Alexander Palace Forum

Discussions about the Imperial Family and European Royalty => The Myth and Legends of Survivors => Topic started by: AGRBear on October 26, 2004, 11:32:32 AM

Title: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: AGRBear on October 26, 2004, 11:32:32 AM
Since I haven't any idea what was left of Anastasia's inheritance, if she had lived  what would she have inherited that was kept out of the hands of the Bolsheviks?
OR
If Anna Anderson or another claimant had proven in court they were the children of Nicholas II and Alexandra,  what would they have gain in money, jewels, lands, stocks "in" or "outside" of Russia by the late 1920s?

Reason I'm asking is because,  last night  I watched  a program about the Royal Jewels of England's Queen Elisabeth and other royals and saw how much some of these jewels were worth.   Just one tiria was worth a mint which was enough for most of us to live nicely for the rest of our lives.  There was talk about some jewels having been Russian that had been inherited.

For those who have doubts about there being a conspiracy,  it seems just a couple of huge diamonds worth millions might have been a motive.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Forum Admin on October 26, 2004, 11:40:56 AM
Each GD had an account in Germany with some money in it, in their own name. Not a huge fortune. I don't have The Lost Fortune of the Tsar right with me, but I remember it was a couple hundred thousand dollars each. Alix had some family property in Hesse, which was hers. Thats about IT. The only jewelry that left of any  importance belonged to MF.

The rest of the "money" outside Russia was governmental and NOT personal property of Nicholas so any claimant could not touch it. Money was never really a major motive IN FACT, though I can understand that someone outside the family might think it WAS...another reason to me that claimants were fakes.
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: AGRBear on October 26, 2004, 11:47:38 AM
Did Nicholas II's mother have jewels a claimant would have inherited?

AGRBear

PS  Just remembered I had just purchased the book LITTLE MOTHER OF RUSSIA by Coryne Hall.  Flipped a few pages to find the possible mention of how much the Dowager was worth at her death.  

p. 348 there is mention of the "box"....  I then remembered this box which the Dowager kept under her bed and in it were jewels.  She had refused to sell any to support herself and thought her relatives could afford to support her through her last years and there was no need to sell her jewels.  

"She worried increasngly about her jewel box.  At Amalieborg it was kept under her bed and sometimes it was brought out so that she could run her fingers through some of the magnifient pieces."  "Finally, Amdrup was given a safe with two keyes; one for himself and one for Dagmar's dresser.  The contents were frequestnly checked."  

Her reply to those begging for their share before the Dowager passed away they were told by her  [p. 348-9]:  "You will have all of it when I am gone."

Then it goes on to say that Russia had sent her a letter and two watercolours by GD Olga....

13 Oct 1928 the Dowager Empress died.

What was her worth when she died, including the watercolours and who received what and what was it's worth?

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Forum Admin on October 26, 2004, 11:58:42 AM
no, because Olga and Xenia also left. As daughters, they would inherit everything from MF before a grand daughter, unless MF made a will otherwise
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: AGRBear on October 26, 2004, 12:12:40 PM
I believed the Dowager Empress believed 'till her death that Nicholas II and GD Michael were alive.

With this in mind, would the jewels had gone to Nicholas II who would have passed them to his daughters or would they still have gone to the Dowager's daughters in any case?

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Forum Admin on October 26, 2004, 12:26:44 PM
Without a will, it wouldnt matter what MF thought. The LAW decides inheritance without a will and am sure the Court would have declared N dead, as I believe was actually done. Nothing for the grandchildren without a will otherwise. period
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: AGRBear on October 26, 2004, 12:36:44 PM
Okay,  so,  was there a will?

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: LisaDavidson on October 26, 2004, 09:54:39 PM
Yes, there was a will. It left her remaining assets after gifts to those who looked after her to surviving daughters Xenia and Olga.

For everyone who says MF did not believe her sons were dead, please consider that she left nothing to Nicholas, nothing to Michael and nothing to their descendants. This, even though she knew Michael's son was living in France. I think this is much stronger evidence of her state of belief than anything Alexander Mikhailovich or others have written. If she really believed they were not dead, why then did she "disinherit" them?
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: AGRBear on October 27, 2004, 12:36:21 AM
I'm sure the lawyers wrote the will who believed Nicholas II and GD Michael  were dead.

I doubt they would have allowed otherwise.

However, her keeping the box of jewels till the end shows me that as long as she held them she could  hand them to her sons who would surely need them since so much was lost.

AGRBear

Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: LisaDavidson on October 27, 2004, 01:06:46 AM
You do like to enjoy wishful thinking, don't you? Jewelry collections such as MF had were not easy to liquidate. You are attributing behaviors to the Empress that have nothing whatsoever to do with her situation. Her jewels were virtually all she had left of her former life and selling them would have been very hard for her.

There is no way she would have not left her major assets to her sons had she believed them to be alive. I'm sorry you want to overlook all of the evidence that disagrees with your conclusions, but hopefully some rationality will prevail.
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Annie on October 27, 2004, 07:34:09 AM
Quote
Yes, there was a will. It left her remaining assets after gifts to those who looked after her to surviving daughters Xenia and Olga.

For everyone who says MF did not believe her sons were dead, please consider that she left nothing to Nicholas, nothing to Michael and nothing to their descendants. This, even though she knew Michael's son was living in France. I think this is much stronger evidence of her state of belief than anything Alexander Mikhailovich or others have written. If she really believed they were not dead, why then did she "disinherit" them?


It may have been the lawyers, or it may have been that she thought if they were alive they were in unknown places and could not be reached or reveal themselves in public. But every indication and report I've ever seen seems to support that she never gave up hope they were alive.

I just found this posted by Ella in another thread, it's a quote from Sandro:

'Countess Brassova arrived in London in 1919 still refusing to believe that her husband was dead. But for that matter, neither did the Dowager-Empress Marie ever trust the Soviet communique describing the burning of the bodies of the Czar and his family. She died expecting to receive, sooner or later, the news of the miraculous escape of her poor Nicky. My own wife and my sister-in-law seemed to share their mother's point of view. I respected their feeligns, but I knew the Bolsheviks sufficiently well to realize the sher impossibility of a 'happy ending'.

Sadly, I think that also applies to those who believe in a 'happy ending' for Anastasia :'(


Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Forum Admin on October 27, 2004, 10:45:42 AM
AGR
You should have read that thread more closely. That book was ghost written and not very accurate.
Second, and this is MORE significant than books, Lisa, Bob and I all know and have discussed this very subject with Romanov family members. The family had NO such hopes, beyond the "wistful" hope anyone might have. They had no such delusions, they KNEW the family was dead. period. See my other posting about when the trunks with the IF's clothes came to Xenia in England, finally, the family decided to BURN the lot of them so they should not become venerated holy objects. Why do that if they thought they were alive? TRUST ME, the family confirms to everyone, THEY KNEW THEY WERE DEAD.
WHY do you question the FAMILY? they know better than anyone what their parents/grandparents felt.....
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Angie_H on October 27, 2004, 11:58:25 AM
Quote
AGR
You should have read that thread more closely. That book was ghost written and not very accurate.
quote]
FA What book?
LITTLE MOTHER OF RUSSIA by Coryne Hall?
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Forum Admin on October 27, 2004, 12:08:41 PM
Romanov Diary
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: AGRBear on October 27, 2004, 12:46:48 PM
At no point have I even suggested that the majority of the Romanovs were unable to understand and accept the annoucement that Nicholas II and GD Michael were dead.

However,  if you have ever been around older people who have lost loved ones,  they often times hold on to the idea that a loved one,  whom everyone says has died,  will walk into their door and be quite alive.

That is why most religious buriels have open coffins so loved ones, young and old,  can see the person is dead.

The Dowager Empress never had that kind of closing.

Most of the time,  I'm sure,  the Dowager realized her sons were dead but deep deep inside,  without that real closing,  there lay a hope, no matter how dim,  a hope, that one of her sons would walk in the door and be alive.

Since I did not know the Dowager,  I suspect,  the "box" was more than just a box filled with jewels that would bring in money for herself and daughters.  It held for her a treasured past full of  memories of her families.

I am not being unsympathic.   I'm 62 years old.  I have lost most of my close friends to accidents, cancer and heart attacks.  So, I know what closeure means to family, relatives, friends and to people I'll never meet.

Nor do I think this thread is insensitive.  I think that most people thought back in the 1920s-30s that a child or grandchild of Nicholas II and Alexandra could have inherited a huge sum of money.   If so,  then there were always the kind of people who'd try to claim the inheritance.  Therefore,  yes,  there may have been some kind of conspiracy.   Just read your newspapers today.  There are many stories about people trying to swindle other people out of their money.  It was no different then.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: AGRBear on October 27, 2004, 12:51:39 PM
Quote
Romanov Diary



???

I'm not sure what you're telling me/us.  

What does the Romanov Diary have to do with  the Dowager's will?

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Forum Admin on October 27, 2004, 01:01:17 PM
your quote comes from Romanov Diary which was ghost written. And, AGR, you seem to "flip flop". EITHER you stress that MF really DID believe they survived, or now you back pedal and say she just "wistfully hoped against hope" they survived... First you take a strong position then you change it..so WHICH is it?
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: AGRBear on October 27, 2004, 01:45:13 PM
Quote
your quote comes from Romanov Diary which was ghost written. And, AGR, you seem to "flip flop". EITHER you stress that MF really DID believe they survived, or now you back pedal and say she just "wistfully hoped against hope" they survived... First you take a strong position then you change it..so WHICH is it?


My quote came from: LITTLE MOTHER OF RUSSIA by Coryne Hall.

According to some of the posts, one of which was from someone else, that the Dowager never stopped believing her sons were still alive.  That  may have been from the Romanov Diary.  I don't know.

Do you mean Annie's:
Quote

It may have been the lawyers, or it may have been that she thought if they were alive they were in unknown places and could not be reached or reveal themselves in public. But every indication and report I've ever seen seems to support that she never gave up hope they were alive.

I just found this posted by Ella in another thread, it's a quote from Sandro:

'Countess Brassova arrived in London in 1919 still refusing to believe that her husband was dead. But for that matter, neither did the Dowager-Empress Marie ever trust the Soviet communique describing the burning of the bodies of the Czar and his family. She died expecting to receive, sooner or later, the news of the miraculous escape of her poor Nicky. My own wife and my sister-in-law seemed to share their mother's point of view. I respected their feeligns, but I knew the Bolsheviks sufficiently well to realize the sher impossibility of a 'happy ending'.


Was this written by a ghost writer?

As for myself,  that was a personal opinion and I had added that I had never known the Dowager, and, yes,  I do think she never stopped hoping her sons were alive in her heart but the mind knows, and reasons, and can admit that they did die.  This is a complex battle between hope and reality.

So,  back to the box of jewels.

If Anna Anderson had convinced the Dowager that she was her granddaughter Anastasia,  do you think she would have shared some of her jewels with her granddaughter and still given the greatest portion to her daughters?

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Forum Admin on October 27, 2004, 02:10:11 PM
Quote

If Anna Anderson had convinced the Dowager that she was her granddaughter Anastasia,  do you think she would have shared some of her jewels with her granddaughter and still given the greatest portion to her daughters?

AGRBear


But she DIDN'T...so your question is meaningless. NOBODY in the Romanov family BELIEVED it. None of them, never. The family was firmly convinced to a one that AA was NOT Anastasia and called her "the best of the imposters".
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Candice on October 27, 2004, 02:46:13 PM
AGRBear, what if exactly!  That's interesting.  If the real Anastasia had survived what would she have been entitled too?
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Forum Admin on October 27, 2004, 02:52:27 PM
PROBABLY, she would have been entitled to her and her sisters' german bank accounts, and the Hesse property of Alix's. Thats about it, IF she could have been proven to have really been AN
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: LisaDavidson on October 27, 2004, 02:53:47 PM
That's exactly how they referred to her - the best of the imposters. I really don't know, AGR Bear, what MF would have done if one of her grandchildren had survived. I would expect she would have seen that she was well married rather than giving her part of the "treasure". Remember, MF and her daughters were virtually paupers except for the jewels - whereas a grandchild could have provided for herself - as Alix's daughters clearly could.
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: AGRBear on October 27, 2004, 02:59:18 PM
Okay.

That is understandable.

This thread is, however,  if the real Anastasia had been the only child to have survived, what would her inheritance been?

I was asking about the jewels in the box kept by the Dowager Empress.  And,  the Forum Admin. has stated that the jewels would not have gone to Anastasia but just to her daughters, Olga and Xenia.  

Due to Forum Admin. misunderstanding,  and,  my mention of Anna Anderson, instead of  staying with  "if the real Anasatsia and been the only chldren to have survived",  I caused some emotions which were not my intentions.

I will assume, unless corrected,  that this matter is an "unknown" since no one could know if the Dowager would have or would not have given the "real" Anastasia, if she had lived, some of the jewels.

While I wait to get my book  [yes,  I've bought another book], THE LOST FORTUNE OF THE TSARS by Willaim Clarke,  I thumbed through some of the old books.  And,  I think that until recently, there were alot of people who believed there was a great fortune to be gotten by a "real" claimant who could prove he/she was the child of Nicholas II and Alexandra.

Just because it's here on my desk,  let me open THE HUNT FOR THE CZAR by Guy Richards and let me write what he and many others had thought for a very long time, especially in the 1920s and early 1930s pps 48-51.  I do not know what was his personal holdings or the govt..  Since he was a monarch,  I assume he held ownership:

1.  The Tsar had gold mines in Russia and in foreign countries
2.  He had several million dollars in the Mendelson Bank in Berlin
3.  Some 2.7 billlion was sent to foreign countries and it's purpose is not certain.  Some of it may have gone to guns and amunitions while some of it may have gone to funds held in trust for the Tsar
4.  On 6 Nov 1917 a small group of people  collected about $700 million worth of jewels from the Imperial Bank in Moscow that had been the Tsars.... Rumor has it, the theives were the Bolshviks
5.  His  land holdings were huge, abot 150 million acres...


Since most of the monies, lands and jewels were taken by the Bolsheviks, was there any other wealth outside of Russia than the mines?

1. It was thought there was about $5 million in the Guaranty Trust Company of New York
2. That there was about $1 million in National City Bank
3.  There had been about $10 million in various businesses in the USA and added to this were stocks in a railroads:  Names mention are Pennsylvania Railroad, US Steel Corp., Metropolitan Life, New York subways....
4.   In  1905 according to Nicholas II's last will and testiment there was $400 million in six New York Banks. About #115 million in English Banks About $100 million in French Banks.  $132 in a Berlin Bank
5.  Small bank deposits were in Switzerland, Italy, Spain, Belgium an Holland

Not mention in this book were others.  I remember another book who linked the Tsar with J.P. Morgan and the Rothchilds, and others.....

I assume a great deal of these monies were return to Russia during the war.  I will be interested in seeing what the amounts were still in some of these placed in July of 1918.

AGRBear

 
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Candice on October 27, 2004, 03:12:00 PM
AGRBear, it is mind boggling why people still insist that there's nothing left?  
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Forum Admin on October 27, 2004, 04:00:08 PM
Quote
Okay.

While I wait to get my book  [yes,  I've bought another book], THE LOST FORTUNE OF THE TSARS by Willaim Clarke,  I thumbed through some of the old books.  And,  I think that until recently, there were alot of people who believed there was a great fortune to be gotten by a "real" claimant who could prove he/she was the child of Nicholas II and Alexandra.

Just because it's here on my desk,  let me open THE HUNT FOR THE CZAR by Guy Richards and let me write what he and many others had thought for a very long time, especially in the 1920s and early 1930s pps 48-51.  I do not know what was his personal holdings or the govt..  Since he was a monarch,  I assume he held ownership:

1.  The Tsar had gold mines in Russia and in foreign countries
2.  He had several million dollars in the Mendelson Bank in Berlin
3.  Some 2.7 billlion was sent to foreign countries and it's purpose is not certain.  Some of it may have gone to guns and amunitions while some of it may have gone to funds held in trust for the Tsar
4.  On 6 Nov 1917 a small group of people  collected about $700 million worth of jewels from the Imperial Bank in Moscow that had been the Tsars.... Rumor has it, the theives were the Bolshviks
5.  His  land holdings were huge, abot 150 million acres...


