The Alexander Palace Time Machine Discussion Forum

It never ceases to amaze me how people call me 'unkind' for suspicioning Gleb Botkin had a part in AA's charade, while they will turn around and be 'unkind' to family members who were grieving, and whose pain was only made greater by the pretenders. I am not saying the family was 'saintly' of course not, no one's family of any financial standing is, not even mine, especially not mine! But the fact is, AA WAS NOT AN and they didn't recognize her because it wasn't her! They were not lying to protect nonexistant money, and Olga, the black sheep of the family who had married 'wrong'  was certainly not one for greed as say Kyril was. How come these people's motives can be questioned,and not Botkin's?

Errr, really I was not responding to you but to Louis Charles.

We can question everybody, we must, in History you have that right but you must let other people criticize and make their point. So, I answer accordingly to Louis Charles saying I am not demonizing anybody but just stating some known facts about this peculiar family.
Excuse me ,  you call the jewels of MF non existant?? or the money they received from a bank whose name I don't recall? That was very real!!!

Yes she was an amazing woman with an amazing story. She was not easily unmasked for 3 reasons:

She had someone, or some persons, behind her helping and encouraging her

She wanted it badly, and was too humiliated and afraid to confess, either that or she was mentally unstable and completely believed it.

People wanted to believe it! (and some still do)

My avatar is a tribute to the way these threads continue say the same things over and over but always hit a brick wall, and there will never be a solution.

Well, we have an upgrade from fraud, to mystery to AMAZING woman, very well. She was not unmasked because there were mountains of evidence and support to her case, as simple as that.  

I agree people continue to say the same things, yes, because they make sense, and they are true. You only have your controversial DNA.

Never say never, and as for the brick wall do not worry, even the strongest falls.

P.S. I think you can make good use of your abilities and avatar, a glorious tribute indeed to intransigency, in some other forums "to help people not to waste their time", let me see I can suggest Rosswell believers, Loch Ness Nessie and the best Elvis is alive and well...

Dear P,

You have not a shred of evidence for any of your assertions about Olga Alexandrovna. Is it not possible to think that, assuming Anna Andersen was Anastasia, that Olga was unable to recognize her?

There is no need to demonize a woman who suffered greatly because of the Revolution. Olga died penniless, in a room provided through the charity of poor Russian emigres living in Canada. Her life was filled with poverty and endangerment, and unlike Xenia, she did not receive a grace-and-favor home from the British. She supported herself through hard work throughout her life, and there are numerous testimonies to her charity for those less fortunate than herself.

It is not necessary to defame people to make a case that AA was AN. I don't think she was, but I don't think that Gleb and Tatiana Botkin, Dominique Aucleres, Dassel, Schwabe and the others were liars. I think they were mistaken. And if I supported AA'sa claims, I would think the same of Olga Alexandrovna.

Simon

Thank you for  giving more arguments to my ideas. Yes indeed she died penniless because of family intrigue that left her out of the proceeds of the sale of MF's jewels, she only received a token sum that allowed her together with the sale of some of her valuables to buy first the farm in Denmark and then the small farm in Canada. It was Xenia that kept most of the money leaving a small but respectable capital after her death. This to prove that it is not that far fetched the idea of Romanoff relatives denying AA for reasons different to true identity but for financial convenience. If Xenia did that to her own sister Olga imagine what she could have done to AA.

Demonizing, for God's sake these people were not saints, they were humans. And remember some of them conspire to a cold blood murder (see GD Dimitri and Rasputin). I am not defaming Olga but I think AA has the same right to be defended. In these forums she has been called a liar, fraud, mad woman, etc.

And as for evidence, I know when it comes to AA some of you demand proof, evidence, sources , qualifications, expertise, when someone comes to defend her but when somebody attacks her it is enough their word.

For sources read "The Lost Fortune of the Tsars" and "The flight of the Romanoff" and many biographical works on the Romanoff. There you will see the traits and true characteristics of this family. These grand ladies so caring as you describe them did nothing against the progroms against the jews in Russia where thousands were killed or deported even in Nicholas II reign. What about the extreme poverty that surrounded them, what did these caring ladies do?. And let me give you some other examples of the traits and characteristics of this family:
GD Alexander left Xenia to live as a bon vivant in France with his lover,  GD Marie left her newborn child in Sweden to live again in Russia and remarry  Putiatin, Irina married to a known philanderer and later murderer, GD Pavel left her two small children to the care of GD Elisabeth to live with Princess Paley, GD Cyril betrayed his own cousin by raising the revolution flag on top of his palace and swearing allegiance to them, the Vladirimovich conspired openly to kill the Tsar and exile the Tsarina, GD Nicholas K. stole from his own mother and was exiled, and that is only in the later  generations.

