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 - PrincessSophie

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
16
Thank you for your guidance, Annie!

17
In addition to her mental problems don't you think money was a big reason she did it?

If it was Annie, it puts a completely different complexion on the fraud and the person committing it.  Without it, you have rather a sad individual who desperately wanted to escape her life and through a series of people thinking she looked a little like someone else, she adopted another.  If you add money to the equation, you have a different individual altogether.  Cold and calculating.  That is a scary person capable of almost any thing.  Was she bright enough, I wonder?

18
It is extremely sad that she would take on such a tragic identity to escape a life she obviously found unlivable.  She also identified so closely with the invented story she may have been delusional.

I agree.  A lie is only a lie if you believe it is.  Or something like that!  There must have been a mental illness behind it though.  I mean we all fantasise at some time in our lives that it would be fun to be someone else for a while.  For example, I wanted to be Marcia on the Brady Bunch when I was a kid.  Lots of girls did.  But we didn't follow it up by impersonating that person.  That would be deranged and stupid.  But people with a mental illness may not see this.  That does not make it right by any means.  But one can at least understand why it happened.

Sophie

19

3.  These two bodies were found 70 metres from the mass burial site.
4.  Yurovsky accurately described the exact location where the bodies were found.

My question is (and accepting 1 and 2, based on logic) :  Knowing 4 and 3, why weren't the bodies found earlier?  70 metres isn't far.  Yurovsky made the location clear.  This doesn't make sense!

Sophie

While 70 metres isn't "far" when one is undertaking a proper archaeological excavation it is a huge distance.  One doesn't go "poking around" with shovels or picks.  The soil is carefully removed under controlled circumstances a few centimetres at a time.  In fact, there has been a schedule of the areas of the site to be excavated, and this specific section has been on the 2007 dig calendar for about three years now.  So, it wasn't exactly a random stab in the dark nor overlooked.  The description by Yurovsky isn't "clear as a bell" in its language.  While I have not seen the original Russian text, certain words are left open to interpretation and the discovery site is now "clear" once we know where it was so can finally see what Yurovsky actually meant.

Allow an example.  "We went 100 paces away, by some birch trees and a big rock."   Well, the entire area is nothing but birch trees and big rocks.  Does this make sense?  I'm trying to keep things simple, so please don't everyone attack me about this detail, I made it up and its NOT what the Yurovsky statement said.

Thank you, Forum Administrator.  I appreciate the points you have made above.  I certainly understand that an archeological dig is not as simple as making a cake.  They have to take care not to destroy things along the way etc.  That being said, they have had an awful long time to dig up those bodies - which incidently I believe to be the missing two Romanovs, so please don't attack me on this point.  My question is:  given the general location was known, why now, after all this time?

Thanks
Sophie

20
Well, with the Romanovs, there is always something more to say- whatever it turns out to be from either perspective, those who support imposters and those who don't.I think that the supporters of imposters will just go on as they always have, because people believing what they want to believe is just human nature, and as old as time, and besides, who wants to admit they are wrong? There was of course even before this discovery ample proof no one survived that July night. This discovery is certainly the real deal though.

Imperial Angel, you are right.  I don't believe anyone - in their gut - believes anyone survived that terrible night.  However, I also don't believe that anyone deliberately sets out to support imposters and conmen - who, by their very nature - take advantage of people's weaknesses; which in this case is holding out hope (in spite of all the logic and evidence in the world) that somehow one or more of the Romanov's survived.  They are basically decent people.  Sure they are dreamers but isn't there space on this planet for dreamers as well as people who are hard realists?  I hope there is.

Sophie

21
Bravo, Rachel.  You are a good soul!  I hope we have a peaceful resolution to this and that the beautiful, gracious Anastasia and his imperial highness Alexei are finally allowed to rest in peace with their family.

