always easy to tell other people how they ought to feel, isn't it?  Not that that's necessarily what YOU are doing -- but try and fit in my moccasins for a moment.  And Greg's for that matter -- the reason he left here is that he felt the same way about our treatment at the hands of certain posters.  So I'm not alone in my belief, you see...  8)

Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Belochka on March 14, 2005, 08:14:59 PM
Hi Georgiy,

Private laboratory DNA profiling is inexpensive these days (Paternity testing as an obvious example), but in this case the cost would be higher because it would have to be performed in an accredited laboratory(s) of world standing, and which is acceptable to all parties who have a direct interest in the outcome. Any perception of bias and misinterpretations would be important considerations which would also need to be addressed.

It would also necessitate comparative DNA analysis from a sample of George's tissue sample as well, which would escalate the cost significantly.

For a person with alleged imperial roots to 'believe' they are who they claim carries no weight without conclusive scientific proof today. We are all aware of AA's fallacious imperial claims, and we are equally aware that a number of nobles blindly chose to believe in her legitimacy.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 14, 2005, 08:30:03 PM
Quote

 OK, OK, I know it's not some inexpensive procedure that one's local GP can perform, but they would impress me more if they went to the bother of being tested - show they have, at least, strong convictions.


Actually, these days, mtDNA testing is affordable to anyone: for roughly a couple of hundred USD you too can get your sequence!  ;):D.

Affording the DNA tests is not really the problem. The problem is that all these "claimants" are often mentally ill and delusional people who will not believe the results anyway - if they go against their delusions, so it would be a waste of a couple of hundred bucks, not to mention time and effort!  
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Georgiy on March 14, 2005, 08:37:16 PM
And that's the crux of the problem. Like I say, I would have more respect for them if they had the courage to go for it, even if it might disprove their cherished beliefs.

I guess since we are all related to everyone, they aren't entirely wrong! ;) :D

I didn't realise it was that cheap to get a DNA test done. (Now we need to get some Amelia Earhart DNA, and prove that Tatiana theory - and if it doesn't prove our story we will claim manipulation! ;))
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Belochka on March 14, 2005, 08:39:07 PM
Quote

...but I have my doubts that there will ever be DNA tests...rarely do these claimants ever subject themselves thus...the chance of being uncovered as fakes would just brake their dreams of having imperial blood...and when discovered as fakes, then their defenders claim conspiracies, tainted samples, secret cabals...

Arturo Beéche


Arturo you are perfectly correct in your assessments.

I believe that common expression:

Action speaks louder than words
[/color]

is particularily appropriate here. ;)
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Eurohistory on March 14, 2005, 08:44:33 PM
Quote


I suggest, Arturo, that when people dogpile you and launch words like "tabloid," "garbage," and "unprofessional" against what was a fairly casual comment made, you will have a different opinion.  



Since I have not launched the words you mention (Tabloid, garbage, unprofessional) at you...I wonder why therefore I am the the target of your ire?

Arturo Beéche
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Eurohistory on March 14, 2005, 08:51:52 PM
Quote

Arturo you are perfectly correct in your assessments.

I believe that common expression:

 
Action speaks louder than words
[/color]

is particularily appropriate here. ;)


Bingo...

and when tested...oh the conspiracies begin...how many times have the Hesse and Russians been vilified by the supporters of Anna Anderson.

Funnily enough...the three great fakes, Anna Anderson, Caspar Hauser and Naundorff...have all been unmasked as what they really were...fakes.  Yet some continue believeing in these stories of conspiracies and long-lost relations and descendants...baffles me really...

Arturo Beéche
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 14, 2005, 08:57:28 PM
Quote

Since I have not launched the words you mention (Tabloid, garbage, unprofessional) at you...I wonder why therefore I am the the target of your ire?

Arturo Beéche


I think Penny's comments were directed at me, in an "oh-so subtle" attempt to bait me again.

Penny, all I can say is read my comments over again, and you will see that nowhere did I refer to your work by the terms you mentioned. As I already said earlier when you accused me of this - I was using these terms to make a general point, nothing more, nothing less. You are all too ready to feel persecuted by everyone, only because someone, anyone, does not agree with your views or questions your statements. You are ready to see malice in every statement, be it meant that way or not. This attitude is precisely why I think you are acting immaturely and unprofessionally, and I still stand by that opinion.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Belochka on March 14, 2005, 09:05:03 PM
Quote
Yet some continue believeing in these stories of conspiracies and long-lost relations and descendants...baffles me really...

Arturo Beéche


There is a quite simple explanation, after decades of delusionary behavior, it is difficult to remember the person you really were.

To respectfully admit a wrong before the community can be the most emotionally difficult course of action to take.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 14, 2005, 09:29:23 PM
Quote

Nothing more was ever implied. :)



OK!   :)
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 14, 2005, 09:33:25 PM
Quote

You are all too ready to feel persecuted by everyone, only because someone, anyone, does not agree with your views or questions your statements. You are ready to see malice in every statement, be it meant that way or not. This attitude is precisely why I think you are acting immaturely and unprofessionally, and I still stand by that opinion.


How lovely it must be for you, to think this.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Marlene on March 14, 2005, 10:09:36 PM
Quote


Now...the topic at hand...Marlene has already told us that the NYT (correct me if I am wrong Marlene) had publshed this information about George Alexandrovich, then it was retracted by the same paper."

Some of you may have read my articles in Majesty about engagements and marriages that never happened - the article was based on reports that the NYTimes published (from different sources - the Daily Mail reports, or a Berlin newspaper that the engagement of Prince so and so to Pss here and now is "imminent."

The article in the NYTimes  8-13-1899 dateline London  reminds me of all those "imminent" engagements.

"A letter received here from St. Petersburg discloses the fact that the late Czarowitch (sic) Grand Duke George, who died suddenly at Abbas Tuman, in the Caucusus, July 10, by a morganatic marriage with a woman, who though she was a descendant of of a royal Caucasian house. According to the letter, Czar Alexander III, father of Grand Duke George, hearing of the marriage said: "one must not deny a dying man anything." Even then it was thought the disease from which the Czarowich (sic) was suffering was uncurable.  The conclusion of the letter says that possibly the present Czar will make his morganatic nephews Counts."

Let's examine this further.  The article does not say who wrote the letter or who got the letter (and how did media get wind of the letter.  Moreover, can you really imagine Alexander III, who had tightened the marriage laws for Grand Dukes, and who exiled Miche Miche and stripped him of his military rank, would allow his son,  second in line to the throne to marry.
George was very ill (and died while riding a bike (which he was not supposed to be doing.)  Grand Duchess Olga mentions her brother several times in her memoirs, and how the doctors bungled his illness.  Funny, she doesn't mention a wife or kids ...  Nothing further was reported - and why not? because the story was most likely false.   Alexander would have certainly not have sanctioned a morganatic marriage, and Minnie would have had a hissy fit.  How come Nicholas II never refers to such an issue in his diaries?

Now, the Washington post also weighs with a story on 7-16-1899 -. The article was written by the "Marquis de Fontenoy" who had a column for years in the paper ... vivid imagination.
According to the Marquis, George, shortly before his father's death, contracted a morganatic marriage (it was assumed that George was dying), but Alexander had no idea that he was about to leave this world.  This wife was a woman of humble birth and about to become a mother.    The marriage was permitted because George was dying - but then it appeared he was going to live (and dad died) ... and Nicholas II, now the Tsar, demanded that George repudiate the woman -- George was, according to this article, at Livadia, but because of the fight with his brother, did not attend Alexander III's funeral.  During this time, a telegram arrived from the Caucausus to say that the woman and baby had suddenly died ...  but before this, when Nicholas reminded his brother that he repudiated the Polish dancer La Duska by whom he had two children and made a "loveless" marriage with Alice of Hesse.
Well, apparently, George went back to the Caucusus, and from that time, never saw his brother again -
"so cruelly did George assail his elder brother" that "an irrearable breach" occurred between the brothers, and that breach was never healed .. according to the Marquis ...

The Romanovs were not good at keeping secrets or hiding the morganatic wives and issue.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 14, 2005, 10:22:20 PM
Quote
...Nicholas reminded his brother that he repudiated the Polish dancer La Duska by whom he had two children and made a "loveless" marriage with Alice of Hesse.


Now that really sounds like a reliable source!  ::)
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Belochka on March 14, 2005, 10:33:32 PM
Quote
The Romanovs were not good at keeping secrets or hiding the morganatic wives and issue.


Thank you Marlene for taking the trouble in providing these amusing exerpts. :D

The exulted position of the Romanovs provided a fertile arena for rumors and disinformation emanating from the very 'best' of Russian society and citizens from abroad. ;)  
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Eurohistory on March 14, 2005, 10:45:51 PM
Since Coryne's article on George Alexandrovich is coming out in The European Royal History Journal's Issue XLV (June 2005) I asked her for further clarification regarding her statement in LITTLE MOTHER OF RUSSIA.

"Dear Art,

I've just checked the original letter Ted Rosvall sent to me in 1998.

Genealogica Gothica was published in the 1930s by a man named Schwartz. Ted says he was a genealogist, but not always reliable, tended to include gossip.
The sources Schwartz gives are "Allstrom - Dictionary of Royal Lineage", and
"Linderskold - Genealogiska tabeller over Europas furstehus". Ted says he
has never been able to trace either of these books and he thinks the word
"married" may have been broadly interpreted. (Hence my remark about female
company, if not a wife!) Both Ted and I doubt very much that George was
ever legally married."


And this from someone who has researched, studied, lived through Maria Feodorovna and her descendants...for more than a decade!

Arturo Beéche
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Eurohistory on March 14, 2005, 10:48:30 PM
Quote
Now...the topic at hand...Marlene has already told us that the NYT (correct me if I am wrong Marlene) had publshed this information about George Alexandrovich, then it was retracted by the same paper."

Some of you may have read my articles in Majesty about engagements and marriages that never happened - the article was based on reports that the NYTimes published (from different sources - the Daily Mail reports, or a Berlin newspaper that the engagement of Prince so and so to Pss here and now is "imminent."

The article in the NYTimes  8-13-1899 dateline London  reminds me of all those "imminent" engagements.

"A letter received here from St. Petersburg discloses the fact that the late Czarowitch (sic) Grand Duke George, who died suddenly at Abbas Tuman, in the Caucusus, July 10, by a morganatic marriage with a woman, who though she was a descendant of of a royal Caucasian house. According to the letter, Czar Alexander III, father of Grand Duke George, hearing of the marriage said: "one must not deny a dying man anything." Even then it was thought the disease from which the Czarowich (sic) was suffering was uncurable.  The conclusion of the letter says that possibly the present Czar will make his morganatic nephews Counts."

Let's examine this further.  The article does not say who wrote the letter or who got the letter (and how did media get wind of the letter.  Moreover, can you really imagine Alexander III, who had tightened the marriage laws for Grand Dukes, and who exiled Miche Miche and stripped him of his military rank, would allow his son,  second in line to the throne to marry.
George was very ill (and died while riding a bike (which he was not supposed to be doing.)  Grand Duchess Olga mentions her brother several times in her memoirs, and how the doctors bungled his illness.  Funny, she doesn't mention a wife or kids ...  Nothing further was reported - and why not? because the story was most likely false.   Alexander would have certainly not have sanctioned a morganatic marriage, and Minnie would have had a hissy fit.  How come Nicholas II never refers to such an issue in his diaries?

Now, the Washington post also weighs with a story on 7-16-1899 -. The article was written by the "Marquis de Fontenoy" who had a column for years in the paper ... vivid imagination.
According to the Marquis, George, shortly before his father's death, contracted a morganatic marriage (it was assumed that George was dying), but Alexander had no idea that he was about to leave this world.  This wife was a woman of humble birth and about to become a mother.    The marriage was permitted because George was dying - but then it appeared he was going to live (and dad died) ... and Nicholas II, now the Tsar, demanded that George repudiate the woman -- George was, according to this article, at Livadia, but because of the fight with his brother, did not attend Alexander III's funeral.  During this time, a telegram arrived from the Caucausus to say that the woman and baby had suddenly died ...  but before this, when Nicholas reminded his brother that he repudiated the Polish dancer La Duska by whom he had two children and made a "loveless" marriage with Alice of Hesse.
Well, apparently, George went back to the Caucusus, and from that time, never saw his brother again -
"so cruelly did George assail his elder brother" that "an irrearable breach" occurred between the brothers, and that breach was never healed .. according to the Marquis ...

The Romanovs were not good at keeping secrets or hiding the morganatic wives and issue.


Last night I read portions of the last letter written by George Alexandrovich to Nicholas II...and there was not an ounce of assailing...quite a lovely exchange between two brothers!

Thanks for taking the trouble to post this as well Marlene.  :)

Arturo Beéche
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Belochka on March 14, 2005, 10:57:17 PM
Thanks Arturo for posting your revealing communication.

It is quite clear that from the material kindly provided here by a number of posters today, that the entire issue is indeed "fluff and nonsense." ;)
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 14, 2005, 11:01:45 PM
I forgot to thank Marlene for posting the NYT article: it certainly puts things into perspective. This is exactly how rumors get started.  
Fortunately most serious historians demand more substantial proof before they accept this type of articles as evidence of such claims.

And thank you, Art also for posting the email.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: LisaDavidson on March 15, 2005, 12:15:00 AM
I recently completed a chapter for Arturo's new book, "The Grand Dukes" regarding George Alexandrovich. I did a good amount of research, most of which is included in said chapter. I'm not going to go over any of that material here, but there is a bit I did not include in its entirety in the final draft.

I consulted a number of medical doctors and shared with them what was known about George's condition in the last decade of his life. All felt that it would have been very unlikely that GA had a very active sex life during this period. There was little doctors could do then to treat a tubercular patients beyond giving them a lot of fresh air and rest. His overall condition argues against a shall we say robust sex life according to present day doctors.

I realize this opinion flies in the face of all the rumors about George - and it is certainly less "sexy" than the idea that he had a morganatic family. However, I would ask those who say he had one - then you think George was some kind of creepy jerk, then? Because, that's what he would have been to have sired children and then left all of his assets to his brother, Michael Alexandrovich, with no provision made for this family. I see no evidence that GA was ever like this, hence, along with the medical opinions, these make be tend to make me disbelieve stories about a morganatic family.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: grandduchessella on March 15, 2005, 12:28:35 AM
That's an interesting point, Lisa. To have excluded his family from inheriting wouldn't have been in keeping with his personality.

I'd also just like to add that I wouldn't have blamed him if he had had some children and/or marriage. Some have viewed it negatively but I have trouble criticizing someone if they had reached out for a family as alone as he often was. Unlike some of the other marriages (specifically Misha's which was viewed by NII as a knife in the back) it really couldn't have done harm. George was really just the heir in name only--he was dying by the time N&A were having children and he had to figure between his health and the chance that they would have a son (little could he have known) that he was NEVER going to be Tsar. Thus having a marriage or children wouldn't have really mattered as much as it did with Michael who knew how the situation stood when he contracted his marriage. That said, I don't believe in the marriage or children, I just wouldn't consider it a black mark on his memory if he had.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Eurohistory on March 15, 2005, 01:24:03 AM
I don't think that one of us would see it, or has portrayed it, as a "black mark" on George, had he married and had children.  At least from my perspective, what I have questioned were the questionable sources so easily accepted by some, so vehemently defended by others, even though they were less than solid, based on rumors portrayed to be truth, supported by a person who wishes not to be identified.  In which case, I would ask myself...why even bother bringing these claims up at all?

Arturo Beéche
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Belochka on March 15, 2005, 02:27:48 AM
Quote
I consulted a number of medical doctors and shared with them what was known about George's condition in the last decade of his life. All felt that it would have been very unlikely that GA had a very active sex life during this period.


Hi Lisa,

You have raised a very compelling issue here about the medical ramifications of TB.

Male infertility can be attributed to TB infection. President George Washington was believed to have suffered TB and for this reason was unable to produce his own heir to inherit his fortunes.

Left untreated, pulmonary TB can spread to other organs of the body, not uncommonly down to the urinogenital tract within a couple of years after the primary infection. This progression of the disease will affect the infected male's fertility and enthusiasm.

TB remains one of lifes greatest  enemies.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: grandduchessella on March 15, 2005, 07:53:37 AM
Quote
I don't think that one of us would see it, or has portrayed it, as a "black mark" on George, had he married and had children.  At least from my perspective, what I have questioned were the questionable sources so easily accepted by some, so vehemently defended by others, even though they were less than solid, based on rumors portrayed to be truth, supported by a person who wishes not to be identified.  In which case, I would ask myself...why even bother bringing these claims up at all?

Arturo Beéche


Yes I understand that you didn't regard it as such--however it was referred to as a 'smear' in a previous post by another poster. I was saying that IMO I didn't view it at such and an issue entirely apart from the evidence question.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: rskkiya on March 15, 2005, 08:22:43 AM
Quote
Ye Gods...
    Any academician who is going to make 'radical new historical revelations' had better be willing to take some critical questions and debates - without being reduced to complaining of a Witch Hunt!  Be civil but be serious!

rskkiya


A reminder...

To HELEN A./PENNY/ ARTURO/BELOCHKA and all interested parties!

Please site sources for any historical theories whenever possible. Please do not insist that one is the victim of a "witch hunt", "harrassed" or "dogpiled" when one's theory is questioned and please to all participants - if you cannot explain the evidence behind a claim (Example: That Grand Duke George was an Alien visitor from Altair VI) then just don't make it or present it as an idea not as a fact.

Let's be civil, but serious!

rskkiya
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Marlene on March 15, 2005, 09:02:30 AM
[quote author=LisaDavidson

I realize this opinion flies in the face of all the rumors about George - and it is certainly less "sexy" than the idea that he had a morganatic family. However, I would ask those who say he had one - then you think George was some kind of creepy jerk, then? Because, that's what he would have been to have sired children and then left all of his assets to his brother, Michael Alexandrovich, with no provision made for this family. I see no evidence that GA was ever like this, hence, along with the medical opinions, these make be tend to make me disbelieve stories about a morganatic family.[/quote]

Another valid point.  But I must add my own three cents here.  Neither Penny nor Greg deserved the vilification because the remarks.  I don't know Penny all that well, although we have had some jolly conversations on the phone.  But I know Greg, and have known him for more than a decade now, and I consider him a friend who lives on the other side of the US.  I believe he is one of the best younger royal writers around - and he knows how to research (and he gets better with each book.)  
Even the best historians fall into traps, at times.   Penny and Greg weighed in with sources that provided information about George and also said descendants lived in California, and that some nobles believed the story.  A story has been constructed.  But one has to do with tact (and I admit that at times, I can be very untactful) is to desconstruct the story; that is, take it a part and fill in with substance that shows that the story could not be true.    I did this with the claim of  man who said his mother was the daughter of young Affie and an Irish woman - and that his mother had been created a princess by Edward VII.   I totally deconstructed the story and rebuilt it with facts.

Some may believe that a gentleman in California is a grandson.  I know of at least a dozen examples where people have claimed to be descended from Victoria or others - and people believe it.  PSS Xenia of Russia and Sigismund of Prussia believed in Anna Anderson, as did members of the Saxe-Altenberg family.  They were convinced she was Anastasia.   But the DNA tests said otherwise.

But the fact that Penny and Greg might believe the story should not diminish their own quality of work ... and I believe that when they start to deconstruct the story and rebuild it, they will find that the story is bogus.
Writing history is a journey for historians.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Marlene on March 15, 2005, 09:05:06 AM
Quote
I forgot to thank Marlene for posting the NYT article: it certainly puts things into perspective. This is exactly how rumors get started.  
Fortunately most serious historians demand more substantial proof before they accept this type of articles as evidence of such claims.

And thank you, Art also for posting the email.



you are very welcome.  
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: AGRBear on March 15, 2005, 10:31:24 AM
Quote
Now...the topic at hand...Marlene has already told us that the NYT (correct me if I am wrong Marlene) had publshed this information about George Alexandrovich, then it was retracted by the same paper."

Some of you may have read my articles in Majesty about engagements and marriages that never happened - the article was based on reports that the NYTimes published (from different sources - the Daily Mail reports, or a Berlin newspaper that the engagement of Prince so and so to Pss here and now is "imminent."

The article in the NYTimes  8-13-1899 dateline London  reminds me of all those "imminent" engagements.

"A letter received here from St. Petersburg discloses the fact that the late Czarowitch (sic) Grand Duke George, who died suddenly at Abbas Tuman, in the Caucusus, July 10, by a morganatic marriage with a woman, who though she was a descendant of of a royal Caucasian house. According to the letter, Czar Alexander III, father of Grand Duke George, hearing of the marriage said: "one must not deny a dying man anything." Even then it was thought the disease from which the Czarowich (sic) was suffering was uncurable.  The conclusion of the letter says that possibly the present Czar will make his morganatic nephews Counts."

Let's examine this further.  The article does not say who wrote the letter or who got the letter (and how did media get wind of the letter.  Moreover, can you really imagine Alexander III, who had tightened the marriage laws for Grand Dukes, and who exiled Miche Miche and stripped him of his military rank, would allow his son,  second in line to the throne to marry.
George was very ill (and died while riding a bike (which he was not supposed to be doing.)  Grand Duchess Olga mentions her brother several times in her memoirs, and how the doctors bungled his illness.  Funny, she doesn't mention a wife or kids ...  Nothing further was reported - and why not? because the story was most likely false.   Alexander would have certainly not have sanctioned a morganatic marriage, and Minnie would have had a hissy fit.  How come Nicholas II never refers to such an issue in his diaries?

Now, the Washington post also weighs with a story on 7-16-1899 -. The article was written by the "Marquis de Fontenoy" who had a column for years in the paper ... vivid imagination.
According to the Marquis, George, shortly before his father's death, contracted a morganatic marriage (it was assumed that George was dying), but Alexander had no idea that he was about to leave this world.  This wife was a woman of humble birth and about to become a mother.    The marriage was permitted because George was dying - but then it appeared he was going to live (and dad died) ... and Nicholas II, now the Tsar, demanded that George repudiate the woman -- George was, according to this article, at Livadia, but because of the fight with his brother, did not attend Alexander III's funeral.  During this time, a telegram arrived from the Caucausus to say that the woman and baby had suddenly died ...  but before this, when Nicholas reminded his brother that he repudiated the Polish dancer La Duska by whom he had two children and made a "loveless" marriage with Alice of Hesse.
Well, apparently, George went back to the Caucusus, and from that time, never saw his brother again -
"so cruelly did George assail his elder brother" that "an irrearable breach" occurred between the brothers, and that breach was never healed .. according to the Marquis ...

The Romanovs were not good at keeping secrets or hiding the morganatic wives and issue.


For those of you who are not old enough, these "gossipy" like columns were common.  It was a way for  the idle rich to see their names in the paper and to keep up with gossip they may have missed  or  for "commonors" to live in the world of the "idle rich" through these kind of reports.  The newspaper depended upon these needs.

Although they sounded "gossipy" they were somewhere near the truth, most of the time, or else, the columinst as in the NY Times wouldn't have lasted very long.  Too many "over the edge" false stories and the columnist was gone.  

Of course, there is no way I can prove or disprove this "gossiy" column of the "idle rich",  it apears that Tsar Alex. III is being shown to have a "heart" and "understanding" toward his dying son, GD George.

The posters who followed this posting are, again, showing their need to redicule people, whom they don't even know, because the information given doesn't suit their opinions.

Do those who redicule know the one author of the one article?  

The other article doesn't have a by-line.  Usually a column has certain staff members who wrote the article and are listed in that particular newspaper.

Since I am greatly aware of the inside world of newspapers,  I know the extent the owners will go in order to sell newspapers.
But a "regular column" has it's constraints in order to continue through the years.

I'd be the last person to take any newspaper article as "reliable sources" unless I knew the reporter personally.

Like it or not,  the "gossip" is usually based on whom the gossip have placed into the "gun sights" for that hour of a particular day.

If there is one article then there are others.

How do you go about pulling up these stories.  I'd love to be able to romp around those old columns.

Thanks for the post Marlene.

I do wish the others would stick to the topic.

More wishful thinking.  ::)

AGRBear
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Marlene on March 15, 2005, 10:55:25 AM
Quote


Although they sounded "gossipy" they were somewhere near the truth, most of the time, or else, the columinst as in the NY Times wouldn't have last very long."

First of all, the NYTimes article was not a column.  It was a small article.  Moreover, the NYT of 1899 is not the same paper as today. For example, this was not a report - it was probably something that was read in a London paper - and dispatched.  No e-mail, no computers.  No professional news librarians to check sources.  Bylines were also rare."

I did not quote full text for the WPost article because it was too long.

"Of course, there is no way I can prove or disprove this "gossiy" column of the "idle rich",  it apears that Tsar Alex. III is being shown to have a "heart" and "understanding" toward his dying son, GD George."

But would not in character for a Tsar of all the Russias considering how he viewed grand ducal marriages, and how he treated other grand dukes who married unequally.  Plus, the lack of serious evidence - even the fact that George's estate was left to his brother ... not the alleged wife and 4 kids - not to mention the fact that Minnie's letters or others, or Olga who talks about her brother in her memoirs - and so on - no concrete evidence."

"The posters who followed this posting are, again, showing their need to redicule people, whom they don't even know, because the information given doesn't suit their opinions."  
I hope you are not referring to me because I have known Greg King for more than a decade.  One of the quoted sources Coryne Hall is a good friend, and in the mid-90s, she asked me to read her bio on Minnie - several years before she finally found a publisher."


"Do those who redicule know the one author of the one article? "  The de Fontenoy title certainly existed - and he wrote for the WP for some years ... but he got a lot things wrong.

"The other article doesn't have a by-line.  Usually a column has certain staff members who wrote the article and are listed in that particular newspaper."
As I said the NYTimes article was not a column, probably based on a dispatch from overseas.  Wire service was available (as the AP had already been in business for about 45 years).  Even today, the NYTimes does not include their complete staff in their paper or even in official directories for the news media.
News gathering was rather different back in 1899 - no Computer Aided reporting.  International telephone communications were non-existant.  No databases.  

"Since I am greatly aware of the inside world of newspapers,  I know the extent the owners will go in order to sell newspapers.
But a "regular column" has it's constraints in order to continue through the years."  

But how versed are you in the newsgathering techniques of the late 1800s?  Totally different ballgame.

Incidentally, not only am I a published writer, I am by profession a librarian - and for more than 20 years worked in news organizations as a news librarian so I have a lot of experience with news research, past and present.

"Like it or not,  the "gossip" is usually based on whom the gossip have placed into the "gun sights" for that hour of a particular day."  Not all the time - reporting and newsgathering techniques were  a lot different - and these were not first page, major stories.  No further stories in the NYTimes or the WPost.

I wrote a 2 part article for Majesty about all the alleged engagements published in the NYTimes - based on reports from Europe and 9 out of ten times, the stories were not true, and were never going to be true."

"How do you go about pulling up these stories.  I'd love to be able to romp around those old columns."

I have access to the historical NYTimes and WPost --   I believe both papers provide access on their sites to the general public, but it is costly.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: AGRBear on March 15, 2005, 11:24:21 AM
No, Marlene, I was not referring to you.

And, thank you for all the additional information and sticking to the subject.

