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 - JonC

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 14
News Links / Re: Georgy wants the Ekaterinburg remains re-examined
« on: March 08, 2010, 12:55:50 PM »
FA what is there that I need to prove anyway? It is a known FACT that the data use by the ' scientists ' for them to come to their conclusions has never been released. It is a well known FACT that other scientists have to have access to that data for the findings to be verified. As far as the KNOWN SCAR on Nicholas's head being ABSENT from the skull identified as been ' his ' leaves honest skepticism on the whole study. What amazes me is why ' renown ' Romanov experts on this and other sites try to force non believers to accept their untenable position. Apparently after Georgy met the Patriarch neither could he. I like his grit and determination.
Many on this site who previously loved him and his Maria have now sold him to the Gypsies, stoke and all, and that IS cruel! JonC.   

News Links / Re: Georgy wants the Ekaterinburg remains re-examined
« on: March 06, 2010, 06:57:20 PM »
My reply was removed, why?

The Byzantine Heritage / Re: Romanov Byzantine Ancestry
« on: January 25, 2010, 04:36:12 PM »
Believe me, that would be tough, unfortunately!

Amedeo, could you please explain to me what is the nature of the crest, I believe it is a royal crest, you have next to your name.

How do you do that with the blue ink thing its impressive.

Thank you Margarita for your welcome it was heart warming as usual. My ' claim ' as you put it is to find the truth wherever it leads. I don't walk through Briar bushess to find comfort or a clear path so you needn't be worried. If I'm not welcome on this site you need just say the word.

Sorry, I should have read the previous posts. I still would like to know if the FSS has released the data they used to work with in order to formulate their conclusions. From the above posts then am I to believe that a claimant's Y chromosome can now be compared to Nichola's...that's great! Is Nicholas's  Y Chromosome profile available to look at?

The MtDNA scenario has been beaten to death with disbelief from some sources with good cause, we all know the history, but why not direct some of these claimants to a Paternity test using the father's DNA, namely Nicholas's ? In other words, if the MtDNA might be unreliable surely the Paternal connection should be there, no?

Hi, I'm sorry but I haven't been logged on for a while so I'd like to ask a question. Does anyone know if the FSS has released all the data they used for them to make their genetic conclusions of Nicholas and his family? I am specifically concerned about Paternal studies made between Nicholas and the ' new ' bone discoveries of his children.

In any case have ANY paternal DNA studies been done at all? Can anyone get a hold of Nicholas's DNA to make these paternal comparisons?

Imperial Succession and the Throne / Re: Maria Romanova
« on: June 14, 2006, 11:58:43 PM »
You are welcome JonC, and yes we are going of topic here, but I feel that I need to respond in public and not via PM, so someone dosnt' think that AF is somehow MF's niece by blood....
JonC, to call someone "uncle" or "aunt", is NOT limited to the siblings of you parents or grand parents for that matter. It can also be the way to adress people of an older generation than yourself, like cousins of your parents. If you see the way other royal relatives adress each other you would understand this. I'm actually surprised that you havn't seen this before regarding royalty, or in generel.
My logic makes perfect sence.  :) (Hoping I'm not the only one in this forum to think that. ;D ;D)

Kmerov...I understand the concept very well. My mother always told me to call older cousins uncle and aunty. Even in my twenties I thought a cousin of mine was an uncle because of her thinking..similar to yours. I was actually quite upset to learn that I had called a cousin uncle for all my life. I had shown respect to him because I thought he was my uncle. I hadn't liked him very much and when I found out he was just a cousin, twice removed, I was upset for taking all his nonsence out of respect thinking he was my uncle.

Nevertheless, I will take AF at her word because I don't believe she would call MF ' aunty ' just out of respect especially AFTER she married her son Nicholas 2nd. It would have been disrespectful for her to call MF aunty if she wasn't in verite her aunty especially after marrying Nicholas. After her marriage MF would have been called ' Mother ' by AF. But if MF was AF's aunty then either name would have been appropriate. That is why I believe MF was in fact AF's true aunt!

Now back to topic!! JonC.