Since most of the monies, lands and jewels were taken by the Bolsheviks, was there any other wealth outside of Russia than the mines?

1. It was thought there was about $5 million in the Guaranty Trust Company of New York
2. That there was about $1 million in National City Bank
3.  There had been about $10 million in various businesses in the USA and added to this were stocks in a railroads:  Names mention are Pennsylvania Railroad, US Steel Corp., Metropolitan Life, New York subways....
4.   In  1905 according to Nicholas II's last will and testiment there was $400 million in six New York Banks. About #115 million in English Banks About $100 million in French Banks.  $132 in a Berlin Bank
5.  Small bank deposits were in Switzerland, Italy, Spain, Belgium an Holland

Not mention in this book were others.  I remember another book who linked the Tsar with J.P. Morgan and the Rothchilds, and others.....

I assume a great deal of these monies were return to Russia during the war.  I will be interested in seeing what the amounts were still in some of these placed in July of 1918.
  

You should really have waited for the Lost Fortune of the Tsar.By 1918 Guaranty Trust, Morgan Bank, Citibank, a total of roughly $70million. ALL was Russian Goverment funds, not personal money. NOT ONE SHARE of stock in the US existed in Nicholas's name or even any way tied to him. NO personal money in the US.
Every farthing in Barings Bank (the only UK bank with Russian funds in 1918) ALSO govermental funds and not personal to Nicholas.
There were huge bills to be paid owing to war debts by the Tsarist and Provisional regimes. The foreign funds all went to pay these debts. There were NO TRUST FUNDS for Nicholas' personal money. The only deposits found outside of Russia were as mentioned, the children's money in Berlin. PERIOD.

For the fifteenth time in this forum alone THERE WAS NO HUGE FORTUNE. Hunt for the Tsar got it WRONG. The money trail has been chased down and it ISN"T there.
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: LisaDavidson on October 27, 2004, 04:12:20 PM
Not only that - had there been money, it would have been distributed to their many heirs who really needed the money. It is ludicrous to go over this again and again, so I won't.
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: AGRBear on October 27, 2004, 04:23:10 PM
Let see if I can explain this for Forum Admin..

It doesn't matter what you and I know today.

It matters what people believed in the 1920s and early 1930s or even as late as the 1950s

I think the majority of people thought the Romanovs had a great deal of wealth waiting to be collected outside of Russia.

In this thread,  it is understood that Anastasia did survive and that she would collect her inheritance which was.....???

Admin. Forum mentioned property of her mother's in Hess.  Which was?  And what was it's worth?

What else?

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Forum Admin on October 27, 2004, 04:25:20 PM
Quote
PROBABLY, she would have been entitled to her and her sisters' german bank accounts, and the Hesse property of Alix's. Thats about it, IF she could have been proven to have really been AN

I had ALREADY answered your question.
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: AGRBear on October 27, 2004, 04:39:24 PM
I find it difficult to believe that Nicholas II and Alexandra would not have placed some "back up" wealth in case of an emergency in more than one country.

If I remember correctly,  Nicholas II and Alexandra were drawing money from somewhere through someone to pay for the eggs and bacon while they were under arrest by the Bolsheviks.  I don't think the Bolsheviks paid their bills which gave them a doctor, servents, staff to cook, maid or maids, people who cleaned..... etc. from March 1917 to July 1918.

Anyway,  what was the names of the properties her mother and aunt owned in Hesse?

Does anyone know anything about them that they can share here?

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Forum Admin on October 27, 2004, 04:45:42 PM
They didn't. period. Nicholas repatriated all of his money from overseas at the outbreak of WWI, as an example for the aristocracy of Russia to do the same. Remember, they honestly belived they would go either to England or Livadia, they never saw the need to have "secret funds" overseas.  THERE WAS NO HUGE ROMANOV FORTUNE outside Russia. People may have honestly thought so in the 1920s, which WAS the motive for imposters, but as I have said, the reality was otherwise.  The money for their support in captivity came from friends and relations in Petersburg mostly, and for a while from confiscated Russian bank accounts of their own money.
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: AGRBear on October 27, 2004, 04:54:11 PM
On another thread Helen posted this about Russian gold and an article which happens to be about one of the items listed by Guy Richards:

http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=498042004


AGRBear

PS  I just reread it and thought I'd copy these few words:
>>More than 80 years after it was passed to Japan, the full story of the gold which once belonged to Russia’s last Tsar, Nicholas II, is still shrouded in mystery. <<
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Forum Admin on October 27, 2004, 04:57:21 PM
Quote
Doesn't prove there was any person trusts but it does point to the fact monies were being transferred to other countries....

AGRBear

Then WHAT is the point? Of course money was being transferred to other countries...THERE WAS A WAR ON! The Tsarist government had huge bills to pay and loans to secure...This is meaningless as to what "Anastasia might have inherited". It can only serve to prove that the PERCEPTION of Tsarist wealth would fuel imposters like AA to CLAIM to be the survivor...but has NOTHING to do with the question of this thread.
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: AGRBear on October 27, 2004, 05:15:51 PM
It shows me that Nicholas II knew he may not be able to get to England through Europe but may have to go east and  make a stop in Japan.

I'd bet you a dollar on this:  In Japan  there was a cash of enough money and jewels which they would have  needed which would have kept the family comfortable on that country estate in England.

I assume he had not purchase an estate in England since Forum Admin. did not mention such a property exsisted.

AGRBear

PS:  
Quote
... [in part].... It can only serve to prove that the PERCEPTION of Tsarist wealth would fuel imposters like AA to CLAIM to be the survivor...but has NOTHING to do with the question of this thread.


What Anastasia would have inherited  has everything to do with imposters and conspiracies in 1920s and early 1930s.
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Forum Admin on October 27, 2004, 05:19:38 PM
I'm done with unsupported speculation of whatifs that have NO basis in fact. y'all have fun spinning your fairy tales.
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: AGRBear on October 27, 2004, 05:35:17 PM
If I hadn't seen those jewels of Queen Elisabeth II the other night and realized how much just one tiria cost,  I'd not have become so interested in this subject.  So,  now,  I'm really curious what Anastasia would have inherited if she had survived.  And,  I don't think this question belongs to a "fairy tale".  It is a search looking for facts.  And,  I think it necessary to look at books with "old facts" and more recent books for "new facts" and somewhere between the two there might to an answer.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Robert_Hall on October 27, 2004, 05:48:25 PM
AGR, you are very selective in reading it seems. That "Japan" gold was being transferred by the government after the Emperor's fall. It was lost being sent to Japan in payment for arms.
It had nothing to do with the Romanov fortunes.
Neither the Japanese bank nor government will admit to having it.
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: AGRBear on October 27, 2004, 05:58:59 PM
<<....the Tsar had hoped to set up a nest-egg with the gold in London in case he was forced to abdicate.>>

This was, also, in the article.

For now,  let's get back to the known inheritance.  The properties of Alexandra and Ella.....  What were the names and where were they in Hesse?  And what was the worth of these properties?

AGRBear

Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: AGRBear on October 29, 2004, 02:39:37 PM
Okay,  I,  now,  have the book THE LOST FORTUNE OF THE TSARS by William Clarke.

I can't say I've changed my mind about the probability that Nicholas II had set up funds in various countries for the possibility that he may have to abdicate and go to England.

Under the chapter 13  MONEY p. 191  Clarke tells me and you quite clearly:
"Putting money in a bank is a private transaction between a bank and its customer.  The relationship is akin to that between a doctor and patient, or lawyer or other professional adviser and his client."  "The secrecy is often overdone in the interests of so-called professional etiquette; and the privacy rule can be both a protection to the client, whether alove or dead, and an unnecessary blockage to genuine inquiries."

In other words, unless the "real" Anastasia appeared with the proper papers or code,  that money is not reachable even by the most clever.

Since Nicholas II and his family often traveled to foreign countries,  private accounts could have easily been established.

So,  we can never know the amount of the "lost fortune" when seeking monies from the various banks.

I'm not sure about "desposit boxes" in banks  in those times.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: AGRBear on October 29, 2004, 02:49:03 PM
Page 215 of THE LOST FORTUNE OF THE TSARS is a sentence worth repeating:

"If Nicholas ran his own accounts in the way that he seems to have administered the country, then is is likely that very few people indeed had full knowledge of his monetary affairs."

Perhaps I should add:
"He rarely spoke to his advisers about topics or issues unrelated to their responsibilites.  'Divide and rule" was his watchword [stet]'."

It is true,  as far as we know,  Nicholas II withdrew the larger  known monies from various accounts to show his countrymen that he was loyal to Russia and to be loyal a Tsar needed to forget his personal wealth and return these monies to his government which was at war.  [See p. 218]

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: AGRBear on October 29, 2004, 04:04:52 PM
THE LOST FORTUNE OF THE TSARS  p. 153:

"..the jewels which remained on the ground, in the mine shaft and in the Ipatiev ouse were later discovered by the White Russians investigators under Sokolov.  How these eventually reached Buckingham Palace, and why, even on arrival, they remained hidden for several weeks, we shall shortly discovered."

"...jewels"  sent to Buckingham Palace????

I knew about the box and the rest of the contents but not about "jewels".  Where did they go?  And to whom?  And when?

Ahhhhh,  turn to p. 155:

"Wilton soon discovered that Xenia had already received some of the jewels from Ekaterinburg...."

What jewels?  What was their worth?

I assume these jewels would have gone to Anastasia had she survived.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Forum Admin on October 29, 2004, 04:17:52 PM
You assume the word "jewels" to mean valuable and important things. HERE is the complete list of everything found:
http://www.alexanderpalace.org/palace/yelist.html
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: AGRBear on October 29, 2004, 04:34:06 PM
The book said jewels p. 155 and then went on to say on p. 156:  Baroness Buxhoeveden wrote Xenia explaining in Countess Henrikova boxes  there was a box which contained a roll of cloth.  Within that roll were found the jewels of Empress Alexandra's. *  

Noted: *From Mountbatten archives.

Doesn't sound like anything on the list you've sent me to see.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: LisaDavidson on October 29, 2004, 11:44:31 PM
AGR Bear: We have answered your question about this subject repeatedly, over and over, time after time. Rather than thanking the posters for their information and moving on, you keep asking the same questions - which have already been answered! - as though the information had never been provided. I am going to suggest that this thread be locked if you keep this up.

One more time: there were few private assets that Anastasia would have inheritied had she survived. The best she could have hoped for would have been a tiny bit of money and perhaps a momento or two. That's it. If she was really fortunate, her relatives might have arranged a good marriage for her.

Contrary to what people thought, THERE WAS NO ROMANOV FORTUNE.
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: AGRBear on October 30, 2004, 11:50:58 AM
Pardon me for saying this,  but I've not received the answers to many of my questions.  I am sorry, Lisa, that this subject  seems to upset you.  Perhaps,  privately,  you like to send me a message explaining.   We do not need to do it on this thread.

Of course,  I am gratefull for the responses and new leads.

I was sent to view a book, which I bought, which I read and have found more questions to ask.  There were  statements made in that same book,  such as, the Empress jewels found in the roll of cloth by GD Xenia which I asked about.  I, also, was wondering the property of Alexandra.  I asked the name/ names and location and the value.

As for locking down my thread,  I'm not sure on what grounds you'd asked Forum Admin. to do this.  I know the Forum Admin. gets frustrated by some of my questions and my determination, but I think this is a very fair question:  Anastasia's inheritance would have been what had she survived?  

I know I'm not the only one curious.

AGRBear


Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: JonC on October 30, 2004, 12:59:06 PM
Quote

For the fifteenth time in this forum alone THERE WAS NO HUGE FORTUNE. Hunt for the Tsar got it WRONG. The money trail has been chased down and it ISN"T there.


I don't mean to belabor the subject but who were/are those people who have 'chased down' the Tsar's fortune and found that it wasn't there? And why did they do it? FA you must have some info on this?
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Forum Admin on October 30, 2004, 01:08:51 PM
William Clarke decided once and for all to investigate the claims of the "lost Tsarist Fortune". His complete journey and results were published in his book, "The Lost Fortune of the Tsars"...he went to Russia, London, Paris, Switzerland, New York, San Francisco...It is a fascinating and thorough book. It should answer any of your questions.

As for the Hesse Darmstadt property, I don't have my source materials with me...but AGR, it was NOT a huge estate or anything like that. As I recall off the top of my head it was some vineyard property and small farms...it would not have been worth any "major" money. Don't forget, Alexandra came to Nicholas with very little money of her own, her family were NOT wealthy.
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: rskkiya on October 30, 2004, 02:16:08 PM
    This whole topic seems to be taking a turn for the ghoulish...I agree with the FA -- as far as I can tell(not being an expert on Hesse family/Tzarist finances -- there was no inheiritance to speak of.
   Constantly hunting for hidden fortunes and looking for conspiricies to hide the aforsaid "wealth" always seem  just a bit bit vulgar and paranoid.

sorry....
Rskkiya
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Angie_H on October 30, 2004, 02:58:32 PM
This topic is moot. None of the children survived. Why not lock the thread?
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: AGRBear on October 30, 2004, 03:25:54 PM
Let me say this,   I'm not seeking a dime for myself nor do I  care a fig newton  [that is a cookie] who did or who didn't received the monies.  If someone is interested,  they can start a different thread.

Let me add,  that a "huge fortune" is a term that may mean differently to a poor factory girl as compared to myself or Forum Admin. or others who are posting.

If a poor  girl seeing a chance of having something when you have nothing, or, being someone when you're no one, may be insentive enough for a conspiracy.  However, that too, is not the point of this thread.

The fact is:  I don't even suggest that Anastasia did survive on this thread.

My question is very simple and very direct:  Anastasia inheritance would have been what, if she had survived?

With the help of Forum Admin. I have the following:
1. >>As for the Hesse Darmstadt property, I don't have my source materials with me...but AGR, it was NOT a huge estate or anything like that. As I recall off the top of my head it was some vineyard property and small farms...it would not have been worth any "major" money. Don't forget, Alexandra came to Nicholas with very little money of her own, her family were NOT wealthy.<<
2. >>....Russia had sent her a letter and two watercolours by GD Olga.... <<
3. >>Each GD had an account in Germany with some money in it, in their own name. Not a huge fortune.<<  Added to this was the fact that after the war the German money was considered "worthless"....  
4.  AGRBear :  If Anastasia had surfaced before the death of her grandmother , the Dowager Empresss Maria,  she may have received a few jewels from her .....  [but this is an unknown and none may have gone to GDA]


From the book THE LOST FORTUNE OF THE TSARS I have the following:

1.  Empress Alexandra's jewels found by GD Xenia in a roll of cloth in a box .  Source was  THE LOST FORTUNE OF THE TSARS p.156.  These jewels were not identified in the book.


In the second to the last paragraph in THE LOST  FORTUNE OF THE TSARS  Clarke writes: "This does not mean that stray personal accounts of the royal family will not one day emerge in London, Paris, Geneva or even New York..."  If any such accounts were found there would be court battles over who's monies it is.    Even the legal battle today as to jewels left in Russia by any of the Romanovs can apparently gain a "day in court" tomorrow and start, once, again, another "legal conundrum".

However, this thread doesn't need to worry about tomorrow.  This thread just wondered about the 1920s to 1930s which have to do with the inheritance of Anastasia, if she had survived.

Again, thank you Forum Admin. for your information.

AGRBear

PS  Gee,  I sounded like  a growly old bear.   I'd better go find one of my honey pots and wait till my mood sweetens.  Sooorry.

Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Michelle on October 30, 2004, 11:36:12 PM
Hey AGR!!!  I didn't think you sounded growly at all! :)
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Olga on October 31, 2004, 05:55:22 AM
I second Angie's suggestion.

It's been established there is no great fortune or property for Anastasia Nikolaevna to inherit, even if she had survived. And she didn't survive, which makes this topic all the more pointless.
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: AGRBear on October 31, 2004, 10:08:57 AM
Olga doesn't know the answer either, however, she doesn't care if there is an answer, whereas,  I do.

Anyone have any of the answers?  Such as what were the jewels of Empress Alexandra hidden in a cloth in a box sent to Xenia?

AGRBear with sticky fingers and smile on my face this morning ;D,  oh, and, a little honey there, too....
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Olga on November 01, 2004, 04:56:28 AM
AGRBear, I think all the questions regarding the inheritance have been answered.
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Annie on November 01, 2004, 05:59:53 AM
It could be that the answers are not what people want to hear so they're still hoping. Anyway I don't believe anything wrapped in cloth and mailed would have made it safely, considering all the people and places it would have to go through on the way, even if this were true, it surely would have been looted along the way.
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Greg_King on November 01, 2004, 07:40:12 AM
Quote
It could be that the answers are not what people want to hear so they're still hoping. Anyway I don't believe anything wrapped in cloth and mailed would have made it safely, considering all the people and places it would have to go through on the way, even if this were true, it surely would have been looted along the way.


No, this bit is actually true, although if I recall correctly the jewels in question belonged to either Countess Hendrikova or to Mlle. Schneider.  This was what Sophie Buxhoeveden had told them to search through the clothing for, and they were found.  So we're talking about concealed, non-Romanov jewelry that made its way to London.

Greg King
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Annie on November 01, 2004, 08:17:09 AM
Oh, well if Sophie B. carried them with her, that's how they made it, if they had been mailed I don't think they would have.
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Greg_King on November 01, 2004, 07:23:45 PM
Quote
Oh, well if Sophie B. carried them with her, that's how they made it, if they had been mailed I don't think they would have.


If I remember correctly, Annie, they were shipped from Russia, not brought by Sophie.  When she learned what had been sent, she then alerted them to look in the specified box and search some clothing where the jewels could be found.  But as far as I remember, S didn't carry them-these were things sent by the Soviets.

Greg King
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Forum Admin on November 02, 2004, 10:45:18 AM
Alexandra's Darmstadt property was worth 305,000 marks in 1917, about 15,000 pounds or about $70,000 (1917 dollars). not huge. see Clarke pg 268.
The individual children's portfolios abroad as of 1914 are on page 266.
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: AGRBear on November 02, 2004, 09:49:27 PM
Thank you Forum Admin. for the information.

Quote
The book said jewels p. 155 and then went on to say on p. 156:  Baroness Buxhoeveden wrote Xenia explaining in Countess Henrikova boxes  there was a box which contained a roll of cloth.  Within that roll were found the jewels of Empress Alexandra's. *  

AGRBear


Clarke wrote "...the jewels of Empress Alexandra's...."

So,  Greg King, what you told me is incorrect?

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Alice on November 02, 2004, 09:57:06 PM
That's MR. King. Manners, please!
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: AGRBear on November 03, 2004, 03:44:11 PM
Again, thank you Forum Admin.

THE LOST FORTINE OF THE TSARS p. 266

This list shows the capital of Emperors children abroad on 1 July 1914.

Back on 264 there is a list of capital on 1 May 1917 known by Benckendorff and Rostovtsev for the Provisional Govt..

There is no details of other investments, if there was any, in this latter list.


Is there another book which deals about this same subject?

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Robert_Hall on November 03, 2004, 03:58:03 PM
There is THE QUEST OF THE ROMANOFF TREASURE by Armand Hammer [1932] but I think it just details his search and purchase of the jewels still in Russia. I have not read it in years and it is too high on the shevles to get to at the moment !
Cheers,
Robert
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: AGRBear on November 04, 2004, 05:59:24 PM
Thanks Robert.

I could never remember the thread where I read Forum Admin.'s statement about the inheritance until the thread poped up today so  I thought I'd add here.  Some of it's repeat but some is not and I find it interesting and thought some of you might, also:

Quote
...in part....

....Go to amazon.com and find the excellent book "The Lost Fortune of the Tsars", by William Clarke, 1994. ISBN 0 297 81434 6.
Everything you want to know about "Romanov fortunes" after the Revolution is there.
pg. 190: "So far, no evidence has emerged to suggest that any gold deposits were made on behalf of the Romanoff family prior to abdication.  There is little reason to think that there would be...the main dispute about the ownership of the gold we have traced lay between the Imperial government, the Bolshevik government and, in the case of gold shipped to the Bank of England, the British government."

pg 242. "Once again, there is no evidence here that the tsar's personal deposits (in the US) formed part of the residue.  We know that the Guaranty Trust money ($4,976,722) was basically the balance of the 1916 loan. The small amount of money left in National City Bank (now Citibank, $151,784) is testimony to the use of that account by the US treasury to pay off US debts....
pg. 243. "What eventually emerges is that large "tsarist" accounts of up to $70 million did exist in the United States a the end of the war.  The banks, too, have been indentified.  What has not emerged in San Francisco or New York, or elsewhere is any evidence that personal money of the tsar was involved.  Moreover, no trace of alleged former investments of the tsar in New York has ever been found.  Perhaps more significant, the Soviet authorities at no point raised the question of personal tsarist money or investments United States in any of their detailed claims in the courts."

For London: the only Bank with any possible Tsarist deposits was Barings. point 1. pg. 257-58. What we are left with are the original facts: (the money left in Barings) was the original property of the Imperial Russian government and to some extent the Provisional government.  That government in turn had oustanding debts which had to be negotiated and clarified.  But if we are simply searching for  tsarist deposits, the facts now seem clear. Barings and no other London banks had the money."
Point 2. Barings bank went out of business and no longer exists, having collapsed in 1995.

pg. 275. "The only personal funds left abroad are those of the children in Berlin, which were inherited by Grand Duchess Xenia and her Romanoff relations in 1933."
pg. 276. "This leaves the 100million pounds of Tsarist accounts remaining in Paris, London, and New York in 1918, the bulk of which have in any case already been distributed by the British and American governments to other creditors of the former tsarist regime."

Do your homework. There is no huge gold fortune to be had.



AGRBear
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Greg_King on November 06, 2004, 02:15:25 AM
Quote
Thank you Forum Admin. for the information.


Clarke wrote "...the jewels of Empress Alexandra's...."

So,  King are you telling me that is incorrect?

AGRBear



AGRBear-

No-just that the only details I recalled when answering the post was that the jewels had something to do with Hendrikova.  They may have been Alix's, though I am not certain of this as for some reason I seem to recall having here somewhere some correspondence on the issue that talks about Hendrikova's jewels.  I could be wrong, or Bill Clarke could be wrong-I just cannot tell you for sure since I am only relying on memory.

Greg King
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: LisaDavidson on November 06, 2004, 12:01:39 PM
Bear, what has not been answered for you here?

We have told you, via research and published materials, that while people believed there was a Romanov fortune just waiting for the claiming, there was no such fortune or large inheritance.

Therefore, any inheritance for Anastasia would have been very small - probably less than $100,000 in current valuations.
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: HerrKaiser on November 06, 2004, 02:26:35 PM
Obivously alot of back and forth about this issue. One item that I am aware of is that at the turn of the century, the czar of Russia Nickolas was listed as the world's richest person next to Rockefeler. I always thought such assets in a monarchy were the monarchs, not those of the so-called state.
I see Forum Admin is adamant that N had little money and hence no legacy, but it strikes me that this would only be true as a result of the fortunes being taken away, not that they weren't his to begin with.
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Forum Admin on November 06, 2004, 03:17:02 PM
Herr K. misses much of what this discussion is about. The question was, "if" Anastasia "had" survived the Revolution, what money/property would have been hers to inherit, say circa 1930 when Xenia et al finally inherited the  Nicholas II and family property outside Russia. Go back with this in mind and re-read the thread. No one ever said NII wasn't wealthy, the question is strictly about what was left outside Russia of his "personal property" after the Revolution which would have been Anastasia's inheritance.
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Robert_Hall on November 06, 2004, 05:25:06 PM
Perhaps another way of looking at it: While Nicholas II was Emperor, he WAS the State and therefore all that the state possessed was indeed at his disposal. Of course so was the State's expenditures his responsibitlity.. When he ceased that function he was no longer the State and therefore the assests were no longer his to dispose of.
Robert
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: rskkiya on November 06, 2004, 05:35:26 PM
Mr Hall,
Spot on reasoning-- this interpretation makes a great deal of sense to me.
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: AGRBear on November 08, 2004, 12:36:09 PM
Quote


AGRBear-

No-just that the only details I recalled when answering the post was that the jewels had something to do with Hendrikova.  They may have been Alix's, though I am not certain of this as for some reason I seem to recall having here somewhere some correspondence on the issue that talks about Hendrikova's jewels.  I could be wrong, or Bill Clarke could be wrong-I just cannot tell you for sure since I am only relying on memory.

Greg King


According to Clarke, they were Empress Alexandra's jewels.

Since Clarke's value on the fortune is so highly regarded,  I assumed this particular ref. to these jewels are just as accurate.

So,  this part of the inheritance is "open" for farther discussion.

AGRBear

PS  Nicholas II's private accounts would be Nicholas II's private accounts.  The Bolsheviks/communists  tried hard to claim the  private money/bonds/etc. so it  would have become part of state, but, they couldn't find them nor could they even if they had.  That is why so many people have tried so hard to find private accounts of  Nicholas II's for their Romanov clients.

If you read in my earlier posts,  there are Clarke's thoughts on these private accounts.
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Robert_Hall on November 08, 2004, 12:56:50 PM
Therein lies the argument: just where did the funds for these "private accounts" come from?  One legal answer is : STATE resources, i.e. Imperial appanage.
The Emperor gave himself and his entire family an allowance [a rather generous ne at that] from STATE resources.
The comparrison is not totally correct but can be made with the British civl list.
More true to the form is the situation in Saudi Arabia: the royal family is in sole control of the resources of the state. They provide quite generously for their own citizens, health, education, defense & infrastructuce of the kingdom, etc. as well as for themselves. In their case, each member of the HUGE Saudi family recieves a generous allowance, hence the current downsizing of the family, a bit late, as it happens.

So there lies the source of the Emperor's "private funds".
Robert
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: BobAtchison on November 08, 2004, 01:32:20 PM
Robert:

Imperial lands were the private property of the Tsar and he could do with them as he wished until 1905 at least.  Nicholas was usually careful about what was private and what was state property.  In most cases he made payments for own own things from his 'own funds'.

There were many things that were a part of the Tsar's private 'estate' - jewels, lands, money and property.

Certain palaces were considered 'State Property' - such as the Winter Palace and Peterhof.  Others were private property - such as the Nizhni Dvoretz and Livadia (completely built with the Tsar's private funds - supposedly).  Jewels were the same way and Nicholas and Alexandra took great care in keeping state jewels and private jewels separate.  State property could not easily be given away or left as a legacy by the Tsar.
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Robert_Hall on November 08, 2004, 02:00:20 PM
I understand, Bob. The point was, that those very funds, the farms, jewels, private palaces, etc. were all bought from money that originally came from the state. AS you know, the state held monopolies on just about evry natural resource in the empire, which, effectively provided for the private funding of the Imperial family.  THOSE private funds were then done with as the individuals wished, in purchasing stocks, property, art, whatever anywhere they wished. The origin is what I am getting at.
OUTSIDE of this "appanage" came such things as dowery money, wedding gifts, bequests, and such.
WE all know they did not make a private fortune from some pig farm in Bavaria [although that might well have been one of their own investments].
Best,
Robert
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: BobAtchison on November 08, 2004, 02:07:31 PM
Of course in olden times time didn't the Tsar own everything and everybody?  Weren't land and serf grants temporary?
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Robert_Hall on November 08, 2004, 02:16:53 PM
Yes, very much so.."giveth & taketh away" , which they did ! And which I understand Nicholas II was to continue to do with Imperial Estates after WWI. I do not know though if these were the PRIVATE Imperial  or STATE Imperial Estates though.
Cheers, again,
Robert
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: LisaDavidson on November 08, 2004, 02:31:26 PM
As a matter of fact, since the Tsar theoretically owned everything in Russia, he would not allow patents. Hence an ancestor of mine, a Schilling van Canstatt, actually invented the Morse Code ahead of Mr. Morse, but, being unable to patent it, neither he nor his descendants have benefited financially!
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Forum Admin on November 09, 2004, 12:47:00 PM
Under Imperial Russian Law, the Tsar held three kinds of private property:

a. Property inherited from his predecessors, and to which other members of his family had no claim to inheritance (State property)

b. Joint Property of the Imperial Family which could not be divided (Imperial Property)

c. Private property to which his heirs had right of inheritance (Personal property)

Now, given the fully autocratic power pre 1905, it might be hard to sort out which was which, but perhaps this gives some framework.

The Soviet Government TRIED the argument, according to Clarke, that Robert sets forward, ie: since all money of the Tsar was "state" funds, anything ever bought with by the Tsar was "State" property. Most Courts rejected that argument, essentially using the above test.

Lord Cobbold, Lord Chamberlain, in 1971, acknowledged, as Britain today does, that there is a distinction between "personal diamonds of Her Majesty" and "diamonds of the Crown". The Courts used a similar theory. ie: Romanovs did have PERSONAL property as opposed to state. Within Russia, the Bolshevik Government declared all Romanov property to be State Property before the executions, but outside of Russia, that generally failed to the above test separating personal and private property.

Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Robert_Hall on November 09, 2004, 01:56:05 PM
I want to make it clear that I was using the "devil's advocate" role there, trying to expalin the way the Soviet's saw things. I personally prefer the Saudi analogy. That is where a relatively small population is able to enjoy the immense wealth at the state's [Audi family] disposal: free education, health, guarenteed emplyoment [if they choose to do so], child care most countries could only dream of,  the best infrastructure, etc. There is, of course the drawback of a strictly conservative religous social enviornment and no political freedom
Best,
Robert
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: AGRBear on January 25, 2005, 10:39:47 AM
Perhaps some of us are missing the point.  It is not the amount of money or jewels or property we know, now, as a fact that would have been GD Anatasia Inheritance, when in fact, it was what the claimants / pretenders thought the inheritance was and most thought it could have been millions.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: AGRBear on March 08, 2005, 11:31:21 AM
On another thread Michael G. mentioned an inheritance of some Finnish property.  Anyone have a source on this?

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: AGRBear on March 10, 2005, 11:31:14 AM
Michael did reply and here it is:

Quote
Bear,  here is the answer to your question regarding the Finnish Property settlement,  from "The Lost Fortune Of The Tsars"  pages 114 & 115:

"Peter Bark was also able to help Xenia in claiming some money in Finland.  She had long been aware of Romanoff property at Halila which had been confiscated by the Bolsheviks and handed over to the Finnish Government at the Treaty of Dorpat.  In 1928 with Sir Frederick Ponsonby's encouragement and Peter Bark's expert support, she finally brought an action agains the Finnish state.  The Bank of England gave Bark permission to take powers of attorney from Empress Marie (just before her death), and Xenia.  George V paid Bark's travelling expenses.

"Xenia claimed that they property in the village of Halila, including the Halila Sanitorium had been bought personally  for 100,000 roubles by her father, Alexander III in 1892.  The Finns responded by reminding the court that the property had been hadned over to Empress Marie's foundation in 1900 by Nicholas, that the Foundation was supported by State Funds, and that in any case, the Finnish Govt. had acquired it legitmately under the Peace Treaty.  In fact Halila had been mentioned in a special issue of the treaty.  The case initially went against Xenia, but the dispute continued for some three years until, in mid Feb. 1934, following the discreet intervention of the Bank of England, Peter Bark was able to report to the Governor of the Bank of England that he had just received a cheque on behalf of Xenia and her relations.  " I am quite certain that (the negotiations) would be still be draggin on had it not been for the steps you so kindly undertook"


Thanks Michael G.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: AGRBear on March 10, 2005, 12:37:24 PM
Michael added:

Quote
Bear, I am not sure of the amount GD Xenia received from this settlement, nor what 100,000 roubled was worth in 1892 and in 1934.  