I am peronsally  aware of the newspaper world in my life time, and, knew oldsters who were part of the mid to late 1800s.

What Marlene has told us is quit interesting and I, again, thank her.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: LisaDavidson on March 15, 2005, 03:05:08 PM
Quote
Another valid point.  But I must add my own three cents here.  Neither Penny nor Greg deserved the vilification because the remarks.  I don't know Penny all that well, although we have had some jolly conversations on the phone.  But I know Greg, and have known him for more than a decade now, and I consider him a friend who lives on the other side of the US.  I believe he is one of the best younger royal writers around - and he knows how to research (and he gets better with each book.)  
Even the best historians fall into traps, at times.   Penny and Greg weighed in with sources that provided information about George and also said descendants lived in California, and that some nobles believed the story.  A story has been constructed.  But one has to do with tact (and I admit that at times, I can be very untactful) is to desconstruct the story; that is, take it a part and fill in with substance that shows that the story could not be true.    I did this with the claim of  man who said his mother was the daughter of young Affie and an Irish woman - and that his mother had been created a princess by Edward VII.   I totally deconstructed the story and rebuilt it with facts.

Some may believe that a gentleman in California is a grandson.  I know of at least a dozen examples where people have claimed to be descended from Victoria or others - and people believe it.  PSS Xenia of Russia and Sigismund of Prussia believed in Anna Anderson, as did members of the Saxe-Altenberg family.  They were convinced she was Anastasia.   But the DNA tests said otherwise.

But the fact that Penny and Greg might believe the story should not diminish their own quality of work ... and I believe that when they start to deconstruct the story and rebuild it, they will find that the story is bogus.
Writing history is a journey for historians.


I agree that Greg and Penny's published work has been a great boon to Romanov scholarship. I value both as professional friends. I do not, however, see that either has been vilified by others questioning them about sources. Rather, I think it's a relatively new phenomenen to be a writer and have your readers question you directly about topics that you are researching - and maybe have not worked out all the details on. I can empathize with Penny about being upset, because this is something writers didn't used to have to deal with.

Since history is not my primary career, it's easier for me, I suppose, if someone disagrees with or questions my sources. I approach this, as with many other things in life, as an opportunity to learn. I agree with you, Marlene, that once Penny has gone through all the "deconstruction" that quite possibly she will conclude that George did not get married or father children.

As to the post regarding such a marriage being harmless, in our present circumstances, someone doing this would not have been seen doing something harmful or "bad". Such was not the case if you were a Romanov grand duke living in the 19th century. You were expected to marry equally or not at all. When he was Heir, this was even more so. Had a morganatic marriage been made by George while Tsesarevich, it would have been a "black mark" and decreased the prestige of the dynasty. This may be seen by us as unfair, but it was the way it was.

A contemporary analogy would be the marriage of the Prince of Wales to Camilla Parker Bowles. I have always felt that Charles had to essentially choose - her or the throne. This may prove to be incorrect - it's too soon to tell - but many ask - why is getting married to someone you've loved for decades seen as damaging to the monarchy? It just depends on your point of view!
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: AGRBear on March 15, 2005, 03:25:38 PM
For all we know, the  ones who believe that he/she/they  are des. of GD George may have already gone through the testing of DNA.

We just do not know the answers.

So, back to books, newspaper clippings and genealogy sources.

I've been digging around the old Georgian roots.  I'll let you know if I find anything new.

AGRBear



Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Eurohistory on March 15, 2005, 03:42:15 PM
Quote
For all we know, the  ones who believe that he/she/they  are des. of GD George may have already gone through the testing of DNA.

We just do not know the answers.

So, back to books, newspaper clippings and genealogy sources.

I've been digging around the old Georgian roots.  I'll let you know if I find anything new.




But one of the issues at hand is that these claimants wish to remain "private" and we do not know their names.  Had any DNA testing taken place concerning these people, I am sure we would heard about.  Bodies would have to be exhumed, samples given...as far as we know, and many of us here happen to know a lot, this has not taken place.

I know many Romanov descendants.  In the last week I have asked almost a dozen of them via email if they had ever heard of these soi-dissant "cousins" from California...not one has replied positively...there answers have actually been the source of much laughter as they approach yet another spectre of a long-lost "relative" miraculously found in America.

Arturo Beéche
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: AGRBear on March 15, 2005, 04:20:13 PM
Quote
... [ in part]....

.....I know many Romanov descendants.  In the last week I have asked almost a dozen of them via email if they had ever heard of these soi-dissant "cousins" from California...not one has replied positively...there answers have actually been the source of much laughter as they approach yet another spectre of a long-lost "relative" miraculously found in America.

Arturo Beéche


It is obvious,  you do not know all the people I know or all the people Penny and Greg know.

It is silly to get into this kind of coversation.

As for DNA testing, here in the USA this kind of information remains confidental.  So, how would anyone know unless the person or people involved wanted you or anyone else to know?


AGRBear
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 15, 2005, 04:54:13 PM
Quote

I do not, however, see that either has been vilified by others questioning them about sources. Rather, I think it's a relatively new phenomenen to be a writer and have your readers question you directly about topics that you are researching - and maybe have not worked out all the details on. I can empathize with Penny about being upset, because this is something writers didn't used to have to deal with.


I agree Lisa. What I want to add though is that "peer review" may be a new phenomenon for writers, but it is not a new phenomenon for many other professionals in many other fields, by far!

This is probably why  it's difficult for me to understand why any professional in any field would feel it is an insult for colleagues (and others) to challenge or question his theories/research. Number one, it means that this research is initiating interest, which is definitely a good thing. It is also the researcher's chance to learn about his own mistakes and get back on track if needed since it gives him the opportunity to see this research in a new perspective. It allows him to make sure nothing is missing or unclear, as well as to confirm the validity of his theories (even to himself - especially to himself!). It is supposed to be a positive thing which everyone is supposed to learn from - it is not meant to be viewed as an attempt to malign or vilify or embarrass anyone.

The reason for doing this is supposed to ensure that this person comes out a better researcher in the end. As I said before, this is standard practice in many fields (evidently not history ?). As part of graduate school training they prepare you for this type of thing before you can receive your degree. It is called  "defending your thesis" - I am sure everyone has heard of that, which means you present your theories/research and are then challenged by a panel to see if you will be able to stand up (or not) to their challenges.  Only then are you allowed to graduate. This is a normal part of higher education and this is a way for you to learn what the real world will be like as a researcher.
So what exactly is the problem here? I am not sure!
But this is why I am so surprised to see that this practice is seen here as a "witch hunt" or even as "vilifying" someone  ???. How is anyone being vilified when inconsistencies of their statements are pointed out? I honestly don't get it!  ???  ???  ???
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: grandduchessella on March 15, 2005, 05:11:08 PM
Quote

As to the post regarding such a marriage being harmless, in our present circumstances, someone doing this would not have been seen doing something harmful or "bad". Such was not the case if you were a Romanov grand duke living in the 19th century. You were expected to marry equally or not at all. When he was Heir, this was even more so. Had a morganatic marriage been made by George while Tsesarevich, it would have been a "black mark" and decreased the prestige of the dynasty. This may be seen by us as unfair, but it was the way it was.



That may have been my post. I was indeed looking at it from a contemporary (and personal at that) viewpoint. I know it wouldnt have been regarded as harmless at all at the time but for me looking at it 100+ years on it doesn't seem a horrible thing if a sick, lonely young man had contracted a marriage.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Eurohistory on March 15, 2005, 05:31:55 PM
Quote


As for DNA testing, here in the USA this kind of information remains confidental.  So, how would anyone know unless the person or people involved wanted you or anyone else to know?


AGRBear


You sincerely believe that if the graves of the Romanovs in Petersburg were disturbed again to obtain further samples...we would not get to hear about it?

Arturo Beéche
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Belochka on March 15, 2005, 05:36:49 PM
Bringing together all the details which have been provided here by various posters, and including specific references to published material, I believe it can be safely deduced that on a balance of probabilities, any liason purported to have been contracted by George in Abbas Tuman is highly improbable.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Belochka on March 15, 2005, 06:00:26 PM
Quote
As for DNA testing, here in the USA this kind of information remains confidental.  So, how would anyone know unless the person or people involved wanted you or anyone else to know?
AGRBear


Bear you may recall that when the historic 'wild west" character  Jesse James had his DNA profile sequenced by Anne Stone of Arizona State U. against known descendants, the world learnt that the procedure was to be undertaken before the results were announced officially.

Similarily, many of us also heard about the DNA profiling of President Thomas Jefferson's descendants against the descendants of Sally Hemings. Results provided compelling evidence that the President had a sexual liason with one of his slaves, which produced a child.

What I am pointing out here is that when historic figures are involved, DNA profiling becomes a public issue.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: rskkiya on March 15, 2005, 06:28:56 PM
Quote

This is probably why  it's difficult for me to understand why any professional in any field would feel it is an insult for colleagues (and others) to challenge or question his theories/research. Number one, it means that this research is initiating interest, which is definitely a good thing. It is also the researcher's chance to learn about his own mistakes and get back on track if needed since it gives him the opportunity to see this research in a new perspective. It allows him to make sure nothing is missing or unclear, as well as to confirm the validity of his theories (even to himself - especially to himself!). It is supposed to be a positive thing which everyone is supposed to learn from - it is not meant to be viewed as an attempt to malign or vilify or embarrass anyone.

The reason for doing this is supposed to ensure that this person comes out a better researcher in the end. As I said before, this is standard practice in many fields (evidently not history ?). As part of graduate school training they prepare you for this type of thing before you can receive your degree. It is called  "defending your thesis" - I am sure everyone has heard of that, which means you present your theories/research and are then challenged by a panel to see if you will be able to stand up (or not) to their challenges.  Only then are you allowed to graduate. This is a normal part of higher education and this is a way for you to learn what the real world will be like as a researcher.
So what exactly is the problem here? I am not sure!
But this is why I am so surprised to see that this practice is seen here as a "witch hunt" or even as "vilifying" someone  ???. How is anyone being vilified when inconsistencies of their statements are pointed out? I honestly don't get it!  ???  ???  ???


I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH HELEN A!

   If your "sources" ('Prince Fillipillov'/The Bastard great grandniece of Rasputin/Whomever!) wish to remain private, then don't mention them here!
   If you do NOT wish to defend your "historical theories" then do not mention them here either!

   The overt sensitivity to criticism by some people here is getting quite disturbing. NONE of this sort of behaviour would be tolerated in a Masters Degree program (let alone a Doctoral program) so I am shocked that 'published authors' are reacting so badly to this sort of questioning!

We are not out to get anyone - we are simply curious and interested!
rskkiya
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 15, 2005, 07:44:29 PM
Quote
You have raised a very compelling issue here about the medical ramifications of TB.

Male infertility can be attributed to TB infection. President George Washington was believed to have suffered TB and for this reason was unable to produce his own heir to inherit his fortunes.

Left untreated, pulmonary TB can spread to other organs of the body, not uncommonly down to the urinogenital tract within a couple of years after the primary infection. This progression of the disease will affect the infected male's fertility and enthusiasm.


This is another piece of evidence that puts the idea of George having four children into serious doubt. If infertility is common with TB, and considering that George suffered from it for many years before 1893 (and that back then this disease was not treatable), I would be quite surprised if he could have fathered four children in quick succession.

BTW, who ended up getting George Washington's fortune?  Did anyone come out of the woodwork after his death claiming to be his child or grandchild? ;)
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: AGRBear on March 15, 2005, 08:19:29 PM
Quote

You sincerely believe that if the graves of the Romanovs in Petersburg were disturbed again to obtain further samples...we would not get to hear about it?

Arturo Beéche


Why would anyone need to disturb any graves of the Romanov, again?  It is public knowledge as to GD George's DNA.   I assume matching it with one of his desc. would be relatively simple.  And, it can be done without the public knowing it was done.

And, Helen, please stop the lectures.  You are absolutely correct.  We must always weigh facts with facts.  And, no one has said otherwise.
 
In this case, the facts appear weak and seem to be based on sources such as books, encylopedias, genealogy sources, newspaper clippings, and "heresay"  [he said/she said/ they said].  And, when I stopped to think about this,  I started to laugh.  Why? Because so much of the things we know about the IF and those around them are based on "heresay".   For example:  What was GD George's favorite color?  And, how would we know?  I doubt a history book would tell us.  So, then, we go to the various personal sources such as letters and diaries of those who knew him.   If cousin Miss so-in-so #1 tells us that GD George's favorite color was "green"  and cousin Miss so-in-so #2 tells us his favorite color was "yellow" then whom do we believe?  Perhaps what he was telling these two people was that he liked the color they were wearing and not his favorite color at all.   None of us can go back in time and ask GD George and ask him what his favorite color is.  So, we have to go with what we have and so much of what we talk about on these theads is based on "heresay".

If you like GD Olga better than you like Krill then this is your opinion.  But, please,  don't demand I like one or the other or that I must believe one more than I should believe the other.

Enough is enough.  And, it's getting late and this old bear is starting to get grumpy and irratated at all this silly behavior and demands of perfection because no one said these facts were earth shaking.  No one said we could produce DNA.  No one said we had a personal interview with GD George before he died and that what we know is first hand.  So, take it as it is, or, don't.  We don't have anything more at this time.  Let me repeat this, we don't have anything more at this time.  Sure we'd like to give you blood and documents of marrriages and births and whatever else you would like but no one promised you any of these things.  So, get over whatever it is that is busting your seams.  That's all there is.  And, that's life.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Belochka on March 15, 2005, 08:23:08 PM
Martha survived her children. She took care of her son Jack's children after his death.

Here is a link to Washington's will:

http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/will/
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 16, 2005, 07:59:41 AM
Quote
And, Helen, please stop the lectures.  


LOL. I'll stop the lectures, if you stop the preaching!  ;) ;D :

Quote
Enough is enough.  And, it's getting late and this old bear is starting to get grumpy and irratated at all this silly behavior and demands of perfection because no one said these facts were earth shaking.  No one said we could produce DNA.  No one said we had a personal interview with GD George before he died and that what we know is first hand.  So, take it as it is, or, don't.  We don't have anything more at this time.  Let me repeat this, we don't have anything more at this time.  Sure we'd like to give you blood and documents of marrriages and births and whatever else you would like but no one promised you any of these things.  So, get over whatever it is that is busting your seams.  That's all there is.  And, that's life.
AGRBear

Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Eurohistory on March 16, 2005, 09:43:33 AM
I asked noted Romanov historian Zoia Belyakova to give me her take on these claims about George Alexandrovich's phantom descendants.  Here is what she had to say in an email this morning"

"About George Alexandrovich. There's no factual data about his morganatic marriages. No priest wd agree to wed him without the Tsar's permission. He was probably bi-sexual, as was G.D. Konstantin Konstantinovich. He was not at all promiscuous with women because of his bad health. Russian authors never mentioned his marriages, however, he might have had mistresses. No evidence...Without diaries, letters, factual data, no one can claim ambivalent episodes in the life of a royal personality."

And may I remind you, Ms. Belyakova is among the world's most respected Imperial Family experts!

Arturo Beéche
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Mike on March 16, 2005, 10:37:54 AM
As I've said on another thread, it's beyond any imagination that Alexander III or Nicholas II would allow George to marry morganatically, however much they might wish to make the poor guy happy. It is also absolutely improbable that any Russian Orthodox priest would wed him without an official imperial consent.  
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 16, 2005, 10:49:22 AM
Quote
I asked noted Romanov historian Zoia Belyakova to give me her take on these claims about George Alexandrovich's phantom descendants.  Here is what she had to say in an email this morning"

"About George Alexandrovich. There's no factual data about his morganatic marriages. No priest wd agree to wed him without the Tsar's permission. He was probably bi-sexual, as was G.D. Konstantin Konstantinovich. He was not at all promiscuous with women because of his bad health. Russian authors never mentioned his marriages, however, he might have had mistresses. No evidence...Without diaries, letters, factual data, no one can claim ambivalent episodes in the life of a royal personality."


OK.  So what is under discussion here?  Is it the marriages?  If so, then I would have to point out that several Grand Dukes married in Orthodox Churches without the Emperor's permission, both in and out of Russia.  Again,  I don't KNOW that this happened with George, but a Grand Duke marrying without permission is hardly unheard of.

Or is it the possibility of issue -- illegitimate or not -- that is under discussion?  Zoya herself -- as you say "among the most respected Imperial Family experts" -- says George "might have had mistresses."  Mistresses have been know to fall pregnant on occasion.

Did Zoya happen to say -- or do you know -- which diaries, letters or other documents record George's homosexual activities?


Quote
And may I remind you, Ms. belyakova is among the world's most respected Imperial Family experts!

Arturo Beéche


Are you saying that Greg isn't?  Or are we playing a game of "my Imperial Family expert" is better than yours?   :D
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Eurohistory on March 16, 2005, 11:01:58 AM
Quote
Are you saying that Greg isn't?  Or are we playing a game of "my Imperial Family expert" is better than yours?   :D


I am neither insinuating nor playing at anything.  If you read it that way, that I cannot control.

Arturo Beéche ::)
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Eurohistory on March 16, 2005, 11:06:24 AM
Quote


Did Zoya happen to say -- or do you know -- which diaries, letters or other documents record George's homosexual activities?




No and I did not ask her, but I can.  It could be that she has the same sources used by Professor Karlinsky in his article on the seven gay Grand Dukes.  I ignore where she obtained the information though.

Arturo Beéche
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: AGRBear on March 16, 2005, 12:14:33 PM
It is very nice to be able to talk to the Romanovs but I doubt any of them were alive in 1899 and knew GD George before he died.  (I don't say that with tongue in cheek nor do I say this with a sneer.)

Like I said, a great deal of information on the private lives of the Romanov is based on "heresay" [he said/ she said/ they said].

In the times of OLD RUSSIA,  bi-sexual actitivies, especially during youth and in war times, it was not uncommon.  And, I don't think Russians  placed much "to-do" about such activities in the upper society.

So, what does GD George's possible bi-sexuall actitivies have to do with the fact/speculation  that he  may/ or may not have produced children with two wives or two mistresses?

AGRBear

PS Helen:  Preaching is over as long as lectures are  ;) ;D
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: AGRBear on March 16, 2005, 12:25:21 PM
Quote

...[in part]...

And may I remind you, Ms. Belyakova is among the world's most respected Imperial Family experts!

Arturo Beéche


I don't know who she is.  [Showing my ignorance here, I know
8) ] but someone's gotta do it.  ;D

Also, Arturo,  I don't think you've realized how your words sometimes do offend people.  Heck,  I said something way back when about your attitude toward my posts but you just skipped right on by and lectured  Penny.  I feel rejected and ignored  :-/
I've also asked you some questions but you just rushed on pass.  Again, I fell rejected and ignored  :-/  Or did you not have the answers.  ???  Perhaps the one I'd like best to be answered is the one about why your friend, the author, who is writting another article, will, again, placed this so-called rumor about GD George's marriages if she felt this information was fabricated or just rumor.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: grandduchessella on March 16, 2005, 12:34:30 PM
Quote

I don't know who she is.  


I know her name--I think she was one of the authors in the Love, Power and Tragedy coffee-table book. Didn't she also write Romanovs: The Way It Was (or was it The Way They Were? something like that). She mostly publishes in Russian, I believe, so that could be a possible answer. Again, I do know the name and know she's well-respected amongst Romanovphiles. Hope that helps.  :)

I am curious as to how she came to the conclusion that he may have been at least bi-sexual. We know of KR because of all his diaries but if there was nothing of the type for GA to ascertain his heterosexual activities where does any information lie the other way? He just seems so shrouded in, not exactly mystery, but in the unknown I guess. For someone who reached adulthood, was apparently well-loved by those who knew him and was so close to the throne for his entire life it seems a shame that so little is known about him apart from his illness.  :(
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 16, 2005, 01:37:57 PM
Quote

I am neither insinuating nor playing at anything.  If you read it that way, that I cannot control.

Arturo Beéche ::)


I was asking you what way you meant it, so that I would know how to "read" it.  That's all.  It seemed an odd thing to add to the end of your post -- as though Zoya's expertise, undoubted as it is, should end all further enquiry.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 16, 2005, 01:41:36 PM
Quote

No and I did not ask her, but I can.  It could be that she has the same sources used by Professor Karlinsky in his article on the seven gay Grand Dukes.  I ignore where she obtained the information though.

Arturo Beéche


OK.  If you have a chance to ask her, I'd like to know!  ;D

I don't recall what were Dr Karlinsky's sources.  I do remember having the impression -- like you -- that he had simply rounded up all the "usual suspects" -- in this case, the unmarried Romanov men -- and had taken it from there.

Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: AGRBear on March 16, 2005, 02:28:22 PM
So who is this Dr Karlinsky  and how would he/she know about the sexuality of GD George?  Bear asked with a curious tone.

Yep, showing my lack of knowledge, again. 8)

AGRBear
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Georgiy on March 16, 2005, 02:31:42 PM
Probably just assumption - he wasn't married, no known girlfriends, must be gay. (And conveniently overlooking the fact that the TB and failing health might have meant he was unable to get out and about and meet people.)
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 16, 2005, 03:25:47 PM
Quote
So who is this Dr Karlinsky  and how would he/she know about the sexuality of GD George?  Bear asked with a curious tone.

Yep, showing my lack of knowledge, again. 8)

AGRBear


Simon Karlinsky is a Professor Emeritus of Russian in the Department of Slavic Languages at UC Berkeley.  I'm sure he's written a lot of books, but the two I have are "Dear Bunny, Dear Volodya" (the correspondence of "Bunny" Wilson and "Volodya" Nabokov) and "The Sexual Labyrinth of Nikolai Gogol."
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Eurohistory on March 16, 2005, 04:41:53 PM
Quote

I don't know who she is.  [Showing my ignorance here, I know
 8) ] but someone's gotta do it.  ;D

Also, Arturo,  I don't think you've realized how your words sometimes do offend people.  Heck,  I said something way back when about your attitude toward my posts but you just skipped right on by and lectured  Penny.  I feel rejected and ignored  :-/
I've also asked you some questions but you just rushed on pass.  Again, I fell rejected and ignored  :-/  Or did you not have the answers.  ???  Perhaps the one I'd like best to be answered is the one about why your friend, the author, who is writting another article, will, again, placed this so-called rumor about GD George's marriages if she felt this information was fabricated or just rumor.

AGRBear


I cannot reveal what Coryne Hall has written in the article.  This was written for my magazine and subscribers get to read it first - suffise it to say that a caveat was added to explain in further detail that what she said in her book was wishful thinking.

Arturo Beéche
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Eurohistory on March 16, 2005, 04:44:35 PM
Quote

OK.  If you have a chance to ask her, I'd like to know!  ;D

I don't recall what were Dr Karlinsky's sources.  I do remember having the impression -- like you -- that he had simply rounded up all the "usual suspects" -- in this case, the unmarried Romanov men -- and had taken it from there.



As I mentioned at the beginning of this thread...I contacted Professor karlinsky about six years ago or so in an effor to further dig into his thoughts on the matter, sources and things of that nature.  Our telephone conversation lasted no more than 10 minutes.  he was terribly dismissive, short and flat out told me that he had changed his mind on some of the initial perceptions, bt did not want to get into it...and with that he said goodbye and hung up the telephone.

Arturo Beéche
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Robert_Hall on March 16, 2005, 05:12:56 PM
Any idea of where we can find a copy of the famous Gay Grand Dukes article/paper ? I have tried every place I can think of, even the gay rights group in Russia !
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 16, 2005, 05:32:01 PM
Quote
So what is under discussion here?  


It's so easy to lose track, so I just went back and checked: it seems that what started this discussion was when the Bear made a post that GD George was married morganatically twice and as a result had four children, and that his descendants are now living in the US. We asked her for sources and she cited you as a source for this info.

Quote
So, Georg had two wives and four children before his death:
After spending his final years remote from the court, Georgy Alexandrovich died at Abas-Tuman on 28 June 1899.  So, by 1918 the four children would have been older than 17 years of age. Surly someone must know about these children.  The eldest would have been abt. 24.  Do we know if the first child was a girl or a boy?


Quote
A grandson (or great-grandson, I forget which) lives out West here.  This is the man with the impeccable references that Greg mentioned.  There's virtually no doubt that this little family is the real deal.


Quote
I wonder what the ages of Georg's children would be when Nicholas II abdicated in 1917.
AGRBear


Quote
... if he has grandchildren here in the USA then there was a woman or two involved with him. Until proven otherwise,  I'll go with the two morgantic marriages.

AGRBear




So I guess this is what was under discussion:

1. George's two morganatic marriages  

2. George's four children

3. George's direct descendants living in the US, as a result of 1 and 2...


Edited to add the quotes that started this very heated discussion  ;).
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 16, 2005, 05:32:28 PM
Quote

As I mentioned at the beginning of this thread...I contacted Professor karlinsky about six years ago or so in an effor to further dig into his thoughts on the matter, sources and things of that nature.  Our telephone conversation lasted no more than 10 minutes.  he was terribly dismissive, short and flat out told me that he had changed his mind on some of the initial perceptions, bt did not want to get into it...and with that he said goodbye and hung up the telephone.

Arturo Beéche


He was just as dismissive with me -- do you remember, Art?  I tried him with no luck -- his assistant said that Dr K. didn't speak about such things with women, and that's as far as I got...

As for where the paper can be found, I don't know.  I have a copy here (allegedly 8)  )  though I haven't been able to lay my hands on it.  I would try a guy called Ken Moss at Middlebury College:

http://community.middlebury.edu/~moss/

I think he's the one who sent me a copy, though it's been six years or so, like Art said, so I could be wrong.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 16, 2005, 05:35:07 PM
Quote

It's so easy to lose track, so I just went back and checked: it seems that what started this discussion was when the Bear made a post that GD George was married morganatically twice and as a result had four children, and that his descendants are now living in the US. We asked her for sources and she cited you as a source for this info.

So I guess this is what was under discussion:

1. George's two morganatic marriages  

2. George's four children

3. George's direct descendants living in the US, as a result of 1 and 2...


OK.  This is pretty much what I thought -- we have three issues.  Absent anyone else doing anything about it -- and with my interest piqued by this conversation --  I have contacted my research people on the ground in various parts of Russia to see if they know any reliable person in the Caucasus to help with 1 and 2.  I guess it might take a few days to find someone though...

At the very least, it will be an interesting piece of group research to do with you peeps!  ;)
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 16, 2005, 05:39:08 PM
Quote
 Absent anyone else doing anything about it -- and with my interest piqued by this conversation --  I have contacted my research people on the ground in various parts of Russia to see if they know any reliable person in the Caucasus to help with 1 and 2.  I guess it might take a few days to find someone though...


Thanks. Let us know what you find out.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 16, 2005, 05:46:39 PM
Quote
Any idea of where we can find a copy of the famous Gay Grand Dukes article/paper ? I have tried every place I can think of, even the gay rights group in Russia !



Robert,

Aside from Ken Moss, I have a vague, six-year-old memory that the article first appeared in the journal called "Out of the Blue," which was published in SanFran, but which has since gone out of business.


Edited to add:  Now I'm not sure if "Out of the Blue" is the right journal -- but whatever it was, it was published by Gay Sunshine Press, which is now out of business...
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Belochka on March 16, 2005, 07:14:46 PM
Quote

OK.  This is pretty much what I thought -- we have three issues.  