Imperial Succession and the Throne / Re: Maria Romanova
« on: June 13, 2006, 10:32:23 PM »
JonC, I'm sorry to say this, but that is absolute nonsense. Alix most likely called MF aunt because she was married to her fathers (GD Louis) first cousin (AIII), thus making her an "aunt".  That is quite common among royals aswell as others, for instance myself.

Hi kmerov, thanks for your post. This discussion is going away from the original topic so I'll be brief.

If MF was married to AF's father's first cousin in Alexander 3rd, and MF and AF have no other connections before AF's marriage to Nicholas 2nd then MF would be a ' Cousin's wife ' to AF's father and to AF herself and not an uncle's wife. A cousin's wife is still a cousin but an uncle's wife would be an aunt even if that aunt is not blood related. MF would become an aunt by marriage to AF. But this is NOT the case made from your argument.

I think you have confused yourself with your own logic. JonC.

In other words, absence of evidence, isn't evidence of absence.  In a court of law, you present the "best evidence".  It would seem that in this case, you have eye-witness testimony, an established motive, means and opportunity.  You also have physical evidence that supports the claim that all members of the family were shot.  I believe the case could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury.

You do have physical evidence that five of the seven Romanovs were shot at Ipatiev.  You do have physical evidence that four of the family's retainers were also shot at Ipatiev... but ...

You do not have any physical evidence at all that Alexei and his missing sister were killed at Ipatiev.

Washington has just required that the physical remains must be obtained and the DNA identification tests must be completed in order to prove that the terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawri has been killed in Iraq.  The same will be necessary if that day ever comes for the positive identification of Osama Bin Laden.  

The case of the missing Romanovs is no different. The very same thing must also be required in order to confirm the suspected murders of those two missing members of the Russian Imperial family at Ipatiev.

The fact of the matter is, without that discovery of those two missing sets of mortal remains and without a postive DNA identification of those same missing mortal remains, you do *not* have any physical evidence at all to support your conjecture that Alexei and his sister had also been killed at Ipatiev.

This one fact alone is the only reason at all why Peter Sarandinaki's S.E.A.R.CH Foundation (Scientific Expedition to Account for the Romanov Children) now exists.  If there had been any actual physical proof at all of the two missing Romanov's deaths at Ipatiev then the formation of S.E.A.R.CH and the ongoing effort to find and rcover those very same missing remains would never have been necessary.

Here is the one piece of evidence which cannot be refuted:

"If the remains are those of the Romanovs then the STR and sex test data indicate that one of the princesses and the Tsarevitch Alexei were missing from the grave. This would support some historical accounts which would indicate that two bodies were either burned or buried separately. Alternatively, two individuals may have survived the massacre."

From the "Identification of the remains of the Romanov family by DNA analysis" by Peter Gill, Pavel L. Ivanov, et al.  NATURE GENETICS, page 131, Volume 6, February 1994.


Hi Mr. Kendrick, thanks for your post, it was refreshing to read such sound logic from someone else. Besides Bear there are on this forum members who do seem to have clarity of vision and reasoning to come up with such a simple conclusion, i.e. no bodies therefor no conclusive evidence of death! Now, how hard is that?

For all those others there is still hope that one day you too will admit the same conclusion. I believe that will happen when, finally, the two missing will be found.

Now, Mr. Kendrick, tell Mr. Sarandinaki I have some clues for him and his SEARCH team to pursue. JonC.

Imperial Succession and the Throne / Re: Maria Romanova
« on: June 13, 2006, 12:27:08 AM »
JonC has put forth a number of, shall we say, controversial opinions.

Similarly I rather believe that since AF and MF were not on good terms she would not have chosen to call her 'aunty' just out of the blue. They were never close or very familiar with each other until AF met up with Nicholas, her betrothed. I don't believe she would have called her future mother -in-law 'aunty' because its not done.

Once AF and NR were betrothed MF insisted, and rightly so, for AF to call her 'mother'! Therefore was MF, AF's real 'aunty'?

You said that AF was more of an English woman than a German woman. Is this because she was brought up by Queen Victoria after Alice's death? I haven't seen much written about the subsequent relationship between AF and Louis 4th, her father, after the death of her mother Alice. Do you know if they were close?