When Xenia died she left an estate worth about 100,000 pounds.  I am not sure how much of it was from the Halila settlement.   Sorry to take so long to get to it Bear, most of my books are in storage at the moment, these two books happened to be where I could get to them.
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Finelly on July 27, 2005, 09:22:53 PM
AA seemed to have believed that, at the very least, she would gain her dowry, which she stated had been deposited by her father in a private account for each of his daughters and that he would never have touched.

She could have also inherited from her paternal grandmother's estate, though she never seems to have tried to do so.  She might also have inherited something from her maternal relatives, and I am thinking here about Ernie's family, who all perished, but did not explore that.

As this all relates to the corporation that was formed, I think it's interesting that actually, it wasn't so much the funds from the past that would have made millions, but funds from all future endeavors, if she was declared to be AN.  
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: AGRBear on August 16, 2005, 10:40:06 AM
Quote
AA seemed to have believed that, at the very least, she would gain her dowry, which she stated had been deposited by her father in a private account for each of his daughters and that he would never have touched.

She could have also inherited from her paternal grandmother's estate, though she never seems to have tried to do so.  She might also have inherited something from her maternal relatives, and I am thinking here about Ernie's family, who all perished, but did not explore that.

As this all relates to the corporation that was formed, I think it's interesting that actually, it wasn't so much the funds from the past that would have made millions, but funds from all future endeavors, if she was declared to be AN.  


I don't have the direct answers to the above questions.  And, I assume what GD Anastasia would have inherited through the years from 1918 to her death [date unknown of course] would have been.

On p. 130 of THE LOST FORTUNE OF THE TSARS by William Clarke is the following: On 9 Jan 1934 was submitted an application from Countess Brassova  >>on behlaf of herself and other Romanoffs, the Central District Court in Berlin granted them the tsar's remaining assests in Germany, comprising despoits and investments previously blocked.  The heir were reconized as Countess Brassova, Grand Duchess Xenia, Grand Duchess Olga, the Marchinoness of Milford Haven [Princess Victoria, the tsarin's sister and Lord Mounbatten's mother), and the two German residents among the applicants, Princess Irene von Hesse and Grand Duke Ernst Ludwig von Hesse..."

>>Originally at stake were investiments worth somehwere between 7 million and 14 million roubled (700,000 pounds and 1,400,000 pounds), according to the evidence of Lvov and Kerensky.<<


Since the German courts were saying that all the IF family had died at Ekaterinburg, this allowed AA's group to challenge that "assumption" in court and this is when her group filed a petition on 17 Aug 1938 and this was the beginning of legal battle which was turned down in 1941 then came the appeal in 1942 .... resulted in the AA trial.

Remember, this was just about the German assests which is said to equal  2,200,000 pounds on or by 9 Jan 1934.  This does not include anything outside of Germany.

I do not know what the amount of money translates into US currency in 1938.

Nor do I understand why German assests would be estimated in "roubles"???

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Mgmstl on August 16, 2005, 06:37:12 PM
Quote

I don't have the direct answers to the above questions.  And, I assume what GD Anastasia wold have inherited through the years from 1918 to her death [date unknown of course] would have been.

On p. 130 of THE LOST FORTUNE OF THE TSARS by William Clarke is the following: On 9 Jan 1934 was submitted an application from Countess Brassova  >>on behlaf of herself and other Romanoffs, the Central District Court in Berlin granted them the tsar's remaining assests in Germany, comprising despoits and investments previously blocked.  The heir were reconized as Countess Brassova, Grand Duchess Xenia, Grand Duchess Olga, the Marchinoness of Milford Haven [Princess Victoria, the tsarin's sister and Lord Mounbatten's mother), and the two German residents among the applicants, Princess Irene von Hesse and Grand Duke Ernst Ludwig von Hesse..."

>>Originally at stake were investiments worth somehwere between 7 million and 14 million roubled (700,000 pounds and 1,400,000 pounds), according to the evidence of Lvov and Kerensky.<<


Since the German courts were saying that all the IF family had died at Ekaterinburg, his allowed AA's group to challenge that "assumption" in court and this is when her group filed a petition on 17 Aug 1938 and this was the beginning of legal battle which was turned down in 1941 then came the appeal in 1942 .... resulted in the AA trial.

Remember, this was just about the German assests which is said to equal  2,200,000 pounds on or by 9 Jan 1934.  This does not include anything outside of Germany.

I do not know what the amount of money translates into US currency in 1938.

Nor do I understand why German assests would be estimated in "roubles"???

AGRBear


My understanding of the amount divided between the heirs from the Mendhelsson Bank as much less.  I believe that GD Xenia NEVER did collect hers also.
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Mgmstl on August 16, 2005, 07:26:55 PM
Quote
AA seemed to have believed that, at the very least, she would gain her dowry, which she stated had been deposited by her father in a private account for each of his daughters and that he would never have touched.

She could have also inherited from her paternal grandmother's estate, though she never seems to have tried to do so.  She might also have inherited something from her maternal relatives, and I am thinking here about Ernie's family, who all perished, but did not explore that.

As this all relates to the corporation that was formed, I think it's interesting that actually, it wasn't so much the funds from the past that would have made millions, but funds from all future endeavors, if she was declared to be AN.  



This is the question I have regarding the supposed overseas accounts.  According to some reports Nicholas and Alexandra repatriated ALL foreign investments at the time of WW I.    Were the dowry funds for each Grand Duchess payable from the Tsar's personal account or the Treasury?

How do we know of the existance of these accounts of
OTMA, and if they actually did exist??

We know that IF  Anastasia had survived she would have been the sole heir of the Mendehlsson Bank funds and any of the Tsar's property.  She would have also received Nicholas's share of his mother's estate.
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Robert_Hall on August 16, 2005, 07:46:00 PM
Would she have ? Why ?
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Mgmstl on August 16, 2005, 09:43:53 PM
Quote
Would she have ? Why ?


Yes, let's imagine she survived alone out of all 5 children, then Nicholas & Alexandra's accounts would go to her, unless the law in Germany is different on the divison of assets, but she would have been the only surviving child of her parents, therefore their assets should have went to her at their death.

However we know she was not, so the heirs were:

Olga Alexandrovna, Xenia Alexandrovna, George Brassov,  Grand Duke Ernst Ludwig of Hesse, Princess Irene of Prussia & Victoria, Dowager Marchioness of Milford Haven, divided the assets in the account.

Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Robert_Hall on August 16, 2005, 10:06:47 PM
Michael, I understand your points.  Mine, however would br these:  N&A undoubetly had wills [testaments] that if ever released would have designated the distribution of their [personal] assets. Given their attitudes [no different than any other well-placed royals of the time] they would expect their daughters and son- heir to be wll provided for in their own right. So- perhaps no GD, whomever she may have been, would have inherited anything. Indeed, if there was anything to inherit.
As for MF the dowager. Well, she never recognized their deaths anyway and left provisions for her own daughters without regard to those of N&A.
The challenge would have to be first who was entitrled and then what was the entitlement would it not ? If NO ONE was entitled to inherit then the case becomes mute.
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Mgmstl on August 16, 2005, 10:13:44 PM
Quote
Michael, I understand your points.  Mine, however would br these:  N&A undoubetly had wills [testaments] that if ever released would have designated the distribution of their [personal] assets. Given their attitudes [no different than any other well-placed royals of the time] they would expect their daughters and son- heir to be wll provided for in their own right. So- perhaps no GD, whomever she may have been, would have inherited anything. Indeed, if there was anything to inherit.
As for MF the dowager. Well, she never recognized their deaths anyway and left provisions for her own daughters without regard to those of N&A.
The challenge would have to be first who was entitrled and then what was the entitlement would it not ? If NO ONE was entitled to inherit then the case becomes mute.


I see your points, and I guess I am looking at from the point of view that AN would have been the sole heir of her parents if she was their sole survivor, and that is if no will was presented to state otherwise.

While MF died with 4 of her children predeceasing her,
George Brassov, was given a share of the proceeds from the sale of Hvidore and it's contents, and I am not sure if he got money from the jewel sale or not, wouldn't AN get a share nominally, since MF obviously did not leave a will.   I am sure that it would be up to the daughters to accede to that request, but it would depend on what the law in Denmark & England was regarding inheritance.
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: AGRBear on December 11, 2005, 06:07:34 PM
Sometime last week,  I was surfing the various threads and came across a post which talked about a coffee plantation which Nicholas II owned in S. America.  I had  copied it to bring it to this thread but had to leave and lost the post.   And,  I can't recall which thread held the post.  I ran a "search" but didn't come up with that particular post.

Did Nicholas II own a coffee plantation?

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: AGRBear on December 14, 2005, 12:54:04 PM

While looking for something else,  I stumbled over this thread which has been buried and thought I'd add it here since it deals with the topic.

I have nothing more to add.

Quote
Two points:

Contrary to what is usually claimed, Nicholas did leave money in the UK at the start of the War-see the references in the correspondence of N/A with regard to Sir George Buchanan bringing her funds from their accounts.  This was estimated at $200 million in present day figures.  I'm sure that some of this was repatrioted but clearly not all-in 1917 Alix told Lili Dehn "At least we shan't starve, for we have a fortune in the Bank of England."  Although William Clarke did excellent work on investigating this, he admits that some funds seem to have vanished-his hypothesis being that N/A simply regarded all Russian deposits as their own.  But he admits this is only a theory.

And yes, there were funds invested in Berlin.  In 1933, the Berlin Civil Court granted a certificate of inheritance to seven collateral heirs of the last Emperor of Russia for funds held in the Mendelssohn Bank in Berlin.  In December of 1905, in the aftermath of the First Russian Revolution, Nicholas II had made deposits for all of his children in the Mendelssohn bank.  The accounts were opened under the coded names “A., B., C., D., and E.,” and initially included some two million gold rubles.  The following year, he opened another account at the same bank, with a personal check for 1.5 million gold rubles.  These assets were frozen at the beginning of the First World War, and the chaos of runaway inflation in 1920s Germany meant that their value, at the beginning of the 1930s, was a mere million Reichmarks, or approximately £1,000.

Greg King


Quote
That's a point of contention.  Xenia Alexandrovna certainly believed that the children's money was still there, and she spent a small fortune in the 1930s hiring private investigators, and the American lawyer Fanny Holtzmann, to try to find out if it was there.  My belief is that there MAY have been money left in the UK at the time of the revolution, but I doubt very much.

The confusion over the money in the UK stems from the fund set up by Alexander II at the Bank of England versus funds sent by the Romanovs to prop up the gold ruble-the Alexander II fund was purely personal property.  I've corresponded with Bill Clarke over this whole issue, and as I say, it's his hypothesis that whatever was left in the UK was state money, not personal money.  I am not so sure, given Nicholas II's estimate of $7 million in foreign banks made after his abdication, coupled with Alix's statement to Dehn, and the fact that if money was repatrioted at the beginning of the war, certainly not all of it was-enough remained to be drawn on by the Imperial couple and brought by Buchanan.  I doubt that anyone will ever know for sure what belonged to whom, and how much was left where.

Greg King



Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: AGRBear on January 05, 2006, 11:44:54 AM
Quote


So the conclusion is then that the Romanovs were not viewed as the prime enemies of the state during the 1920-1940 period, since the alleged TRUST did not spend time luring them back into Soviet control.

Which I think also undercuts the idea that there was vast amounts of Tsarist money abroad. Surely this would have made someone like, say, Maria Feodorovna, a prime target for Soviet agents, no? Kidnap the heirs to the Tsar and hold them hostage until the funds were released?




The only time I remember real new interest about the so-called missing money of Nicholas II occured was when Anna Anderson mentioned something about a secret account and some secret word which would allow a person to have access to this money.

Gosh,  where did I read this?

Something about the password having to do with a tree.....

Having a senior moment.

I need to pack some boxes and while I am,  I try to remember what it was and where it was.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Louis_Charles on January 05, 2006, 04:58:32 PM
I think this is mentioned in the Lovell "biography" of Andersen.
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Grand_Duke_Paul on January 05, 2006, 07:58:19 PM
Quote
While looking for something else,  I stumbled over this thread which has been buried and thought I'd add it here since it deals with the topic.

I have nothing more to add.

Two points:
 
Contrary to what is usually claimed, Nicholas did leave money in the UK at the start of the War-see the references in the correspondence of N/A with regard to Sir George Buchanan bringing her funds from their accounts.  This was estimated at $200 million in present day figures.  I'm sure that some of this was repatrioted but clearly not all-in 1917 Alix told Lili Dehn "At least we shan't starve, for we have a fortune in the Bank of England."  Although William Clarke did excellent work on investigating this, he admits that some funds seem to have vanished-his hypothesis being that N/A simply regarded all Russian deposits as their own.  But he admits this is only a theory.
 
And yes, there were funds invested in Berlin.  In 1933, the Berlin Civil Court granted a certificate of inheritance to seven collateral heirs of the last Emperor of Russia for funds held in the Mendelssohn Bank in Berlin.  In December of 1905, in the aftermath of the First Russian Revolution, Nicholas II had made deposits for all of his children in the Mendelssohn bank.  The accounts were opened under the coded names “A., B., C., D., and E.,” and initially included some two million gold rubles.  The following year, he opened another account at the same bank, with a personal check for 1.5 million gold rubles.  These assets were frozen at the beginning of the First World War, and the chaos of runaway inflation in 1920s Germany meant that their value, at the beginning of the 1930s, was a mere million Reichmarks, or approximately £1,000.
 
Greg King  
 

 
on May 13th, 2004, 6:45am, Greg_King wrote:That's a point of contention.  Xenia Alexandrovna certainly believed that the children's money was still there, and she spent a small fortune in the 1930s hiring private investigators, and the American lawyer Fanny Holtzmann, to try to find out if it was there.  My belief is that there MAY have been money left in the UK at the time of the revolution, but I doubt very much.
 
The confusion over the money in the UK stems from the fund set up by Alexander II at the Bank of England versus funds sent by the Romanovs to prop up the gold ruble-the Alexander II fund was purely personal property.  I've corresponded with Bill Clarke over this whole issue, and as I say, it's his hypothesis that whatever was left in the UK was state money, not personal money.  I am not so sure, given Nicholas II's estimate of $7 million in foreign banks made after his abdication, coupled with Alix's statement to Dehn, and the fact that if money was repatrioted at the beginning of the war, certainly not all of it was-enough remained to be drawn on by the Imperial couple and brought by Buchanan.  I doubt that anyone will ever know for sure what belonged to whom, and how much was left where.
 
Greg King  
 







This is all very interesting, and were these accounts that were coded for his daughters, common knowledge among court officials or the nobility?
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: AGRBear on January 08, 2006, 03:51:30 PM
It seems to me that post posters here haven't experience being of noble birth and having a huge amount of money, or, they would understand how bankers work who are about to receive a huge account.  

These huge account keeps the bank in the black and without these accounts which the bank uses to invest,  give in loans, etc. so they went to the person/persons involved.

Nicholas II didn't have to set one foot in a bank.

It was not impossible for Nicholas II to do something completely on his own, especially, while in a foreign country, which he often found himself.

Oh, and thanks Louis Charles.  The stuff about a password  and something about a "tree"  was in Lovell's book.

But first let me start on p. 236 of Peter Kurth's book ANASTASIA:

>>...Anastasia... in fact, had provided the first telling clue to the fate of the Romanov inheritance by declaring the the deposit in the Bank of England had been registered in a secret account that she thought could be opened only through the revelation of a certain name, a name she recalled as "short" and "German-sounding."