At the very least, it will be an interesting piece of group research to do with you peeps!  ;)


No, "we" actually have another very important consideration here.  

That involves the rather important matter about George's terminal illness and how it impacted upon his final years of life in Abbas Touman.

As for the comment "with you peeps", am I missing something here? ???

Must be time to have that cup of tea! ;)

Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 16, 2005, 07:35:54 PM
Quote

No, "we" actually have another very important consideration here.  

That involves the rather important matter about George's terminal illness and how it impacted upon his final years of life in Abbas Touman.


I think that's all part and parcel of the investigation.  And the first step is to locate a reliable person on the ground there, which is what I'm doing through my established network of research assistants.

Quote
As for the comment "with you peeps", am I missing something here? ???


Sorry.  A bleed-through from another board where "you peeps" is a friendly short-hand for "you people."  ;)
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Belochka on March 16, 2005, 07:43:23 PM
Quote
Sorry.  A bleed-through from another board where "you peeps" is a friendly short-hand for "you people."  ;)


OK, I was unfamiliar with this expression. Thanks for explaining it to me. :)
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: grandduchessella on March 16, 2005, 08:42:48 PM
Penny--Thanks for doing that. And thanks to Art for his trouble in contacting various people as well. Perhaps something will come from all the dissension.

And Penny, I didn't know you were so down with the lingo.  ;)
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Marlene on March 16, 2005, 08:48:12 PM
Quote from: Belochka As for the comment "[i
with you peeps[/i]", am I missing something here? ???



Well, it is nearing Easter - and Peeps ... preferably pink and a bit stale.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: RichC on March 16, 2005, 09:59:11 PM
Quote


Robert,

Aside from Ken Moss, I have a vague, six-year-old memory that the article first appeared in the journal called "Out of the Blue," which was published in SanFran, but which has since gone out of business.


Edited to add:  Now I'm not sure if "Out of the Blue" is the right journal -- but whatever it was, it was published by Gay Sunshine Press, which is now out of business...


The only reference I have ever been able to find about the "seven gay grand dukes" is Karlinsky's article called "Russia's Gay Literature and Culture: The Impact of the October Revolution" published in "Hidden From History: Reclaiming the Gay and Lesbian Past".  Meridian, 1989  In it Karlinsky writes (p. 351), "There were at least seven gay grand dukes at the time (uncles, nephews or cousins of the last two tsars).  The most flamboyant of this group was the Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich, the uncle of Nicholas II.  This uncle regularly went to the theater and other public functions with his current lover."

If there is another article about the fabled seven gay grand dukes, I would love to get my hands on them (oops, I meant "it").  

About Kevin Moss, his website list of famous gay Russians has some errors; he says that "Dmitry Pavlovich Purishkevich" (one of Rasputin's killers) was gay.  He's conflating two people.  He also says that GD Nikolai Mikhailovich was gay, but there is no evidence of this.

Out of the Blue is an anthology of gay Russian literature edited by Moss with an introduction by Karlinsky.  It was published in 1997.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: RichC on March 16, 2005, 10:18:32 PM
Quote
As I've said on another thread, it's beyond any imagination that Alexander III or Nicholas II would allow George to marry morganatically, however much they might wish to make the poor guy happy. It is also absolutely improbable that any Russian Orthodox priest would wed him without an official imperial consent.  


Actually I remember reading somewhere that Alexander III was not necessarily against morganatic marriages in all cases.  Supposedly he initially approved of the morganatic marriage of GD Mikhail Mikhailovich but then withdrew his assent after some of the other family members objected.  If this is true, it is reasonable to think that perhaps Alexander III might have allowed a dying son to marry morganatically....
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: RichC on March 16, 2005, 10:28:35 PM
Quote

This is another piece of evidence that puts the idea of George having four children into serious doubt. If infertility is common with TB, and considering that George suffered from it for many years before 1893 (and that back then this disease was not treatable), I would be quite surprised if he could have fathered four children in quick succession.

BTW, who ended up getting George Washington's fortune?  Did anyone come out of the woodwork after his death claiming to be his child or grandchild? ;)



I'm not surprised to read that TB can lead to infertility but I don't think this means that it happens in all cases.  My grandfather died from TB in 1935, a few years after fathering two children, one of them being my mother.  Also, I'm told that modern strains of TB are quite different (more virulent) than the strains George (or my grand dad) had generations ago.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Belochka on March 16, 2005, 10:31:09 PM
Quote
If there is another article about the fabled seven gay grand dukes, I would love to get my hands on them (oops, I meant "it".


Freudian slip no doubt. ;) ;D
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Belochka on March 16, 2005, 11:05:30 PM
Quote
My grandfather died from TB in 1935, a few years after fathering two children, one of them being my mother.


True enough not all males infected with TB become infertile, nor will the patient's TB necessarily spread to the urinogenital tract. This aspect of the disease introduced by LisaD earlier merely provided a probable scenario in order to explain why George was unlikely to have sexual relationships let alone contract a number of formal liasons before his death.  ;)
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Robert_Hall on March 16, 2005, 11:37:33 PM
I have not found the article in the Gay Sunshine Press at hand. However, they are pretty well archived and if there, I'll find them. BUT, the original question, I suppose, was  G.D. George listed amongst those 7 ? Is that where the "gay" aspect of his sexuality got started ?
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: RichC on March 17, 2005, 12:06:51 AM
Quote
I have not found the article in the Gay Sunshine Press at hand. However, they are pretty well archived and if there, I'll find them. BUT, the original question, I suppose, was  G.D. George listed amongst those 7 ? Is that where the "gay" aspect of his sexuality got started ?


Karlinsky says they were "uncles, cousins or nephews" of the last two tsars.  He doesn't say sons or brothers.  George was the son of one tsar and the brother of the other.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: grandduchessella on March 17, 2005, 12:15:05 AM
From a contemporary magazine
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v650/empressfrederick/romanovs/Mvc-012x.jpg)
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 17, 2005, 01:14:21 AM
Quote
I have not found the article in the Gay Sunshine Press at hand. However, they are pretty well archived and if there, I'll find them. BUT, the original question, I suppose, was  G.D. George listed amongst those 7 ? Is that where the "gay" aspect of his sexuality got started ?


I don't remember which seven were listed.  At the time I was trying to track down "The Seven Gay Grand Dukes," I read a good few articles -- both on-line and in various magazines and journals -- and most of the Grand Dukes seem to get mentioned at one place or another.  I remember in particular one article advanced the theory that Nicholas Alexandrovich ("Nixa," Alex II's elder brother and Dagmar's first fiance) had not died from illness, but rather from trying to take his own life.  The idea was that he was distraught at having to get married, because he was gay, and wanted to stay with his tutor, who was also his lover.  It just seems like there was quite a cottage-industry in these sorts of articles at one time...
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Marlene on March 17, 2005, 08:34:55 AM
Quote

Actually I remember reading somewhere that Alexander III was not necessarily against morganatic marriages in all cases.  Supposedly he initially approved of the morganatic marriage of GD Mikhail Mikhailovich but then withdrew his assent after some of the other family members objected.  If this is true, it is reasonable to think that perhaps Alexander III might have allowed a dying son to marry morganatically....


Alexander III never gave an assent to Miche Miche's marriage. Michael and Sophie married in secret - the day remains shrouded in mystery (they never even told their children when they actually got married married.)  Alexander III's reaction was rather swift.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Marlene on March 17, 2005, 08:49:33 AM
Quote

I don't remember which seven were listed.  At the time I was trying to track down "The Seven Gay Grand Dukes," I read a good few articles -- both on-line and in various magazines and journals -- and most of the Grand Dukes seem to get mentioned at one place or another.  I remember in particular one article advanced the theory that Nicholas Alexandrovich ("Nixa," Alex II's elder brother and Dagmar's first fiance) had not died from illness, but rather from trying to take his own life.  The idea was that he was distraught at having to get married, because he was gay, and wanted to stay with his tutor, who was also his lover.  It just seems like there was quite a cottage-industry in these sorts of articles at one time...



I e-mailed Ken Moss - hey, I am a research librarian -- and he said there is no article called "The seven gay grand dukes."  he says that Karlinsky mentioned them in an article that may have been published in something called "Gay roots."  
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: AGRBear on March 17, 2005, 11:23:08 AM
Everything is finally going along smoothly and so much information is being shared.
 
I am a happy bear :)


AGRBear

PS grandduchessella, forgot to mention the fact that you always find the most interesting stuff.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 17, 2005, 12:37:17 PM
Quote
Penny--Thanks for doing that.


No problem! At this point, I just want to get to the bottom of things.

Quote
And thanks to Art for his trouble in contacting various people as well. Perhaps something will come from all the dissension.


Yes, thank you, Arturo!  Hopefully we can work all this out in the end.

Quote
And Penny, I didn't know you were so down with the lingo.  ;)


Are you kidding? I'm too cool for school!  8)

Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 17, 2005, 12:40:19 PM
Quote
I e-mailed Ken Moss - hey, I am a research librarian -- and he said there is no article called "The seven gay grand dukes."  he says that Karlinsky mentioned them in an article that may have been published in something called "Gay roots."  


Yes, I think this is right!  I think that the article was not specifically called "The Seven Gay Grand Dukes" -- but it had a section called that, or became known by this nickname.  And I remember "Gay Roots," too.  Perhaps this was the journal/magazine/periodical that Gay Sunshine published?

D*mn my six-year-old memories!  ::)

Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Marlene on March 17, 2005, 12:48:18 PM
Quote

Yes, I think this is right!  I think that the article was not specifically called "The Seven Gay Grand Dukes" -- but it had a section called that, or became known by this nickname.  And I remember "Gay Roots," too.  Perhaps this was the journal/magazine/periodical that Gay Sunshine published?

D*mn my six-year-old memories!  ::)



According to Moss, Gay Roots is a book.  

still waiting for my stale pink Peeps.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 17, 2005, 12:58:33 PM
Quote

According to Moss, Gay Roots is a book.  


Found it! :D

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/094056713X/102-5699609-2141732

Quote
still waiting for my stale pink Peeps.


I don't know how you can -- they're gross!  It's chocolate bunnies for me... :)
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: RichC on March 17, 2005, 08:09:45 PM
Quote

Alexander III never gave an assent to Miche Miche's marriage. Michael and Sophie married in secret - the day remains shrouded in mystery (they never even told their children when they actually got married married.)  Alexander III's reaction was rather swift.


Your statement made me go back and check and it was GD Nikolai Nikolaevich, not Miche Miche I was thinking of.  In 1892 Alexander III gave him permission to marry Sophie Burenina, the daughter of a "city official".  But the Tsar changed his mind under pressure from the family.  -- from the Camera and the Tsars, p. 51.  

So, I'm sticking by my original point, unless someone else can shoot me down.  :)  It's not unimaginable for Alexander III to have given permission for a Grand Duke to marry morganatically.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 17, 2005, 09:40:49 PM
Quote

still waiting for my stale pink Peeps.


(http://img132.exs.cx/img132/4/peeps7bt.jpg)
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: grandduchessella on March 17, 2005, 10:09:02 PM
Ugh. Even seeing them makes me feel sugar shock coming on.  :-/  I used to eat these and other sugary candies by the ton when I was a kid but as an adult--yech. I always buy them for my kids because I'm not tempted to eat them (unlike chocolate bunnies  :) )

Here are some of the newspaper abstracts from the time. Again--I'm not vouching for the veracity just showing what some of the headlines/tone of the day were.

LATE GRAND DUKE.
MARQUISE DE FONTENOY
The Washington Post
Jul 16, 1899.
It is an extraordinary fact that although Emperor Nicholas has been on the throne for close upon six years, yet during all that time he never once either visited or even set eyes upon his brother George, who died so suddenly on Monday last.

CAUSE OF CZAREWITCH'S END.; A Bresian Paper Declures It Was Due to a Fall from a Bicycle.
Jul 14, 1899

CZAR'S BROTHER DEAD; Heir Apparent to the Russian Crown Passes Away.
Jul 11, 1899
The Grand Duke George, brother of the Czar, is dead. The Grand Duke George of Russia was born April 27, 1871, and had been in illhealth for a number of years, suffering from consumption.

Czarowitch Dangerously III.
The Washington Post (1877-1954). Washington, D.C.: Apr 17, 1896. pg. 10, 1 pgs

Czarewitch's Death Officially Denied.
The Washington Post (1877-1954). Washington, D.C.: Dec 1, 1894. pg. 1, 1 pgs

The 'author' of the first abstract was a rather nasty person who wrote for years a very gossipy column. The others I thought were interesting for the fact that obviously there was something known of GA's illness in the outside world and even getting the cause (consumption) right.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Marlene on March 17, 2005, 10:40:38 PM
Quote

Your statement made me go back and check and it was GD Nikolai Nikolaevich, not Miche Miche I was thinking of.  In 1892 Alexander III gave him permission to marry Sophie Burenina, the daughter of a "city official".  But the Tsar changed his mind under pressure from the family.  -- from the Camera and the Tsars, p. 51.  

So, I'm sticking by my original point, unless someone else can shoot me down.  :)  It's not unimaginable for Alexander III to have given permission for a Grand Duke to marry morganatically.


I would not call Camera and the Tsars to be a major source of information (great photos), Ron. I would need a lot more than this to say that Alexander III would have allowed a morganatic marriage.  Alexander III was not a liberal.  He was an ultra-conservative.  He tolerated nothing within the family.  He tightened the Fundamental Laws with an additional clause to Law 188, which says "A person of the Imperial Family who has entered into marriage with a person of a status unequal to his, that is, not belonging to a reigning or ruling house, cannot pass on to that person, or to any posterity that might issue from such a marriage, the rights which belong to members of the Imperial."  Alexander III added a clause to the law "Henceforth, none of the grand dukes or grand duchesses may enter into a marriage with a person of unequal status, that is, not belonging to a royal or ruling house."

Alexander III fought to maintain the status. He was not going to allow morganatic marriages if he could help it.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Marlene on March 17, 2005, 10:42:18 PM
Quote

(http://img132.exs.cx/img132/4/peeps7bt.jpg)



Yummmie,  thanks!
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Marlene on March 17, 2005, 11:02:53 PM


CAUSE OF CZAREWITCH'S END.; A Bresian Paper Declures It Was Due to a Fall from a Bicycle.
Jul 14, 1899"

and he did die while riding his bike.  He was found next to it.

I believe I quoted from the 7-16-1899 article.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Marlene on March 17, 2005, 11:09:12 PM
Quote


Your statement made me go back and check and it was GD Nikolai Nikolaevich, not Miche Miche I was thinking of.  In 1892 Alexander III gave him permission to marry Sophie Burenina, the daughter of a "city official".  But the Tsar changed his mind under pressure from the family.  -- from the Camera and the Tsars, p. 51. "

I found more  in Prince David Chavchavadze's The Grand Dukes.   "He formed a liasion with S. I. Burenina, the former wife of a merchant and the daughter of a shopkeeper, which lasted for many years.  She already had two children.  In 1887, he made an attempt to marry her.  IN an unusual move,  the strict Alexander III was on the point of granting permission after Nicholas told him that his own father had approved the match.  "I would do the same," said his father, according to Nicholas, "if your mother were not still alive."  But when questioned by the Emperor,  Nicholas Nik Srm denied having given permission and the marriage fell through."
The source cited is AA Polotsev's diary.  
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 18, 2005, 07:16:12 AM
Quote

CAUSE OF CZAREWITCH'S END.; A Bresian Paper Declures It Was Due to a Fall from a Bicycle.
Jul 14, 1899" and he did die while riding his bike.  He was found next to it. I believe I quoted from the 7-16-1899 article.


This information about George's death due to a fall from a bike can also be found in the book "Michael and Natasha".
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Macedonsky on March 18, 2005, 08:27:02 AM
Quote

This information about George's death due to a fall from a bike can also be found in the book "Michael and Natasha".

Not due to a fall but while riding.

See http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.talk.royalty/msg/3f45876cd17e303?hl=en&lr=
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Macedonsky on March 18, 2005, 08:31:36 AM
Quote

Alexander III added a clause to the law "Henceforth, none of the grand dukes or grand duchesses may enter into a marriage with a person of unequal status, that is, not belonging to a royal or ruling house."

Wrong. This is the formula of 1911. In 1889 Alexander III added "Henceforth, none of the Imperial Family..."
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: kmerov on March 18, 2005, 08:45:35 AM
Quote

Not due to a fall but while riding.

I have read that he died after getting of his motorcycle, and was found laying by the road by a peasant woman. Thats how MF tells the story. And i remember GD Olga saying something similar in The Last GD.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Forum Admin on March 18, 2005, 09:40:06 AM
For those who may not know Dimitri Macedonsky, I am pleased to welcome him here to the forum.  He is one of the leading Russian experts on Romanov History and geneaology. His knowledge and input are a valuable resource to us all.
Privyet Dimitri!

Fa
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 18, 2005, 11:26:11 AM
Quote
Not due to a fall but while riding.

See http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.talk.royalty/msg/3f45876cd17e303?hl=en&lr=


What the book actually says is this:

Page 25, "Michael and Natasha":

"...Eight months later Michael found himself heir presumptive. His brother George had been found dying beside his overturned motor cycle near his home in Caucasus, and with his death Michael became the heir to the throne..."

My guess is that George did die of TB, but perhaps his weakened condition made him have a motorcycle accident (was it a motorcycle or a bike?) It's not that clear what exactly happened to him as far as the bike, because the official version was always he died of TB...
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 18, 2005, 11:40:56 AM
Quote
For those who may not know Dimitri Macedonsky, I am pleased to welcome him here to the forum.  He is one of the leading Russian experts on Romanov History and geneaology. His knowledge and input are a valuable resource to us all.


Great!  

Hi Dimitri, maybe you can clarify some of the things we have been discussing here, and either confirm or dispell some of these stories and claims.    Thanks!
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: AGRBear on March 18, 2005, 04:56:46 PM
Welcome  Dimitri.  It's good to have someone knowlegeable about the  Romanov pedigree charts and, hopefully, can give us some insight about GD George and his possible marriage/marriages.

Meanwhile,  I was wonder if various reporters / authors have confused "bike" as meaning bicycle to a motorbike or a pre-war motorcycle.  I've read it all three ways in various articles and books.  Not that it makes any difference but  I was just wondering about this point as to which it really was.

As for GD George dying in the arms of a peasant woman, I've, also, heard it was a "nun" and that it was his second wife.

As for morgantic marriages.  Although it is questionable whether Alexander III would allow GD George to wed, I asssume, if GD George and his lover so wished to be wed that it could occur eve without permission.  Even if it meant breaking some kind of marital law of a GD [Tsartich].  And, if such a marriage occured, then through the legal system, I assume Alexander III would have to declare the marriage as having been annuled.

Oh, almost forgot, was there a princely family known as Orkowsky?

AGRBear
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Belochka on March 19, 2005, 12:06:05 AM
Quote
This information about George's death due to a fall from a bike can also be found in the book "Michael and Natasha".


From the reference supplied by Dimitri Macedonsky:

_____________________________________________

"On June 28 this year, at 9:35 am, in Abbas-Tuman, His Imperial Highness
Heir Caesarevich and Grand Duke George Alexandrovich passed away due severe
throat haemorrhage. Minister of the Imperial Court General-Aide-de-Camp
Baron Frederickz. June 28, 1899".


_____________________________________________

It is unclear from this brief exerpt whether George stopped riding his Dion & Buton vehicle because he felt ill, or did he fall because his condition had suddenly worsened.

The pulmonary hemorrhage (as noted in the exerpt), can be the cause of hemoptysis. Coughing up blood from the lungs (hemoptysis) can be confused with bleeding from the throat.

Massive hemoptysis is a major complication of TB which can have fatal consequences. It is a medical emergency. It occurs because of an underlying pre-existing condition.

We have no idea how long George remained unattended before he died, if I am not mistaken.

Obviously the autopsy report would provide more conclusive details.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Macedonsky on March 19, 2005, 03:22:00 AM
Quote
It is unclear from this brief exerpt whether George stopped riding his Dion & Buton vehicle because he felt ill, or did he fall because his condition had suddenly worsened.

Yes, it is unclear even after reading complete 50 pages file. He was alone and we will never know the complete truth.

Quote
The pulmonary hemorrhage (as noted in the exerpt), can be the cause of hemoptysis. Coughing up blood from the lungs (hemoptysis) can be confused with bleeding from the throat.


I agree that Minister made such error. The reason in medical report is another.

Quote
Obviously the autopsy report would provide more conclusive details.

"Byl oderzhim khronicheskim tuberculyoznym vospaleniem oboih legkih v period kavernoznogo vospaleniya" ~ Suffered from chronic tuberculous inflammation of both lungs in stage of the cavities inflammation.

Reason of death: "Obilnoe legochnoe krovotechenie (Pneumorrhagia) ot razriva krovenosnogo sosuda v kaverne levogo legkogo i posledovatelnoy ostroy anemii mozga" ~ Ample pulmonary bleeding due breakup of the blood vas in cavity of left lung and followed quiping anemia of the brain.

I have no complete autopsy report, just this exerpts.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Macedonsky on March 19, 2005, 03:52:13 AM
Quote
Meanwhile,  I was wonder if various reporters / authors have confused "bike" as meaning bicycle to a motorbike or a pre-war motorcycle.  I've read it all three ways in various articles and books.  Not that it makes any difference but  I was just wondering about this point as to which it really was.


It was trehkolesny velosiped (trycycle) with benzine engine produced by "Dion & Buton".

Quote
As for GD George dying in the arms of a peasant woman, I've, also, heard it was a "nun" and that it was his second wife.


Ha-ha! She was countrywoman from sect of "molocane". It is hard to believe she went to tryst by cart with 13 years old companion (their son?  ;D). Note George died in the arms of army officer too.

Spiritual christians - molokane can not marry in Orthodox church.

Quote
As for morgantic marriages.  Although it is questionable whether Alexander III would allow GD George to wed, I asssume, if GD George and his lover so wished to be wed that it could occur even without permission.  Even if it meant breaking some kind of marital law of a GD [Tsartich].  And, if such a marriage occured, then through the legal system, I assume Alexander III would have to declare the marriage as having been annuled.

Tsartich mean Caesarevich? Every marriage should be contracted in church by priest. George obviously could not marry in his palace church. Abbas-Tuman was a small village in 22 versts from Akhaltsikhe, small city in Kutais region in Imeretia. Caesarevich just could not leave his palace alone for a time enough for wedding. He was constantly accompanied by doctors and servants. Marriage was almost impossible. What about cancellation, there are nothing in the special part of archive (in contrast with two files on GD Nicholas Constantinovich).

Quote
Oh, almost forgot, was there a princely family known as Orkowsky?

Princely?! I never heard this surname at all. Sounds Polish. There are no any Orkovsky/Orkovskaya in St.Petersburg now. I can not google the surname because in Russian it sounds like "of Orc" from Lord of the Rings  ;)
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Belochka on March 19, 2005, 05:39:50 AM
Quote
Reason of death: "Obilnoe legochnoe krovotechenie (Pneumorrhagia) ot razriva krovenosnogo sosuda v kaverne levogo legkogo i posledovatelnoy ostroy anemii mozga" ~ Ample pulmonary bleeding due breakup of the blood vas in cavity of left lung and followed quiping anemia of the brain.


Spasibo Dimitri,

I understood the Russian transliteration.

Cause of death: Massive pulmonary hemorrhage due to rupture of a blood vessel into the pleural cavity of the left lung and followed by acute anemia of the brain (loss of consciousness).

George would have gone into shock due to the uncontrolled hemorrhaging and death would have followed soon after.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 19, 2005, 06:37:48 AM
Thank you Dimitri and Belochka. So it sounds like George did die of TB complications.

And it doesn't sound like there was much of a chance for him to have married morganatically - not even once, let alone twice...
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Eurohistory on March 20, 2005, 11:48:55 AM
here...here Helen!

Arturo Beéche
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: AGRBear on March 20, 2005, 12:39:03 PM
Quote

It was trehkolesny velosiped (trycycle) with benzine engine produced by "Dion & Buton".


Ha-ha! She was countrywoman from sect of "molocane". It is hard to believe she went to tryst by cart with 13 years old companion (their son?  ;D). Note George died in the arms of army officer too.

Spiritual christians - molokane can not marry in Orthodox church.

Tsartich mean Caesarevich? Every marriage should be contracted in church by priest. George obviously could not marry in his palace church. Abbas-Tuman was a small village in 22 versts from Akhaltsikhe, small city in Kutais region in Imeretia. Caesarevich just could not leave his palace alone for a time enough for wedding. He was constantly accompanied by doctors and servants. Marriage was almost impossible. What about cancellation, there are nothing in the special part of archive (in contrast with two files on GD Nicholas Constantinovich).

Princely?! I never heard this surname at all. Sounds Polish. There are no any Orkovsky/Orkovskaya in St.Petersburg now. I can not google the surname because in Russian it sounds like "of Orc" from Lord of the Rings  ;)


"Tsartich" isn't a word but the typing error of myself and should have read:  "Tsarvich".  Sorry for the confusion.

I am not sure to what you are referring in this statement:>>Ha-ha! She was countrywoman from sect of "molocane". It is hard to believe she went to tryst by cart with 13 years old companion (their son?  ;D). Note George died in the arms of army officer too.<<  Did GD George have a lover, a country woman who was from the religious sect called "Molocane" [Molokane]?  And did this relationship last 13 years?  Did it result in having children?


We all are aware that people do not always following demands of their fathers, rules of the church or anything else when it comes to the "feelings of the heart".  I know from personal experience, being the hard headed stuborn Bear that I am, that "love" guides many of us and we don't care what others demand or think.  

As to GD George being followed at every moment,  I very much doubt this.  I've some insight into royality, too, and what people are told to do and what people actually do are separated by human ability to choose their path.

Sometimes, a person, who is "in love" and who have "compassionate" people around them, do what we call "bend the rules".  

And, I think Alex. III on down to the doctors and servents were quite capable of being compssionate to a man, GD George, who was dying.

As for the demands of the church, again, I know first hand that "love" is stronger than any priest / minister or rules of the church.

A marriage can be performs by priests/ ministers or just in the hearts of the two in love.

True love is the essence of a eternal spiritul fire that can not be distinquish.

All that said,  I have no personal information if Tsarvich [GD] George had lovers or wives.  I'll let those of you who can dig through actual records find it if there is one or two which did exist.  And, if there are not records to be found, well, so be it.

Surly, most of you will have to omit, however,  there are many children born out of wedlock.  And, it's been, already noted by one of our poster, her family is living proof a child can be born by a person suffering tb.

I do hope, however, that if George was in love that he was strong enough and not a fool thinking he had to please his priest, his father or anyone else who held no compassion for a dying man.

"We must not redicule a passion  which he who never felt never was happy, and he who laughs at never deserves to feel."  [Samnuel Johnson, Misc., Vol i, p. 290].


AGRBear

Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Macedonsky on March 20, 2005, 01:19:33 PM
Quote
"Tsartich" isn't a word but the typing error of myself and should have read:  "Tsarvich".  Sorry for the confusion.

