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 - DNAgenie

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14
I can't watch that show, it is too far from reality.

Jenna is much too good looking for the role. Queen Vic had lost her looks as a young woman, she ate too much and got fat, was supremely selfish, and she was a control freak. She did love Albert but he was terrified of her tantrums. She got on with Lord Melbourne because he flattered her, not because she was in love with him. Her servants had a terrible time.

Anastasia Nicholaievna / Re: Illnesses of Grand Duchess Anastasia
« on: December 26, 2018, 04:10:20 PM »
Alex's mother, Alice, died of diphtheria while nursing her children through the disease, and one child (May) also died, so Alex had good reason to fear it.

Having Fun! / Re: Getting dressed
« on: September 02, 2018, 04:19:58 PM »
'Ladies' were a small elite group who belonged to the aristocracy. Most of the female population in English-speaking countries were referred to as 'women' and only a small proportion of the wealthier women would have had maids to help them dress. We plebians would have had much less elaborate and more practical clothes and we would not all dress for dinner every night. Things have not changed all that much.

The Myth and Legends of Survivors / Re: Larissa Tudor
« on: August 13, 2018, 08:26:55 PM »
Larissa Tudor could have been a descendant of the von Hauke family, best known member of which was Julia von Hauke, Princess of Battenburg, who married Prince Alexander of Hesse in a morganatic marriage in 1851 in Breslau, Prussia. Julia was the mother of Prince Louis of Battenburg and great grandmother of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. Julia's father was a Polish general who was shot during the November Uprising so his children were made wards of the Tsar. Julia's father and his two von Hauke brothers had been generals in the service of Russia and all three had become Counts of the Russian Empire. It is conceivable that Larissa came from this line, with the surname Von Hauke. She was certainly not Grand Duchess Tatiana, but if she had escaped from Russia after the revolution it is not surprising that she preferred to remain a private person.

Yeah, imagine if this was happening now.

Anna would probably have her own Facebook page, where all her loyal ciphers could post their support of her rubbish claim to be Anastasia.

Yeah AA would have been sunk from Day One in the era of DNA testing.

I know of a Russian woman who claims her mother was Anastasia. She has been tested and has the wrong DNA, but she refuses to admit it, AND she has her own Facebook page!

Alexandra Feodorovna / Re: Alexandra and her Health Part 2
« on: August 04, 2018, 07:58:01 PM »
If Alexandra had inherited porphyria from Queen Victoria's line via her mother Princess Alice (who was frequently ill with mysterious symptoms) it would be Variegate Porphyria. This, as its name suggests, can present as a wide variety of symptoms, or be completely asymptomatic for generations. It can appear in individuals in both acute and chronic forms of the disease and is made worse by stress. It is frequently mis-diagnosed, even today, and requires a complex series of tests to confirm the disease. Alexandra's first cousin, Princess Charlotte of Prussia (daughter of Alice's sister Crown Princess Victoria) has been confirmed to have suffered the disease through DNA testing, so it would made sense if Alexandra also carried the same gene.

Alexandra Feodorovna / Re: Alexandra and her Health Part 2
« on: August 03, 2018, 04:41:06 PM »
Unfortunately we will never probably know in Alexandra's case. It frustrates me that her physicians seemed to chalk most of her problems up to mental and/or emotional instability. Even when they agreed that she had some sort of circulatory or cardiac issue, they still wanted to ascribe it to her neurotic personality -  that it was simply a physical manifestation of a mental health issue. Perhaps it was simply a case of depression/anxiety/panic attacks, but I feel no really thorough physical examinations were done, or at least not documented. And, for her part, she seemed to be the type who only accepted what she wanted to hear, and likely surrounded herself with primarily sycophantic doctors. The result is likely misdiagnosis (or a non-thorough diagnosis) of what was really going on, whatever it was, and the lack of good documentation of a possible physical condition has allowed people to continue to write her off as a mentally-unstable hypochondriac. Which then plays into the larger narrative of her as a generally mentally-unstable woman whose neuroses brought down an empire. It is simply unfair - not to mention grossly simplistic and somewhat misogynistic - to frame things that way. I know that serious Romanov historians and hobbyists do not (at least I hope they do not), but in the popular imagination, she is still very much seen in that way. She deserves better as a human being, and history deserves better, as well.

I agree, though I think Alexandra was suffering from porphyria. That disease was not documented until the 1950s and is frequently misdiagnosed as hypochondria, even today. Alexandra is mentioned in the book "Purple Secret. Genes 'Madness' and the Royal Houses of Europe" by Rohl, Warren and Hunt, in which the two co-authors are molecular geneticists, and experts on porphyria.