Working with a fuzzy description, it wasn't long before Anastasia's attorney remembered Sir Peter Bark, an Anglicized Russian who had been Nicholas II's last finance minister and who, after the Revolution, managed the generally chaotic financial affairs of the Tsar's sister.  Bark had been appointed trustee by King George V for the estate of the late Dowager Empress, and in that capacity, presided over the sale of the Empress's fabulous jewel collection...."

Well,  I did recall it had something to do with a tree....  As in the bark of a tree    ;D.


Earlier posts wil explain what the author William Clarke said in his book THE LOST FORTUNE OF THE TSARS P. 198:

>>...She could not remember the name, but said it was 'not Russia but Baltic and she she thought of of one syllable'.  The late James Blair Lovell recently added another clue to the name.  He said tht Mrs. Anderson had indicated that 'it had something to do with a tree'.<<

>>I at once assumed that it must be Sir Peter Bark....<<

He has a chapter on Bark which may prove interesting to those who want to know more.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: AGRBear on April 28, 2006, 08:16:23 PM
Bumping this up since the subject has surfaced on another thread.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: CorisCapnSkip on April 28, 2006, 10:11:03 PM
Thanks, this contains very relevant information.
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: AGRBear on June 11, 2007, 10:39:48 AM
Does anyone have anything more about what Anastasia's inheritance would have been if she had survived?

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: dmitri on June 16, 2007, 12:57:59 PM
Dead people don't inheirit anything. Anastasia died in Ekaterinburg so she inheirited nothing. If she had not been murdered she would have been reliant on other family members for support such as Grand Duchess Xiena, Grand Duchess Olga and the Dowager Empress Maria Feodorovna all were.
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Bob_the_builder on June 17, 2007, 02:39:56 AM
Dead people don't inheirit anything. Anastasia died in Ekaterinburg so she inheirited nothing. If she had not been murdered she would have been reliant on other family members for support such as Grand Duchess Xiena, Grand Duchess Olga and the Dowager Empress Maria Feodorovna all were.
Guess what. The topic is hypothetically speaking.
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: LisaDavidson on June 17, 2007, 11:42:55 PM
Does anyone have anything more about what Anastasia's inheritance would have been if she had survived?

AGRBear

I don't. I am sticking with my earlier post on this thread. Had any of the girls survived, it is most likely that their aunts and uncles would have ensured that they were suitably married. Sorry, that's how things were done at that time - and this is consistent with how Louis XVI's daughter was treated over a century earlier - she having survived her entire immediate family was married off to a cousin.
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: AGRBear on April 08, 2008, 12:31:53 PM
If GD Anatasia had survived,  she would have outlived many of her relatives.  Would she have inherited any money from other members of her family because she would have been the last survivor of Nicholas II's family.  If so,  from whom would she have inherited money or jewels or land?

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: LisaDavidson on April 08, 2008, 02:34:53 PM
If GD Anatasia had survived,  she would have outlived many of her relatives.  Would she have inherited any money from other members of her family because she would have been the last survivor of Nicholas II's family.  If so,  from whom would she have inherited money or jewels or land?

AGRBear

I will repeat my earlier statement: her relatives would have ensured that she was suitably married. There was no likelihood of any kind of major inheritance. Of her immediate relations, on her father's side, there was no one with any assets to speak of. On her mother's side, the only ones who ended up with any money of their own to speak of might have left her a momento or two.

Nicholas II had numerous close survivors - two sisters, and each of these with families of their own. They did not receive appreciable amounts of money, jewels or land.

Please accept this - there was no big inheritance.
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: AGRBear on April 08, 2008, 04:09:43 PM
I did not place a size (large, medium, small) on the amount GD Anastasia would have inherited had she lived. 

I was just wondering if she had lived,  what would have been rightfully her's as the daughter of Nicholas II and what she would have inherited as her aunts, uncles, cousins..... died. 

For example,  I had asked earlier about the jewels which Nicholas II's mother kept in a box under her bed.  I was told that GD Anastasia would not have inherited them because they would have gone to GD Anastasia's aunts, (the daughters of the Dowager) which I still find as odd since it seemed to me that it would have been GD Anastasia who would have inherited the jewels that had belonged to Nicholas II, so, again, showing my lack of knownledge about  who receives what when a grandmother or an aunt or uncle have died, I thought I'd would ask that question.  Perhaps, the answer is  obvious to some of you,  it isn't to me nor to others.

So, what Lisa  is telling  me is: GD Anastasia  would not have inherited anything from family members who died before GD Anastasia, if she had survived, say another 2 to 20 to 60 years after 1918.

Thanks for the quick reply.

AGRBear







Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Forum Admin on April 08, 2008, 04:40:58 PM
Dowager Empress Marie's jewels were her private property. Without a will, her property would go to all surviving children.  Perhaps with a will, she might have left a portion  to Anastasia.  Grandchildren and Nieces are left nothing under probate rules, unless the G'parent/uncle/aunt dies without leaving a will AND without leaving a surviving spouse and/or children. 

Thus, while "if" she were alive, her family would probably have left her small amounts and momentos under their wills, but WITHOUT a will, there would be little for her to inherit.

Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: AGRBear on April 08, 2008, 04:56:49 PM
I had written this earlier and had forgotten.

Quote
AA seemed to have believed that, at the very least, she would gain her dowry, which she stated had been deposited by her father in a private account for each of his daughters and that he would never have touched.

She could have also inherited from her paternal grandmother's estate, though she never seems to have tried to do so.  She might also have inherited something from her maternal relatives, and I am thinking here about Ernie's family, who all perished, but did not explore that.

As this all relates to the corporation that was formed, I think it's interesting that actually, it wasn't so much the funds from the past that would have made millions, but funds from all future endeavors, if she was declared to be AN.  

I don't have the direct answers to the above questions.  And, I assume what GD Anastasia would have inherited through the years from 1918 to her death [date unknown of course] would have been.

On p. 130 of THE LOST FORTUNE OF THE TSARS by William Clarke is the following: On 9 Jan 1934 was submitted an application from Countess Brassova  >>on behlaf of herself and other Romanoffs, the Central District Court in Berlin granted them the tsar's remaining assests in Germany, comprising despoits and investments previously blocked.  The heir were reconized as Countess Brassova, Grand Duchess Xenia, Grand Duchess Olga, the Marchinoness of Milford Haven [Princess Victoria, the tsarin's sister and Lord Mounbatten's mother), and the two German residents among the applicants, Princess Irene von Hesse and Grand Duke Ernst Ludwig von Hesse..."

>>Originally at stake were investiments worth somehwere between 7 million and 14 million roubled (700,000 pounds and 1,400,000 pounds), according to the evidence of Lvov and Kerensky.<<


Since the German courts were saying that all the IF family had died at Ekaterinburg, this allowed AA's group to challenge that "assumption" in court and this is when her group filed a petition on 17 Aug 1938 and this was the beginning of legal battle which was turned down in 1941 then came the appeal in 1942 .... resulted in the AA trial.

Remember, this was just about the German assests which is said to equal  2,200,000 pounds on or by 9 Jan 1934.  This does not include anything outside of Germany.

I do not know what the amount of money translates into US currency in 1938.

Nor do I understand why German assests would be estimated in "roubles"???

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: AGRBear on April 08, 2008, 05:00:41 PM
Dowager Empress Marie's jewels were her private property. Without a will, her property would go to all surviving children.  Perhaps with a will, she might have left a portion  to Anastasia.  Grandchildren and Nieces are left nothing under probate rules, unless the G'parent/uncle/aunt dies without leaving a will AND without leaving a surviving spouse and/or children. 

Thus, while "if" she were alive, her family would probably have left her small amounts and momentos under their wills, but WITHOUT a will, there would be little for her to inherit.



Thank you FA.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: LisaDavidson on April 09, 2008, 12:44:06 AM
Dowager Empress Marie's jewels were her private property. Without a will, her property would go to all surviving children.  Perhaps with a will, she might have left a portion  to Anastasia.  Grandchildren and Nieces are left nothing under probate rules, unless the G'parent/uncle/aunt dies without leaving a will AND without leaving a surviving spouse and/or children. 

Thus, while "if" she were alive, her family would probably have left her small amounts and momentos under their wills, but WITHOUT a will, there would be little for her to inherit.



Thank you FA.

AGRBear

I'm sorry, AGR Bear, but I have answered your question many times, the FA has answered your question, and yet you continue to ask. May I ask you what answer you are looking for? Because that's the only reason I can think of that you would continue to bring this up again - that you don't like the many answers you have been given and are looking for something else?

Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: AGRBear on April 09, 2008, 09:40:25 AM
Why wouldn't I like the answers Lisa, FA or anyone have  given???   Beats me!  Yesterday  I merely was wondering if there was anything else to add to what   GD Anastasia would have inherited had she survived, before I add up what's been presented here to see what the total would have been.

AGRBear





 
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: LisaDavidson on April 09, 2008, 01:14:27 PM
Why wouldn't I like the answers Lisa, FA or anyone have  given???   Beats me!  Yesterday  I merely was wondering if there was anything else to add to what   GD Anastasia would have inherited had she survived, before I add up what's been presented here to see what the total would have been.

AGRBear


Thank you for the explanation. Since the actual heirs all received very little with the possible exception of the monies Xenia and Olga received from the sale of MF's jewels, and since she excluded other potential heirs (such as her grandson, George, Count Brassov), it would be safe to say "her total" if there was such a thing, would have been less than $50,000.
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: AGRBear on April 10, 2008, 04:13:17 PM

Thank you for the explanation. Since the actual heirs all received very little with the possible exception of the monies Xenia and Olga received from the sale of MF's jewels, and since she excluded other potential heirs (such as her grandson, George, Count Brassov), it would be safe to say "her total" if there was such a thing, would have been less than $50,000.

Is this figure your own addition to various accounts and property or did you find this total in a book?

Are you using todays value of $50,000 or the total using figure of 1918 or  somewhere inbetween 1918 and 2008?

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: AGRBear on April 10, 2008, 04:54:06 PM
Here is one of the reasons I asked, Lisa:

Alexandra's Darmstadt property was worth 305,000 marks in 1917, about 15,000 pounds or about $70,000 (1917 dollars). not huge. see Clarke pg 268.
The individual children's portfolios abroad as of 1914 are on page 266.

List:

1. According to FA  Alexandra's Darmstadt property was worth $70,000 in 1917.
     * Added to this was a yearly income which would have gone to GD Anastasia which was 150,000 rubles =15,000  Pounds per year
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: LisaDavidson on April 13, 2008, 11:33:51 PM

Thank you for the explanation. Since the actual heirs all received very little with the possible exception of the monies Xenia and Olga received from the sale of MF's jewels, and since she excluded other potential heirs (such as her grandson, George, Count Brassov), it would be safe to say "her total" if there was such a thing, would have been less than $50,000.

Is this figure your own addition to various accounts and property or did you find this total in a book?

Are you using todays value of $50,000 or the total using figure of 1918 or  somewhere inbetween 1918 and 2008?

AGRBear

It is a very rough estimate based upon circa 1920 values. No residual heirs received anything substantial from Nicholas or Alexandra, whose assets were stolen. You asked what she would have received from others - so I said less than $50,000.
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: AGRBear on April 14, 2008, 09:45:32 AM
Thank you Lisa.


Thank you for the explanation. Since the actual heirs all received very little with the possible exception of the monies Xenia and Olga received from the sale of MF's jewels, and since she excluded other potential heirs (such as her grandson, George, Count Brassov), it would be safe to say "her total" if there was such a thing, would have been less than $50,000.

Is this figure your own addition to various accounts and property or did you find this total in a book?

Are you using todays value of $50,000 or the total using figure of 1918 or  somewhere inbetween 1918 and 2008?

AGRBear

It is a very rough estimate based upon circa 1920 values. No residual heirs received anything substantial from Nicholas or Alexandra, whose assets were stolen. You asked what she would have received from others - so I said less than $50,000.

$50,000 would be then added to the worth of GD Anastasia's mother's  estate with the small farms which FS estimated as being worth $70,000.

Here is one of the reasons I asked, Lisa:

Alexandra's Darmstadt property was worth 305,000 marks in 1917, about 15,000 pounds or about $70,000 (1917 dollars). not huge. see Clarke pg 268.
The individual children's portfolios abroad as of 1914 are on page 266.

List:

1. According to FA  Alexandra's Darmstadt property was worth $70,000 in 1917.
     * Added to this was a yearly income which would have gone to GD Anastasia which was 150,000 rubles =15,000  Pounds per year

So that is  $120,000 to which we add per year another $70,000 [sometimes less and sometimes more]  from the income from the farms which Alexandra received before her death.



AGRBear

 
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: AGRBear on April 14, 2008, 10:06:40 AM
Each GD had an account in Germany with some money in it, in their own name. Not a huge fortune. I don't have The Lost Fortune of the Tsar right with me, but I remember it was a couple hundred thousand dollars each. Alix had some family property in Hesse, which was hers. Thats about IT. The only jewelry that left of any  importance belonged to MF.

The rest of the "money" outside Russia was governmental and NOT personal property of Nicholas so any claimant could not touch it. Money was never really a major motive IN FACT, though I can understand that someone outside the family might think it WAS...another reason to me that claimants were fakes.

I'd like to set aside anything to do with AA or other claimants.  This is strictly about if GD Anastasia had survived what would she have inherited from 1918 to her death around the age of 70 or 80.

p. 266-7 THE LOST FORTUNE OF THE TSARS by William Clarke

>>..the royal family's wealth was made up of Nicholas's capital of 'less than a million roubles,'  Alexandra's of "one and half million', and that the five children (that which was abroad as well as which was in the State bank') which varied, he said, 'between two and three millions each.' This semed to indicate that only the children had money abroad, and that the family's total resources amounted to between 12 million and 17 million roubles.<<  .

So 5 times (Olga's, Mari's, Tatiana's, Anatasia's and Alexei's)  a  couple of hundred thousand would be  $1,000,0000.00

To this we add  $120,000 and approximately $70,000 per year.

Am I right so far?

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: LisaDavidson on April 15, 2008, 08:52:12 PM
Each GD had an account in Germany with some money in it, in their own name. Not a huge fortune. I don't have The Lost Fortune of the Tsar right with me, but I remember it was a couple hundred thousand dollars each. Alix had some family property in Hesse, which was hers. Thats about IT. The only jewelry that left of any  importance belonged to MF.

The rest of the "money" outside Russia was governmental and NOT personal property of Nicholas so any claimant could not touch it. Money was never really a major motive IN FACT, though I can understand that someone outside the family might think it WAS...another reason to me that claimants were fakes.

I'd like to set aside anything to do with AA or other claimants.  This is strictly about if GD Anastasia had survived what would she have inherited from 1918 to her death around the age of 70 or 80.

p. 266-7 THE LOST FORTUNE OF THE TSARS by William Clarke

>>..the royal family's wealth was made up of Nicholas's capital of 'less than a million roubles,'  Alexandra's of "one and half million', and that the five children (that which was abroad as well as which was in the State bank') which varied, he said, 'between two and three millions each.' This semed to indicate that only the children had money abroad, and that the family's total resources amounted to between 12 million and 17 million roubles.<<  .

So 5 times (Olga's, Mari's, Tatiana's, Anatasia's and Alexei's)  a  couple of hundred thousand would be  $1,000,0000.00

To this we add  $120,000 and approximately $70,000 per year.

Am I right so far?

AGRBear

No, this is absolutely wrong. All this money was stolen from the family and their heirs.
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: AGRBear on April 17, 2008, 10:26:35 AM
Each GD had an account in Germany with some money in it, in their own name. Not a huge fortune. I don't have The Lost Fortune of the Tsar right with me, but I remember it was a couple hundred thousand dollars each. Alix had some family property in Hesse, which was hers. Thats about IT. The only jewelry that left of any  importance belonged to MF.