This to tell you that we are dealing with a very disfuntional family not your every day middle class folk. Do not be so idealistic about the Romanoff they came from a world where they were all powerful and used to getting their ways. So, AA was not only fighting for her identity, she was fighting against a family not so caring or saintly. And this you can find it in any history book.

Believe you are not alone in believing that there is much more in the AA case.

As for the letters from Olga to AA, a royal from that era would not dare to write  letters of that confidence to a non-equal. Even in writing to minor nobility you see the difference. The letters are a sample that she believed and knew AA was an equal and she goes as far as to give her a personal item, the shawl, another unthinkable thing to do in front of a person who at the very least was not your peer.
Do not mystify GD Olga, she looks as a very democratic and down to earth person, but she was before all an Emperor's daughter behaving accordingly when dealing with people.

Besides, she was a smart person and knew what would be in store for her if she dared to contradict her family. She depended financially from them, at the very end it weighed more the security of her own inmediate family. As for GD Xenia, I think she was capable of many things, see how she managed to leave her own sister out of most of the proceeds from the sale of the jewels of MF. A claimant , as AA, would be a terrible nuisance, specially financially.
Let's be real these people were penniless and were counting on two things:

1.The return to Russia and their former wealth.

2.The jewels and valuables they managed to take with them.

The first was very far away almost impossible, but the second was very real. Marie Feodorovna was old and the sale of her house in Denmark and her jewels will provide sufficient funds for a large family like Xenia's. So a claimant being an impostor or not was to be ignored for their own sake. The next one was Olga herself, proof of that was her  lack of funds and Olga's own statements. When GD Xenia died she left  £250,000 pounds , a fortune at the time of her death. Up or down when it comes to inheritance and money families are the same all over the world.

It is very possible that a combination of these family intrigues and people interested in using AA played against her in these early stages of her battle to prove her identity.

The fact that she was a fraud also makes it interesting. Wondering how she pulled off this charade so long and who helped her and why is the biggest mystery of all now, and a very intriguing one. Another reason people come to these threads is to try to explain the reasons she wasn't AN so people will stop wasting time on something that isn't true.

By your own statement you are upgrading the "fraud" to mystery, very well. Frauds are generally easily to unmask and explain, see for example Alexis Bierdmeyer , but with AA is totally different.  DNA test aside, anyone find very hard to disprove she was not Anastasia facing mountains of testimonies and accounts made by her and others who recognized her. I won't go over the controversial DNA test because this is not the thread to deal with it.

But one thing is for sure people come to these threads because they find it plausible that AA was Anastasia and they are fascinated with the idea, very romantic, of a lost princess. If your statements were right the interest would have diminished or disappeared long ago, it is in human nature to dislike frauds and liars. To put it in marketing terms, they don't sell!!

I appreciate   your altruistic desire to come to these threads to explain to us common folk the truth so "we won't waste time", but  I think we can figure it out by ourselves. Let us be ,for a while, content with the idea that we are capable enough and that we don't need a big brother (or sister  ) to enlighten us with their infallible wisdom.

P.S. By the way the guy on the left of your posts is really annoying , and to think that you don't want to waste time on this subject ........

Finally! Someone understood me! You are wonderful, Bear and you deserves a big pot of honey!  

It's quite sad, but this thread ended being like all the AA-FS threads are...We are discussing reasons about AA being AN, FS or none of them, but OUR OWN reasons. We have plenty of threads in the "Survivors" and "Claiman" Forums discussing the same reasons over and over again. This thread was supposed to be different. It was an excersice to do with scientifics and forensic and anthropologues, etc who we could contact in some way, presenting the case without saying who was the person whose identity we are searching.

If someone wants to do this, the thread is already open. If not, is all right. We may discuss other things in other threads.

Bye, bye!
RealAnastasia.

RealAnastasia keep the good work!! In these threads you are one of the few that with your reasoning and historical approach to the AA case really make some good points about the case. The more I read your posts the more I get convinced that there is much more to know about AA. Don't let yourself be bothered or angered by the Infallible clan, they have their dogma very well grounded and any threats are not welcome.
But on the other hand, you have participants that eventhough do not agree with you, think and reason outside the box and are not afraid to exchange ideas and facts.