 One would think that the bonds between a father and a daughter would increase after the death of the mother. I don't see that between AF and Louis 4th. I wonder why it wasn't there? Why did Queen victoria decide to raise her instead?

AF was called 'a stiff Englishwoman' because she was clearly not German. I don't think any of the other of Alice's children were referred to in that way because it is possible Louis 4th wasn't her real father. Otherwise these references would not have been made concerning her.

By saying that Louis 4th was not her real father I rather meant that for her to call Minnie 'Aunty' right up till the end as you say, implies in my mind that Princess Alice may not have been her real mother and that Princess of Wales Alexandra was since P. W. Alexandra was Minnie's sister. If this is true then Louis 4th had no obligation to raise 'Alix' as was the case anyway. If Edward and Alexandra were her true parents then she could be that ' stiff Englishwoman' and Minnie a true 'Aunty' to her. The scenario fits to a T.

After all when Minnie asked her not to call her 'Aunty' anymore, after AF married Nicholas, she never indicates that AF was at all wrong to call her such before they married. She never insinuated that even after they married it be wrong to continue to call her 'Aunty'. But after the marriage MF was AF's mother-in-law, thus MF's request to be called 'mother', and yet she was called by AF 'Aunty' till the end because MF must really have been her aunt.

Just think of it. Why would the wife of a husband call her husband's mother 'Aunty'. It would deffinitely be freaky, yucky and a bit kinky unless the bride and groom were first cousins...a common event among Royals! JonC.

Perhaps it's a form of taking a 'devil's advocate' kind of position and stirring the pot for some energetic (to say the least) debate?  :)

Grandduchesella, I had overlooked this posting. Wow, what a blast from the past!

Thank you! I had forgotten about it. You know, the more I read up on the background material on the above subject it definitely makes me wonder just how righteous the ' alexofdenmark ' website is. You know ' alexofdenmark ' really stands for 'Alexandra of Denmark ' whom Mr. LoPresti believes was Empress Alexandra's real mother. She always called Empress Marie ' Aunty ' even after she married her son Nicholas 2nd. Its very apparent that from her own mouth she confirms that her real mother was Alexandra of Denmark soon to be Queen Alexandra of England. Thank you for bringing it up. JonC.

Imperial Succession and the Throne / Re: Maria Romanova
« on: June 07, 2006, 11:26:23 PM »

Why not avail yourself of the opportunity and personally examine the archives in GARF? Allow me to initiate your journey of discovery with this document:

GARF Fund 130, op. 23. delo 17 L 62-65

It is Protocol # 159 that provides details of the Sovnarkom RSFSR meeting that announces the execution of Nikolai II by Yakov Sverdlov, dated 18 July, 1918, to the members in Lenin's presence.

Please note the words "????? ??????? ???? ???????" (execution of the former Tsar Nikolai).


Margarita, tell me, do you interpret all of Russian Communist propaganda literally? If you do may I point out that historically, it was hard to figure out when Communist governmet documentation was actual truth or a lie. With all the misinformation we have seen concerning the IF's disappearance why should I believe your reference is a truthful report of an actual event.
BTW I love the sound of your name as it is written.  :) JonC.

JonC, I too am rather familiar with the workings of both Russian Orthodox churches. Perhaps the Patriarch does know something and perhaps he is as much in the dark as the rest of us for answers. The definiitve answer about the "sainthood" has been answered.  BOTH churches have sanctified the Imperial Family. [at different times, admittedly]. So, as the Romanovs that remain within either Church recognise those decisions.
 There is no dishonour in repudiating apostasy. So says the patriarchs.

I wasn't aware that the Moscow Patriarchate had sanctified all the Romanovs. Last communication I had the Patriarch had not accepted the death any of them in occuring in 1918. The Moscow Church also hasn't acknowledged, officially, that the bones discovered were of all the Romanovs. The Church still believes that there were two survivors. Maybe you have info I don't. Please show me your source.

As far as 'Apostasy' is concerned I hope you are right! JonC.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 14