Sophie

22
Like Rachel, I have been afraid to say that I held up hope that there were survivors from that terrible day because it is a human thing to hope for. Who on earth would wish them all dead?  The response has been, at worse, one of abuse and recrimminations, and at best, pity.  In my view that is not a good way to win people over to your way of thinking.  The most reasonable people on this site have argued that the facts are compelling and that the reasonable man would conclude that Anastasia and her brother Alexie were murdered with their family and that this has been proven and that this would hold up in a court of law.  For me, that's a fine argument but this forum is not a court of law - at least, I don't think it is.  What is the point of a discussion board where people simply discuss what they understand as the facts in a self-congratulatory way?  In any case, the facts are never 100 per cent which opens up possibilities.  What's wrong with discussing these in a reasonable, non-abusive way?

Having said that, I think the Forum Administrator on this site has handled the differences of opinions in a very reasonable way and has made some very good points about the latest findings.  Of these, I find the first four points the most interesting.

1. Two bodies have been found. Two bodies were missing.
2.  A male of the correct age and female of the correct age were found.
3.  These two bodies were found 70 metres from the mass burial site.
4.  Yurovsky accurately described the exact location where the bodies were found.

My question is (and accepting 1 and 2, based on logic) :  Knowing 4 and 3, why weren't the bodies found earlier?  70 metres isn't far.  Yurovsky made the location clear.  This doesn't make sense!

Sophie

23
To be frank- if AA supporters don't even believe the DNA tests, then I doubt most will believe that the bodies of Alexei and the unknown daughter have been found, either, even if DNA testing should prove positive results. They will continue to cling to their conspiracy theories, and will come up with more elaborate explanations about "chain of custody," Queen Elizabeth's hand in switching results, or mysterious men in black burying burned bones into the ground.

First of all, Foxglove, welcome to this forum.

I am also a newbie, so I am still learning.  I hope you will be tolerant of my ignorance.  But, how do you know how people will react (AA supporters or not) to this news?  I classify myself an agnostic on both sides - which is to say neutral.  I would feel more comfortable if there was DNA confirmation that these are not the bodies of countless other children that the Bolsheviks murdered.  But, hey, that's me!

I hope this news - either way - will be forthcoming.

Sophie

Thank you for the welcome, Sophie. :) I was over on another forum and I got a taste of what some (not all) AA supporters think about this latest discovery. They are all ready very skeptical about these remains (which is normal, as I have some skepticism, too, until DNA results come in), but a few are all ready implying not-so-subtly that someone planted the remains there. As I previously mentioned, AA supporters do not hold credence in the DNA results on AA, so how would this be different for them? If the results are positive, and these remains will prove to be the missing children, AA supporters will have to believe that the previous DNA testing on AA was also correct, and I guess in effect, stop being an AA supporter? If they continue to believe in AA, then by conclusion, they will disregard the new tests (should they be positive), and continue to explain away by using elaborate theories, which they have done in the past (as I have read many a times).

Yes, Foxglove, you are right on many levels.  In all this, my heart goes out to the Romanov family.  For me, that is the bottomline.  I have lost nearly all the people I love in recent years and I cannot imagine the grief, despair and anger I would feel to have the loss faced by this family and then have to deal with people upon people masquerading as people I have lost.  The other thing I believe is that the Bolsheviks were ruthless killers and, in view of this, I doubt any one of the royal family survived their attack.  On the other hand, I would love to believe they had.  Particularly the children - who cannot, in my view, be blamed for anything the Tsar allegedly did.  I s'pose it is this hope that holds out.  This hope does not, however, extend to frauds and conmen.  In the Romanov's place, I would - at least figuratively speaking - happily shoot these people myself.  But I would still love to believe that Anastasia and Alexie escaped somehow.

Yes, I am a dreamer.
Sophie

24
To be frank- if AA supporters don't even believe the DNA tests, then I doubt most will believe that the bodies of Alexei and the unknown daughter have been found, either, even if DNA testing should prove positive results. They will continue to cling to their conspiracy theories, and will come up with more elaborate explanations about "chain of custody," Queen Elizabeth's hand in switching results, or mysterious men in black burying burned bones into the ground.

First of all, Foxglove, welcome to this forum.

I am also a newbie, so I am still learning.  I hope you will be tolerant of my ignorance.  But, how do you know how people will react (AA supporters or not) to this news?  I classify myself an agnostic on both sides - which is to say neutral.  I would feel more comfortable if there was DNA confirmation that these are not the bodies of countless other children that the Bolsheviks murdered.  But, hey, that's me!