I have expected that "Tsartich" is type error of "Tsarvich" which is bad speeling of "Tsarevich" often erroneously substituted George's actual title of "Caesarevich".

Quote
I am not sure to what you are referring in this statement:  (snip)

I am referring to my September post, you obviously missed URL. I can repeat here:

Trycycle with benzine engine (produced by "Dion & Buton") was found by one countrywoman at half-verst from Abbas-Tuman Palace. The Heir was in very bad condition, so she sent her 13 years old aid to Palace on cart. Boy meet one 24 years old Sub-Lt who moved on to help. But Sub.-Lt. only could see the last minutes and noted the time of death ("9:40 in accordance with my timer which is 7 minutes lesser than watch at the main building of the spa"). At 10 am local sub-prosecutor signed the protocol.

Quote
A marriage can be performs by priests/ministers or just in the hearts of the two in love.

To be legal in Imperial Russia the marriage could not be performed in the hearts or by any civil officer, only by church. To be legal the marriage of George should be also approved by Emperor.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: AGRBear on March 20, 2005, 02:29:03 PM
Quote
I have expected that "Tsartich" is type error of "Tsarvich" which is bad speeling of "Tsarevich" often erroneously substituted George's actual title of "Caesarevich".

I am referring to my September post, you obviously missed URL. I can repeat here:

Trycycle with benzine engine (produced by "Dion & Buton") was found by one countrywoman at half-verst from Abbas-Tuman Palace. The Heir was in very bad condition, so she sent her 13 years old aid to Palace on cart. Boy meet one 24 years old Sub-Lt who moved on to help. But Sub.-Lt. only could see the last minutes and noted the time of death ("9:40 in accordance with my timer which is 7 minutes lesser than watch at the main building of the spa"). At 10 am local sub-prosecutor signed the protocol.

 
To be legal in Imperial Russia the marriage could not be performed in the hearts or by any civil officer, only by church. To be legal the marriage of George should be also approved by Emperor.


Thank you,  you are right, I must have not seen remarks about the "bike".

And, yes, I've seen many spellings of "Tsarevich".

A legal marriage in Russia at that time for GD George is one side of the coin, another kind of marriage, which you do not consider legal, is the other side of the coin.  As far as I'm concern, a marriage can have all forms and is something between the man and woman, the groom and bride, and the lovers.

Far as I know there is no reason for anyone to be concern about the legality of a union between GD George and either wife and/or lovers.

As for the reference of the "country woman" and who she was or how she was connected, evidently, is an unknown.  And, at the moment, it seems most of us are reading  various accounts of people who were not present accept, maybe, the soldier, who marked the time of death, and, who may or may not known who the woman was or could have been who had sought the solider's help.

Thank you  Macedonsky, also, for the legal side which would pretain to the fact, if it's proven, that GD George did not have a legal union with one or two wives.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 20, 2005, 03:25:26 PM
Quote

A legal marriage in Russia at that time for GD George is one side of the coin, another kind of marriage, which you do not consider legal, is the other side of the coin.  As far as I'm concern, a marriage can have all forms and is something between the man and woman, the groom and bride, and the lovers.
Far as I know there is no reason for anyone to be concern about the legality of a union between GD George and either wife and/or lovers.


There is a reason to be concerned, Bear, because the whole point of this discussion was that it is claimed that the guy on the west coast is one of George's legal descendants, a product of George's morganatic marriage to one of the two women he allegedly married. Morganatic still means legal in the eyes of the church, etc. , doesn't it? It doesn't mean "common law" or a "domestic partner" or a "girlfriend" or anything else like that, right?

This was the whole point of this argument, so why would you now say that.....
Quote
....there is no reason for anyone to be concern about the legality of a union between GD George and either wife and/or lovers.
 ???
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Eurohistory on March 20, 2005, 06:23:30 PM
Dear Helen,

You are correct.  A morganatic marriage is a legal union that is not dynastic - the spouse is not from an "equal" family, the children, if any, are born without dynastic rights.  It still has to be dealt with, the Head of House (in this case the Tsar), still has to be informed.

Arturo Beéche
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: AGRBear on March 20, 2005, 10:11:57 PM
The only reason this is being discussed is because GD George may have been married once or twice.  Since there is no longer a line of sucession, legality of a marriages, if there were any, are of no importance in any political circles at this time.  

I, also, assume, it's not important as far as the Romanov family since there doesn't appear to be any formal request for acceptance by one or all of those who claim to be GD George's des. in California or from anywhere else.

I believe our search for evidence is only out of curiosity.  Or did I miss something somewhere along the line other than about the "bike"?

AGRBear

PS  I'm not sure that the people in CA who claim to be des. of GD George have stated  there was a marriage of any kind.  The words of "morgantic marriage" were, however,  mentioned in the encylopedia and other sources, I believe.  
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: LisaDavidson on March 20, 2005, 10:36:31 PM
Quote
The only reason this is being discussed is because GD George may have been married once or twice.  Since there is no longer a line of sucession, legality of a marriages, if there were any, are of no importance in any political circles at this time.  

I, also, assume, it's not important as far as the Romanov family since there doesn't appear to be any formal request for acceptance by one or all of those who claim to be GD George's des. in California or from anywhere else.

I believe our search for evidence is only out of curiosity.  Or did I miss something somewhere along the line other than about the "bike"?

AGRBear

PS  I'm not sure that the people in CA who claim to be des. of GD George have stated  there was a marriage of any kind.  The words of "morgantic marriage" were, however,  mentioned in the encylopedia and other sources, I believe.  


I do respect historical inquiry, but I also think it's a shame that people have to be dragged through the muck in the process. That's what I feel is being done to poor George A. I have pointed out that he left his property to his brother Michael and that I feel from what I know of his character this rules out a morganatic family.

I have heard no one say they feel George was a bad person or lacking in character. Yet, this is exactly in effect what people are saying when they suggest or continue to insist there is a basis for the morganatic marriage story. And I think that is rather sad.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 20, 2005, 10:49:47 PM
Quote
 I'm not sure that the people in CA who claim to be des. of GD George have stated  there was a marriage of any kind.  The words of "morgantic marriage" were, however,  mentioned in the encylopedia and other sources, I believe.  


It has been stated that there were indeed two morganatic marriages and numerous children. We weren't questioning what the gent in California said since we never met the guy nor had a chance to talk to him, we were questioning the other sources who stated this here...  

Quote
Here is what Penny wrote about one of the great grandson's of GD George:

So, he was married and did have  at least one surviving child who lived to be an adult  who had child... who had a child.....


Quote
...George's time in the Caucasus, where he was said to have contracted not one but two morganatic marriages, the first with a native Caucasian woman in 1893 shortly after arriving at Abbas Touman.  The union, said to have produced a child, was dissolved after two years.  In 1894, he was believed to have contracted a second morganatic marriage, this time with a local woman, Mlle. Orkovska, who bore him two sons and a daughter.  These children, allegedly given the surname of Romanovsky, as well as firm evidence to support either of the two unions, disappeared after the Revolution.  I do know one gentleman who lives in the United States and says he is a grandson, I think.  I've never asked for evidence, but he has provided it to some well-placed friends who have no doubt that his claim is true.  



This information was what you, Bear, picked up and started citing as if it were historical fact... without verifying it sufficiently... and started posting it on many various threads as if it were an indisputable fact.... and this is how this discussion got started.

Quote
I wonder what the ages of Georg's children would be when Nicholas II abdicated in 1917.


Quote
So, Georg had two wives and four children before his death...



Quote
G. D. Georg, son of Tsar Alexander III,  was married to Princess Orkowska.
Does anyone know anything about this family, Orkowski? Anyone have any sources where they read about this marriage? Photographs? Thanks.
AGRBear


Quote
The children of Georg's were born within "morgantic" marriages.  


Quote
 I believe Georg's first wife died.


Quote
I think the first wife was a local woman, however, without knowing who she was, I can't comment on her pedigree. Evidently the second wife was a Princess Orkowska.  Anyone familar with this family?


Quote
If GD Georg's sexual preference was men or women it really isn't the point.  He was married twice and did have four children, three of whom were females. I had incerted Greg King as a source.  There are other sources.
 


Quote
Helen is always asking us to show her three female Romanov children who would have been the ages of Nicholas II's daughters.
Three daughters of GD Georg, brother of Nicholas II, had three daughters who were at least 17 and no older than 24. Do we know what happen to his daughters?
The oldest child, we do not know if female or male.
I would assume the paternity would show a link to GD Georg's DNA and not to  Nicholas II's.


Quote
If one of the remains in the mass grave was one of GD George's daughters... A paternity test would show GD Georg as the father and not Nicholas II.  Right?  Since I'm not familar with the Orkowski family, I can't say there was or was not any relationship at this time, with Alexandra, however, let's assume she was not, at this time   .










Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Belochka on March 21, 2005, 03:27:27 AM
Quote
I do respect historical inquiry, but I also think it's a shame that people have to be dragged through the muck in the process. That's what I feel is being done to poor George A. I have pointed out that he left his property to his brother Michael and that I feel from what I know of his character this rules out a morganatic family.

I have heard no one say they feel George was a bad person or lacking in character. Yet, this is exactly in effect what people are saying when they suggest or continue to insist there is a basis for the morganatic marriage story. And I think that is rather sad.


Lisa, again you highlight a very important element here. In many of the discussions about this G.D. - his "good" character as an individual has been all but forgotten.

I agree this is very sad.

As I pointed out earlier on March 13:

... It is appauling to smear G. D. George in this manner over a century later, when he was terminally ill. The very nature of his disease made him INFECTIOUS to anyone who may have lived with him in closed quarters.  Clearly any children would have been placed into grave danger, as would any personal relationships with these alleged "wives".

One could contend that the apparent gossiping surrounding his exile, came at a time when he was the most vulnerable and unable to defend his honor.

It seems that even today some have prefered to do exactly the same.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: AGRBear on March 21, 2005, 01:39:17 PM
We're not living in the 1500s anymore.  Most people no longer care about who is married and who isn't married, in case you haven't noticed.   Nor do they frown about the children born out of wedlock.

Personaly, I think  marriage is great,  and, I am for tradition but I don't condem those who don't agree with my views.

It seems odd that I have to even mention this fact when I'm the old Bear who should be the one with her tail caught in  old traditions of society and out dated religious views.

And, thanks Helen for showing my views, again.  Because, this is not a "smear campaign" it is merely presenting the various sources from which I was drawing my information as well as some of my questions.

Apparently, there are other people, like myself, who are just as interested in discovering the truth about GD George.

As for gossip, I learned a long time ago when you hide from the gossip that gossip grows and takes on a life of it's own and it never goes away until it's confronted.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: AGRBear on March 21, 2005, 02:06:10 PM
Quote

There is a reason to be concerned, Bear, because the whole point of this discussion was that it is claimed that the guy on the west coast is one of George's legal descendants, a product of George's morganatic marriage to one of the two women he allegedly married. Morganatic still means legal in the eyes of the church, etc. , doesn't it? It doesn't mean "common law" or a "domestic partner" or a "girlfriend" or anything else like that, right?

This was the whole point of this argument, so why would you now say that.....
  ???


I repeat,  I don't know if the people on the west coast have ever stated there was a "morgantic marriage".  It was the enclyopedia and the genealogy sources which mentions this.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: LisaDavidson on March 21, 2005, 02:48:57 PM
Quote
We're not living in the 1500s anymore.  Most people no longer care about who is married and who isn't married, in case you haven't noticed.   Nor do they frown about the children born out of wedlock.

Personaly, I think  marriage is great,  and, I am for tradition but I don't condem those who don't agree with my views.

It seems odd that I have to even mention this fact when I'm the old Bear who should be the one with her tail caught in  old traditions of society and out dated religious views.

And, thanks Helen for showing my views, again.  Because, this is not a "smear campaign" it is merely presenting the various sources from which I was drawing my information as well as some of my questions.

Apparently, there are other people, like myself, who are just as interested in discovering the truth about GD George.

As for gossip, I learned a long time ago when you hide from the gossip that gossip grows and takes on a life of it's own and it never goes away until it's confronted.

AGRBear


Bear, I don't know where you think this discussion veered into contemporary views of marriage and family. I think everyone here knows we are not living in the 16th century. But, we are also not living in the 19th century, either. What is your point? That our attitudes differ from those times? Don't think you are going to find disagreement there, either.

But, I don't think you can duck responsibility for calling the Grand Duke's honor in question by insisting that he had children for whom he made no provision. Yes, we now live in a much different world than he did, but that does not make it okay - in the 16th, 19th, or 21st century - to leave one's family without support. On this point I think the three centuries agree. I respectfully disagree that this has anything to do with "outdated religious views" or "old traditions", it has to do with assuming appropriate responsibilities as an adult member of society.

And, what you are saying by insisting George had a family, is that he was irresponsible about this. I can find no evidence that indicates he was so lacking in character. Do you have any evidence of this? If you do, I'd like to hear it, rather than the gossip.

You say you are interested in knowing the truth about GD George. If that's true, here it is: George was a nice enough young man - charming, intelligent, witty. His life took a tragic turn when he developed a fatal illness which prevented him from having a normal life. He died, very young, and very alone. There's the truth.

You are perhaps without intention bismirching the honor of this tragic young man by feeding the flame of gossip about him. I wish you would consider doing something other than this.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 21, 2005, 02:57:59 PM
Quote
But, I don't think you can duck responsibility for calling the Grand Duke's honor in question by insisting that he had children for whom he made no provision. Yes, we now live in a much different world than he did, but that does not make it okay - in the 16th, 19th, or 21st century - to leave one's family without support. On this point I think the three centuries agree. I respectfully disagree that this has anything to do with "outdated religious views" or "old traditions", it has to do with assuming appropriate responsibilities as an adult member of society.

And, what you are saying by insisting George had a family, is that he was irresponsible about this. I can find no evidence that indicates he was so lacking in character. Do you have any evidence of this? If you do, I'd like to hear it, rather than the gossip.

You say you are interested in knowing the truth about GD George. If that's true, here it is: George was a nice enough young man - charming, intelligent, witty. His life took a tragic turn when he developed a fatal illness which prevented him from having a normal life. He died, very young, and very alone. There's the truth.

You are perhaps without intention bismirching the honor of this tragic young man by feeding the flame of gossip about him. I wish you would consider doing something other than this.


So -- I'm confused.  Do you guys want to know the results of my Caucasian (and other) research on this question?  Or do you just want to know the things that don't "besmirch" your idea of George's "honor"?
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: LisaDavidson on March 21, 2005, 03:16:51 PM
Penny - I would not presume to speak for others. As I made clear on an earlier post, I am a supporter of historical inquiry. Because of this, I would be delighted to hear anything that has been gleaned from your inquiries.

My objection, in case it was not clear, was in the continued insistence that George had a family absent any evidence. Because he left his property to his brother with no provision for a family, I thought those so insisting were bismirching his character - and I still do!
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 21, 2005, 03:19:32 PM
Quote
I am a supporter of historical inquiry... I would be delighted to hear anything that has been gleaned from your inquiries.
My objection... was in the continued insistence that George had a family absent any evidence.


Ditto!
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 21, 2005, 03:44:21 PM
OK.  Just checking.   8)

But I would like to state that one places an immensely unfair burden on historians -- or even people in general --  when one levels charges of dishonoring or besmirching the dead by the discussion of ideas and theories. And this IS a discussion board.  The latest slant to this thread tastes very slightly of censoring ideas in favor of not saying things that might be uncomfortable for those who "like" George Alexandrovich.

And I think that's wrong.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 21, 2005, 04:00:03 PM
Quote
OK.  Just checking.   8)

But I would like to state that one places an immensely unfair burden on historians -- or even people in general --  when one levels charges of dishonoring or besmirching the dead by the discussion of ideas and theories. And this IS a discussion board.  The latest slant to this thread tastes very slightly of censoring ideas in favor of not saying things that might be uncomfortable for those who "like" George Alexandrovich.

And I think that's wrong.


Penny,

You, or anyone else, should be able to put forth any reasonable ideas or claims, while everyone else should be able to challenge them in an appropriate way. Neither side should be censored - that's the whole point of this discussion board. There should be a back and forth discussion of this, and asking for evidence for someone statements is part of it. And this is exactly what was done here. If you can back up your claims with some credible evidence, great! If not, you (and of course others) should be ready to be criticized for making claims that they are not able to back up. It's all very simple!  :D
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 21, 2005, 04:13:18 PM
Quote

Penny,

You, or anyone else, should be able to put forth any reasonable ideas or claims, while everyone else should be able to challenge them in an appropriate way. Neither side should be censored - that's the whole point of this discussion board. There should be a back and forth discussion of this, and asking for evidence for someone statements is part of it. And this is exactly what was done here. If you can back up your claims with some credible evidence, great! If not, you (and of course others) should be ready to be criticized for making claims that they are not able to back up. It's all very simple!  :D



Some theories are nascent  -- or sometimes posters just "think out loud."  In either case, it's not necessary to criticize the person, as you say.  You can question the idea, but don't criticize the person.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 21, 2005, 04:28:06 PM
Quote

...it's not necessary to criticize the person, as you say.  You can question the idea, but don't criticize the person.


You, as a person were not criticized, your statements that lacked appropriate back-up were, as well as your inappropriate responses when challenged about these statements.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: grandduchessella on March 21, 2005, 04:43:32 PM
Quote

But, I don't think you can duck responsibility for calling the Grand Duke's honor in question by insisting that he had children for whom he made no provision....... And, what you are saying by insisting George had a family, is that he was irresponsible about this. I can find no evidence that indicates he was so lacking in character. Do you have any evidence of this? If you do, I'd like to hear it, rather than the gossip.


Technically isn't it calling into question not just George's honor but that of Nicholas or Michael (who inherited his money)? If say this was all true (the family, etc) and George died w/out changing his will (as even people who are ill still don't do) that would mean his siblings were either so greedy and/or hard-hearted they didn't make suitable provisions for George's 'wife' and 'children'. Even going farther and saying the wife and kids didn't mind living in the shadows to save him embarassment, etc... I can't imagine they would go w/o SOME payment to live on in a decent way.

As for modern vs 'old' values--13th, 16th, 19th, 21st century--a deadbeat dad just looks bad.  :(  Also modern times seem to have forgotten the notion of 'honor' but it was a big deal back then.

This isn't to say we shouldn't discuss the subject--all kinds of things, good/bad/indifferent, come out about people. It's part of digging around in history.

Quote
Penny - I would not presume to speak for others. As I made clear on an earlier post, I am a supporter of historical inquiry. Because of this, I would be delighted to hear anything that has been gleaned from your inquiries.


I would as well.  :)
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 21, 2005, 04:44:33 PM
Quote

You, as a person were not criticized, your statements that lacked appropriate back-up were, as well as your inappropriate responses when challenged about these statements.


I actually wasn't talking about me here.  I do realize that you love to jump all over me every chance you get, Helen, but  I was speaking generally about how we ought to treat each other on this board.  And I was speaking directly in response to your words "you should be ready to be criticized."  I think that these interpersonal problems will not arise if ideas are criticized, and not the people behind them.  Do you really have a problem with that?
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: AGRBear on March 21, 2005, 05:31:19 PM
Quote

,,,[in part]...

You are perhaps without intention bismirching the honor of this tragic young man by feeding the flame of gossip about him. I wish you would consider doing something other than this.


I am not feeding the "flame of gossip", like I've said, I'm facing the gossip and seeking the truth.

Since I don't have the answers, others will have to bring forth what they know.  

I have no intentions of  "bismirching" anyone's honor.  Why would I?  

If the sources I gave from other threads end up being from sources which can be prove as incorrect, then so be it.  I've no problem with accepting this.

AGRBear

P.S.: As for GD George changing his will,  I'm sure, if he did have a family and children, they were well taken care through sources we may never know.  My goodness, why would I think otherwise???




Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: bookworm857158367 on March 21, 2005, 06:26:18 PM
DNA testing ought to give some indication if the family on the West Coast really is descended from Grand Duke George, particularly if there's an unbroken line of fathers and sons. They used the similarities on the Y chromosome to prove that there was a family connection between Thomas Jefferson and his slave's descendants. They have George's DNA, don't they?

I don't see any real reason why George couldn't have had a child or two or a "marriage," either morganatic or informal. The fact that his will didn't mention them isn't any real proof either. He might well have arranged for them to be taken care of before his death. I'm extremely interested in any research done by Penny Wilson and Greg King. I'm still extremely impressed by your book on the last days of the Romanovs.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 21, 2005, 09:08:51 PM
Quote

I actually wasn't talking about me here.  I do realize that you love to jump all over me every chance you get, Helen, but  I was speaking generally about how we ought to treat each other on this board.  And I was speaking directly in response to your words "you should be ready to be criticized."  I think that these interpersonal problems will not arise if ideas are criticized, and not the people behind them.  Do you really have a problem with that?


Penny, I think you really need to try to learn the difference between personal "criticism" and the professional one. And it's time to stop using semantics to play the victim  every chance you get, it's getting kind of tiresome.


Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 21, 2005, 09:12:07 PM
Quote
DNA testing ought to give some indication if the family on the West Coast really is descended from Grand Duke George, particularly if there's an unbroken line of fathers and sons. They used the similarities on the Y chromosome to prove that there was a family connection between Thomas Jefferson and his slave's descendants. They have George's DNA, don't they?


Yes, we already talked about this possibility earlier in this thread, bookworm. The guy in California apparently is not really interested in proving anything to anyone (I guess he only likes to once in a while say that he is George's descendant), so I doubt that this is going to happen.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 21, 2005, 10:35:59 PM
Quote

Penny, I think you really need to try to learn the difference between personal "criticism" and the professional one. And it's time to stop using semantics to play the victim  every chance you get, it's getting kind of tiresome.





You make my case, Helen.  Just keep your remarks to the ideas and evidence at hand, and forget your commentary on me, my personality and what I "need to try to learn."  It has no place here, and it is beyond impertinent for you to speak to me publicly as you do.  Now, knock it the hell off.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 21, 2005, 10:48:55 PM
And you also need to remember that children are reading this website, Penny, so please refrain from profanities and act like an adult and a professional you supposedly are.

P.S. And you should also try to practice what you so eloquently preach!
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Olga on March 21, 2005, 11:27:00 PM
Quote
You make my case, Helen.  Just keep your remarks to the ideas and evidence at hand, and forget your commentary on me, my personality and what I "need to try to learn."  It has no place here, and it is beyond impertinent for you to speak to me publicly as you do.  Now, knock it the hell off.


Really, Penny, what is your problem? People are not criticizing you, they are criticizing your research, or lack of it to support your various claims. Everytime someone tries to criticize or question your work or research you cry foul and play the innocent victim.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: rjt on March 21, 2005, 11:43:59 PM
I've read this entire thread and I have two things to say:

1. These are extremely personal attacks on Ms Wilson. When one questions someone's work ethic and the quality of one's professional output, it is always personal. The reality in America today is that we are what we do. She provided information to an internet message board--not in a professional, academic forum (although there are some professionals here)--from a source who wishes to remain anonymous, just as any good journalist is wont to do from time to time. There is no crime in this. If she doesn't have proof, then perhaps those who wish to disavow her information should do the research and either prove or disprove it.

2. Why hasn't this thread been locked and those who are hurling personal attacks warned? It is beyond time, in my humble opinion, that this be done.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 22, 2005, 12:05:05 AM
Quote

Trycycle with benzine engine (produced by "Dion & Buton") was found by one countrywoman at half-verst from Abbas-Tuman Palace. The Heir was in very bad condition, so she sent her 13 years old aid to Palace on cart. Boy meet one 24 years old Sub-Lt who moved on to help. But Sub.-Lt. only could see the last minutes and noted the time of death ("9:40 in accordance with my timer which is 7 minutes lesser than watch at the main building of the spa"). At 10 am local sub-prosecutor signed the protocol.



Am I remembering correctly that this woman was brought to visit with Maria Feodorovna and tell her about George Alexandrovich's last moments?
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 22, 2005, 12:10:38 AM
Scroll down a bit on this article in the Seoul Times to the second picture:  It's of an 1899 De Dion-Bouton tricycle, which must be very like the one George Alexandrovich had...

http://theseoultimes.com/ST/?url=/ST/db/read.php?idx=1325

Edited to add:  A couple more pictures, this time of the 1898 model.

http://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?x9=VEHICLES,+PETROL,+MOTORCYCLES,+DE+DION+BOUTON
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: LisaDavidson on March 22, 2005, 12:21:23 AM
I will leave it up to the FA to lock this thread or not. This is not my topic area to moderate.  In general, everyone needs to know that our emphasis is on allowing free expression - whether we agree with it or not - provided that things remain fairly civil.

I think everyone can agree that we are most decidedly off topic - the topic being Nicholas' brother George. All further comments in this section need to be on topic. Kindly agree to disagree when and where necessary.

As for myself, I have participated in this particular discussion, so it may be a bit tough for those who have also done so to turn around and listen to what I have to say about keeping the peace. So, please feel free to write the FA if you have any concerns about this particular topic.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Olga on March 22, 2005, 04:35:49 AM
Quote
The reality in America today is that we are what we do.


The world does not revolve around America, nor does the world consist entirely of America.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 22, 2005, 06:46:16 AM
Quote
I've read this entire thread and I have two things to say:

1. These are extremely personal attacks on Ms Wilson. When one questions someone's work ethic and the quality of one's professional output, it is always personal. The reality in America today is that we are what we do. She provided information to an internet message board--not in a professional, academic forum (although there are some professionals here)--from a source who wishes to remain anonymous, just as any good journalist is wont to do from time to time. There is no crime in this. If she doesn't have proof, then perhaps those who wish to disavow her information should do the research and either prove or disprove it.

2. Why hasn't this thread been locked and those who are hurling personal attacks warned? It is beyond time, in my humble opinion, that this be done.



rjt,

As I mentioned earlier, the reason this is an issue is not because the information that was presented here can't be verified, but because this information is now being accepted and cited as historical fact by some - the reason being that it comes from a professional historian. And since the said professional historian is not a tabloid journalist, then he/she should be able and willing to provide reasonable references for the very controversial information he/she insists is factual (or if he/she does not want to be challenged - simply refrain from posting it). This seems to be the responsible thing to do, considering if this information were coming from anyone else, this would not be a problem in the least, and everyone would just accept it for what it is: theory/speculation  - as opposed to fact.

BTW, Ms Wilson herself is no stranger to extreme personal attacks, public and private, on those who have different ideas than she does, but we won't get into that.

And oh yes, in America (if the world revolved around it, which it doesn't) we still have the freedom of speech (I think?), especially to challenge questionable ideas...

And now we really need to get back on topic.

Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: rskkiya on March 22, 2005, 08:25:50 AM
Quote


You make my case, Helen.  Just keep your remarks to the ideas and evidence at hand, and forget your commentary on me, my personality and what I "need to try to learn."  It has no place here, and it is beyond impertinent for you to speak to me publicly as you do.  Now, knock it the h43l off.


WHAT? "Beyond Impertinent?"

Penny this is outragious.  Helen A has, to the best of my knowledge, never personally attacked you.  
   PLEASE bear in mind that many people visit this site with equal interest -some are 12 year old girls in love with Nicholas, some are retirees, some students and some are scholars with an amatuer interest in Russian History.
   You are a writer - very nice - but you are not the sole source of all information on Rusian history and the posters here have every right to question your theories and discuss them critically.
   If you feel that we are inpertinent then why do you post your comments here?