The rest of the "money" outside Russia was governmental and NOT personal property of Nicholas so any claimant could not touch it. Money was never really a major motive IN FACT, though I can understand that someone outside the family might think it WAS...another reason to me that claimants were fakes.

I'd like to set aside anything to do with AA or other claimants.  This is strictly about if GD Anastasia had survived what would she have inherited from 1918 to her death around the age of 70 or 80.

p. 266-7 THE LOST FORTUNE OF THE TSARS by William Clarke

>>..the royal family's wealth was made up of Nicholas's capital of 'less than a million roubles,'  Alexandra's of "one and half million', and that the five children (that which was abroad as well as which was in the State bank') which varied, he said, 'between two and three millions each.' This semed to indicate that only the children had money abroad, and that the family's total resources amounted to between 12 million and 17 million roubles.<<  .

So 5 times (Olga's, Mari's, Tatiana's, Anatasia's and Alexei's)  a  couple of hundred thousand would be  $1,000,0000.00

To this we add  $120,000 and approximately $70,000 per year.

Am I right so far?

AGRBear

No, this is absolutely wrong. All this money was stolen from the family and their heirs.

Who stoled the money?  Germans?  Bolsheviks?  If neither than who?

When and how did they steal it?

Could the family have gone to court to retrieve what was stolen?

If the answers are  in William Clarke's book,  do you recall the page/pages.  If not,  where did you read this?

Thanks.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: LisaDavidson on April 17, 2008, 01:52:13 PM
Each GD had an account in Germany with some money in it, in their own name. Not a huge fortune. I don't have The Lost Fortune of the Tsar right with me, but I remember it was a couple hundred thousand dollars each. Alix had some family property in Hesse, which was hers. Thats about IT. The only jewelry that left of any  importance belonged to MF.

The rest of the "money" outside Russia was governmental and NOT personal property of Nicholas so any claimant could not touch it. Money was never really a major motive IN FACT, though I can understand that someone outside the family might think it WAS...another reason to me that claimants were fakes.

I'd like to set aside anything to do with AA or other claimants.  This is strictly about if GD Anastasia had survived what would she have inherited from 1918 to her death around the age of 70 or 80.

p. 266-7 THE LOST FORTUNE OF THE TSARS by William Clarke

>>..the royal family's wealth was made up of Nicholas's capital of 'less than a million roubles,'  Alexandra's of "one and half million', and that the five children (that which was abroad as well as which was in the State bank') which varied, he said, 'between two and three millions each.' This semed to indicate that only the children had money abroad, and that the family's total resources amounted to between 12 million and 17 million roubles.<<  .

So 5 times (Olga's, Mari's, Tatiana's, Anatasia's and Alexei's)  a  couple of hundred thousand would be  $1,000,0000.00

To this we add  $120,000 and approximately $70,000 per year.

Am I right so far?

AGRBear

No, this is absolutely wrong. All this money was stolen from the family and their heirs.

Who stoled the money?  Germans?  Bolsheviks?  If neither than who?

When and how did they steal it?

Could the family have gone to court to retrieve what was stolen?

If the answers are  in William Clarke's book,  do you recall the page/pages.  If not,  where did you read this?

Thanks.

AGRBear

I don't have Bill Clarke's book with me. To answer you without Clarke and from memory, Nicholas ordered the Imperial Family (and himself) to repatriate Russian assets held abroad during WWI. Thus, much of his personal capital that had been safely invested abroad, and that could have kept his surviving family members in comfort for generations perhaps, was, yes, stolen by the Bolsheviks. Could his family sue to recover? Many Russians, expatriate or not, simply do not want to open this particular Pandora's box.

Ironically, the only unrepatriated assets of the Imperial couple were in Germany. Everthing they owned or that was in Germany at the time of the War remained unscathed and unstolen. However, the hyperinflation that occured in post War Germany rendered the value of these assets negligible - pretty much worthless. All of this came up during the legal cases brought by Anna Anderson.

That's why there is no point in trying to calculate "Anastasia's share". There was nothing substantial to share. Had there been substantial assets for anyone to inherit, they most certainly would have gone to support the Tsar's family in exile. And, that's why I find attempts to calculate this rather pointless.
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: AGRBear on April 18, 2008, 10:03:27 AM
The figures I used is from William Clarke's book THE LOST FORTUNE OF THE TSARS.

And, yes,  a person needed a wheelbarrow full of German marks to buy a loaf of bread near the close of WW I, however, the country was stablized by the Allies and if I remember correctly, the figures used was given in.....   Gosh,  I'll have to check because I'm having a "senior moment".  I'll be back.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: AGRBear on April 18, 2008, 10:18:43 AM
1934

On p. 130 of THE LOST FORTUNE OF THE TSARS by William Clarke is the following: On 9 Jan 1934 was submitted an application from Countess Brassova  >>on behlaf of herself and other Romanoffs, the Central District Court in Berlin granted them the tsar's remaining assests in Germany, comprising despoits and investments previously blocked.  The heir were reconized as Countess Brassova, Grand Duchess Xenia, Grand Duchess Olga, the Marchinoness of Milford Haven [Princess Victoria, the tsarin's sister and Lord Mounbatten's mother), and the two German residents among the applicants, Princess Irene von Hesse and Grand Duke Ernst Ludwig von Hesse..."

Remember, this was just about the German assests which is said to equal  2,200,000 pounds on or by 9 Jan 1934.  This does not include anything outside of Germany.

Since the German courts were saying that all the IF family had died at Ekaterinburg, this allowed AA's group to challenge that "assumption" in court and this is when her group filed a petition on 17 Aug 1938 and this was the beginning of legal battle which was turned down in 1941 then came the appeal in 1942 .... resulted in the AA trial. [Sorry for bringing up AA but these documents do whole numbers of worth.]

Let me repeat, Lisa,  I'm just trying to add up the final figures.  And,  I'd like you to continue to enlighten me as to why Clarke  and the Romanov heir's lawyer were wrong in their estimation of  what was to be gained through this petition/application in 1934.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: LisaDavidson on April 18, 2008, 06:40:24 PM
1934

On p. 130 of THE LOST FORTUNE OF THE TSARS by William Clarke is the following: On 9 Jan 1934 was submitted an application from Countess Brassova  >>on behlaf of herself and other Romanoffs, the Central District Court in Berlin granted them the tsar's remaining assests in Germany, comprising despoits and investments previously blocked.  The heir were reconized as Countess Brassova, Grand Duchess Xenia, Grand Duchess Olga, the Marchinoness of Milford Haven [Princess Victoria, the tsarin's sister and Lord Mounbatten's mother), and the two German residents among the applicants, Princess Irene von Hesse and Grand Duke Ernst Ludwig von Hesse..."

Remember, this was just about the German assests which is said to equal  2,200,000 pounds on or by 9 Jan 1934.  This does not include anything outside of Germany.

Since the German courts were saying that all the IF family had died at Ekaterinburg, this allowed AA's group to challenge that "assumption" in court and this is when her group filed a petition on 17 Aug 1938 and this was the beginning of legal battle which was turned down in 1941 then came the appeal in 1942 .... resulted in the AA trial. [Sorry for bringing up AA but these documents do whole numbers of worth.]

Let me repeat, Lisa,  I'm just trying to add up the final figures.  And,  I'd like you to continue to enlighten me as to why Clarke  and the Romanov heir's lawyer were wrong in their estimation of  what was to be gained through this petition/application in 1934.

AGRBear


So, I am having trouble figuring out what your point is. Do you dispute that there were few significant assets for a survivor to inherit? And if you do, can you explain why none of the residual heirs received them?

I am no expert on Clarke and what lawyer are you talking about?
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: AGRBear on April 19, 2008, 11:15:32 AM

So, I am having trouble figuring out what your point is. Do you dispute that there were few significant assets for a survivor to inherit? And if you do, can you explain why none of the residual heirs received them?

I am no expert on Clarke and what lawyer are you talking about?

On p. 130 of THE LOST FORTUNE OF THE TSARS by William Clarke is the following: On 9 Jan 1934 was submitted an application from Countess Brassova  >>on behlaf of herself and other Romanoffs, the Central District Court in Berlin granted them the tsar's remaining assests in Germany, comprising despoits and investments previously blocked.  The heir were reconized as Countess Brassova, Grand Duchess Xenia, Grand Duchess Olga, the Marchinoness of Milford Haven [Princess Victoria, the tsarin's sister and Lord Mounbatten's mother), and the two German residents among the applicants, Princess Irene von Hesse and Grand Duke Ernst Ludwig von Hesse..."

The Romanov had lawyers.

And. later,  there was a lawyer representing AA in her trial.

Both sides were working on the same assests submitted by the Romanovs who had filed their petition earlier and were opposing AA, who, if she could prove she was GD Anastasia, would have inherited these same assests and not Countess Brassova and the others.   This is why AA's lawyer went to court when he did because this halted the court's decision on the Romanov petition.

We know the outcome of the AA trial. 

All I'm trying to do is discover what these assests were and what else GD Anastasia would have inherited if  GD Anastasia, the child of Nicholas II, would have inherited from 1918 to the time of her death had she lived into the 1930, '40s,  '60s or later.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: LisaDavidson on April 23, 2008, 03:07:07 PM

So, I am having trouble figuring out what your point is. Do you dispute that there were few significant assets for a survivor to inherit? And if you do, can you explain why none of the residual heirs received them?

I am no expert on Clarke and what lawyer are you talking about?

On p. 130 of THE LOST FORTUNE OF THE TSARS by William Clarke is the following: On 9 Jan 1934 was submitted an application from Countess Brassova  >>on behlaf of herself and other Romanoffs, the Central District Court in Berlin granted them the tsar's remaining assests in Germany, comprising despoits and investments previously blocked.  The heir were reconized as Countess Brassova, Grand Duchess Xenia, Grand Duchess Olga, the Marchinoness of Milford Haven [Princess Victoria, the tsarin's sister and Lord Mounbatten's mother), and the two German residents among the applicants, Princess Irene von Hesse and Grand Duke Ernst Ludwig von Hesse..."

The Romanov had lawyers.

And. later,  there was a lawyer representing AA in her trial.

Both sides were working on the same assests submitted by the Romanovs who had filed their petition earlier and were opposing AA, who, if she could prove she was GD Anastasia, would have inherited these same assests and not Countess Brassova and the others.   This is why AA's lawyer went to court when he did because this halted the court's decision on the Romanov petition.

We know the outcome of the AA trial. 

All I'm trying to do is discover what these assests were and what else GD Anastasia would have inherited if  GD Anastasia, the child of Nicholas II, would have inherited from 1918 to the time of her death had she lived into the 1930, '40s,  '60s or later.

AGRBear

The residual heirs that were recognized received very little money due to the deflation of German currency. And they received all that there was to be had. That's what I have been saying for goodness knows how many pages now. There was very little money, certainly less than $50,000, and probably less than that still.

"The Romanovs" did not have lawyers. For a time Countess Brassova tried to get her late husband's assets (or what was left) and she probably had a lawyer for a time. The real heirs at the time of the Anna Anderson trials had to depend on the largese of Lord Mountbatten, who had married well, and the only one who could afford to hire a lawyer.

So, once again, the real Grand Duchess would not have received very much in the way of an inheritance.
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: AGRBear on April 26, 2008, 10:05:28 AM
Let's back up.

According to FA, Alexandra's property was worth $70,000 American dollars.  This is property.  Not German marks.  Paper money.  So,
this exceeds what you are claiming as a total of $50,000. 

By simple subtration, you are claiming $20,000 less than FA.  So,  this does confuse old Bear. 

AGRBear



Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Forum Admin on April 26, 2008, 11:34:05 AM
The accounts for the 5 girls were deutchmark deposit accounts.  These were rendered valueless by the hyperinflation of the 1920's Bear.  The hyperinflation was a result of the huge reparations/damages payments the Allies imposed on Germany AFTER the war.

The only asset of any value which Anastasia could have inherited was Alexandra's real estate, valued at $70,000 after the War (according to Clarke).  True, this asset would have retained a relative value in other currencies.

Thats all there was. Nothing else. Sadly.
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Nikl on April 26, 2008, 08:28:26 PM
Let's back up.

According to FA, Alexandra's property was worth $70,000 American dollars.  This is property.  Not German marks.  Paper money.  So,
this exceeds what you are claiming as a total of $50,000. 

By simple subtration, you are claiming $20,000 less than FA.  So,  this does confuse old Bear. 

AGRBear




I am sorry, but Russia after WWI did not have any money.
This I find on internet 

Nicholas II.
During his reign, Russia had to face two wars. In 1904-1905, the country suffered a heavy defeat by Japan : 400,000 men were killed, wounded or captured, and material losses were valued at 2.5-billion gold rubles.
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Annie on April 26, 2008, 11:03:41 PM
She wouldn't have gotten anything out of Russia anyway, since it was taken over by the Bolsheviks!
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Robert_Hall on April 27, 2008, 12:10:11 AM
ALL personal property  of the upper classes was nationalised, not just the Imperial Family's.  The reasonong being that the people paid  with their labour to make them  rich, so the  assests belonged to the people.
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Nikl on April 27, 2008, 08:07:43 AM
ALL personal property  of the upper classes was nationalised, not just the Imperial Family's.  The reasonong being that the people paid  with their labour to make them  rich, so the  assests belonged to the people.
So way russian goverment did not give money back tothe people?


In 1948 was in Czechoslovakia political putsch. Communist confiscated all factory and ruled over the country until 1989. 
han new democratic goverment returned  money to the people.
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Robert_Hall on April 27, 2008, 08:35:21 AM
Niki,  that concept is  Marxist theory. [from the people to the people]  I am not an apologist for the Bolshevik/Soviet state.  But,  the confiscations did, in ways, go back to the people in the form of health care and education amongst other so-called "benefits".  Of course there were/are abuses, as in every system. The disaster of Zimbabwe is a perfect example currently.
 But this id off topic I think.
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Forum Admin on April 27, 2008, 09:42:47 AM
Let's back up.

According to FA, Alexandra's property was worth $70,000 American dollars.  This is property.  Not German marks.  Paper money.  So,
this exceeds what you are claiming as a total of $50,000. 

By simple subtration, you are claiming $20,000 less than FA.  So,  this does confuse old Bear. 

AGRBear




I am sorry, but Russia after WWI did not have any money.
This I find on internet 

Nicholas II.
During his reign, Russia had to face two wars. In 1904-1905, the country suffered a heavy defeat by Japan : 400,000 men were killed, wounded or captured, and material losses were valued at 2.5-billion gold rubles.

The assets of the Imperial Regime which were taken over by the Bolshevik government were still substantial by any measure, despite the huge costs of the war.  The question of the money belonging to the Government is not the subject of this discussion.  Anastasia would have no claim possible to any of the Russian State money, regardless of who was in power.  The only money she could have had any claim to would have been any personal property OUTSIDE of Russia which belonged to her parents or siblings.

She and her siblings had deutschmark deposit accounts in Germany. While about $150,000 each in value before the war, the rampant inflation of the Weimar Republic era rendered them of no value.

Nicholas II, after much searching by William Clarke, had no personal assets abroad at the time of his death.  The $200 million or so of Russian assets outside of Russia were State/Government property and so went to the Soviet Government.

Alexandra had some real estate inherited from her family in Darmstadt Germany. Worth about $70,000 in the 1920s.  That was the only asset Anastasia Nicholaievna, or any surviving child of Nicholas II,  would have had any claim had they actually lived.

Any other property belonging to other Romanov survivors, like her Grandmother Marie Feodorovna for example, would only have been hers by gift or legacy in a Last Will and Testament.