Tsarevich Alexei Nicholaievich / Re: What and Who is Alexei to you?
« on: August 01, 2018, 07:32:45 PM »
So I doubt that the Romanian royal family knew the imperial family very well. I could be wrong (I do not have the exact words in mind), but his words about Olga for example are not representative of the Grand Duchess.

In general, the Romanian authors' remarks are violent against the imperial family. I am also thinking of Princess Bibesco, who was present in 1914 during the visit of the imperial family to Romania.

The failure of the union between Olga and Prince Karol was, I think, perceived as an affront in Romania.

Marie was only part of the Romanian Royal Family by marriage, and she did not get on with her husband Crown Prince  Ferdinand. In her youth her attitudes would have been shaped by her Russian Mother (only daughter of Tsar Alexander II) and her British father (son of Queen Victoria). However in later life Marie of Rumania was very much her own woman. It is unreasonable to equate traditional 'Romanian' attitudes with those of Marie of Romania.

This is rather off the topic of 'What and Who is Alexei to you?'

Tsarevich Alexei Nicholaievich / Re: What and Who is Alexei to you?
« on: July 31, 2018, 09:23:44 PM »
Some information that I have read here reminds me of several French articles I read in revolutionary newspapers. Others remind me of Marie from Romania. Apart from Nicholas II, this woman hated the Russian imperial family, so that's not surprising.
Marie of Rumania was the daughter of Prince Alfred of Saxe-Coburg, and Grand Duchess Maria Alexandrovna of Russia, so she was Nicholas II's first cousin, and Empress Alexandra's second cousin. She would have been double cousins with Alexis and probably knew him quite well. There were all sorts of political and family issues involved in their relationship and these should be kept in mind when analyzing family comments. But of course that applied to all the European Royal families.

I am related to them all, though more distantly, so that helps to see all sides of the picture. Alexis was my fourth cousin once removed, 5th cousin, 4C2R, 5C1R, 5C2R, 5C3R, etc.

The Imperial Family / Re: The Romanovs as artists
« on: July 22, 2018, 05:01:55 PM »
Sorry about that. I am not a subscriber but I can see it. The article came up in my local news feed.

The Imperial Family / The Romanovs as artists
« on: July 21, 2018, 10:13:29 AM »
Here is an interesting article about the modern Romanov family as artists, painters, cartoonists, etc. It does not refer to the photography of Nicholas II and his family but that could be covered by this topic as well.

The Final Chapter / Re: One Hundred Years On
« on: July 18, 2018, 11:23:38 AM »
There is a comprehensive article about the current Russian attitudes to the Romanov deaths in The Moscow Times of July 19 2018.

See .

The Final Chapter / Re: One Hundred Years On
« on: July 18, 2018, 10:48:04 AM »
The Bolsheviks were violent, bloodthirsty criminals, and murdering innocent young women, and sickly boy, who probably would not have lived to see his 25th birthday, hammers that home.
You can certainly apply that description to the Urals Bolshevik committee, but it is too sweeping a statement to apply to the Russian Bolshevik Government.

The Moscow Bolshevik government had wanted to put Nicholas II on trial for his crimes against the Russian people, but that turned out to be impossible because of the military situation, as the White Russian armies approached Yekaterinburg. So they sanctioned the Tsar's  execution. Just that. They announced his death in a press release as soon as they received confirmation from the Urals Soviet.

But they discovered that the Urals lot had gone ahead and massacred the whole family, so the coverup began. No more official information was released beyond the message that the rest of the family was in a safe place. Moscow was forced to approve the assassinations retrospectively, as, after all, what else could they do? The Urals Bolsheviks were a loose cannon and Russia has paid a price for that ever since.

The Final Chapter / Re: People Being 'Horrified' by OTMAA's Murders?
« on: July 12, 2018, 07:32:35 PM »
If individuals in Britain, France and Germany were asked in 1918 something like 'Do you think that the murder of the Romanovs was a terrible crime?', then probably 99 out of 100 would have answered yes.

You are forgetting that in 1918 no-one knew anything about the murder of the Romanovs. The death of Nicholas and Alexei had been announced by the Russian Government but at that stage the rest of the family was reported to be in a place of safety.

That question was not relevant until the mid-1920s, at the earliest, and it can only be answered in hindsight.

In 1918 many European royal families had lost their thrones, and there was little public sympathy for their plight. The world was trying to recover from a calamitous World War and most of the royals were seen as having caused that war. Seen in that context, the death of some members of a particular royal family would not have been seen as a terrible crime, but as retribution.

You would probably get a different answer today, as modern readers are suitably horrified by the manner of the Romanov deaths. But in 1918? No.

The Final Chapter / Re: One Hundred Years On
« on: July 09, 2018, 07:10:23 PM »
One week to go. It will be interesting to see what happens in Russia, quite apart from official recognition of the event.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14