I must admit that I find this whole "debate" to be extreamly depressing.
rskkiya
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: bookworm857158367 on March 22, 2005, 08:43:21 AM
Quote
Scroll down a bit on this article in the Seoul Times to the second picture:  It's of an 1899 De Dion-Bouton tricycle, which must be very like the one George Alexandrovich had...

http://theseoultimes.com/ST/?url=/ST/db/read.php?idx=1325

Edited to add:  A couple more pictures, this time of the 1898 model.

http://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?x9=VEHICLES,+PETROL,+MOTORCYCLES,+DE+DION+BOUTON


Very interesting. Thanks for posting that article and the pictures.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: grandduchessella on March 22, 2005, 08:50:30 AM
Quote

[I must admit that I find this whole "debate" to be extreamly depressing.
rskkiya


As do I. I thought it had died down a couple days ago as we started discussing his death and his illness. It flared back up though unfortunately. It seems pointless at this point to rehash it all because the points of view of the main players in the discussion are very well know to us at this point. I don't see what else can be accomplished at this point--except for the FA coming in again and I don't think we want _another_ thread locked due to incivility. (And for rjt it hasn't been locked because that's last-ditch and the FA has given a warning already. It's usually reserved for posts being very nasty and believe it or not they haven't yet reached that level). It just beating heads against the wall at this point--the main viewpoints aren't going to be changed.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: bookworm857158367 on March 22, 2005, 08:51:28 AM
Quote

Yes, we already talked about this possibility earlier in this thread, bookworm. The guy in California apparently is not really interested in proving anything to anyone (I guess he only likes to once in a while say that he is George's descendant), so I doubt that this is going to happen.


Sorry I brought up something that had already been raised. It's also too bad the family in California isn't interested in DNA testing. It would be a fascinating study, regardless of what it turned up.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 22, 2005, 08:56:14 AM
Quote
It would be a fascinating study, regardless of what it turned up.


I agree! Especially since this is probably the only way we could get a definite answer to this question.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 22, 2005, 08:59:13 AM
Quote
It seems pointless at this point to rehash it all because the points of view of the main players in the discussion are very well know to us at this point.


I agree! Hopefully they won't be rehashed again after this.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Forum Admin on March 22, 2005, 09:06:42 AM
FA was not here to step in, as this last exchange (SADLY occurring despite my hopes that things had settled down) was well after midnight Texas time. The rumors of my being here reading each post live as they happen 24/7 are only my "propoganda" to keep y'all on your toes  ;D
I was, at that time, actually providing a soft warm bed for the 2 kittens to sleep atop, deep in the arms of Morpheous myself.

Knock it off ladies, and stay on topic, please.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: grandduchessella on March 22, 2005, 10:34:08 AM
Quote
FA was not here to step in, as this last exchange (SADLY occurring despite my hopes that things had settled down) was well after midnight Texas time. The rumors of my being here reading each post live as they happen 24/7 are only my "propoganda" to keep y'all on your toes  ;D


You mean you're NOT an omniscient being presiding over all of our various threads ready to swoop in at anytime? My illusions have been shattered.  :)
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: AGRBear on March 22, 2005, 11:30:59 AM
Penny and others who are trying to discover if GD George was married once, twice or not at all,  just ignore any farther comments from those who continue their attacks.  All it does is drive us in crazy circles.

Quote

Am I remembering correctly that this woman was brought to visit with Maria Feodorovna and tell her about George Alexandrovich's last moments?


This is one of the remarks that  I recall reading about GD George.  Do you or anyone else recall the book/books this can be found?

Quote
Scroll down a bit on this article in the Seoul Times to the second picture:  It's of an 1899 De Dion-Bouton tricycle, which must be very like the one George Alexandrovich had...

http://theseoultimes.com/ST/?url=/ST/db/read.php?idx=1325

Edited to add:  A couple more pictures, this time of the 1898 model.

http://www.scienceandsociety.co.uk/results.asp?x9=VEHICLES,+PETROL,+MOTORCYCLES,+DE+DION+BOUTON


Again, your knowledge is greatly appreciated.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: AGRBear on March 22, 2005, 11:47:05 AM
Quote

I presume you are referring to "Tsar: The Lost World of Nicholas and Alexandra"?  Peter doesn't quite say what you write above.  On page 40, he writes: "Gossip spread like wildfire, since both of the Georges in Nicholas's company, his brother and his cousin, were homosexual.  There was talk of male brothels and 'unspeakable acts,' and the rumor even got around that George of Greece had played a role in provoking the attack by insulting the honor of a Japanese boy.  This story, unfounded, was favored by Queen Victoria."

Peter clearly says these were rumors-and indeed I've encountered a lot of similar gossip about Prince George of Greece on the trip in a variety of sources.

That Prince George of Greece was gay was well known-he had an enduring relationship with another close royal male relative.

The idea that Grand Duke George Alexandrovich was gay is less easy to sustain, though again there have been a lot of rumors and family gossip.  I suspect Peter, from his close association with many members of the present day Romanov Family, has heard the stories firsthand.

But George Alexandrovich was named a few years back as homosexual in a scholarly article by a respected Russian historian, Simon Karlinsky.  He wrote an article (publication was in something like the Hoover Institute Digest, though I could be wrong on this) called "The Seven Gay Grand Dukes," in which he named George Alexandrovich; Konstantin Konstantinovich; Dimitri Konstantinovich; Serge Alexandrovich; and-if I recall-Dimitri Pavlovich, and two others I cannot remember-I think one was Nicholas Mikhailovich and the other may have been Serge Mikhailovich, though I am not at all certain.  So George Alexandrovich's homosexuality has certainly been asserted by others than Peter Kurth.

But that's balanced again George's time in the Caucasus, where he was said to have contracted not one but two morganatic marriages, the first with a native Caucasian woman in 1893 shortly after arriving at Abbas Touman.  The union, said to have produced a child, was dissolved after two years.  In 1894, he was believed to have contracted a second morganatic marriage, this time with a local woman, Mlle. Orkovska, who bore him two sons and a daughter.  These children, allegedly given the surname of Romanovsky, as well as firm evidence to support either of the two unions, disappeared after the Revolution.  I do know one gentleman who lives in the United States and says he is a grandson, I think.  I've never asked for evidence, but he has provided it to some well-placed friends who have no doubt that his claim is true.  Of course, having offspring doesn't preclude one being gay-witness Grand Duke Konstantin Konstantinovich or Felix Yusupov.  But there are a number of claims about George that will probably never be resolved, given the lack of documentation.

Greg King


Please, this time note the entire post of Greg's  and in it are words like:
"But there are a number of claims about George what will probably never be resolved, given the lack of documentation."

Sometimes, a reader needs to read the entire post before jumping to conclusions and making claims that what has been said was "absolute fact".

Greg: "Gossip spread like wildfire, since both of the Georges in Nicholas's company."

Greg: "...where he was said to have contracted not one but two morganatic marriages..."

Also, one must read the posts around Gregs and not just Greg's post to know what the discussion was.

This is one of the great things about this forum, all  we have to do is click on the poster of the quote and presto, we're at the discussion.

So, for those who don't want to go back to page 1, this was one of my first posts about GD George and morgantic marriages.

AGRBear

Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: AGRBear on March 22, 2005, 11:50:24 AM
I added to this with:
Quote
Just my two cents on Grand Duke Georgy's alleged marriage: in the Enciclopedia Universal Europeo Americana, a very reliable and most detailed encyclopaedia published in 70 volumes in Madrid in 1905-1930, which is full of biographical data on royals, it is said that Grand Duke Georgy Alexandrovich "married morganatically princess Orkowska, who gave him three children". When I first read that in the encyclopaedia, I thought it was just a mistake, since the Gotha and other reliable sources made no mention of such wedding. However, reading Mr. Greg King's post, now I guess it was a somehow widespread rumor in the early XXth century.
Who made mlle. Orkowska a princess for the encyclopaedia, that I don't know...


At the time, I was not familiar with this particular encyclopedia.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: AGRBear on March 22, 2005, 12:03:55 PM
Here is what Penny wrote about one of the great grandson's of GD George and this sent off the flares from Helen, Annie and others:

-----start of post---

Quote

... in part...

At least one of them did.  A grandson (or great-grandson, I forget which) lives out West here.  This is the man with the impeccable references that Greg mentioned.  There's virtually no doubt that this little family is the real deal.

...


So, he was married and did have  at least one surviving child who lived to be an adult  who had child... who had a child.....

AGRBear

-----end of post----

What I should have said was that  it's possible that GD George was married and that it's possible for him to have one surviving child, I made a statement that "he was married" and had "at least one  child".

And, therein is what all of this back and forth bickering is about.

So, can we move pass all of this and discover any facts that might lead us to the possibility of one or two marriages, one or four children, OR, no marriages, no children, OR, two lovers which produces children ???

To be fair, I pulled the quote in part from something Penny was saying and I used her as a source.  This was unfair to Penny who, now, is being piled on because I took her quote out of contents.  So, now, she has to defend herself and can not because she can't give us her sources.  This means, there will be no DNA tests and no names given.  THEREFORE, we can only move forward with sources we can find.

AGRBear


Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: AGRBear on March 22, 2005, 12:20:38 PM
Can we assume this is gossip???

Quote
Ugh. Even seeing them makes me feel sugar shock coming on.  :-/  I used to eat these and other sugary candies by the ton when I was a kid but as an adult--yech. I always buy them for my kids because I'm not tempted to eat them (unlike chocolate bunnies  :) )

Here are some of the newspaper abstracts from the time. Again--I'm not vouching for the veracity just showing what some of the headlines/tone of the day were.

LATE GRAND DUKE.
MARQUISE DE FONTENOY
The Washington Post
Jul 16, 1899.
It is an extraordinary fact that although Emperor Nicholas has been on the throne for close upon six years, yet during all that time he never once either visited or even set eyes upon his brother George, who died so suddenly on Monday last.

CAUSE OF CZAREWITCH'S END.; A Bresian Paper Declures It Was Due to a Fall from a Bicycle.
Jul 14, 1899

CZAR'S BROTHER DEAD; Heir Apparent to the Russian Crown Passes Away.
Jul 11, 1899
The Grand Duke George, brother of the Czar, is dead. The Grand Duke George of Russia was born April 27, 1871, and had been in illhealth for a number of years, suffering from consumption.

Czarowitch Dangerously III.
The Washington Post (1877-1954). Washington, D.C.: Apr 17, 1896. pg. 10, 1 pgs

Czarewitch's Death Officially Denied.
The Washington Post (1877-1954). Washington, D.C.: Dec 1, 1894. pg. 1, 1 pgs

The 'author' of the first abstract was a rather nasty person who wrote for years a very gossipy column. The others I thought were interesting for the fact that obviously there was something known of GA's illness in the outside world and even getting the cause (consumption) right.


AGRBear
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: grandduchessella on March 22, 2005, 12:24:12 PM
As I put in the original post I don't know about the truthfulness of them--plus they're only abstracts.

The Marquis of Fontenoy wrote all kinds of gossipy things--some with a grain of truth, otherwise seemingly plucked out of nowhere. I guess you could qualify _him_ as gossip.

Then there were stories that dealt with his health--some might have been stories floating around, others reporting on the issue. It showed that at least some stories were out there about his health as opposed to him not being written about at all.

Som eof the other headlines showed how news of GD George's death was received around the world. They are straight news sources--not gossip columns like the MOF's. They may have facts wrong, as obituaries today do even, but they are primary source materials.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: AGRBear on March 22, 2005, 12:24:59 PM
Thank you grandduchessella.


Fact about the Fundamental Laws brought up by Marlene:

Quote

...[in part]....

...Alexander III was not a liberal.  He was an ultra-conservative.  He tolerated nothing within the family.  He tightened the Fundamental Laws with an additional clause to Law 188, which says "A person of the Imperial Family who has entered into marriage with a person of a status unequal to his, that is, not belonging to a reigning or ruling house, cannot pass on to that person, or to any posterity that might issue from such a marriage, the rights which belong to members of the Imperial."  Alexander III added a clause to the law "Henceforth, none of the grand dukes or grand duchesses may enter into a marriage with a person of unequal status, that is, not belonging to a royal or ruling house."

Alexander III fought to maintain the status. He was not going to allow morganatic marriages if he could help it.


Does this mean it was absolutely impossible for GD George to have married a woman at any time or any place?

AGRBear
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 22, 2005, 01:20:40 PM
Quote
Here is what Penny wrote about one of the great grandson's of GD George and this sent off the flares from Helen, Annie and others:



Bear, hello?? Annie has not even been on this thread. Why bring her into this, or are you so used to using her as a scapegoat by now that you can't help it?  ;)
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 22, 2005, 01:22:27 PM
Quote

Does this mean it was absolutely impossible for GD George to have married a woman at any time or any place?
 


Almost anything is "possible",  but  unless there is some serious evidence, it doesn't mean that it happened...
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: LisaDavidson on March 22, 2005, 02:19:27 PM
Quote
Thank you grandduchessella.


Fact about the Fundamental Laws brought up by Marlene:


Does this mean it was absolutely impossible for GD George to have married a woman at any time or any place?

AGRBear


Yes, it does. It means that no member of the Imperial Family could legally marry in Russia without the Tsar's consent. There was no civil marriage.

The control of dynast's marriages was not considered at the time to be terribly oppressive, by the way.

Had George tried to marry within the Russian Empire, he would have been prevented from so doing.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: AGRBear on March 22, 2005, 02:47:09 PM
Quote

Yes, it does. It means that no member of the Imperial Family could legally marry in Russia without the Tsar's consent. There was no civil marriage.

The control of dynast's marriages was not considered at the time to be terribly oppressive, by the way.

Had George tried to marry within the Russian Empire, he would have been prevented from so doing.


And, who was going to stop a strong willed person like GD George if he was in love.  I believe his brother, Michael, was not stopped in marrying his "true love", who was the Tsarvich at the time.

I'm not sure we're talking about "legal marriages" as you suggest according to having waited for permission from Alex. II by GD George even though his marriages are referred as "morgantic marriage" in some sources.

Since most seem to agree that GD George was of strong character and if it's true that he was in love that he would have taken the steps to have married the mother/mothers of his child/children.  And, that he would have provided for them.  And, done of this had to be done in the public eye.

There were other ministers and priests outside the Russian Greek Orthodox church.  Has anyone dug into those records?

AGRBear

Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Macedonsky on March 22, 2005, 02:50:20 PM
Quote
Had George tried to marry within the Russian Empire, he would have been prevented from so doing.

In theory. GD Nicholas Constantinovich married twicely. First marriage was annuled as contracted without permission, second was not considered sacrament because the priest understood it was impossible to wed them against Emperor's will and made just illusion of wedding.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 22, 2005, 04:29:37 PM
Quote

And, who was going to stop a strong willed person like GD George if he was in love.  I believe his brother, Michael, was not stopped in marrying his "true love", who was the Tsarvich at the time.

I'm not sure we're talking about "legal marriages" as you suggest according to having waited for permission from Alex. II by GD George even though his marriages are referred as "morgantic marriage" in some sources.

Since most seem to agree that GD George was of strong character and if it's true that he was in love that he would have taken the steps to have married the mother/mothers of his child/children.  And, that he would have provided for them.  And, done of this had to be done in the public eye.

There were other ministers and priests outside the Russian Greek Orthodox church.  Has anyone dug into those records?

AGRBear



Yes, but how were George's marriage and children kept secret for so long as far as even historians were concerned? No one else's morganatic marriage was kept a secret, at least not for very long, but this one was kept secret for something like 100 years, and not only from the public but also from professional historians (except Penny Wilson of course), until it just happened to come out on this forum! Can you explain that?  ???
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Eurohistory on March 22, 2005, 04:39:36 PM
Quote

And, who was going to stop a strong willed person like GD George if he was in love.  I believe his brother, Michael, was not stopped in marrying his "true love", who was the Tsarvich at the time.

I'm not sure we're talking about "legal marriages" as you suggest according to having waited for permission from Alex. II by GD George even though his marriages are referred as "morgantic marriage" in some sources.

Since most seem to agree that GD George was of strong character and if it's true that he was in love that he would have taken the steps to have married the mother/mothers of his child/children.  And, that he would have provided for them.  And, done of this had to be done in the public eye.

There were other ministers and priests outside the Russian Greek Orthodox church.  Has anyone dug into those records?

AGRBear



"Tsarvich," again, is not the correct word.  Nor is "morgantic."  So let's start with proper word usage here.

You say that anything is possible...I'll give that much...

Let me share some maybes that are surrounded by the realm of possibility...or the world of royalty doo-doo-doo-doo...tah-tah-tah-tah!

Alexander I did not die in 1825, he left Russia and migrated to America where it is possible that he may have had 3 wives, and seven children, or then it is possible that he may not have had any of them...

Rudolf of Austria and Marie Vetsera did not commit suicide you know!  It is quite possible that they may have migrated to the USA, where Marie died and Rudolf remarried, had several children and his descendants live and thrive in the American Southwest.

Baby Prince Putiatine, second child of Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna Jr did not die.  Not at all.  He was kept in hiding by Queen Marie of Romania, then when the Communists invaded Romania he was forced to escape to America, where he married, had children, founded what seems, according to proof presented, a rather large family.

All of these are some of the many claims presented to us here at Eurohistory at one time or another by reputable gentlemen and ladies, who of course had proof - and since they were members of good standing in society, why would we doubt them?

doo-doo-doo-doo...tah-tah-tah-tah!

The world of faux royalty thrives in the annals of royal history.  There have always been and there will always be claimants who take advantage of urban legends to base their claims on.

Now, of course, poor dear George, was a man of strong character...and he was going to be married, whether his parents liked it or not.  He went about dropping children here and there with at least two women, and everybody indulged him, everyone was sworn to secrecy...hush...and imperial hush was kept, ney, has been kept for more than a century.  These claims want us to accept that poor dear Grand Duke George Alexandrovich, this adventurous don Juan -or so some would have us believe- did not even bother to mention his four children in his will - oh he provided for them, of course he did! Oh brother...

No mention of any of his children in any of his letter made available to researchers so far.  No mention of any of these morganatic Romanovs in any of the correspondence of George Alexandrovich's vast Romanov family, or in that of any other royal memoir or correspndence of the time...not a peep...it was a continent-wide general swearing to secrecy...a veritable royal, hush-hush!

Proof is taken from an encyclopedia thatmay have taken the information from an unreliable genealogy based on two books that cannot be found, and which was repeated, by mistake, by a reputable English author who wrote an otherwise masterful biography of George's mother, who would have been the grandmother of these four children, whom she never met, or perhaps even knew anything about...

Arturo Beéche
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 22, 2005, 05:34:22 PM
Quote

... but this one was kept secret for something like 100 years, and not only from the public but also from professional historians (except Penny Wilson of course), until it just happened to come out on this forum! Can you explain that?  ???


You are incorrect.  As has been demonstrated elsewhere on this thread, this story has not been "secret for something like 100 years."  

Edited to add:  You should say, "except Penny Wilson and Greg King of course," because we were sitting side-by-side on our "informant"'s lovely living room couch when she dropped this apparent bomb on us...
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Tsaritsa on March 22, 2005, 11:41:34 PM
Quote

Nor is "morgantic."  So let's start with proper word usage here.







What would be the correct term?
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Robert_Hall on March 23, 2005, 12:16:21 AM
m-o-r-g-a-n-a-t-i-c, perhaps?
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: LisaDavidson on March 23, 2005, 12:17:32 AM
Quote


What would be the correct term?


The correct term is morganatic. I have no idea what "morgantic" is. A morganatic marriage is one in which the marriage is legal but the two partners have a different status from one another. For example, when Michael Alexandrovich married Natalia Sergievna, he remained a grand duke, while she never became a grand duchess.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Robert_Hall on March 23, 2005, 12:20:33 AM
And in the hypothetical case being discussed, the marriage would not have even been legal.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Tsaritsa on March 23, 2005, 12:55:58 AM
Thank you.  
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: grandduchessella on March 23, 2005, 09:56:44 AM
Sheesh guys--don't pick on tsarista. That's why newbies won't post sometimes.

'Morgantic' was obviously a typo. And some of us aren't Russian orthodoxy/family law/imperial law/whatever you want to call it experts. A simple explaination w/o the snippy tone would've been nice.  :)
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: AGRBear on March 23, 2005, 10:57:00 AM
Yep, spelling errors which I seem to keep slipping into for some reason.

"Tsarevich"
"Morganatic"

Remember, sometimes cotton stuffing for a brain doesn't work like it should.  ;D and that goes for the fingers on the keyboard.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: AGRBear on March 23, 2005, 11:21:10 AM
I dug out my dictionary to see the def. of "morganatic".  It doesn't say anything about if a marriage is in a church or by a priest or minister.  It says, "marriage" then goes on to say that there is added to this marriage an agreement that the offspring do not inherit titles or estates of the spouce of highter rank.

Please correct me if I have missinterupted the def..

AGRBear
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Macedonsky on March 23, 2005, 11:21:14 AM
Quote
Yep, spelling errors which I seem to keep slipping into for some reason.

"Tsarevich"

Good spelling for wrong title. George Alexandrovich never was Tsarevich. He was Caesarevich or (if you prefer) Tsesarevich. Compare:
Tsarevich
Tsesarevich
Different titles.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: AGRBear on March 23, 2005, 11:32:58 AM
Macedonsky,  I realize you are new to this forum.  And, so, perhaps have not read the suggestions which our Forum Admin. has set down for us so we don't end up in discussions of sematics of spelling.  Here are a few of the rules:

---

>>...use these standard ENGLISH spellings when posting in the forum UNLESS directly quoting a source.  We know that these words can be spelled differently in other languages, but we want the search to return as many results as possible. So, for example, if you spell "Sergei" as in Russian, the search for "SERGE" in English, it will not be found.
 
NAMES:
ROMANOV
YUSSUPOV
TSAR, TSARINA/TSARITSA
NICHOLAS
ALEXANDRA (ALIX) FEODOROVNA
ALEXANDER
TATIANA
ANASTASIA
MARIE (FEODOROVNA)
MARIA (NICHOLAIEVNA)
ALEXEI
IRINA
XENIA  
KYRILL
SERGE
GEORGE
FEODOR  
KONSTANTIN OR CONSTANTINE ONLY
ANNA VYROUBOVA (ANYA) TANEYEVA/TANEYEV
 
PATRYNOMICS ARE ONLY TO BE MALE "OVICH" AND FEMALE "OVNA" OR "EVNA" WHEN AFTER NICHOLAS.
TRY TO USE STANDARD ENGLISH SPELLINGS OF OTHER NAMES: STROGANOV, SHUVALOV, ORLOV, ETC.
 
-----

Just let me know which form of Tsarevich everyone should use and I'll follow what's requested.

Sorry for taking the topic off of GD George for the moment.

And what is the difference between
                       "Tsarevich" and  "Tsesarevich"


AGRBear
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Macedonsky on March 23, 2005, 12:02:06 PM
Quote
Macedonsky,  I realize you are new to this forum.  And, so, perhaps have not read the suggestions which our Forum Admin. has set down for us so we don't end up in discussions of sematics of spelling.


Thank you, I already read it. I never discuss bad spelling of names in message boards: here is not scientific area. I even not protest against title Tsar for Emperors of All the Russias although it sounds similar to Queen of England for Elizabeth II.

Quote
Just let me know which form of Tsarevich everyone should use and I'll follow what's requested.
And what is the difference between
"Tsarevich" and  "Tsesarevich"

In short, the difference is that while Tsarevich is old ttitle for every son of Tsar Tsesarevich is new (XVIIIc) title invented after Tsar Peter Alexeevich accepted the title of Emperor. It's hard to said in short who had right for such title (I recently wrote six pages essay on this matter).

If you are not sure whether some Russian dynast hold this title in the time you can just use his Christian name + patronymics. To beginning of XX century old Tsarevich remained only in fairy tales but was revived unoficially for Tsesarevich Alexis Nikolayevich as he was infant.

So I can not recommend you to use or not to use peasant-style Tsarevich. Just need to say George was not simply son of Tsar but as his Tsesarevich title shows - Heir to the Throne.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: LisaDavidson on March 23, 2005, 12:09:47 PM
Quote
Sheesh guys--don't pick on tsarista. That's why newbies won't post sometimes.

'Morgantic' was obviously a typo. And some of us aren't Russian orthodoxy/family law/imperial law/whatever you want to call it experts. A simple explaination w/o the snippy tone would've been nice.  :)


If "morgantic" had popped up only once, it would have been a typo. It kept coming up that way, so it was obvious there was a lack of understanding of the term was, and perhaps a lack of understanding of what it means.

You do have a point about tone, though. We are not always perceived how we intend to be. I don't think I was snippy, but if someone sees this, it was surely not intended.

Even if some of those who post here are considered experts, it's important to remain on one's best behavior - and I appreciate being corrected when my facts are wrong. Maybe others don't, but if I didn't know what a morganatic marriage was, I would appreciate being told.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: LisaDavidson on March 23, 2005, 12:18:05 PM
Quote
I dug out my dictionary to see the def. of "morganatic".  It doesn't say anything about if a marriage is in a church or by a priest or minister.  It says, "marriage" then goes on to say that there is added to this marriage an agreement that the offspring do not inherit titles or estates of the spouce of highter rank.

Please correct me if I have missinterupted the def..

AGRBear


This definition is technically correct. In practice, though, the "lesser" spouse rarely is asked to "agree" as far as I know. It's more like, take it or leave it.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: LisaDavidson on March 23, 2005, 12:21:38 PM
Quote

Thank you, I already read it. I never discuss bad spelling of names in message boards: here is not scientific area. I even not protest against title Tsar for Emperors of All the Russias although it sounds similar to Queen of England for Elizabeth II.

In short, the difference is that while Tsarevich is old ttitle for every son of Tsar Tsesarevich is new (XVIIIc) title invented after Tsar Peter Alexeevich accepted the title of Emperor. It's hard to said in short who had right for such title (I recently wrote six pages essay on this matter).

If you are not sure whether some Russian dynast hold this title in the time you can just use his Christian name + patronymics. To beginning of XX century old Tsarevich remained only in fairy tales but was revived unoficially for Tsesarevich Alexis Nikolayevich as he was infant.

So I can not recommend you to use or not to use peasant-style Tsarevich. Just need to say George was not simply son of Tsar but as his Tsesarevich title shows - Heir to the Throne.


Dimitry - welcome to the AP Forum! You are a most welcome addition. I say, spell as you like, my friend!
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: grandduchessella on March 23, 2005, 12:56:40 PM
Quote

You do have a point about tone, though. We are not always perceived how we intend to be. I don't think I was snippy, but if someone sees this, it was surely not intended.

Even if some of those who post here are considered experts, it's important to remain on one's best behavior - and I appreciate being corrected when my facts are wrong. Maybe others don't, but if I didn't know what a morganatic marriage was, I would appreciate being told.


I wasn't referring to you Lisa--unless I'm hallucinating there was, what I considered a snippy post, in between which now isn't there.  ???  Your tone was perfectly fine.

