Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - lexi4

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 119
Where is our Margarita?Wish to know her view on the findings as well as further procedures.

You might want to check out Peter Sarandinaki's latest press release dated today (May 1, 2008) on the SEARCH website.

Please see: 

It raises the question: Is Margarita now toeing the company line?


Interesting. Thank you for posting that John. It looks like Search isn't ready to draw any conclusions. When the story first broke, I thought is was bizarre that Dr. Gill wasn't commenting or issuing and statements. Good for them.

I feel strongly about the AA topic because I don't like frauds. It was also a very hurtful thing to do (to pretend to be a callously murdered, much loved, girl that is).

I think that Eddieboy_uk sums it up quite nicely.  It is quite simple to sum it up in the way he did. 

There are those people, too, who are abnormally committed to both sides and for no logical reason what so ever.  I believe that both sides took their positions because whether for or against AA, those people also seem to abnormally worship the Romanovs.

To be fair to the abnormal: a shared obsession is politely called "a common interest." Anyone not interested in the Romanovs (99.999 percent of the population or more) would probably regard a good chunk of the forum's posts as perilously close to abnormal, whether the post is about AA or Faberge.

I think that is an accurate assessment puppylove1

I rarely wander into this section, but in light of recent forum drama, I have a question:

What is it about Anna Anderson that provokes such strong and varied reactions?

As someone who's more or less indifferent to the AA case, I'm truly curious. What is it about her that makes people willing to devote hundreds of hours and thousands of posts to proving or disproving her claim? How does she manage to evoke such passion from both sides of the argument? Most of all, why can't anyone seem to agree to disagree -- what harm does it do if someone chooses to believe the "wrong" side of the case?

I'd very much appreciate it if we could PLEASE try not to turn this into another debate about the woman's identity. I don't want to know why you're on whichever side of the case -- I only want to know why you feel so strongly about her in general.

I am so glad you asked these questions as I have wondered the same thing myself. I've seen people be really cruel to one another on the forum regarding this topic. And I don't understand it. It all seems so inmature to me. I will be interested to see the responses you get.

Books about the Romanovs and Imperial Russia / Re: Richard Pipes
« on: February 25, 2008, 11:20:30 PM »
The venom disseminated by Richard Pipes has committed much harm to scholarship over the last two decades. As one whose work has been endlessly derided by the scholarly community, Pipes's work on 20th century Russia cannot be taken seriously.

The question of whether, where, and how the revolution went wrong deserves serious scholarly investigation, and it deserves open scholarly debate. This debate is not well served by this methodologically flawed polemic masquerading as historical scholarship.

The reader closes this long, angry, and gloomy book with relief. It is a pity indeed that Pipes, blinded by a narrow, unattractive ideology, in spite of his obvious erudition, intelligence, and talent, could not retell the great story of the Russian Revolution in a convincing fashion.

Rather than providing a synthesis of what we know about the revolutionary processes of 1917-18 or a
reinterpretation that contends with the major contributions of recent historiography (almost none of which is even referred to in notes or bibliography), Pipes has offered a personal political vision, an indictment that is highly selective, uneven in its treatment, and eccentric in its emphases and omissions.

I believe the quotes you one of those links are from a review written by Peter  Kenez. Did you know that Pipes was his advisor at Harvard?

Thank you Phil,
I found the book. I am going to take Helen's suggestion and see if I can find it at the library first.

Well here we go again - we can conclude, without having read the book that it is bogus.........................

Curiously, in my copy I can find no reference to HMS Marlborough in the index nor, after a cursory glance, in the text.  But never mind, it must be bogus.........sorry it is bogus because we say so.

Actually, it is rubbish, but interesting nevertheless.   The author, if nothing else, unearths a curious group of White Russians living in Northern Ireland (not a country one associates with the White Russian diaspora) including a photo of "Nikolai Alexandrovich" taken in Ireland in 1948.  Quite who they really were might be worthy of investigation if only one had the time.