The very existance of these threads show you the keen interest on AA case. Be sure, if she was such a fraud to be discarded so easily because of a very controversial test the threads would not exist at all.

Wish you the best.

Pentetorri,
You humor is welcome. I got a belly laugh from your posts. And laughter is wonderful. Thank you.

Very welcome

Excellent observation Pentetorri, and I couldn't agree more. LMAO!!!!!!!!!! I am dying laughing on this one!!

Thanks Michael G. The whole thing is so funny at times, you find these people like Annie totally convinced that AA was not Anastasia because of that controversial DNA test, but they keep participating in the threads where other people believe or have reasonable doubts AA could be Anastasia and to make their point they go to extremes saying they are defending helpless students who consult this  forum and could get their whole careers damage because of the "lies and misconceptions" about AA. In some other threads these people declare themselves INFALLIBLE and 110 % sure of this subject   .

Because there is not real gain in all this I have come to believe that all these excitement to defend the truth , as they know it, comes from a serious and may be deadly intoxication due to TOO MUCH DNA.

You know a good laugh in these days is a MUST !!!

Some of you need to realize that we will NEVER find exactly what we are looking for in books and 'sources'. Most of what we really need to know was kept only in the memories of the people involved, and they are gone. If Gleb had a plan, if AA knew who she really was, would they go around writing it down, telling it to somebody? Of course not! There is never going to be a paper trial for the behind the scenes stuff they didn't want the public to know about.  All we can do on most of it is speculate, wonder and second guess. The only solid proof is the DNA.

Wow!! With a single statement you manage to discard History as credible. History, for your information is based on contemporary testimonies, recollections and speculation based on old writings and texts. So it is fair enough in AA case to dig into all the writings about the subject. Remember the Surgeons'advice :Too much DNA can be dangerous to your health!

YES  to both questions.

P.S. By the way how can anyone be sure 110%? oh, I know infallibility......

I have to disagree. You are talking about a finished product when you discuss an actor performing a script. The skills necessary to act are another matter, particularly when we are talking about someone without the need for techical skills, for example the ability to project one's voice onstage.

Let's say we accept the description of Franziska as a girl of intelligence, who read and had a strong desire to better herself. To me, this bespeaks a character that would be ideal. If she combined that with being a "quick study", as Etonexile mentioned aboove, then she was going to be adept at developing into the role of Anastasia. In the early days, a lot was forgiven Fraulein Unbekannt because of memory damage supposedly caused by the brutality of the physical attack in the cellar. There were significant people that did not accept her, like Gilliard and Olga Alexandrovna. I am not saying that these failures of recognition alone are enough to rule her out, but suggest that these might be viewed as "criticisms" of her performance.

I think my main point is that she shouldn't be ruled out as a successful actress because she was a Polish factory worker. Given sufficient motivation and talent, a flower girl can be passed off as a Duchess at the Embassy Ball (My Fair Lady).

For the record, I have been a theatre director and actor for nearly forty years, and while they does not necessarily prove my point, I hope it demonstrates that it does not proceed from ignorance.

You make some good points. But, while the polish girl had the potential to be a good actress, the kind of "performance" AA did would be an achievment of a lifetime. Not only she had to modify, without plastic surgery, her appearance, feet, eyes but also convince people that knew her (and many people that knew her recognized her as Anastasia) with abundant knowledge.  where did she get all those minute details, sometimes unimportant? In other words where did she get the script? Remember there was no Romanoff literature as today where we know even the toilet paper they use

To bring it to the present day, do you think the guy who played Nixon will convince his family? She had to act not only to unknown people but to people that knew her. Thats very hard. An a quick learner that's really wishful thinking, learning languages and most of all class .....

With all due respect, I'm not sure that what you are presenting proves AA could not have been an actor. Actors deal with the presentation of behavior about a character so that the audience will believe it, not whether it is literally true. An example might be Anthony Hopins' portrayal of the cannibal murderer Hannibal Lector in [i}Silence of the Lambs[/i]. In other words, you don't have to be a Grand Duchess to play a Grand Duchess. And many, many actors come from lower-class backgrounds, so the fact that she was  Polish worker (assuming that AA was FS) is irrelevant to her possible ability to perform as a convincing actor.