I too appreciate being corrected (and am quite often!). I only get my hackles up when I think someone is being overly picky (again I'm just referring here to comments addressed at me in the past).

Tone can be so hard to put across online. What one means to be perfectly civil and polite can come across as stiff and patronizing and sometimes levity comes across as overly-flippant. Maybe that's why I partake of the smileys above so much.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: LisaDavidson on March 23, 2005, 03:11:00 PM
Quote

I wasn't referring to you Lisa--unless I'm hallucinating there was, what I considered a snippy post, in between which now isn't there.  ???  Your tone was perfectly fine.

I too appreciate being corrected (and am quite often!). I only get my hackles up when I think someone is being overly picky (again I'm just referring here to comments addressed at me in the past).

Tone can be so hard to put across online. What one means to be perfectly civil and polite can come across as stiff and patronizing and sometimes levity comes across as overly-flippant. Maybe that's why I partake of the smileys above so much.


I'll try to get the hang of the smilies (paging my children?). I didn't see anyone else correcting, so thank you for clearing up the confusion!
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Olga on March 23, 2005, 07:52:48 PM
Quote
Remember, sometimes cotton stuffing for a brain doesn't work like it should.  ;D and that goes for the fingers on the keyboard.


Really, AGRBear, these quaint little comments are getting old and annoying.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Tsaritsa on March 24, 2005, 12:36:13 AM
Quote

If "morgantic" had popped up only once, it would have been a typo. It kept coming up that way, so it was obvious there was a lack of understanding of the term was, and perhaps a lack of understanding of what it means.

You do have a point about tone, though. We are not always perceived how we intend to be. I don't think I was snippy, but if someone sees this, it was surely not intended.

Even if some of those who post here are considered experts, it's important to remain on one's best behavior - and I appreciate being corrected when my facts are wrong. Maybe others don't, but if I didn't know what a morganatic marriage was, I would appreciate being told.



I simply read the word wrong.  I looked at it several times and I couldn't figure out what was wrong with it.  When it was pointed out, I felt quite dull.  I was aware what the term meant.  I just just didn't see the spelling error or typo.

Thank you, Ella.  I have been here for months and still don't feel totally comfortable posting as yet.  I thought I knew a lot about the IF.  Compared to some of you, I know very little.  


Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: LisaDavidson on March 24, 2005, 12:50:50 AM
Quote


I simply read the word wrong.  I looked at it several times and I couldn't figure out what was wrong with it.  When it was pointed out, I felt quite dull.  I was aware what the term meant.  I just just didn't see the spelling error or typo.

Thank you, Ella.  I have been here for months and still don't feel totally comfortable posting as yet.  I thought I knew a lot about the IF.  Compared to some of you, I know very little.  




For the record, you were not the only poster to use the term "morgantic". Just as I apparently was not the culprit to whom GD Ella was referring (that person having removed her/his posts) about being snippy.

This is an excellent place to learn more about the Imperial Family, at least I have found it to be so. I find it helps to keep an open mind in these matters.

The topic of morganatic marriage has become contemporary these days, by the way, due to the upcoming marriage of the Prince of Wales.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: grandduchessella on March 24, 2005, 07:17:33 AM
Quote

The topic of morganatic marriage has become contemporary these days, by the way, due to the upcoming marriage of the Prince of Wales.


I wonder if the Queen ever envies the control the Tsars could place on marriages? If she didn't like it--boom!--right out of the country.  :)

tsaritsa--You're very welcome. We want everyone to feel comfortable to post. It's a great place to learn.  :)
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Helen_Azar on March 24, 2005, 09:05:44 AM
Quote
I thought I knew a lot about the IF.  Compared to some of you, I know very little.  


Don't worry, Tsaritsa, I have been posting here for a while and I feel the same way  :D. What you come to realize is how much you don't know, but what a great way to learn!
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: AGRBear on March 24, 2005, 09:13:13 AM
macedonsky,

Earlier I had asked about some of your following post.

Apparently we know a little about the woman [lover, wife, stranger] who found GD George.  She was a "country woman", her religion was "Molocane" and that she had with her a 13 year old "companion (?son ;D)".

Quote

It was trehkolesny velosiped (trycycle) with benzine engine produced by "Dion & Buton".


Ha-ha! She was countrywoman from sect of "molocane". It is hard to believe she went to tryst by cart with 13 years old companion (their son?  ;D). Note George died in the arms of army officer too.

Spiritual christians - molokane can not marry in Orthodox church.

Tsartich mean Caesarevich? Every marriage should be contracted in church by priest. George obviously could not marry in his palace church. Abbas-Tuman was a small village in 22 versts from Akhaltsikhe, small city in Kutais region in Imeretia. Caesarevich just could not leave his palace alone for a time enough for wedding. He was constantly accompanied by doctors and servants. Marriage was almost impossible. What about cancellation, there are nothing in the special part of archive (in contrast with two files on GD Nicholas Constantinovich).

Princely?! I never heard this surname at all. Sounds Polish. There are no any Orkovsky/Orkovskaya in St.Petersburg now. I can not google the surname because in Russian it sounds like "of Orc" from Lord of the Rings  ;)
.

As to her name being Orkovsky or Orkowsky or Orkoffsky, you have not heard this name as being part of a "princely" family and think it sounds Polish.  You believe the family was not from St. Petersburg or that none existed there at the time of Alex. III or Nicholas II?

Added to this was Penny's post:
Quote

Am I remembering correctly that this woman was brought to visit with Maria Feodorovna and tell her about George Alexandrovich's last moments?


This is one of the stories I recall, now, if I could only remember the book so I could note the source for this thead.  Anyone remember having seen it and where?


AGRBear
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: AGRBear on March 24, 2005, 09:29:44 AM
I still have to agree with Forum Admin. on this part of the conversation about using "reliable sources" of which I think both Penny and Greg are.

Quote
Time out.
OK, Penny made a statement SHE believes to be true based on the information she has. Some "background" proof was requested. Penny can't provide it publicly, as the person is a private individual. That should be the end of the story. We can't force private people to be dragged into the public against their will.

On this one, I have to agree with Penny. Bob and I are well acquainted with private people who are very "first hand" knowledgeable about Romanov family history, and we can't publicly cite them as they wish to remain private. Linda D. is in the same boat.  It just has to be accepted for what it is. If you wish to reject it without further proof, that is your personal choice. So just accept it or not for what it is. It should NEVER turn into an argument.


Of course, none of us are taking what is being said with "blind faith" but I think certain comments by Penny and Greg should carry some weight.

I'll be back with two of Penny's posts in a minute.

Quote

... in part...

At least one of them did.  A grandson (or great-grandson, I forget which) lives out West here.  This is the man with the impeccable references that Greg mentioned.  There's virtually no doubt that this little family is the real deal.

...

There were many post asking Penny for her source and over and over she explains that sometimes she can't give out her sources and that she could not do it this time.  But this wasn't the answer some of the posters wanted.  Course, the posters don't always get what they want and will have to take Penny's reliability as a source and if that's not enough then it's not enough.  So be it.

Here's the last one:
Quote

You are incorrect.  As has been demonstrated elsewhere on this thread, this story has not been "secret for something like 100 years."  

Edited to add:  You should say, "except Penny Wilson and Greg King of course," because we were sitting side-by-side on our "informant"'s lovely living room couch when she dropped this apparent bomb on us...


Apparently, someone close enough to the Romanov or is a Romanov gave Penny and Greg the information about a desc. of GD George.  And, it seems this person didn't use the word "possible".  However, for this debate, we will continue to assume the person/persons in CA as "possible dec.".

As for a possible "morganatic" marriage or lovers, it seems there might be more to this story than just a rumor.

If there is more to this story which we can discover on our own through records or other sources than that is what we need to do.

I've learned that some posters are upset by this debate.

Some posters think that if there had been children by GD George that he would have left them property.  We've since discovered that because of Russian laws,  GD George couldn't do this.  But this doesn't mean he wasn't honorable and didn't leave something toward his wife and children, if he was indeed married and had children.

Others tell us that if there had been a wife, then why wasn't she mentioned in letters of the family.  Was this country woman mentioned in GD George's mother's diary or letters?

Some posters claim his illness made it impossible for him to have children and then another poster said  that was incorrect because if it was then the poster would never have been born....

So far, I still find a lot of unanswered questions.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Olga on March 24, 2005, 08:14:57 PM
Quote
Of course, none of us are taking what is being said with "blind faith" but I think certain comments by Penny and Greg should carry some weight.


Just because Penny is an author doesn't mean she can say anything and you take it as gospel.

Quote
There were many post asking Penny for her source and over and over she explains that sometimes she can't give out her sources and that she could not do it this time.  But this wasn't the answer some of the posters wanted.  Course, the posters don't always get what they want and will have to take Penny's reliability as a source and if that's not enough then it's not enough.  So be it.


If she won't provide sources or proof, then why should we believe what she says?

Quote
Apparently, someone close enough to the Romanov or is a Romanov gave Penny and Greg the information about a desc. of GD George.  And, it seems this person didn't use the word "possible".  However, for this debate, we will continue to assume the person/persons in CA as "possible dec.".


You can't just assume things like this. You weren't even privy to their conversation!

Quote
If there is more to this story which we can discover on our own through records or other sources than that is what we need to do.


AGRBear, you always talk about needing to look through sources and do research. Why don't you do some yourself?
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Macedonsky on March 25, 2005, 08:20:53 AM
Quote
Apparently we know a little about the woman [lover, wife, stranger] who found GD George.  She was a "country woman", her religion was "Molocane" and that she had with her a 13 year old "companion (?son ;D)".

I just have read police report. There she was described as stranger and it would be strange if they wrote she was George's passion.

The boy was named her assistant and I doubt the son could be so described.

When I read the report I do not know I will ever need name of this woman, sorry.

Quote
As to her name being Orkovsky or Orkowsky or Orkoffsky, you have not heard this name as being part of a "princely" family and think it sounds Polish.

All Orkovsky, Orkowsky and Orkoffsky can be spelled in Russian only one way: ~OPKOBCKUU. All Russian surnames with -sky suffix are or Polish (Macedonsky, Dzerzhinsky etc), or priests' (Voznesensky, Rozhdestvensky etc) either old and famous (Vyazemsky).

Quote
 You believe the family was not from St. Petersburg or that none existed there at the time of Alex. III or Nicholas II?

I mean now there are no persons in St.Petersburg 4,500,000 city with this last name. And that googling Russian WWW gives nobody with this surname.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: rskkiya on March 25, 2005, 08:43:35 AM
Quote

Just because Penny is an author doesn't mean she can say anything and you take it as gospel.


If she won't provide sources or proof, then why should we believe what she says?


You can't just assume things like this. You weren't even privy to their conversation!



I agree with Darth Olga

    Simply because an author has been
published wthere is no reason to take their work as "perfect."
    This comment is true for both Ms. Wilson and for scholars such as Orlando Figes, whose works on Russian culture and history are - in my opinion- the best currently available. Any author who is unwilling to be doubted, questioned or debated is certainly in the wrong job as far as I am concerned.
  If any author (or casual poster) presents any information as fact and then is unwilling or unable to explain this, then they ought not complain when they are ridiculed as "unreliable".

rskkiya
(sorry for any spelling mistakes - I'm in a real time constraint)
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: jeremygaleaz on March 25, 2005, 08:57:03 AM
Quote
I agree with Darth Olga

     Simply because an author has been
published wthere is no reason to take their work as "perfect."
     This comment is true for both Ms. Wilson and for scholars such as Orlando Figes, whose works on Russian culture and history are - in my opinion- the best currently available. Any author who is unwilling to be doubted, questioned or debated is certainly in the wrong job as far as I am concerned.
   If any author (or casual poster) presents any information as fact and then is unwilling or unable to explain this, then they ought not complain when they are ridiculed as "unreliable".

rskkiya
(sorry for any spelling mistakes - I'm in a real time constraint)


Agreed with rskkiya and darth olga

this may have been brought up before and I'm missing it ( and correct me if I'm wrong) but doesn't TB leave a male sterile and unable to produce children of his own?
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: AGRBear on March 25, 2005, 09:50:47 AM
I said that Penny's posting should bear some weight, and, it does for me.  But that doesn't mean that I have on a blindfold so that is why I'm looking for additional information to add to what she's told us.

In case you haven't noticed,  most books about the Romanovs are he said/she said/they said kind of books.  There are very few which just tells us just the facts because to do so would be almost impossible.  

I appreciate  macdonsky's  addition which follows:

Quote
I just have read police report. There she was described as stranger and it would be strange if they wrote she was George's passion.

The boy was named her assistant and I doubt the son could be so described.

When I read the report I do not know I will ever need name of this woman, sorry.

All Orkovsky, Orkowsky and Orkoffsky can be spelled in Russian only one way: ~OPKOBCKUU. All Russian surnames with -sky suffix are or Polish (Macedonsky, Dzerzhinsky etc), or priests' (Voznesensky, Rozhdestvensky etc) either old and famous (Vyazemsky).

I mean now there are no persons in St.Petersburg 4,500,000 city with this last name. And that googling Russian WWW gives nobody with this surname.


I've run the name through google of USA and Europe and have discover quite a few links to the name Orkowski.  Course, I have no idea their background, where they came from [accept those found in genealogy sites] or if any of them ever lived in St. Petersburg or the Caucasus.

Yes, I assumed the name was Polish because of the "ski" at the end of the name.

I don't know if its true that any member of their family claimed to be "princely" either in Poland or Russia.

I thought the police report as very interesting.  I'm slightly surprised the report doesn't give the woman's name.

I and others [accept a very small handful of posters] are always willing and able to listen to Penny's findings.

Penny please ignore the handful of posters who seem to want to make your position here  miserable.  Also, let me apologize for their behavior before and after this post.

AGRBear


Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: AGRBear on March 25, 2005, 10:16:23 AM
Quote
CIVILITY - what will it take?

For Pete's sake. Why must personal attacks still continue? Look, if you don't want to believe what Penny said, fine, don't.  If you ask questions, and don't like the answer you get. LET IT GO at that and move on. I am getting sick of this new trend in the forum to keep re-hashing the same points over and over and over with no one willing to just move forward in the discussions.

No one is saying you have to accept anything Penny says, or give her extra credence for having published books. Just GET OVER IT already and simply analyze what you have, give it whatever credence seems correct and MOVE ON. Please....
FA
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Macedonsky on March 25, 2005, 10:26:25 AM
Quote
I thought the police report as very interesting.  I'm slightly surprised the report doesn't give the woman's name.

I am sure there was her name in the report, I just did not know I should to write it for this forum  ;D
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Eurohistory on March 25, 2005, 10:54:02 AM
Quote
Penny please ignore the handful of posters who seem to want to make your position here  miserable.  Also, let me apologize for their behavior before and after this post.

AGRBear




Oh for crying out loud, stop grandstanding...really!

Anyone, who is or claims to be a historian of any note, myself included, should be aware that when a claim of this magnitude is brought out, they will be challenged and thus should have the available documentation and sourcing required to have their claims withstand the questionng...plain and simple.

Arturo Beéche
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: AGRBear on March 25, 2005, 11:11:29 AM
Like I said, I apologize even after my post and this time for arturo who knows better since he talks about his reliable sources all the time.  And, until someone produces evidence to  me that I shouldn't believe arturo is honest and truthfull, I have no reason to attack you or your sources.  Please, have the same respect for others.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 25, 2005, 11:34:40 AM
Quote

Oh for crying out loud, stop grandstanding...really!

Anyone, who is or claims to be a historian of any note, myself included, should be aware that when a claim of this magnitude is brought out, they will be challenged and thus should have the available documentation and sourcing required to have their claims withstand the questionng...plain and simple.

Arturo Beéche



But Arturo, you yourself have given information and then referred to unnamed sources -- both here and on atr.  For what good reason are Greg and I not allowed to do the same?  

Look, you people -- I don't know why you are going on and on and around and around about this.  The FA has ruled that my remarks were not out of order.  That should be the end of it, until such time as my George Alexandrovich research returns results.  And let me remind you that I am myself not all that interested in GA -- I am understaking this research, at my own expense, I might add, in order to satisfy not only your questions, but also to end this constant hounding of me.  Why do you do this to me?  If you don't like me -- and I'm not just refering to you, Arturo, though I do now count you among those who are out to make my life miserable here -- then stop the on-board commentary, which just wastes everyone's time; stop the private IMs and emails, which I just ignore -- and write to the FA and ask him to terminate my account.  I have told him that any time he wants me to stop posting, I will.  So, if you don't want me here, if you can't stand that I post stuff that you don't like -- DO SOMETHING CONSTRUCTIVE ABOUT IT -- and get me terminated.  Just stop wasting other people's time.

And don't worry -- even if I am terminated, I will still send the results of my George Alexandrovich research to the FA for posting.  I am a person of my word, you see.  And unlike some of you guys, I don't particularly care one way or the other if GA had lovers, wives, children, whatever -- but it is the absolute truth that at least one Romanov believes that he did.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: grandduchessella on March 25, 2005, 12:06:57 PM
Oh for goodness sake!

Everything dies down for a day or two then a certain poster had to go and write a baiting post about Bear's 'quaint expressions' being tiring. Why? What was the point? If you don't like them ignore them or complain off-post. It was a direct attack on her.

Then there's a response on the 24th with a pro-Penny post (several actually) when the disagreements seem to have settled down for a day or so ( a lifetime considering how the postings were piling up) and up it flares again! Anothre poster into it again along with 1-2 others then pro and anti groups starting lining up again!

As I've said--Bear and Penny and others believe what they believe others such as Helen and Art don't. Neither side is going to change! It's just rehashing grievances at this point. This topic is interesting to many apart from the squabbling and I just _know_ the FA is going to wind up locking it if it doesn't cease.

Bear quoted the FA again but I think the pro-GA's descendants group need to abide by it to.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: AGRBear on March 25, 2005, 12:16:04 PM
Quote
I am sure there was her name in the report, I just did not know I should to write it for this forum  ;D


Why don't you think you should tell us her name?

I and others would  like to know the woman's name if you wish to share.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Forum Admin on March 25, 2005, 12:18:23 PM
Quote
Bear quoted the FA again but I think the pro-GA's descendants group need to abide by it to.


It was most certainly meant for everyone, in this thread and the AA-FS thread as well.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 25, 2005, 12:35:14 PM
Quote

Why don't you think you should tell us her name?

I and others would  like to know the woman's name if you wish to share.

AGRBear


Bear, I think Dimitry means that he saw the woman's name on the report he read, but didn't write it down or make a point of remembering it, because he didn't think he'd ever be asked for it.  I don't think he's refusing to tell us the name!  :D

Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Eurohistory on March 25, 2005, 12:37:08 PM
Quote


But Arturo, you yourself have given information and then referred to unnamed sources -- both here and on atr.  For what good reason are Greg and I not allowed to do the same?


I have not participated in any ATR discussions in years.  

Anytime anyone has asked me to name a source, I have, when possible in public, when not, in private, done so....EVERY single time.  Besides what I post has not ever been as explosive as the comments posted here, not by you, but by others citing your work.  We, as interested historians, and others, have the right to ask for sourcing, particularly when many of us know Romanov descendants who have never met these claimants, or even ever, ever, heard of these people.

Not ONCE Penny...not ONCE...have I personally attacked you during this thread.  What I have done is ask and discuss the sourcing for these claims.  Again, if  something like this is posted in a public forum, then one  has to be ready to defend one's research, not more, not less. We did not bring you into this discussion, AGRBear did, and you came into it accusing us of destroying your sunday peace...read the posts before then...I was not attacking you...I have no reason to...I do not personally dislike you

I remember some years ago when I questioned a very well-known writer's findings, the author reacted by calling me all sorts of names in public and even going as far as putting my obituary online...real mature..others resort to even worse things...a sad episode to say the least and I lost all respect for this person.


Quote
Look, you people -- I don't know why you are going on and on and around and around about this.  The FA has ruled that my remarks were not out of order.  That should be the end of it, until such time as my George Alexandrovich research returns results.  And let me remind you that I am myself not all that interested in GA -- I am understaking this research, at my own expense, I might add, in order to satisfy not only your questions, but also to end this constant hounding of me.  Why do you do this to me?  If you don't like me -- and I'm not just refering to you, Arturo, though I do now count you among those who are out to make my life miserable here -- then stop the on-board commentary, which just wastes everyone's time; stop the private IMs and emails, which I just ignore -- and write to the FA and ask him to terminate my account.  I have told him that any time he wants me to stop posting, I will.  So, if you don't want me here, if you can't stand that I post stuff that you don't like -- DO SOMETHING CONSTRUCTIVE ABOUT IT -- and get me terminated.  Just stop wasting other people's time.


I have no interest, nor ulterior motive either, in making your life "miserable"...what we have done, even before you decided to jump in, is question the veracity of the claims made to you by someone who claims to descend from Grand Duke George Alexandrovich.

If I took everyone who has at one point or another criticised my work, or me personally, as an "enemy," goodness gracious there would be drawers full of them.

Quote
And don't worry -- even if I am terminated, I will still send the results of my George Alexandrovich research to the FA for posting.  I am a person of my word, you see.  And unlike some of you guys, I don't particularly care one way or the other if GA had lovers, wives, children, whatever -- but it is the absolute truth that at least one Romanov believes that he did.


So now it is "at least one Romanov" who believes George Alexandrovich had issue...I thought it had been suggested to have been more?  

That is not what has been posted here.  The fact that you are going about digging further into this issue with George Alexandrovich is great and will only, if that were the very remote case, make this person's claims, perhaps, more credible...but as it stands at the moment, nothing has been proven to accept them.

Arturo Beéche
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 25, 2005, 01:05:00 PM
Quote

Anytime anyone has asked me to name a source, I have, when possible in public,


Exactly.  "When possible, in public."  It was not possible to post it in public here.

Quote
when not, in private, done so....


I don't know these people here, Arturo.  Especially those who post under "user names."  Why should I trust them with private information when I don't even know their real names?

In any case, and as an historian, you must know this, when people give us information in private, we must respect that privacy.  Anyone reading this forum now knows that I will always protect a person's privacy -- online or off, in public or in private --  no matter what.  So in the end, I guess it's all good.

Quote
Besides what I post has not ever been as explosive as the comments posted here, not by you, but by others citing your work.  


Am I then responsible for what others write?

Quote
We, as interested historians, and others, have the right to ask for sourcing, particularly when many of us know Romanov descendants who have never met these claimants, or even ever, ever, heard of these people.


And I have the right to refuse to divulge my source, especially if I think that this issue is blown all out of proportion.  And do you know ALL Romanov descendants, Arturo?  And do you know for certain that they would tell you everything about their family business?  When you say that they have never, never heard of these people , I have a hard time believing it, as their existence is stated in several published places -- so they have at least to be aware of the rumors.  My informant is simply one who believes these rumors -- and as Greg said in his original statement, this gentleman has proof.  Proof that neither Greg nor I have seen, but proof that was enough for this lady.  That's all.  This is definitely a case of shooting the messenger.

Quote
Not ONCE Penny...not ONCE...have I personally attacked you during this thread....


Oh, come on, Arturo!  You know you have questioned my professionalism and my abilities as a historian -- if not directly, then indirectly with your snide little comments.

Quote

I was not attacking you...I have no reason to...I do not personally dislike you


Glad to hear it.  So now will you accept my explanation of the reasons why I will not tell you everything you want to know?  Will you now respect me as a historian?  Will you allow me the privilege of making my own decisions whether or not you agree with them?

Quote

I remember some years ago when I questioned a very well-known writer's findings, the author reacted by calling me all sorts of names in public and even going as far as putting my obituary online...real mature..others resort to even worse things...a sad episode to say the least and I lost all respect for this person.


This has nothing to do with me, so I have no idea why you bring it up here.

Quote

I have no interest, nor ulterior motive either, in making your life "miserable"...what we have done, even before you decided to jump in, is question the veracity of the claims made to you by someone who claims to descend from Grand Duke George Alexandrovich.


Then why attack me?  Why question my professionalism and ability as a historian if the issue is really the reliability of the person who told me and Greg?

Quote

So now it is "at least one Romanov" who believes George Alexandrovich had issue...I thought it had been suggested to have bene more?


Not suggested by me.  I have no idea if one or more than one or the whole lot of them believe this.  I have ever only mentioned the lady who told me.  And Greg referenced that the gentlemen in question had proof.  

Quote

That is not what has been posted here.  The fact that you are going about digging further into this issue with George Alexandrovich is great and will only, if that were the very remote case, make this person's claims, perhaps, more credible...but as it stands at the moment, nothing has been proven to accept them.


You don't have to accept them.  You don't even have to accept any proof one way or the other that I might find.  Do you remember the old saying "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it?"  Do you agree with this Arturo?  Because this basic human right is all that I am asking for...

Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Eurohistory on March 25, 2005, 01:15:55 PM
You have the right to say the sky is mauve, and water bright red, you have the right to ask for coffee instead of water, you have the right to state anything you wish.  But having the right to make statements does not mean that we lose our right to question these statements.

If I go about making the sort of statements that have been made here, then one has to know that one must be prepared to back them up, plain and simple.

As a historian, I personally welcome questions from readers...I do not write gospell truth, and even that can be flawed, but I do not go ballistic when someone dares questions me...it is part of trade we are in.

Arturo Beéche

Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: AGRBear on March 25, 2005, 02:14:51 PM
Quote

Bear, I think Dimitry means that he saw the woman's name on the report he read, but didn't write it down or make a point of remembering it, because he didn't think he'd ever be asked for it.  I don't think he's refusing to tell us the name!  :D



We're all reading the Enlish language but my interpretation was different.  Funny how that works.  Thanks for clearing this up for me.

I hope Dimitry will give us the woman's name.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: RichC on March 25, 2005, 03:26:46 PM
Quote

 doesn't TB leave a male sterile and unable to produce children of his own?


Not in all cases.  My grandfather had it and had kids while he was suffering from it.  He eventually died from it.  
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: rskkiya on March 25, 2005, 05:36:23 PM
Quote
Oh for goodness sake!

... but I think the pro-GA's descendants group need to abide by it to.


Sorry  ???
What is "pro-GA's"? I'm so lost

Rskkiya  

PS -Arturo, I just spotted your ealier post - BRAVO!
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Macedonsky on March 25, 2005, 05:49:47 PM
Quote
I hope Dimitry will give us the woman's name.

Dear AGRBear,

Name of this woman has no interest for me so I skip it when make extracts. I will not be able to share this woman name with anybody in near future. The Russian State Historical Archive is closed for public since March 1 until they finished moving to new location (*). Fund 468, roll 46, file 5.

(*) Their present residence in the former Senate & Synode buildings on the English enbankment of Neva river near the Bronze Horse was considered excessively rich. Putin's intendants need this masterpiece of the classicism much more. Our problem is that President Putin has only two dozen of residencies...  :'(
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 25, 2005, 05:58:07 PM
Quote
You have the right to say the sky is mauve, and water bright red, you have the right to ask for coffee instead of water, you have the right to state anything you wish.  But having the right to make statements does not mean that we lose our right to question these statements.

If I go about making the sort of statements that have been made here, then one has to know that one must be prepared to back them up, plain and simple.

As a historian, I personally welcome questions from readers...I do not write gospell truth, and even that can be flawed, but I do not go ballistic when someone dares questions me...it is part of trade we are in.