Now, with the return of some property in Russia back to the descendants of the original owners before 1917, there could be a discussion of the return of some of the "personal" property back to a surviving Grand Duchess (aged 110 !!) or her children.  This would most likely be Livadia, Massandra, Novi Svet, Spala,  or one of the other personal privy purse estates of Nicholas.  However, as there are no direct descendants alive, nobody today actually has a good claim to any of them.
I hope this clears up the discussion.
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: AGRBear on April 27, 2008, 11:08:02 AM
...[in part]...
Alexandra had some real estate inherited from her family in Darmstadt Germany. Worth about $70,000 in the 1920s.  That was the only asset Anastasia Nicholaievna, or any surviving child of Nicholas II,  would have had any claim had they actually lived.

Any other property belonging to other Romanov survivors, like her Grandmother Marie Feodorovna for example, would only have been hers by gift or legacy in a Last Will and Testament.

....

FA,
Where were her propterties?   Darmstadt?  Some place else? Back then every property of royals had names?  Do you know what they were?  Are they listed somewhere so I could find out more about her real estate?

Thanks.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Forum Admin on April 27, 2008, 11:56:31 AM
Clarke's Lost Fortune:
pg 130:
 
The hyper inflation of Germany in the early 1920's had wiped out much of its original value. Edward Fallows put the current value in the 1930s at around $100,000.  The deposit accounts were at Mendelssohn's Bank in Berlin.

I may be incorrect about real estate belonging to Alexandra.  Clarke mentions only "deutschmark investment accounts" belonging to Alexandra, so presumably these were also part of the Mendelssohn's & Co. accounts.

Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: AGRBear on April 27, 2008, 01:48:08 PM
Clarke's Lost Fortune:
pg 130:
 
The hyper inflation of Germany in the early 1920's had wiped out much of its original value. Edward Fallows put the current value in the 1930s at around $100,000.  The deposit accounts were at Mendelssohn's Bank in Berlin.

I may be incorrect about real estate belonging to Alexandra.  Clarke mentions only "deutschmark investment accounts" belonging to Alexandra, so presumably these were also part of the Mendelssohn's & Co. accounts.



So, if I'm understanding FA correctly,  inheritance would have been $100,000 in the 1930s which was found in Germany in the Mendelssohn's & Co. accounts.

Let me see p. 130.  And let me add what else Clarke tells us:

>>That sum was finally put at the disposal of the Romanoff descendants by the issue of a certificate of inheritance in 1938.<<

Do the rest of you agree to this amount?

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Nikl on April 27, 2008, 03:12:24 PM
Niki,  that concept is  Marxist theory. [from the people to the people]  I am not an apologist for the Bolshevik/Soviet state.  But,  the confiscations did, in ways, go back to the people in the form of health care and education amongst other so-called "benefits".  Of course there were/are abuses, as in every system. The disaster of Zimbabwe is a perfect example currently.
 But this id off topic I think.
Communist was "benefit" of what? :o
If somebody was really sick (cancer and so on) , doctor said he(she) is fine, so he(she) have to go to work.  3 days you did not come to work and you went to  prison for long time. :(
If you never lived in comunist country, you would never know what it is about.  I lived there 34 years and I am glad, that I escape to Canada. :)
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Nikl on April 27, 2008, 03:18:51 PM
Niki,  that concept is  Marxist theory. [from the people to the people]  I am not an apologist for the Bolshevik/Soviet state.  But,  the confiscations did, in ways, go back to the people in the form of health care and education amongst other so-called "benefits".  Of course there were/are abuses, as in every system. The disaster of Zimbabwe is a perfect example currently.
 But this id off topic I think.
Communismus was "benefit" of what? :o
If somebody was really sick (cancer and so on) , doctor said he(she) is fine, so he(she) have to go to work.  3 days you did not come to work and you went to  prison for long time. :(
If you never lived in comunist country, you would never know what it is about.  I lived there 34 years and I am glad, that I escaped to Canada. :)
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: AGRBear on April 27, 2008, 06:34:21 PM
I am glad that you escaped Russia.  I hope your family was able to escape as well.

It is people like yourself who can tell the  real stories of what communism has done to Russians and Russia.

Too many people have believed the communist propaganda and have no concept of what occured and still occurs but under different names.

AGRBear




Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: LisaDavidson on April 28, 2008, 01:36:01 AM
The accounts for the 5 girls were deutchmark deposit accounts.  These were rendered valueless by the hyperinflation of the 1920's Bear.  The hyperinflation was a result of the huge reparations/damages payments the Allies imposed on Germany AFTER the war.

The only asset of any value which Anastasia could have inherited was Alexandra's real estate, valued at $70,000 after the War (according to Clarke).  True, this asset would have retained a relative value in other currencies.

Thats all there was. Nothing else. Sadly.


Thanks, Rob. As I have said all along, not only were there few unrepatriated assets, not only were the German assets devalued due to hyperinflation, but a surviving GD would have only had claim to a part of these assets. However, it does no good to try to explain it. I know, I have tried.
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: AGRBear on May 07, 2008, 10:20:26 AM
The accounts for the 5 girls were deutchmark deposit accounts.  These were rendered valueless by the hyperinflation of the 1920's Bear.  The hyperinflation was a result of the huge reparations/damages payments the Allies imposed on Germany AFTER the war.

The only asset of any value which Anastasia could have inherited was Alexandra's real estate, valued at $70,000 after the War (according to Clarke).  True, this asset would have retained a relative value in other currencies.

Thats all there was. Nothing else. Sadly.


I assume you meant the deposit accounts of the 4 girls and Alexei were vaueless due to the hyperinflation.

Just as I assume Clarke understood the hyperinflation which occured during those harsh years in Germany as did the German courts when the Romanovs petition the court in 1934.

We do agree about the $70,000 which was not wheelbarrows of deflated German marks.

AND,  we are just talking about what was in Germany and not elsewhere.

AGRBear




Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Forum Admin on May 07, 2008, 10:37:40 AM
The accounts for the 5 girls were deutchmark deposit accounts.  These were rendered valueless by the hyperinflation of the 1920's Bear.  The hyperinflation was a result of the huge reparations/damages payments the Allies imposed on Germany AFTER the war.

The only asset of any value which Anastasia could have inherited was Alexandra's real estate, valued at $70,000 after the War (according to Clarke).  True, this asset would have retained a relative value in other currencies.

Thats all there was. Nothing else. Sadly.


I assume you meant the deposit accounts of the 4 girls and Alexei were vaueless due to the hyperinflation.

Just as I assume Clarke understood the hyperinflation which occured during those harsh years in Germany as did the German courts when the Romanovs petition the court in 1934.

We do agree about the $70,000 which was not wheelbarrows of deflated German marks.

AND,  we are just talking about what was in Germany and not elsewhere.

AGRBear






The $70,000 figure was BEFORE the hyper-inflation set in, based on values recorded in 1917. The accounts were Deutschmark deposit accounts and stocks, all of which were worth valued FAR FAR LESS after the inflationary period. There was no real estate, as I said. 

THERE WERE NO ASSETS BELONGING TO THE FAMILY OUTSIDE OF RUSSIA OTHER THAN GERMANY.
 PERIOD.
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: AGRBear on May 07, 2008, 02:52:47 PM
Let me explain, again:

p.130


The Romanoff would have collected $100,000 according to the "certificate of inheritance" in 1938, if AA 's lawyer hadn't filed >>a petition for the revocation of the certificate of inheritance on August 17, 1938.<<

In that petition the assests must have been listed. I do not know what was on this list.   This list included  the  assests which the German govt.  had released on 9 Jan 1934 >>just two weeks after the original application from Countess Brassova and other Romanovs<<.   

The assests [could have been property, jewels, bonds, a mine....]  was  valued at  $100,000 in 1938.

AGRBear








Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: LisaDavidson on May 07, 2008, 03:44:31 PM
Let me explain, again:

p.130


The Romanoff would have collected $100,000 according to the "certificate of inheritance" in 1938, if AA 's lawyer hadn't filed >>a petition for the revocation of the certificate of inheritance on August 17, 1938.<<

In that petition the assests must have been listed. I do not know what was on this list.   This list included  the  assests which the German govt.  had released on 9 Jan 1934 >>just two weeks after the original application from Countess Brassova and other Romanovs<<.   

The assests [could have been property, jewels, bonds, a mine....]  was  valued at  $100,000 in 1938.

AGRBear


Correct, but as I have pointed out many times, a surviving grand duchess would not necessarily be the sole heir to any assets of the Russian sovereigns, and presumably Alexandra died without a will. So my guess was half or less than this for Anastasia.
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Forum Admin on May 07, 2008, 03:51:53 PM
pg. 275: "The only personal funds we have detected abroad are those of the children in Berlin, which were inherited by Grand Duchess Xenia in 1933."

pg. 130: "the Central District Court granted them the Tsar's remaining assets in Germany, comprising deposits and investments previously blocked.
...(originally estimated to be anywhere from $1.5 million to $7 million (original value or about $2007 150 million to 700 million)
"Whatever the original total, wartime inflation and the hyper inflation of Germany in the 1920s had wiped out much of the original value.  Edward Fallows put the current value in the 1930s at around $100,000.  That sum was put at the disposal of the Romanoff descendants by the issue of a certificate of inheritance in 1938."

pg. 196: "the amount thus deposited (by Mendelssohn Bank) amounted to about a million Reichsmarks, or according to Fallows, some $100,000. "

THATS IT BEAR. It was some cash. NOTHING ELSE. No jewels, no property. About $100,000 in 1930s money. In 2007 terms, between 1.5 and 3.0 million $2007. Thats all, NADA else.
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Forum Admin on May 07, 2008, 03:53:51 PM
Let me explain, again:

p.130


The Romanoff would have collected $100,000 according to the "certificate of inheritance" in 1938, if AA 's lawyer hadn't filed >>a petition for the revocation of the certificate of inheritance on August 17, 1938.<<

In that petition the assests must have been listed. I do not know what was on this list.   This list included  the  assests which the German govt.  had released on 9 Jan 1934 >>just two weeks after the original application from Countess Brassova and other Romanovs<<.   

The assests [could have been property, jewels, bonds, a mine....]  was  valued at  $100,000 in 1938.

AGRBear


Correct, but as I have pointed out many times, a surviving grand duchess would not necessarily be the sole heir to any assets of the Russian sovereigns, and presumably Alexandra died without a will. So my guess was half or less than this for Anastasia.

Actually, Lisa, according to Clarke, the certificate of inheritance was issue based on the familial relationship to the original owners.  As the sole surviving daughter and sister, the theoretically surviving GD would have inherited the entire amount.
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: AGRBear on May 07, 2008, 05:21:33 PM
pg. 275: "The only personal funds we have detected abroad are those of the children in Berlin, which were inherited by Grand Duchess Xenia in 1933."

pg. 130: "the Central District Court granted them the Tsar's remaining assets in Germany, comprising deposits and investments previously blocked.
...(originally estimated to be anywhere from $1.5 million to $7 million (original value or about $2007 150 million to 700 million)
"Whatever the original total, wartime inflation and the hyper inflation of Germany in the 1920s had wiped out much of the original value.  Edward Fallows put the current value in the 1930s at around $100,000.  That sum was put at the disposal of the Romanoff descendants by the issue of a certificate of inheritance in 1938."

pg. 196: "the amount thus deposited (by Mendelssohn Bank) amounted to about a million Reichsmarks, or according to Fallows, some $100,000. "

THATS IT BEAR. It was some cash. NOTHING ELSE. No jewels, no property. About $100,000 in 1930s money. In 2007 terms, between 1.5 and 3.0 million $2007. Thats all, NADA else.

You said "no property".   What happen to the property of Alexandra which you spoke of early in this discussion?

But there were more assests than cash in the German bank.  There was the jewels which Alexandra and Buxhoveden had hidden in the bolt of cloth while in Tobolsk in a  chest which was later sent by the Bolsheviks to Romanov relatives in Germany.  These jewels were never discussed and simply just kinda faded away, accept Clarke leaned about them. 

p.155-6

>>The boxes and their contents remained untouched in the Grand Duchess's [Xenia's] home,... 

Some months afterds Baroness Buxhoeveden..wrote to the Grad Duchess asking her..wheather she had found the jewels belonging to the Empress which were secreted in a roll of cloth... and the Grand Duchess oepned the boxes and eventualy found the jewelsl...<<

Please note,  Clarke didn't say  jewel,  he told it was "jewels"...

These jewels would have been inherited by GD Anastasia, if she had survived.

What jewels were they?  What was their value?  Where did they go?  Did the Romanovs ever declare these particular jewels in the petition of inheritance?


Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: AGRBear on May 07, 2008, 06:18:02 PM
Please remove above post.  I don't know why it posted before I was finished.

pg. 275: "The only personal funds we have detected abroad are those of the children in Berlin, which were inherited by Grand Duchess Xenia in 1933."

pg. 130: "the Central District Court granted them the Tsar's remaining assets in Germany, comprising deposits and investments previously blocked.
...(originally estimated to be anywhere from $1.5 million to $7 million (original value or about $2007 150 million to 700 million)
"Whatever the original total, wartime inflation and the hyper inflation of Germany in the 1920s had wiped out much of the original value.  Edward Fallows put the current value in the 1930s at around $100,000.  That sum was put at the disposal of the Romanoff descendants by the issue of a certificate of inheritance in 1938."

pg. 196: "the amount thus deposited (by Mendelssohn Bank) amounted to about a million Reichsmarks, or according to Fallows, some $100,000. "

THATS IT BEAR. It was some cash. NOTHING ELSE. No jewels, no property. About $100,000 in 1930s money. In 2007 terms, between 1.5 and 3.0 million $2007. Thats all, NADA else.

You said "no property".   What happen to the property of Alexandra which you spoke of early in this discussion?

..[in part]...]
As for the Hesse Darmstadt property, I don't have my source materials with me...but AGR, it was NOT a huge estate or anything like that. As I recall off the top of my head it was some vineyard property and small farms...it would not have been worth any "major" money. Don't forget, Alexandra came to Nicholas with very little money of her own, her family were NOT wealthy.

Do you, now, believe there was no property?

And, yes, there were assests outside of Germany which GD Anastasia would have inherited if she had survived.

#1

Remember the jewels which Alexandra and Buxhoveden had hidden in the bolt of cloth while in Tobolsk in a  chest which was later sent by the Bolsheviks to Romanov relatives in Germany.  These jewels were never discussed and simply just kinda faded away, accept Clarke learned and wrote  about them. 

p.155-6

>>The boxes and their contents remained untouched in the Grand Duchess's [Xenia's] home,... 

Some months afterwards Baroness Buxhoeveden..wrote to the Grand Duchess asking her..whether she had found the jewels belonging to the Empress which were secreted in a roll of cloth... and the Grand Duchess oepned the boxes and eventualy found the jewels...<<

Please note,  Clarke didn't say  jewel,  he told us it was "jewels"...  AND,  no one has said what she found was something other than jewels.

These jewels would have been inherited by GD Anastasia, if she had survived.

Was Xenia in Great Britian or Germany at that time? If not in Germany then there would have been no need to have listed these particular jewels in the petition of inheritance of assests in Germany in 1934. 

Was there a petition of inheritance presented by the Romanovs to the British court which listed these particular jewels or bonds or any assests of Nicholas II's, Alexandra's or their children?

p. 130

>>Originally at stake were investments worth somewhere between  7 million and 14 million roubles was divided between London and Berlin...<  so, 3.5 million to 7 million roubles were placed in a London bank.  It is agreed that by 1934 the investments in Germany was worth $100,000, which, according to FA,  in the US today would be about 1.5 to 3 million dollars.

We have to skip over to other chapters to learn about the monies which was thought to have been in England.

Chapter "Europe" p. 221

>>How much money flowed back to Russia, following the tsar's patriotic plea, will now never be known.<<

Gotta run!  Will write more tomorow.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Forum Admin on May 07, 2008, 06:18:58 PM
The property belonging to Alexandra, was cash holdings, as I corrected earlier in the discussion in my post of 4/27 : "I may be incorrect about real estate belonging to Alexandra.  Clarke mentions only "deutschmark investment accounts" belonging to Alexandra, so presumably these were also part of the Mendelssohn's & Co. accounts."