Happy to answer an intelligent post. The examples you give are from an actor who have a script, for a movie no longer than 2 hours, they film scenes no longer than ten minutes controlled and directed by an always present director, and on top of that they are edited. The best performances , read convincing, are given by the best actor with a whole bacground of acting, studies and experience, read Anthony Hopkins with a solid shakespearian background, and not certainly with new arrivals. For example did you find Collin Farrel or Brad Pitt convincing in Alexander?
Any fan of historical movies will tell you that most of them show royals as stereotypes very different from the real thing. In the best cases they give an idea of the historical figure but hardly a detailed perfomance of the person,

I do not remember now but one russian royal on commenting of the perfomance of a famous actress playing the role of the Dowager Empress Marie said that she, the actress,was a travesti of the Empress. not even close to the real thing . Besides, I do not recall of any actor or actress being on the stage for 60 years continuously playing the same role.

Now, imagine a polish worker with no acting experience, good education or at least upper class origins to play that kind of part. I insist, the moment she would have opened her mouth  anybody could realize she was not , at the very least what they call in those times a Lady. And always remeber in those times class differences were very marked , education was a privilege and not accessible to everybody.

[did not say]

My Dear Merrique, calm down I think you got carried away by the excitement of what I call now the Infallible people  . I did not even answer your post!!!! I only answered to our dear FA and to etonexile, not to you, so may I ask what was all that about?

I know, it is what I have been saying, the moment anybody dares to argue about the chance of AA being Anastasia or the validity of the DNA test done to the MJ Hospital samples some people get so threatened that they loose it, they do not even read the posts properly. Now, I can say to you oh my.

I agree 100% with Real Anastasia statement and furthermore I think some of the members should moderate the way they call AA, ( the least insulting I have read is mad) we should not forget that she ,AA, is a dead person and a lady, and that nothing against her has been proved in a court of law. So, calling her a con artist, a mad person I think is not fair at all for a person who is not even able to defend herself anymore. Well, at least that is the way I have been raised and educated but I guess I cannot ask that from everybody.

If you had thoroughly read my post,Pentetorri,you should have noticed that I did not say that AA was FS.The only thing I did say was AA was not AN.But if that's how you want to read my post to support you theories,then please go right ahead.

I'm not a scientist but I am able to understand the DNA very well.You are right about one thing,science doesn't prove everything 100%.However science did prove that AA was related to FS's family even if it didn't prove that she was FS.And it proved that AA was not a Romanov.

Until you can show me proof that these samples and tests were tampered with I'm afraid I'm still going to believe the DNA.You can believe whatever you like and share your opinions about it just like I will do.
But be prepard like all the rest of us if you don't have some kind of proof to back up what you say,because it will be questioned whether you like it or not.

Besides the DNA evidence which proves that AA had NO connection to the known relations of the IF and that AA DID have a physical relationship to known members of the family of FS(Have you ANY idea how unlikely that such double matching could just be a "fluke" or act of concious criminality?)...AA was often denied by those who had met her....She seems to have been what is known in the theatre as a "quick study"...someone who is clever at learning a part in a short space of time....directors



love these people....
AA seems to have been a rather sad,mad woman who had NOTHING in her otherwise drab,ugly existance except the belief that she was SOMEONE....at first Tatiana....and then finally Anastasia....

Oh my, when talking about a lady dead or alive you should be more careful of your adjectives. Very interesting your argument a quick learner, of languages, manner of the upper class and intimate history of the IF, only with a background of a polish worker. What next, was she a magician too? or better she used hipnosis...

Will anyone PLEASE explain to me WHY the ONLY people who "doubt" the realiability of the DNA testing are also virtually to a one people with no training, education or experience in that field? Every single expert in the field, the ones who have the training, knowledge and experience, who have read the peer review journals and who do this work daily, and testify in Courts nationwide about the accuracy and reliability all 100% agree that the testing IS reliable and accurate?

Here they come again and I said and I say it again, other subjects do not raise this kind of reaction, another opportunity to talk about experts and science with a 100% accuracy? In science there is no 100% accuracy but I guess it is difficult to explain that to the Infallible people. Well, like it or not there will always be people who are open minded who do not follow everything as dogma, who dare to use their own criteria and common sense, and on the other side it is people like you that pass judgement on people who do not even know, and who think that a test its enough to dismiss a whole life and hundreds of people who did believe in AA.  Was she Anastasia? Maybe, but certainly she was not a Polish worker !!!! And the fact that people still have doubt who she was its the very same forum and thread in which you are a FA. You have to live with it like it or not.