Arturo Beéche



Questions were asked, questions were answered -- but it didn't stop there, did it?

As for being a historian and welcoming questions -- are you saying that I don't welcome questions?  I certainly do -- just not the ones that are geared towards confrontation.  I also don't think anyone here who doesn't know me ought to be throwing stones at my personality -- we all know that the internet is a difficult medium and I have explained why I post defensively.

Look, again, here are the facts:  A family member told Greg and me that she believes that a man on the West Coast of the US is her relative through Grand Duke George Alexandrovich.  This is the truth. She did tell us this.  And I tend to believe her information, because I figure she's a good source.  You are welcome not to.  End of story.  If you (this is anyone "you," not just Arturo) want to know more, then get out and do some research, just like I am.  Then we can compare findings.  
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: AGRBear on March 25, 2005, 06:49:43 PM
Quote
Dear AGRBear,

Name of this woman has no interest for me so I skip it when make extracts. I will not be able to share this woman name with anybody in near future. The Russian State Historical Archive is closed for public since March 1 until they finished moving to new location (*). Fund 468, roll 46, file 5.

(*) Their present residence in the former Senate & Synode buildings on the English enbankment of Neva river near the Bronze Horse was considered excessively rich. Putin's intendants need this masterpiece of the classicism much more. Our problem is that President Putin has only two dozen of residencies...  :'(


If and when you come across this document again, would you be so kind to write down the woman's name and let us know what it is.

Thank you.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: AGRBear on March 25, 2005, 06:52:01 PM
Quote

Not in all cases.  My grandfather had it and had kids while he was suffering from it.  He eventually died from it.  


I was going to look back on the post to see who voiced this  same information earlier.  Was it you are someone else?



AGRBear
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: grandduchessella on March 25, 2005, 07:11:39 PM
Quote

Sorry  ???
What is "pro-GA's"? I'm so lost

Rskkiya  

PS -Arturo, I just spotted your ealier post - BRAVO!


pro-George Alexandrovich's (GA) descendants
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: rskkiya on March 25, 2005, 07:15:51 PM
Thanks for the clarification Granduchessella
I do feel quite the idiot...(insert icon of hand bashing dull head here!) ;)

rskkiya :P
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: grandduchessella on March 25, 2005, 07:35:38 PM
don't worry--it's not the first time my abbreviations have caused confusion.  :)
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Belochka on March 25, 2005, 10:35:51 PM
Quote
My informant is simply one who believes these rumors --... this gentleman has proof.  Proof that neither Greg nor I have seen, but proof that was enough for this lady.


Rumor + untested "proof" = a futile exercise for learned discussion. :-X
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: AGRBear on March 26, 2005, 10:00:36 AM
Thank goodness a few Vikings sailed passed the horizon or we'd still think the world was flat.  ;D

AGRBear
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: RichC on March 26, 2005, 11:12:07 AM
Quote

I was going to look back on the post to see who voiced this  same information earlier.  Was it you are someone else?



AGRBear



Me

I looked around on the internet but couldn't find anything that says tuberculosis definitely leads to sterility -- just that it can in some cases.  I did find one article about treating pregnant women who have tuberculosis...

Anyway, I believe that the path of argument which says that George could not have fathered children because he was physiclally unable is unsupported.  Of course it doesn't prove that he was a father either.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: AGRBear on March 26, 2005, 12:14:31 PM
Thanks Rich C.

-----

Alexander III died 20 Oct 1894 and George [Georgy, Georgii] Alexandrovich died at Abas-Tuman on 28 June 1899, which was more than four years after his father's death.

So, the permission of giving GD George permission to wed slipped from Alexander III to Nicholas II, who would give his brother GD Michael the right to marry, after the marriage had taken place, and gave GD Michael back his right to be the next Tsar/Emp. of Russia.

It does appears that some haven't thought about Nicholas II having such a soft heart could have been the one who gave his dying brother GD George permission for a morganatic marriage.
And, we can skip right on past Alexander III.  However, I do think Alexander III would have given his "favorite" son, GD George, permission in his dying years.  But who knows.  I don't have any proof one way or the other.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: LisaDavidson on March 26, 2005, 12:17:45 PM
Quote

pro-George Alexandrovich's (GA) descendants


As with "pro" and "anti" Anna Anderson, I do not consider myself "against" "George Alexandrovich's" descendants. What I am against, and will continue to be against, is saying that he had descendants. There is no proof of this at all.

There are rumors that this terminally ill young man living in the Caucasus in the 1890.'s was gay, had two wives, and apparently 4 children who had descendants. How ever did George manage all this sexual activity? Even in this day and age, I know men who have managed two of those three, but not all three. He must have been much more exceptional than my research indicated.

I have tried to politely sit by as this discussion has gone on. I do not fault Penny for mentioning that a Romanov descendant believes that GA had descendants. One hears unproven things that are believed by others all the time. It is the historian's job to decide how credible such beliefs are - how they stand up to known facts. to my knowledge, no one has come out in print with such an analysis - yet.

What I do find fault with is the unbridled seizing on such unproven data and wholeheartedly embracing rumors as facts. I've got to break it to you, AGR Bear et al, that Romanovs can be mistaken. They may actually  believe things that are untrue. I could cite several hundred actual examples of this fact as proof. If a Romanov believes someone is a GA descendant, why would any rational person believe it as gospel truth? Yet, I see this line of thinking all the time, and it is utterly illogical given the circumstances.

For the record, I did a reasonable amount research on GA's life. I consulted several doctors familiar with the treatment of tubercular patients in Europe in the 1890's. All medical opinions were that he likely had little or no sex life. The woman AGR Bear keeps referring to who found GA when he was dying was not one of his reputed "wives", she was a good Samaritan - a woman kind enough to help an unfortunate young man. The way rumors go around here, for her kindness I'm afraid she's next going to be turned into something else she was not for dramatic effect.

And, I don't like having to go into so much of my research on this board out of frustration at the irresponsibility of others. For whatever reasons, I am very excited about "The Grand Dukes" and excited about my chapter on George. I just wish the craziness would stop.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Penny_Wilson on March 26, 2005, 12:40:11 PM
When is "The Grand Dukes" being published, Lisa?  

If you like, if things develop in time, I can send you whatever documentation I am able to produce so that you can address this issue one way or another --  since there are so many contrary rumors circulating about George Alexandrovich's sex life...  8)


Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: AGRBear on March 26, 2005, 12:42:08 PM
I think between several posters the conversation about the woman who found GD George has shown a variety of possibilities.  I hope I didn't give the impression that I knew her to be a wife of GD George, however, I think that this was suggested in whatever book or article I did read it.  Which was followed by the fact that the woman met with Dowager Maria who wanted to know about her son's death....

The woman, who's name we do not know at this time, but may be in the document mentioned, could have been a stranger or she could have been his first wife, if married, or his second wife, if married.  I don't know.

As to his ability of having children, some think he could have had children and others think it probably couldn't.  Rich C. for one thinks it's possible due to their family's personal experience with tb.

I'm sorry that Lisa and others are thinking we just digging for "dirt" but that is not our intent.  

And, it appears that the Romanovs are similar to people here on this forum.  Each have their own opinions like we do here.  Can't dispute that fact.

So, back to the subject GD George.

How is his name actually spelled.  Is it George?  Is  Georgy or Georgii his nickname?

AGRBear
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: LisaDavidson on March 26, 2005, 01:17:36 PM
Quote
When is "The Grand Dukes" being published, Lisa?  

If you like, if things develop in time, I can send you whatever documentation I am able to produce so that you can address this issue one way or another --  since there are so many contrary rumors circulating about George Alexandrovich's sex life...  8)

Thanks Penny. I would love whatever you can forward my way.

I think it's coming out from Euro History this summer.


Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Eurohistory on March 26, 2005, 03:40:27 PM
The book Lisa Davidson has brilliantly contributed to is titled The Grand Dukes: Sons and Grandsons of Russia's Tsars, it is meant to be a companion volume to our previous book, The Grand Duchesses: Daughters and Granddaughters of Russia's Tsars, which Eurohistory.com published last September, and which we continue selling.

The Grand Dukes is scheduled for publication in July 2005.

Arturo Beéche
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Belochka on March 26, 2005, 07:42:11 PM
Lisa I look forward to your article very much! ;D

Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Olga on March 26, 2005, 09:08:04 PM
Quote
I hope I didn't give the impression that I knew her to be a wife of GD George....


*Bashes head on desk in frustration* AGRBear, on another thread you refered to 'Princess Orkowska, wife of GD George.'

Quote
How is his name actually spelled.  Is it George?  Is  Georgy or Georgii his nickname?


Just the other day you were lecturing me on the spelling of Russian names. With your German-Russian blood, shouldn't you know?
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Eurohistory on March 26, 2005, 10:28:53 PM
It is not an article Belochka, but a complete chapter in the upcoming book, a chapter entirely written by Lisa Davidson.

Arturo Beéche
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Belochka on March 26, 2005, 10:55:35 PM
Quote
It is not an article Belochka, but a complete chapter in the upcoming book, a chapter entirely written by Lisa Davidson.
Arturo Beéche


Thanks for your correction Arturo!  :D
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: AGRBear on March 27, 2005, 09:54:16 AM
Quote

*Bashes head on desk in frustration* AGRBear, on another thread you refered to 'Princess Orkowska, wife of GD George.'


Just the other day you were lecturing me on the spelling of Russian names. With your German-Russian blood, shouldn't you know?


Yes, I did call her wife of GD George on another thread.  Those are old posts.  And, I suppose I should go back and make notes with those posts that we're discussing if this is true or not on this thread.  

As for the spelling of GD George, since I've been looking at various books looking for some data,  I noticed that the spelling is George, Georgy and Georgii.  So, I as wondering which is it.

AGRBear

PS  It does appear I was, on another thread, saying I was in error when I spelled George  as Georg.  Then I talked about the various spellings of Orkowski.....
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: LisaDavidson on March 27, 2005, 10:03:23 AM
I believe the situation with George's name is similar to that with Nicholas'. A closer approximation of Nicholas' name in English is Nikolai, not Nicholas. But, the name itself has the same meaning. Writers generally use what will be most easily understood, hence we tend to refer to the Tsar's next brother as "George" even though "Georgei" may be a closer approximation of his actual name in English.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: AGRBear on March 27, 2005, 10:17:34 AM
Thanks Lisa.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Georgiy on March 28, 2005, 04:33:47 PM
It is Georgiy (or Georgii if you like) in Russian, both 'g's pronounced hard as in 'great'. So Gee-orr-gee is the pronunciation. George is just the English translation, as it is of Georg from German, Jorge from Spanish, Georges from French etc.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Helen_Azar on April 04, 2005, 03:10:59 PM
Today I was doing some reading for my Historical Archives course, and came upon a chapter that seemed very relevant to this thread. I am going to transcribe some of it here (and I highlighted some of the parts I thought were most relevant to this case).  

From: "Basic Research Methods for Librarians" 3rd ed, by Ronald R. Powell (1997).

_____________________________________________

Evaluation of Historical Sources

In selecting specific sources of data for historical study, it is critical that they be evaluated properly. The researcher should want to know if the sources are... substantial enough to be worthwhile and competent (i.e. genuine, accurate, and reasonable). The assessment of the criteria should involve two basic processes: external criticism and internal criticism.

External criticism, or the gathering of external evidence is done to determine if a source in fact provides authentic, primary data. Are the authors [sources]... what they purport to be? The process of external criticism is crucial to the credibility of historical research.  External criticism often cannot prove the authenticity of a source, but it can provide reasonable confidence that a particular source is authentic. To assess the authenticity… the investigator must use bibliographic techniques or draw upon expertise in a number of auxiliary disciplines…. He or she may need to utilize certain techniques of the physical sciences… In short, external criticism can involve physical, textual and/or bibliographical analysis.

Internal criticism: Having decided that the document or a source is genuine, the researcher should then confirm the validity and reliability of its contents. He or she is concerned, at this point, with what the source says (i.e. its meaning, accuracy, and general trustworthiness). Internal criticism is generally more demanding than external criticism and it too is often difficult, if not impossible, to achieve with absolute certainty… Some evidence of internal validity can be gained by considering the reputation and integrity of the author… comparing facts within the document [or source] with the writings of other authors considered authoritative… When evaluating the internal evidence of a document [or source]:
1. Do the real meanings of words differ from their literal meanings?
2. How well could the author [source] have observed the things he or she is reporting?
3. Are there internal contradictions?
4. Are any statements improbable?
5. Are factual data in agreement with standard reference works?
6. Does the document [source] seem to call for further corroboration?

Additional questions could be:

Did the historian have full access to all of the relevant documents, or were some withheld from him or her? Was the author of the document biased? And finally, what significance does the document [person] have as a source of information?
____________________________________________

These general guidelines would also closely apply to some other threads here, particularly the AA/FS threads...

I hope this will be helpful to some.

Helen





Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: AGRBear on April 04, 2005, 07:39:16 PM
Tonight I'm going to wish on a star for all the kind of evidence you'd like us to have Helen.

There is only one problem which I can forsee:  When we all wake up in the morning we will all still have our own opinions as to what the evidence is  ::).

AGRBear  ;D
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: AGRBear on June 24, 2005, 09:54:34 AM
I've been told that Georgi can also be spelled Yurgi.

Has anyone discovered any new information on GD George and his life?

AGRBear
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Belochka on June 25, 2005, 02:13:46 AM
Quote
I've been told that Georgi can also be spelled Yurgi.  AGRBear


The name "Yura" perhaps is what the Bear had in mind?  ;) Da?
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Richard_Schweitzer on June 25, 2005, 03:52:16 PM
Nyet, as I wrote AGR, probably YURI; but that was probably not as common with German-descended aristocrats. Still, Dr. Botkin named one of his sons YURI.

RRS
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Candice on June 25, 2005, 07:15:13 PM
What's in a name? that which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet.

Candice
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Belochka on June 25, 2005, 08:18:55 PM
Quote
Nyet, as I wrote AGR, probably YURI; but that was probably not as common with German-descended aristocrats. Still, Dr. Botkin named one of his sons YURI.

RRS


Its all the same. Yuri would say that his name was Yura!  ;)
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Belochka on June 25, 2005, 08:23:55 PM
Quote
What's in a name? that which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet.

Candice


Not all roses have an aroma, yet they are still roses!

Correct identification can be critical depending on the requirement.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: AGRBear on June 26, 2005, 09:53:57 PM
Oops!  Bear made a mistake.  Richard did tell me Yuri and for some reason,  my GR brain, pushed in the "g" for  Yurgi.  Sorry, Richard.  Glad you caught my error.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: bezim on December 06, 2005, 09:32:54 PM
Quote


I presume you are referring to "Tsar: The Lost World of Nicholas and Alexandra"?  Peter doesn't quite say what you write above.  On page 40, he writes: "Gossip spread like wildfire, since both of the Georges in Nicholas's company, his brother and his cousin, were homosexual.  There was talk of male brothels and 'unspeakable acts,' and the rumor even got around that George of Greece had played a role in provoking the attack by insulting the honor of a Japanese boy.  This story, unfounded, was favored by Queen Victoria."

Peter clearly says these were rumors-and indeed I've encountered a lot of similar gossip about Prince George of Greece on the trip in a variety of sources.

That Prince George of Greece was gay was well known-he had an enduring relationship with another close royal male relative.

WHO WAS THIS OTHER CLOSE MALE RELATIVE?

bezim
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: grandduchessella on December 06, 2005, 11:32:38 PM
It was his uncle Prince Waldemar of Denmark. There's a thread on them in the Greek Royal Section, I believe.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: imperial angel on December 07, 2005, 08:47:16 AM
This is all fascinating, because I never knew that it was possible that Grand Duke George could have married morgantically and had kids or that he might have been gay ( I don't he was, except for maybe afffair or two or experimentation). I think lots of males of this family were but that Grand Duke George was, is doubtful. As for marriages this is possible, because it must have been lonely in the Causcus, and he would not have been married to any royal Princess because of his fragile health. Otherwise, gay or not, he would have most likely married a dynastically suitable partner. I think we have to remember he died really young, and did not get out very much, and was in precarious health in his young adult years.

Also we need to remember that there is little documentation regarding him and anything, much less these sorts of issues. He is a rather shadowy figure, who might have played a important role if he lived but who never got to play one. But more than either of his brothers, he might have been suited to play this role, if he had been given the opportunity. He might have had a stronger character.. but we will never know.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Marlene on December 09, 2005, 10:09:00 AM
Quote
This is all fascinating, because I never knew that it was possible that Grand Duke George could have married morgantically and had kids or that he might have been gay ( I don't he was, except for maybe afffair or two or experimentation). I think lots of males of this family were but that Grand Duke George was, is doubtful. As for marriages this is possible, because it must have been lonely in the Causcus, and he would not have been married to any royal Princess because of his fragile health. Otherwise, gay or not, he would have most likely married a dynastically suitable partner. I think we have to remember he died really young, and did not get out very much, and was in precarious health in his young adult years.

Also we need to remember that there is little documentation regarding him and anything, much less these sorts of issues. He is a rather shadowy figure, who might have played a important role if he lived but who never got to play one. But more than either of his brothers, he might have been suited to play this role, if he had been given the opportunity. He might have had a stronger character.. but we will never know.


The story about Georg marrying and having children is bogus ... never happened.  It would have been largely impossible for George to have married due to his frail health - and such a marriage would have been discussed by family members, due to his position as second in line to the throne.  
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: imperial angel on December 09, 2005, 10:34:27 AM
Yes, it is true that it is unlikely this happened, and you would know. I don't  think we have enough material to speculate, and we ought not to give credence to rumours. I don't believe it or anything unless there is evidence, and in this case, there isn't any, as you stated. And for being gay, well, I don't know either because he died really young, and it is not clear as it is with some other Grand Dukes, unless there is hard evidence, there isn't much we can say, and I did not start this question, had never heard of any marriages before, etc. He is a shadowy figure, and because of this, there is little to say about whether he was gay, married, or would have made a good Czar. It is interesting to speculate, about things, but as you stated if there is no firm grounds for speculation, we ought no to do it, at all.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: LisaDavidson on December 09, 2005, 01:25:34 PM
I have discussed at length the gay rumors mentioned in "Tsar" with Peter Kurth. Turns out PK was told of the rumors by Edvard Radzinsky, no great fan of historical truth and accuracy. So, even the rumors it seems must be taken with more than a grain of salt.

I also consulted several medical experts and all agreed that GA's ability to sustain an adult sexual relationship would have been very limited.

I did this in preparing a chapter I've written for the upcoming "Grand Dukes" book - to be published by eurohistory.com.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: imperial angel on December 12, 2005, 10:51:42 AM
Very interesting info about Grand Duke George. What we tend to loose sight of is that whatever his inclinations, his health was not of the best to do anything.I am glad that those rumours about his marriages were just rumours. It does not sound like him.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: doug__h on December 12, 2005, 05:04:18 PM
As a relative newcomer to this site, I am astounded that whether someone is/was gay or not sets so many people off, some recoiling in horror hoping it can't be so, and others doing their best to dismiss the sources that suggest it might be possible.
Of course, I live in Canada where same sex couples can openly get married, so it's no big deal.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: grandduchessella on December 12, 2005, 06:51:49 PM
Well, as someone who doesn't care pesonally, I agree.

However, as someone who also wants historical accuracy, I don't see something wrong with trying to prove whether they were rumors designed to harm someone (which is what would've been the result given the times) or whether they were actually true. There is genuine conflict over whether various people were gay or not and whether it was speculation based on the fact they were unmarried, fit the stereotype or had an especially nasty divorce--see GD Ernst of Hesse.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: imperial angel on December 13, 2005, 09:54:08 AM
I was refering to rumours of morgantic marriages to women of Grand Duke George, not men. I think we can never know if he was gay, bisexual, or straight, unless more research is done. His health was never very good, so if his inclinations were something, he might not even have acted on them.I think he is a shadowy figure, and we have little evidence of these things. That said, if anyone has evidence of anything, and are authoritative, let them tell me.
I am no researcher into the life of Grand Duke George, but I have read many books. It does not much matter if someone was anything if it didn't affect the fate of Russia or any other country. I have nothing against anybody of any persuasion.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: LisaDavidson on December 13, 2005, 03:43:18 PM
There is no evidence of George having a sex life period. This in no way means that I have sought to dismiss rumors about his being gay or having a morganatic spouse. My research indicates that after a point, he would have had difficulty having a regular sexual relationship with anyone be they man, woman, or barnyard animal. That this could get twisted into my somehow not wanting him to be gay is beyond me. All I want is accuracy, not fantasy. There were always rumors about the grand dukes and sex, and many of these were untrue. I believe the rumors about GA being gay are untrue for a variety of reasons previously outlined.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: PrinceEddy1864 on December 14, 2005, 04:36:35 PM
Quote
There is no evidence of George having a sex life period. This in no way means that I have sought to dismiss rumors about his being gay or having a morganatic spouse. My research indicates that after a point, he would have had difficulty having a regular sexual relationship with anyone be they man, woman, or barnyard animal. That this could get twisted into my somehow not wanting him to be gay is beyond me. All I want is accuracy, not fantasy. There were always rumors about the grand dukes and sex, and many of these were untrue. I believe the rumors about GA being gay are untrue for a variety of reasons previously outlined.



interesting....

I know its not super important, but ill be honest I have thought about this in the past...

Lisa you say after a certain point Georgie's health would have made it impossible for him to carry on sexual relations of any kind and this seems completly acurate and understandable. But when was this point? I mean he was sickly all his life. I do feel that he must have had a sexual experience with someone at some point in his life. As I personally dont believe he ever married I wonder who this individual(s) could have been. I just find it hard to believe that he, well, never had sex.  

Sorry I think this has probably been discussed but I never joined in before this thread...i dont think  :D
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Georgiy on December 14, 2005, 08:24:23 PM
Why would it be so strange if he never did? I am not saying that everyone in those days was chaste until marriage - possibly far from it, however, there was far less societal obsession and pressure to be doing it left, right and centre than there is these days. Also apart from his health, what about his religious convictions? How important was his religion to GD George? This could also play a big role as to whether he was 'experienced' or not.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Tania+ on December 15, 2005, 11:00:51 AM
Lol, chuckle, chuckle. As I read through this particular post I saw how many times 'sexual' was offered, but it was pointed out that this was not relevant, but the point was made for sure.

But I still go back to Georgiy's statement of Dec 14, and this makes more sense to me. Guess it only matters to what degree what one's need to really have answers to and go on from there...because in the end it really matters nought, as they are now deceased, and there are more important issues and subject matters to address.  ;)

Tatiana

Quote
I personally think it is VERY hard to believe. Perhaps that is just my opinion.

We know that Nicholas had pre-marital relations. Not to mention numerous other Grand Dukes and Princes. So I dont think George would have likely been any more against pre-marital sex/relationships than anyone else in his family seemed to be. I know of course that he and Nicholas were two different people etc. but they were still raised side by side.

I want to make it clear that I am not only thinking of him having sexual relations but of him having romantic relationships in general. These of course would likely have a sexual side to them but that would only be part of it. As I personally do not think he was homosexual, I see these relationships being with women.  

Also I dont see George's desire, if in fact he had any, to have relationships or sexual relations as having anything to do with societal norms/values. It is to me based in nature and more importanly human nature. I mean people are people.

i hope i worded this all correctly..i tried. hope it is not offensive either.  :)

Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: imperial angel on December 16, 2005, 09:53:56 AM
Yes, this is really an unimportant subject as it is true that whatever Grand Duke George's inclinations were, then they never effected the fate of a country or anything else. And it is hard to know, we will never know, and it doesn't much matter if we do know. I don't want to be misinterpreted, but if we don't know anything, and the kind of research that could or coudn't prove anything isn't done, and/or it is something we could not do, then it is useless to speculate. I personally doubt he was anything other than streight, and he apparrently never made any rumoured morgantic marriages, and his health wasn't good so it limited what he could do. But this kind of topic is only important to him as an individual, and a member of the imperial family because he died so young, with the depths of his personality, and abilities mostly unrevealed.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: rjt on December 18, 2005, 03:19:28 PM
Quote
Guess it only matters to what degree what one's need to really have answers to and go on from there...because in the end it really matters nought, as they are now deceased, and there are more important issues and subject matters to address.  ;)

Tatiana


If one takes this argument only in its entirety, then this board and the entire study of history is rendered pointless. [Because, as you say, they're all deceased and there exist matters of present importance to address (such as the "War on Terror" or what's for dinner).]

However, if one understands that various and sundry aspects of one's personality impact one's beliefs, decisions and actions, then one may begin to comprehend how the Grand Duke's sexuality (and whether or not he acted upon these urges) may have influenced his life. As example, imagine if no one ever discovered Konstantin Konstantinovich's diaries and never knew of his torturous struggle with his natural sexuality. To say that this never influenced his life would be incorrect. Therefore, in the pursuit of historical truth and context, one's sexuality is important, no matter if hetero, homo or bi.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: imperial angel on December 19, 2005, 11:00:32 AM
Speculating about someone's sexuality is important when dealing some people in history, and not important to others. I think dealing with some people it is very important, and dealing with others not very much at all. If it has an important impact in a country, or in culture, literature, art, entertainment, or some other place than their personal life, then it is relevant to speculate about the person involved's sexuality.If someone's personal life had a great impact on their work, be it literature, art or music, or whatnot, then it is important to speculate.
Otherwise, I think deciding if it has relevance to speculate on someone's sexuality to that person's life is a matter of individual opinion. If there is evidence one way or the other then it isn't even speculation to say anything.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: hikaru on January 12, 2006, 04:14:59 AM
When I saw a statement that Nicholas was attacked in Japan because two Georgys - Georgy Alexandrovich and Georgy of Greece visited an all male brothels, made me sick and laugh.
If Mr. Curth really wrote it, it is very pitty.
Georgy went with Nicholas to a big voyage to the East as the junior marine officer of fregate "Pamyaty Azova".
As the junior marine officer he had to behave as marine officer but not as a tourist. He did  it perfectly.
But..... Poor Georgy never went to Japan, because
he had to leave the voyage at tne beginning of the January 1891 in Bombey (India) cause of tuberculosis attack. ( by the way,the reason was an Italian woman from who he returned to the fregate using a motor boat.  So he catched a cold which tranformed to a tuberculosis). It wasa real tragedy and  real end of life for him, for russian navy ( officers liked him a lot)
As for Nicholas  and Prince Georgy of Greece , they were full of life and they continued their voyage.
They entered to Japan on 15th April (old calendar) 1891.
Grand Duke Georgy Alexandrovitch was extremely
high estimated by  all naval officers. I am doubt if they would do it, if they know that he was a homosexual.
There is also a rumour that Georgy and Nicholas had a
quarrel cause of Kshessinskaya.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Alixz on January 12, 2006, 07:20:05 AM
It is always supposed that George Alexandrovich was a "shadowy" figure, but if one keeps researching, just about every book on the Romanovs, has some little tid bit about him.

In Little Mother of Russia by Coryne Hall (and I know this book is out of print and hard to find and expensive when it is found) he is mentioned quite often.

It would seem that Empress Marie did not even know ( or did not believe) he had tuberculosis as late as 1891 when he was sent on the Eastern cruise.