Well, the jewels are only speculation, even by Clarke, he only reports what he "heard" or read, and there is no way to prove they existed. You omit the first part of the quote: "The boxes and their contents remained untouched in the Grand Duchess's home, and it was then that Her Imperial Highness gave me the information which I quoted to you: that no jewels or valuables of any sort had returned." (pg 155)  You also OMIT something critical about the claim of the jewels from further down page 155: "Whether Davidson's report  was accurate is another matter,,,"

Certainly nobody EVER made such a list, and nobody EVER admitted they were in the trunks (and you mean "except" not "accept", typical Cal education... LOL).

To be honest, I highly suspect the jewels in the cloth making it to the Romanov relatives.  Bob and I were very lucky to have seen three of these trunks and their contents about ten years ago, when they were shipped to Romanov relations in the US.  The contents were sad indeed. Broken and chipped Alexander Palace service plates, worn out and threadbare damask napkins from the Imperial table, broken knicknacks, empty medicine bottles, thread and needles, old bent spoons...It was quite obvious that every item in the trunks had been gone through with a fine tooth comb and sent out specifically because they items were worthless.  I highly doubt the Soviets were so stupid, once they discovered the hidden jewels in the clothes on the bodies, that they "overlooked" jewels hidden in a bolt of cloth. 

"if" these jewels existed, the family receiving the trunks would have had to disclose their existence before any Grand Duchess could claim to inherit them.  A. they almost certainly didn't exist, and B. the surviving GD would have had to have KNOWN they existed.  This "asset" doesn't count for anything in reality....

Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: AGRBear on May 08, 2008, 09:52:50 AM
Clarke tells us  p. 155-6

>>...Wilton soon discovered that Xenia had already received some of the jewels from Ekaterinburg and naturally wondered how and why.  The jewels had not in fact been stolen en route after all.  The truth was far stranger and can now be told, as Davidson originally wrote to Wilton from Sandringham two months later:

"The boxes and ther contents remained untouched in the Grand Duchess's home, and it was then that Her Imperial Highnesss gave me the information which I quoted to you:  that no jewels or valuables of any sort had been returned.

Some months afterwards Baroness Buxhoeveden, who was as you know one of the few survivors from Ekaterinburg, wrote to the Grand Duchess asking her with reference to these boxes whether she had found the jewels belonging to the Empress which were secreted in a roll of cloth with some clothes belonging to  Countess Henrikova, which were in one of these boxes.  She described exactly their position and the Grand Duchess opened the boxes and eventually found the jewels in the place where they were said to have been.<<

I don't recall having read this part and will write the entire paragraph for other posters, who don't have this book, to read, if requested:

>>Whether Davidson's report was acurate is another matter, for in his latter memoirs in 1930 Janin claimed that they were still resting in his family vault at Serre Izard near Grenoble."   In this case,  Davidson wasn't talking about the jewels he was taking about relics and ashes:

>>Davidson also explained that the relics and ashes, which had been brought to France by General Janin were in the possession of . Giers in Paris.<<  etc. etc. etc.

Evdiently, if Davidson was telling the truth, the jewels were missed by the Bolshviks as well as King George's inspectors.

>>The cases eventually arrived in London where King George later reported that before Grand Duchess Xenia was able to look at the contents, they needed fumigating.  When she, with the Queen Alexandra and King George, exaimined what was in the cases at Marlbourough House they had a shock.  According to a letter subsequently sent by Sir Author Davidson from Sandringham to Robert Wilton, whose reports in The Time had covered the discovery of the relics and the Sokolov inquiry, the cases contained little more than "rubbish, rags, old cooking pots and debris of all sorts'.  He asked Wilton to call round to Marlborough House so that he could give him more details.<<

Next paragraph is about Empress Marie's belongings, followed with the  >>With all this in mind Sir Arthur Davidison was hardly surprised at the repetition.  But it was not the end of the sotry.  Wilston soon discovered....<<  Go to the top of my post and the rest of sentence and paragraph continues.

To me,  it seems possible that there were jewels.  As to their value, it appears that only Buxhoeveden, GD  Xenia and probably the other Romanovs knew but it appears no one was telling.  And why would they need to tell?   Such treasures was no one else's business because only the family needed to know and share.  Unless there were surviviors of the Russian Royal family (Nicholas II, wife,daughters and son)  who were alive to make a claim.  By 1919-1920,  the surviving Romanovs didn't believe there were any survivors of the Royal Family.

AGRBear

Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: AGRBear on May 08, 2008, 10:45:21 AM
At the moment I am reading, again, Clarke's Chapter "London" which starts on page 244 and end on p. 258.

p. 249-50
>>The official British files covering Russian deposits in Barings and other British banks I discovered were only partially open to the public.  While some had become aailable under the fifty-year-rule, some were restricted to seventy-five years, others to a hundred years; others again were simply 'restricted'.  It eventually took me fifteen months of correspondence to persuade the Foreign Office to open certain relevant files.<<

To be continued.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Forum Admin on May 08, 2008, 01:36:51 PM
BEAR STOP WASTING TIME AND EFFORT.

HERE IS WHAT CLARKE SAYS, ON PAGE 275-76, IN SUMMATION OF THE ENTIRE BOOK:
"The only personal funds we have detected abroad are those of the children in Berlin, which were inherited by Grand Duchess Xenia and her Romanoff relatives in 1933.
pg. 276: This leaves the 100 million pounds of tsarist accounts remaining in Paris, London and New York in 1918 the bulk of which have in any case been distributed by the British and American governments to other creditors of the former tsarist regime ... .Had Nicholas survived Ekaterinburg and returned to the throne or had Alexis been similarly restored under a regency ... this 100 million might have become the target of the restored regime and the restored Tsar, though not of his relatives.

THERE WAS NO OTHER MONEY. THE LONDON FUNDS WERE CONSIDERED GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS AND WERE USED TO PAY OFF ENGLISH DEBT HOLDERS OWED BY THE IMPERIAL GOVERNMENT.  THE FAMILY HAD NO CLAIM TO IT. WHAT PART OF THIS IS NOT CLEAR TO YOU?
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: AGRBear on May 08, 2008, 05:46:51 PM
BEAR STOP WASTING TIME AND EFFORT.

HERE IS WHAT CLARKE SAYS, ON PAGE 275-76, IN SUMMATION OF THE ENTIRE BOOK:
"The only personal funds we have detected abroad are those of the children in Berlin, which were inherited by Grand Duchess Xenia and her Romanoff relatives in 1933.
pg. 276: This leaves the 100 million pounds of tsarist accounts remaining in Paris, London and New York in 1918 the bulk of which have in any case been distributed by the British and American governments to other creditors of the former tsarist regime ... .Had Nicholas survived Ekaterinburg and returned to the throne or had Alexis been similarly restored under a regency ... this 100 million might have become the target of the restored regime and the restored Tsar, though not of his relatives.

THERE WAS NO OTHER MONEY. THE LONDON FUNDS WERE CONSIDERED GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS AND WERE USED TO PAY OFF ENGLISH DEBT HOLDERS OWED BY THE IMPERIAL GOVERNMENT.  THE FAMILY HAD NO CLAIM TO IT. WHAT PART OF THIS IS NOT CLEAR TO YOU?

Pardon me, FA,  but I believe there is a difference between "NO OTHER MONEY" and what Clarke voiced as "personsal funds" people  have "detected".   And,  his book talks a great deal about the possitilites of where more personal funds might be or were throughout his 276 pages.
For example, at the beginning of his  Chapter "Whose?"  he states:

>>When secrecy is allied to an autocrat's power to decide how and when money can be transferred, to and from his own accounts and those of the state, again in his name, as in the case of Nicholas II, then the labyrinth of their own monetary affairs becomes baffling indeed.  It is this intermingling of personal and "head of state' money, and the apparent need to protect it from prying eyes, that has added an extra obstacle to all subsequent inquiries.<< p. 270-1

He then talks about now Nicholas II and his predecessors deliberately separated the family money from state money,  etc. etc. etc. but during WWI  the monies mingled and this left people  >>..interpreting, the ownerhsip of the gold left scattered outside Russia.<< p. 273

Each country interrupted what they felt was the Tsar's and what was to be inherited by the Romanovs or used to pay off loans or return to Russia which was under new leadership.  Finland, for example, first denied GD Xenia the right of inheritiance of Halia estate and other properties  but  later, I believe,  gave GD Xenia some money ....  I believe this fact was posted here on this forum.  I don't recall what the amount was.

p. 273
>>To turn from gold to jewels and investments is to move to the heart of the royal dilemma about ownerships...<<

Over on p. 275:

>>There remain Romanoff and tsarist money and investments outside Russia.  The only personal funds we have detected abroad are those of the children in Berlin, which was inherited by Grand Duchess Zenia ad her Romanoff relatives in 1933.<<  Added to this Clarke also stated:
>>This does not mean that stray personal accounts of the royal family will not one day emerge in London, Paris, Geneva or even New York; simply that it now seems unlikely.  If such accounts did emerge and could be regarded as the private property of members of the former Russian royal family surviving relatives could certainly entertain some claim to them as they did in the case of the investments in Berlin.<<

True,  Clarke and others believe such accounts probably will not emerge at this late date.  And, they are probably right.

Thanks everyone for all of your help in trying to track down "Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What""  had she survived.

I hope everyone has learned a little something,  I know I have.

Like FA has said,  there's not much more to discuss unless someone comes up with new information.

AGRBear
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Forum Admin on May 08, 2008, 06:23:16 PM
BEAR STOP WASTING TIME AND EFFORT.

HERE IS WHAT CLARKE SAYS, ON PAGE 275-76, IN SUMMATION OF THE ENTIRE BOOK:
"The only personal funds we have detected abroad are those of the children in Berlin, which were inherited by Grand Duchess Xenia and her Romanoff relatives in 1933.
pg. 276: This leaves the 100 million pounds of tsarist accounts remaining in Paris, London and New York in 1918 the bulk of which have in any case been distributed by the British and American governments to other creditors of the former tsarist regime ... .Had Nicholas survived Ekaterinburg and returned to the throne or had Alexis been similarly restored under a regency ... this 100 million might have become the target of the restored regime and the restored Tsar, though not of his relatives.

THERE WAS NO OTHER MONEY. THE LONDON FUNDS WERE CONSIDERED GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS AND WERE USED TO PAY OFF ENGLISH DEBT HOLDERS OWED BY THE IMPERIAL GOVERNMENT.  THE FAMILY HAD NO CLAIM TO IT. WHAT PART OF THIS IS NOT CLEAR TO YOU?

Pardon me, FA,  but I believe there is a difference between "NO OTHER MONEY" and what Clarke voiced as "personsal funds" people  have "detected".   And,  his book talks a great deal about the possitilites of where more personal funds might be or were throughout his 276 pages.


The problem Bear is this: NOBODY STILL KNOWS where those funds are or even IF they exist. Nobody knew about them THEN either, thus the question of whether Anastasia "could" have inherited them is moot, because AT THE TIME, they were still unknown and 'undiscovered'...Therefore they could not have been part of any inheritance claim.
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Nikl on May 11, 2008, 01:15:22 AM
What about this article. Is this truth?
http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/90/363/13367_Nicholas.html
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Forum Admin on May 11, 2008, 09:38:52 AM
The first 2/3 of the article are a good summation of the major Anastasia impostors.  The last part is not true.  Nicholas never shipped "150 cases of personal property to England" in 1917 nor sent gold abroad to prepare for leaving the country.  That gold was sent, but all the records show it was in payment for materials to support the war. There was NO personal money sent abroad.  The money in Barings was used to pay for supporting the war, it was not personal funds.

THERE IS NO VAST FORTUNE OUT THERE OF NICHOLAS' PERSONAL MONEY.
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Annie on May 11, 2008, 03:57:10 PM
The first 2/3 of the article are a good summation of the major Anastasia impostors.

Actually it's not, it can be picked apart badly for inaccuracy. For example:

A policeman patrolling along a Berlin canal was not surprised at all when he saw a young lady jump off into the water. However, he darted to rescue her. The poor woman received first aid and was sent to a mental hospital where those who attempted a suicide were compulsorily institutionalised.

“Well, Freulein, can you tell us your name and home address? We found no papers on you,” the doctor asked her gently when she came to herself.

“I have to make an important statement”, said she in a feeble voice. “My name is Anastasia Nikolayevna Romanova. I’m a Russian Princess, Grand Duchess Anastasia, the daughter of the last Russian Emperor, Nicholas. By miracle, I managed to survive the slaughter in Yekaterinburg.”


No, she did not tell the policeman who saved her she was AN, it took her 2 years in the asylum to make the claim.

It's also very unfair to Olga A. by only giving one misleading quote without the rest of the story.

Then there is this complete falsehood

Quote
In 1928, every Romanov alive,  totalling twelve people,

Twelve? That was all that signed, not all that was alive.

Quote
She died in Charlottesville, Virginia, USA,  in 1984. A single word is carved on her tombstone – “Anastasia”.

Actually she was cremated, but a stone at the site of her ashes in Germany says Anastasia Manahan 1901-1984

It also makes no mention of the DNA tests.

You may say none of this matters, but remember this article may be the only thing some people see about the story, and will be misinformed. How do such mistakes get by?
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: LisaDavidson on May 12, 2008, 12:55:15 AM
The first 2/3 of the article are a good summation of the major Anastasia impostors.

Actually it's not, it can be picked apart badly for inaccuracy. For example:

A policeman patrolling along a Berlin canal was not surprised at all when he saw a young lady jump off into the water. However, he darted to rescue her. The poor woman received first aid and was sent to a mental hospital where those who attempted a suicide were compulsorily institutionalised.

“Well, Freulein, can you tell us your name and home address? We found no papers on you,” the doctor asked her gently when she came to herself.

“I have to make an important statement”, said she in a feeble voice. “My name is Anastasia Nikolayevna Romanova. I’m a Russian Princess, Grand Duchess Anastasia, the daughter of the last Russian Emperor, Nicholas. By miracle, I managed to survive the slaughter in Yekaterinburg.”


No, she did not tell the policeman who saved her she was AN, it took her 2 years in the asylum to make the claim.

It's also very unfair to Olga A. by only giving one misleading quote without the rest of the story.

Then there is this complete falsehood

Quote
In 1928, every Romanov alive,  totalling twelve people,

Twelve? That was all that signed, not all that was alive.

Quote
She died in Charlottesville, Virginia, USA,  in 1984. A single word is carved on her tombstone – “Anastasia”.

Actually she was cremated, but a stone at the site of her ashes in Germany says Anastasia Manahan 1901-1984

It also makes no mention of the DNA tests.

You may say none of this matters, but remember this article may be the only thing some people see about the story, and will be misinformed. How do such mistakes get by?

There are factual mistakes in the media far too often these days. Budgets are being cut along with jobs. That's why I say, repeat a lie often enough, and people start to think it's true.

But, to wrap this up, Rob has clearly explained what a surviving grand duchess' inheritance would have been. The question has been answered.
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: Annie on May 12, 2008, 09:24:10 AM


There are factual mistakes in the media far too often these days. Budgets are being cut along with jobs. That's why I say, repeat a lie often enough, and people start to think it's true.

That's why they should be careful about stating facts that aren't.

Quote
But, to wrap this up, Rob has clearly explained what a surviving grand duchess' inheritance would have been. The question has been answered.

Yes, it has so technically this thread should be closed. (just like the 'how to do you put someone on ignore' went OT after the answer from FA that you can't do it for posts. Allowing threads to continue OT and fester into attacks and fights are a shameful detriment to a forum)
Title: Re: Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?
Post by: LisaDavidson on May 12, 2008, 03:58:16 PM
It appears, in fact that it has been locked.

Please bear in mind that there are nearly 10K topics on this site and over 300K posts, so in fact, unless drawn to our attention, such situations can occur.