I would urge people to read this book with an open but critical mind, if only as an example of where wishful thinking can obscure logic and remove ones critical faculties.  I particularly enjoyed his argument that he was being watched and bugged by the Special Branch because he was a descendant of the Tsar (forgetting for the moment that he was in constant communication with Prince Michael of Kent while at the same time living in Northern Ireland during "the troubles") and his attempt to explain how an RAF aeroplane could fly from Ekaterinberg to the Caucasus in summer of 1918 using RAF bases not established until the summer of the following year.

Copies shouldbe fairly cheaply available - bookshops in hay on Wye had them at about 3 each last time I was there a couple of years ago.

Phil Tomaselli

I would love to read it Phil, but am unable to find it. Do you happen to know if it was published in the U.S.?

Imperial Claimants Post Here / Re: The 8th Thread For Imperial Claimants
« on: December 06, 2007, 05:49:17 PM »
My dear sister Janet,
Thank you for clearing up that little spat of gender confusion on the part of our dear Uncle. Almanach de Gotha? The National Inquirer of almanaques.

Rulers Prior to Nicholas II / Re: Tsaritsa Praskovia Fyodorovna Saltykova
« on: December 06, 2007, 05:41:02 PM »
Praskovia-younger (1694-1731), married secretly in 1723 (after her mother's death) Ivan Dmitriev-Mamonov (1680-1730).

I am enjoying reading about all of this. I have a question, why was the marriage in secret?
Thank you,

Well, Dmitriev-Mamonov was not considered an equal for Praskovia. After all she was a niece of the powerful Emperor Peter I and a possible spouse-to-be for a German Prince. Russian Tsarevnas did not marry officially common people those times.

Thank you very muich,

Imperial Claimants Post Here / Re: The 8th Thread For Imperial Claimants
« on: December 04, 2007, 10:35:48 AM »
True, true . . . for awhile I noticed tremendous participation from the younger generation of Imperial Claimants, but in recent months they appear to have vanished into the mists of time. Such a pity, for we can always use fresh bluebloods around here--not in a vampirian sense, I hasten to add, but to add to the merriment of our jolly little group. And while 'tis true that many consider me Forever Young, at some point in time--no no, dear hearts, I can take it--even yours truly, the Imperial Claimant GD/GD Janet will be [gasp!] "a woman of a certain age." Yes yes . . . all six feet of me! So perhaps we should start recruiting. Any ideas, my fellow aging ones?


Never fear my dear sister. I see no need for botox in your future. You come from good stock and of course, have the bluest of blood.

Interesting.  I tried to find the book on Amazon, but was unable to do so.

Rulers Prior to Nicholas II / Re: Tsaritsa Praskovia Fyodorovna Saltykova
« on: December 04, 2007, 10:11:02 AM »
Praskovia-younger (1694-1731), married secretly in 1723 (after her mother's death) Ivan Dmitriev-Mamonov (1680-1730).

I am enjoying reading about all of this. I have a question, why was the marriage in secret?
Thank you,

Rulers Prior to Nicholas II / Re: Tsar Peter II of Russia
« on: December 02, 2007, 10:22:01 AM »
Speculation is fun.
I find it hard to imagine Russia without Catherine the Great. Had he lived, he probably would have had an heir. Ivan V probably would not have been co-ruler. There would not have been an uprising in 1682 and maybe not a Nicholas II. It could have been a very different Russia.

Imperial Succession and the Throne / Re: Who is the rightful heir?
« on: November 30, 2007, 02:28:48 PM »
The Tsarist restoration issue. He seems to be very keen on restoring the Glory of Russia, will he restore the Monarchy?, has he contemplated it?
With 80 percent approval in the Russian polls, he could do just  about anything!!!
ie, Restore a constituitional Monarchy, and become Prime Minister

I doubt that he has given restoring the monarchy a sustained thought.

Rulers Prior to Nicholas II / Re: Tsar Peter II of Russia
« on: November 30, 2007, 09:21:42 AM »
Actually, I meant Catherine.
Thank you Ivanushka. That cleared it up for me.

Rulers Prior to Nicholas II / Re: Tsar Peter II of Russia
« on: November 29, 2007, 09:25:56 PM »
I have a question about Peter II.
Is it accurate to state that Peter became Tsar because of the last will of Catherine the Great? And if so, was there any controversy surrounding that will?
Thank you,

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 119