I hope this news - either way - will be forthcoming.

Sophie

25
Yes! Dental plates indeed! We need to drag back up the 'grasping at straws' thread!

I can only say that from personal experience it is possible!

Sophie

26
I agree, Annie.

This site should be a safe haven for people to express their views on the topic at hand without fear of personal attack.  Perhaps the site moderator will intervene?

Kind regards
Sophie

The Forum is intended for discussion of matters of interest to our membership. It's not necessarily a "safe haven". We do have rules and standards.

I am very strict when it comes to personal attacks. I have seen none, but if you have found them, please feel free to report them to me or the FA.

I am the Moderator of the Survivor section. I had some concerns with the Survivor Section several weeks ago. I have spoken to Bob Atchison, the owner of this site and Forum, and he has asked me to remain as Moderator. I agreed. I also spoke to the FA, and he also asked me to remain. In other words, I have the complete support of both of them to moderate this part of the Forum as I see fit.

That said, you are entirely welcome to complain about how this is being moderated should you find that you are dissatisfied.

Lisa, I personally feel you are doing a fine job as moderator.  A fine job!  No problem at all!  The only negative in my comment was that you cannot be everywhere at once.  No one can.  And perhaps "safe haven" was not quite right.  But I do feel that on occasion that there are those who belittle those who do not agree with them and I, personally, find this quite unnecessary.  But I will certainly take your advice and report them in future!

I hope this explains what you were asking about.

27
I agree, Annie.

This site should be a safe haven for people to express their views on the topic at hand without fear of personal attack.  Perhaps the site moderator will intervene?

Kind regards
Sophie

28
AGR Bear,

This one is directed at you! 

I stumbled upon these views on another AN site and wondered what your initial reactions were.

"Yeah, I know about the DNA results. See, the thing is, though, that there is no proof first of all that the hair found in the book really was her hair. And the samples passed through multiple hands with multiple opportunities for contamination or–dare I say it? outright substitution. I think that had the test results not made a match with Franziska Schankowska, I might have been a little less positive that there was a conspiracy. However, there is absolutely no question that there is any possible way Ms. Anderson could have been Franziska Schankowska, beginning with the fact that Ms. Anderson turned up in a canal in Berlin BEFORE Ms. Schankowska ever went missing."

Thanking you in advance.
Sophie

29
And there have been other quotes where he later said they left her to her 'career' as 'Anastasia.' There were many, many good reasons not to expose AA, and no good ones for claiming her. It was better off for her and her family if she continued to be "Anastasia" so she'd always have somebody to glom off of, and never be able to be officially charged with fraud (which would have gotten her thrown in jail if she had been exposed) In addition to jail, she could have even ended up in a Nazi death camp. By the time the trial started, the Nazis were running Germany. FS had been declared legally insane in 1916, and the Nazis sent the insane to death camps. It would have been literally killing her to expose her by then, who'd do that? This is one thing that really hurt the opposition's case, they had to prove she wasn't AN because they couldn't get anyone to say she was FS, even though they knew she was.

Remember the story about her getting so upset when Doris Wingender came to see her, yelling 'that must get out!' She recognized Wingender and was deeply afraid of being exposed. At that point at least AA/FS knew exactly what she was doing.

Thanks, Annie.  I really appreciate the detail of your response and your patience!!!

I certainly can understand AA's motives for mascarading as AN - particularly after she had committed to doing so.  I am less convinced by the need for other people to go along with it - unless, as you say they had confirmed stakes in any fortunes associated with her continuing on this route!

Sophie

Some supporters think it's strange no one came forward to expose AA. Why would they, there would be no money in it. There would, however, be a lot of money in letting her go on claiming to be AN, and maybe collecting your hush money once she won her claim? Just a thought.

AA had everything to lose by being exposed and everything to gain by being "Anastasia." So it's not at all strange that the people who knew her wouldn't want to ruin that (or have to live with her knowing they had)

30
I don't know how to insert pictures (or hyperlinks) but has anyone seen this one?

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Image:Anna1922berlin.jpg




Yes I have. That's a real difference between AA and AN, look at that big, pointy nose. AN's was small and rounded on the end.

That's what I have just said in another post, Annie!

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5