George A took part in a number of family trips and excursions.  After he returned home in 1891, he went with Dagmar to the south of France.

By 1894, he was living permanently in the Caucasis, but seems to have had "fun".    "Nicholas occasionally visited him and they went sleighing, played skittles and had some lively dinners.  Sometimes George was able to join his family in the Crimea, but most of the time he lived alone."

In May 1895, his health seemed to be improving and Dagmar went to the Caucasus to spend time with him and they "spent many happy days exploring the surrounding courtyside before she returned to Russia in time for the birth of Xenia's first child."

"When Nicholas became Emperor, George was proclaimed 'Grand Duke Tsarevitch' and Ataman of the Cossacks."  George was the nearest in age to Nicholas and the most intellegent."

"According to one source George was "married" to a woman whose name is unkown and whom he rejected in 1883.  A child is supposed to have been born from this union.  The same souce says that George then contracted a morganatic marriage in 1894 with a lady named Orkovska (or Orkanowska), who was born in 1873.  From this marriage he had two sons and a daughter, who were given the surname of Romanovsky. (This info is footnoted as "Information from Genealogica Gotha, p396. Provided and translated from Swedish by Ted Rosvall.)

 However unlikely this sounds, it would be nice to think that George had the consolation of some female company, if not a wife, in his lonely exile." (This is Ms Hall's comment.)

"In March 1896 Dagmar, Olga and Michael joined Georgie at La Turbie in the South of France."

In 1899, "Dagmar paid her usual visit to Georgie.  His health was deteriorating and he now spent part of most winters in Algiers.  The Grand Duke was studying the history of the Caucasus and had gathered an extensive library of books on the subject.  He was also Honorary Chairman of the Astronomical Society and paid for the construction of Russia's first high altitude observatory, which was bulit on his Abbas Touman estate and named after him.  He now found walking difficult because of his shortness of breath and, to Dagmar's dismay, had begun to ride out alone on a motor-cycle, although strictly forbidden to do so by the doctors."

"Two weeks later bad news arrived.  Georgie had been out alone on his motor-cycle and some hours later, when he failed to return, his worried staff sent out a search party.  By the time they found him it was too late.  A peasant woman had discovered him collapsed at the side of the road, blood oozing from his mouth as he struggled to breathe.  She supported him in her arms until he died.  He was just twenty-eight."

Disclaimer:  I tried to copy and type as accurately as possible the excepts from Ms. Hall's book.  Any mess ups are mine.

But IMHO, just like Alexis after him, George seems to have a "dare devil complex" and wanted as "normal" a life as he could have.

Like Prince John of England after him, he was separated from his family by his illness and even though Dagmar seems have been more attentive than Queen Mary was to PJ, it had to have been hard to be separated from everything that was going on around him.

Was his life important?  I think so.  Had he been able to stay closer to Nicholas, who knows what might have been different.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: hikaru on January 12, 2006, 09:51:48 AM
A lot of naval officers of those time thought that if
Georgy would be in good health, he might be the Tsar , instead of Nicholas.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: grandduchessella on January 12, 2006, 10:12:47 AM
I'd written this in a prior thread (but have corrected all my typos  ;) ):

In late 1890, GA was due to accompany NII on his Far East tour. Not long into the trip, however, the first ominous signs of the tuberculosis would appear, though they weren't not recognized as such. It necessitated him, much against his will, in being put off the ship at Bombay for fear that continuing on would cause him harm. She wrote to NII: 'You can't imagine in what anguish I have passed these last few days on account of poor Georgie's condition. In spite of all my reasoning and the good will I had to take things calmly, and to tell myself that it isn't as bad as all that and still less dangerous...I was in a state of terrible anxiety at being too far away to hear news, fearing that something was being hidden from me, and knowing that he was alone without you to take care of him and to keep him in order; for I know that Georgie will listen to no one and believes that it is shameful to look after oneself a little.'

I don't know if this attitude was instilled by AIII but it's a theme that MF would repeat (how embarrassed G was about his physical weakness and having to 'give into' it).

It was believed that this illness was malaria and that once he returned home (though because of fever not directly as it was so cold in Russia but rather go to Greece) it would return. Distressed at being so far away, this delay nonetheless cauesd MF to write 'it was all the same a most disquieting piece of news for us and my heart fell when Papa told me.' Again she writes that she knows this will humiliate G to leave at all but 'he must think of his own good...no argument is possible; we must accept the decision and make him come back. It distresses me very much for him, for no one knows better than I the despair of poor Georgie who will feel humiliated, though there is really nothing humiliating in it, for anyone may fall ill; but he take it that way and this idea is so painful to me.' She hoped to be able to join him if he was obliged to spend any length of time in a better climate as she wouldn't be 'able to stay quietly here, it would be asking too much of me...I have full and unlimited confidence in God and am certain he will do all for the best.'

In Jan 1891 she wrote to N that she is 'so terribly anxious just now, knowing how unwell Georgie has been and how poorly he must be looking. What makes it worse is that I know he never looks after himself properly and never listens to advice.' She implores Nicholas to tell him that he must be careful and listen to advice as he had promised to do and not 'look upon every illness as something to be ashamed of and so hide it. This is too stupid because, even last time, if he had complained soon enough, perhaps his high temperature..and the pain etc. could have been avoided. And Rombach writes to say he had acute bronchitis...which, without proper care could easily have gone to the lungs. I am terribly upset by all this...' She is glad that G has been let off at Bombay to begin the trip home with the stop at Greece but realizes G's 'absolute despair at leaving both you and his dear frigate, above all just now when he was beginning to recover and to feel well; it must have seemed to him useless and exaggerated. But as the fever continued it would have  been criminal to let him go on...as all the doctors were of the opinion that the climate of the tropics was dangerous and impossible for him while the fever lasted.'  

By Feb 1891 G was still ill when he arrives at Greece and the weather so cold that he was leaving for Algiers for several weeks. 'His temperature is still up...the condition is caused by an inflammation of the lung and a pleurisy, with which Georgie was going about the last three months nobody taking any notice of it! I cannot  possibly understand how this could have happened.' She blames his doctor, Smirnoff, for not catching the signs, even if G was hiding them and for Nikolai Nikolaievich  for not exempting him from duty and ordering him to wear flannel as he had promised MF he would. 'Poor Georgie has suffered cruelly from the consequences, not to speak of the terrible anxiety we had to go through.' She still regrets his absence and separation lamenting that for her 'it is terribly sad to know that he is so lonely and that I am unable to join him. I have just had a short letter from him..from which I conclude that he is happy enough at present...he was able to resume his duties on deck.' It was even thought beneficial for him to be out as much as possible in the 'open air which is so much better than the stuffy wardroom and the smoke there.'

In May 1891 MF was at last reunited with G when she journeys to meet him at Livadia en route to St Petersburg and writes to Nicholas that he 'cannot possibly imagine how happy I am to be with my dearest Georgie at last! I nearly fainted with joy...how can I describe my delight at being able to press him to my heart again and to feel him so near after those interminable months of dreadful suspense and anxiety. At first sight he appears to be well...but there is something so sad in his eyes that is stabs me to the heart; it is true, he expression has always been somewhat melancholy, but now it is much, much more so. Apart from that, he is gay and happy and so pleased to be at home with the family again.' For her, his joy confirms her decision to come and meet him early. There's still some worry though as 'emotion still makes his temperature go up and he coughs a little now and then so, obviously, the illness is still there' but it is mixed with hopefulness as 'the dotor is pleased with his condition and says that he can be completely cured if he is well looked after and spends another, or perhaps the next two winters, in Algiers.' Already plans are in the works for him to go to the mountains in August but he's improving and gaining in weight  and his temperature has returned to normal.

G was staying in the Caucuses in Nov 1892 when N was able to spend several weeks with him (including G's name day) which brought him (N) much happiness as the 2 brothers spent many happy times there full of romps and fun. Things would continue on this up and down pattern but gradually worsen. By mid-1894 N would write to MF that he was glad that G 'feels more confident after the conversation with Zakharyin: his morale has a great effect on his general physical condition.' At this point, AIII's health is worsening as well, adding to G's loneliness and MF's despair. 'Thank God he hopes to be able to come to Spala; that keeps up his spirit a little and helps him to bear the great disappointment of not returning...he was so sure of it...Poor Georgie! He was so certain he would be at Xenia's wedding and remain till yours--just think how cruel the disappointment must have been for him! Life is really too sad for him: it is wonderful with what fortitude he bears it, without a moment of complaint. I am deeply grieved by this that the tears come to my eyes when I think of it and of the incessant suffering and sorrow our poor little Georgie has had to bear all through these last four years. Yes, indeed, it is a terrible ordeal and for me and Papa doubly so because we are suffering not only for him but also because it is so terribly hard to see one's child suffer and not to be able to relieve it! But God alone knows why He imposes this heavy cross upon us, and we have to carry its burden with patience and resignation....'

After her widowhood, MF tried to spend more time with G for his sake and her own. They would make a visit to Denmark in August 1895 which would come to a frightening conclusion. She would write to N about a sudden turn for the worse on G's part: 'Yesterday in the garden he expectorated some blood; that frightened me again more than I can tell--the surprise of it was shocking, because he had been so well of late, so happy...it really is too sad and I am utterly miserable about it and grieved to the heart to part with him again, but I wish now he were already safely back [in the Caucuses]...Doctor Chigayeff is very reliable and has Georgie's confidence, which is very fortunate. The haemorrhage, he assures me, does not alarm him much--it is the railway journey he is really very anxious about; that is why he wants to keep Georgie quietly to his bed here till he has quite recovered...Fortunately, he has no temperature and the last two days has been coughing much less...he is as patient and sweet as a lamb...He must not talk, but he likes people to come and see him and to hear them talk. Victoria and Maud are so nice and kind to him--they stay in his room often and humour him as much as they can.'

G would return to the Caucuses and MF again join him in between Olga's birth and the coronation where she found him in good condition (Mar 1896) and they would journey onto the South of France for physical and mental relief. 'Thank God Georgie is better again and spent some time sitting on the balcony..He is so careful now...never does anything imprudent, just sits quietly in his armchair and does not even go out into the garden, although it is so beautifully warm there. I am certain fresh air can do him nothing but good, but I think he is afraid that the slightest movement might upset him, which is quite natural, of course, after having been so ill twice and forced to keep to his bed. But it is more than annoying, as it makes him lead such a secluded life, never leaving his room.'
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: imperial angel on January 17, 2006, 10:14:31 AM
Grand Duke George is often supposed to be a shadowy figure, and he is in the way that he might be mentioned all over, but it is pretty shallow mentions, just he did that, or this,etc. So in this sense he has never been at all shadowy. But we don'nt really know his life or chracter to the depths, and we likely never will, as we do with Nicholas and Alexandra, know as much about him, as we know about them. He died young, and never got his chance to make his impact, which might hot have been much or might have been quite a bit. It is true to say he had potential, and that this might have developed into a ability for things that his other brothers could never have had. Doubtless, he had his own strengths.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: AGRBear on April 14, 2006, 04:16:18 PM

Quote from: Jorge Saenz  link=1078465195/0#10 date=1078600788
Just my two cents on Grand Duke Georgy's alleged marriage: in the Enciclopedia Universal Europeo Americana, a very reliable and most detailed encyclopaedia published in 70 volumes in Madrid in 1905-1930, which is full of biographical data on royals, it is said that Grand Duke Georgy Alexandrovich "married morganatically princess Orkowska, who gave him three children". When I first read that in the encyclopaedia, I thought it was just a mistake, since the Gotha and other reliable sources made no mention of such wedding. However, reading Mr. Greg King's post, now I guess it was a somehow widespread rumor in the early XXth century.
Who made mlle. Orkowska a princess for the encyclopaedia, that I don't know...

So, Georg may have had not just one wife but possibly two wives and four children before his death:
After spending his final years remote from the court, Georgy Alexandrovich died at Abas-Tuman on 28 June 1899.

Many posters deny even the possibility that Georg was in any kind of relationship.  One reason was his health but people who contact TB often had children so I'm not sure this is a reason I'm wiling to agree.  Of course, in the final stages,  when too weak or ill to rise up out of his death bed, of course,  then this would not be a a time he would had a relationship with anyone.  Another reasons suggested was that Georg would not have gone against tradition which would have included permission from his father Tsar Alex. III. .  Just because there doesn't appear to be a formal letter giving permission doesn't mean Tsar Alex. III as a man and father would have forbidden his son some happiness for the short time he had to live.

Was Georgi married once or twice?  I don't know.

Was all of this just rumor that was repeated?  I don't know.

It was would interesting to know if any letters between family and Georgi survived and what was said.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: AGRBear on April 14, 2006, 04:54:05 PM
Greg King's statement just adds to my curosity about Georgi's life in the Caucasus.

Quote

...[in part]...

...George's time in the Caucasus, where he was said to have contracted not one but two morganatic marriages, the first with a native Caucasian woman in 1893 shortly after arriving at Abbas Touman.  The union, said to have produced a child, was dissolved after two years.  In 1894, he was believed to have contracted a second morganatic marriage, this time with a local woman, Mlle. Orkovska, who bore him two sons and a daughter.  These children, allegedly given the surname of Romanovsky, as well as firm evidence to support either of the two unions, disappeared after the Revolution. ............

Greg King

AGRBear
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: David_Pritchard on April 15, 2006, 02:42:04 AM
[size=14]Mrs. Bear,

I see that you have a new fixation and for a lack of fresh information you are recycling old speculative posts.

I did a search of the word 'orkovska' and found it in hundreds of Polish language web pages, almost everyone of them dealing with the game Dungeons and Dragons or other science fiction games. As I do not possess a Polish dictionary, I will speculate from the text that an 'orkovska' is some sort of imaginary creature.

I also searched variants of this suppossed surname of the Polish mystery bride, Orkovski, Orkowski, Orkovsky, Orkowsky, Orkovskaya, Orlovski, Orlovsky with no luck. I did however find many hundreds of entries for one Prince Dmitri Vassilovich Orlowsky, but he is similar the 'orkovska', meaning a fictional character from Johann Strauss' opera Die Fledermaus.

I do not believe that it would have been possible for a Tsesarevich Grand Duke to hide two secret wives and four secret children or for this secret to have remained as such after his death.

David[/size]
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: LisaDavidson on April 15, 2006, 10:01:53 AM
The problem with dredging up old threads is that so much of this has already been discussed. As to the alleged marriages of GD George and the alleged children, here's the Reader's Digest condensed version from this thread:

1. There were in fact rumors about these marriages circulating in Imperial Russia. However, there were many rumors about the sexual behavior of the Imperial Family and many of these proved to be false. Examples - Alexandra being Rasputin's mistress and George's good Samaritan being one of the "wives".

2. There is no documented evidence of these wives or these children.

3. A current member of the Family apparently said they believe that George had children. However, that family member has no evidence to support this belief.

4. I have researched in particular George's illness and death. I consulted medical professionals. In their opinion, without getting too graphic, they do not believe he would have been physically capable of the regular sexual relations one would associate with one wife, let alone two, or of siring one child, let alone four, during the time period rumored.

5. In spite of the evidence I have collected and reported here - ahead of publication, I might add, and the lack of the documented evidence of these children and wives, our AGR Bear remains "curious". You gotta love her.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: imperial angel on April 19, 2006, 11:37:41 AM
Well, it is unlikely he had any relationships there ending in marriage, children or both. His health, tradition, no documented evidence beyond a doubt, and the fact that rumours like these where always rather common, goor or not, true or not. I think there is another thread somewhere that harps on this topic too, when it seems there isn't any evidence. But in some ways we don't know that much about George, and his life, and what he was like. Might, if he had lived to become Tsar, the monarchy have been saved? Perhaps, but how can we evaluate this? By knowing what he was like, not debating rumours about him. Perhaps because he was a bit shadowy due to his early death,  bad health, and being away from Russia during the last years of his life, is the reason we even debate things like this.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Yseult on April 19, 2006, 03:24:09 PM
Can I share with you one idea that flies through my mind as I was reading this thread?

Here in Spain, we often say: "Cuando el río suena, agua lleva". It means that rumours usually have some connection with the truth. Not always, of course, but usually. One exemple: all the gossip about Alexandra and Rasputin being lovers. We know they were not lovers, but we know also that the empress depended so much on the false starets because he could release little Alexei from a deep, deep suffer. People, at this time, had not info about the illness of the little tsarevich and how much the situation of her son hurted the empress, so, as they could not understand the relationship between Alexandra and the starets, they imagined a romance.

It could be that George never had two wives, neither four sons, but...could it be that he had a woman so close to him that people gossiped about secret marriages and babies? As I was reading "Little Mother of Russia" I was so impressed about the isolation and loneliness of George, so I suppose that if the young grand duke had a romance with a girl, the family could understand it and managed it with great care.

(Sorry for my bad english).

Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: imperial angel on April 20, 2006, 10:18:36 AM
That is possible, I woudn't rule that out. Thanks for sharing with us. I agree that there is usually something to suggest a rumour, either a sitiuation that suggests something more that is not said, and hence the rumour, or something that someone thinks needs further explanation, that they percieve as unknown or shadowy, even if there is nothing there. Perhaps your theory could explain it. I certainly never read about any wives or children of Grand Duke George's before this thread, and perhaps another one. It is has been speculated as well that Gtand Duke George may have been homosexual; one source even calls him so, but again, there isn't any hard evidence, just rumour, and speculation.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: RealAnastasia on April 21, 2006, 12:18:12 AM
Quote
Can I share with you one idea that flies through my mind as I was reading this thread?

Here in Spain, we often say: "Cuando el río suena, agua lleva". It means that rumours usually have some connection with the truth. Not always, of course, but usually. One exemple: all the gossip about Alexandra and Rasputin being lovers. We know they were not lovers, but we know also that the empress depended so much on the false starets because he could release little Alexei from a deep, deep suffer. People, at this time, had not info about the illness of the little tsarevich and how much the situation of her son hurted the empress, so, as they could not understand the relationship between Alexandra and the starets, they imagined a romance.

It could be that George never had two wives, neither four sons, but...could it be that he had a woman so close to him that people gossiped about secret marriages and babies? As I was reading "Little Mother of Russia" I was so impressed about the isolation and loneliness of George, so I suppose that if the young grand duke had a romance with a girl, the family could understand it and managed it with great care.

(Sorry for my bad english).



You said it wonderfully, Yseult. Something, the truth is between the extremes. I think (but it's only an opinion) that Georgy DIDN'T have any child, nor a wife. But perhaps he loved a woman deeply, who took care of him and loved him too. Is it was the case (and I do not see any sin in this kind of relationships since they are not promiscuous), people could have started some gossips.

Gossips, as you know, could be very close to the truth. But they ARE NOT the truth.

RealAnastasia.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: imperial angel on April 21, 2006, 08:22:05 AM
Yes, it's just my opinion as well, that it's unlikely that Prince George had a wife or children, but that doesn't rule out anything else. It would be rather surprising, even considering his health, if at one time or another, he  didn't care for somebody, perhaps deeply. He must have lonely away from his family, not that there is any hard evidence of anything. There could be some truth to this is rumour, or perhaps not. But it interesting to speculate how this started, if in fact there could be a grain of truth in it.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: AGRBear on April 24, 2006, 11:34:25 PM
Evidently, there are members of the Romanov family who expressed that they believed GD George was married and did have children.  Since I am not privy to  their knowledge,  should I believe them?

According to Greg King and PennyWilson,  they have heard GD George was married, did have children and descendents, who, now, live somewhere in CA.   When Greg and Penny were asked who had told them this story,  they could not name their source /sources,  however, they did say the source/sources was/were reliable.

Here on this thread, FA has explained in his post that he has been privy to information  [not this story but others] and he has been  unable to disclose his source.  And, he believed due to Greg's and Penny's good reputation,  that the information they have given us is true.

It is true, however, since there is no known official records revealed to the public,  we [myself, FA and those of us posting these days] cannot officially state George was married once or twice or that he had one or more children.

So, where would be place the information?  Should it be on the list of "fact"  or "rumor"?

I have my own inside information which I consider reliable.  Like Greg and Penny,  I cannot reveal my source.  However,  I find it interesting that their story and the story I heard are the same.  Still,  heresay doesn't fly very far if one had to go to court and make any kind of claim.

Lisa may be quite right about George's illness on the times which she quotes from her sources which I believe are from books and diaries.  I've never dug into this subject.  I've no knowledge about who sent letters to whom and what they said.  But is this enough proof?  No.  

Done of us have the right to  demand DNA/mtDNA as proof.  For all we know, this may have already been done.  If  such test have not been made, this decision is  the royal family's to make when they think there is a need.

One thing I've learned these last 63 years is:  Not everything that occurs in a royal family is public knowledge.   True, today it's almost impossible for royality to have secrets but we're NOT talking about now we're talking about  the early 1900s, about a man who was off in a "No-Where-Place"  in Russia ruled by a Tsar.  

As for digging up old threads,  I didn't know that we couldn't continue discussions on old threads.

However, Lisa is right,  there is not much else to discuss, because we officially don't know anything.

Offical or not,  I still find GD George's life interesting, as well as the fact that the woman,  whom some believe was GD George's wife, was taken to GD George's mother who saw the woman in private.  

This mystery woman may not have been the wife but a stranger who had found GD George who had been injuried in a moter cycle accident....

Yes, a motor cycle accident.  A man who we're told was too ill to rise out of his death bed who in real life  wasn't in bed at all but on a motor cycle.

True,  GD George would probably have died of TB but we don't know if he would have lasted a day, a week, a month, a year or years had he not have been injuried in the motor cycle accident.

Bear's Conclusion:   I don't know the truth.  The people who need to know know.  My only thoughts are that I hope GD George was not alone and was happy in his last days of life.

AGRBear

Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: LisaDavidson on April 25, 2006, 12:54:45 AM
The woman who met with Maria Feodorovna was indeed the good Samaritan who came upon George and his motorcycle. She was not his wife, and was never rumored or suspected of being his wife. I have stated this many times on George threads, in case anyone is keeping score.

George did not die of a motorcycle crash. George hemmoraged while riding his motorcycle. This is not my opinion, this is per a physician I consulted along with the information that was released about his death. I have also stated this on several occasions.

It was also several physician's opinion, and not my own, that George was not physically capable of sustaining a normal adult sexual relationship, be it hetrosexual or bisexual. Again, I have stated this several times on this Forum.

If anyone has any interest whatsoever in reading what I wrote about George and will eventually be published in "The Grand Dukes" after my having to reveal and repeat (ad nauseum) my research, God love you. I guess I would prefer people know the truth about George when faced with the choice.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Kevin From Australia on April 25, 2006, 02:30:17 AM
Quote
If anyone has any interest whatsoever in reading what I wrote about George and will eventually be published in "The Grand Dukes" after my having to reveal and repeat (ad nauseum) my research, God love you. I guess I would prefer people know the truth about George when faced with the choice.


I for one Lisa will be buying the book when it's published because of your piece on George Alexandrovitch!!!!
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: grandduchessella on April 25, 2006, 09:15:50 AM
Being a romantic, I hope that he did have someone to love and love him back. Most likely not a marriage, or even a consummated relationship, but it would be nice to think that there was someone to give him love & affection in his last years when he was cut off from his family for long periods of time. A platonic love wouldn't be out of the question would it?  I just hate to think about how lonely he must've been at times and watching his brother and sister marry and have families of his own when it must've been obvious to him as his health deteriorated that this wouldn't be his own future.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: imperial angel on April 25, 2006, 10:29:47 AM
The last post about sumned up what we hope was the case for George, and I think put together his sitiuation very well in fact. I think he might have had a platonic love, in fact it's more than likely he did, if his physical condition prohibited anything more than that. Perhaps it did not, but still that doesn't make us say that he might have married or had children, morgantically. There are always rumours of this sort, and although there might be good sources on that, some would say that about other things that aren't public, and can we judge them right or wrong? No, but we can use common sense. So I don't see anything morgantic. Everybody can say something about something that has not been settled in the public arena. One hopes George did have something; he did have a legendary sense of humour, for Nicholas long keot a box of George's jokes written down, and was seen laughing over them, years after George's death. One hopes that he had something to cheer him.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: AGRBear on April 25, 2006, 07:41:13 PM
Quote
The woman who met with Maria Feodorovna was indeed the good Samaritan who came upon George and his motorcycle. She was not his wife, and was never rumored or suspected of being his wife. I have stated this many times on George threads, in case anyone is keeping score.

George did not die of a motorcycle crash. George hemmoraged while riding his motorcycle. This is not my opinion, this is per a physician I consulted along with the information that was released about his death. I have also stated this on several occasions.

It was also several physician's opinion, and not my own, that George was not physically capable of sustaining a normal adult sexual relationship, be it hetrosexual or bisexual. Again, I have stated this several times on this Forum.

If anyone has any interest whatsoever in reading what I wrote about George and will eventually be published in "The Grand Dukes" after my having to reveal and repeat (ad nauseum) my research, God love you. I guess I would prefer people know the truth about George when faced with the choice.

I was not aware that you are writing a book about GD George.  

Because of who my source was,  I highly recommend you privately contact Greg and Penny about  the information they have been told about GD George's  wifes and children, even though you apparently find this to be improbable with the information you know at this time.

Of course I agree, Lisa,  the truth is always best.

I hope you success with your book and will certainly buy it when it is on the market.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: LisaDavidson on April 25, 2006, 11:12:30 PM
 I wrote an article on George, not a book. I am gratified that you would be interested in reading it.

I will indeed take your advice and do a bit more research as time permits.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: imperial angel on April 26, 2006, 08:19:34 AM
More research is really the only way to clear these things up, although even then much of Grand Duke George's life will perhaps be lost in the shadows of history. I am sure it was a good article that you wrote. I would be interested in reading it.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: LisaDavidson on April 26, 2006, 02:33:25 PM
Quite honestly, I don't worry too much about clearing up every rumor that comes down the pike. I was actually pretty satisfied with doctors telling me that GA was physically incapable of a "normal adult sexual relationship". However, not everyone is going to be satisfied with the opinion of scientists, no matter how informed the opinion is.

Since there will be some time before my piece goes to print, I don't mind chasing down a few more rumors. I still think what I wrote is good - one of my own favorite writers said it was "amazing" and so it will not change much, I think.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: imperial angel on April 27, 2006, 10:43:00 AM
Yes, you have to track down the rumours and solve them to the best of your ability, and I am sure you have. I don't really believe that Grand Duke Geoge married morgantically or had children, but if people have good sources that I am not aware of, then I will listen to them. Also, if someone has good sources that he was incapable of anything in this line due to his health, and has good sources, then I will listen to them. There is nothing to suggest he had any sort of relationship with anybody in most surviving evidence.
Title: Re: Grand Duke Georgiy Aleksandrovitch (1871-1899),discussion and pictures
Post by: Eurohistory on July 02, 2006, 10:46:44 AM
A friend of mine who happens to be a descendant of the Russian Imperial Family recently traveled to Abbas Tuman and visited George Alexandrovich's palace, which still stands.  Although a bit forgotten, perhaps an understatement, the house is now occupied by a nunnery.  Yet one can still see traces of its former elegance.  A large portrait of George Alexandrovich hangs in the room in which he slept.

Arturo Beéche