Remains of Russian tsar's children possibly found - archeologists

Did ROC/ROCA formally make any statements about the DNA confirmation of the recent remains? How about anyone else who has been denying the authenticity of the older remains interred in St Peter and Paul Cathedral? This confirmation comes as no surprise to most of us, but I am curious to know if any of the slanderous accusations against the scientists, the British royal family/queen, et al, will be taken back and an apology dispatched... I doubt it, but just wondering...l

I was just windering what people had said against the scientists, HM The Queen etc (hop ethis is not off topic)

Michael HR

Oh dear. This is all part of the Anna Anderson argument, those who support her have said some rather unrealistic things in desperation to discredit the DNA tests, even at some times claiming the Queen herself was behind some kind of conspiracy. It's still going on in accusations of wrongdoing against the Russians with conspiracy theories they invented the whole thing and the bones aren't really the family. I have been accused of turning every thread into an AA thread and I won't do it here, but if you dig through some of the older AA threads you might be surprised what you find (or you could PM me) (this doesn't happen on this forum anymore, but it did, and continues on others)

Did ROC/ROCA formally make any statements about the DNA confirmation of the recent remains? How about anyone else who has been denying the authenticity of the older remains interred in St Peter and Paul Cathedral? This confirmation comes as no surprise to most of us, but I am curious to know if any of the slanderous accusations against the scientists, the British royal family/queen, et al, will be taken back and an apology dispatched... I doubt it, but just wondering...l

I was just windering what people had said against the scientists, HM The Queen etc (hop ethis is not off topic)

Michael HR

Oh dear. This is all part of the Anna Anderson argument, those who support her have said some rather unrealistic things in desperation to discredit the DNA tests, even at some times claiming the Queen herself was behind some kind of conspiracy. It's still going on in accusations of wrongdoing against the Russians with conspiracy theories they invented the whole thing and the bones aren't really the family. I have been accused of turning every thread into an AA thread and I won't do it here, but if you dig through some of the older AA threads you might be surprised what you find (or you could PM me) (this doesn't happen on this forum anymore, but it did, and continues on others)

I have direct knowledge of the allegations against Her Majesty and that they are false. It was alleged that once AA's mtDNA was sequenced that some false mtDNA was substituted for Prince Phillip's so that the two samples would not match. It was supposed to be a conspiracy.

In reality:

The first Victorian mtDNA to be sequenced was not the Duke of Edinburgh's, it was Princess Katherine of Yugoslavia's (Mrs. De Silva). The sample was taken in London and sent to Brown University where it was sequenced and compared to a purported offspring of Grand Duchess Tatiana Nicholievna. There was no match.

I believe (though am not certain) that the DOE's mtDNA was sequenced ahead of AA's. Regardless, to no one's surprise, the DOE's mtDNA exactly matched that of Princess Katherine's and neither matched AA's.

Lisa is quite correct.  The DoE's mtDNA was sequenced first, before the Anna Manahan sample.  Thus the alleged switch was impossible as there was no way to know in advance what the Victoria maternal descent mtDNA sequence would have been.

Ha-HA!

IMO, it's ridiculous to even have to continue defending this...  So does anyone know what the ROC's current take is? 

IMO, it's ridiculous to even have to continue defending this...  So does anyone know what the ROC's current take is? 

They continue to hedge. The Patriarch is claiming a "previous engagement" as an excuse to not attend services commemorating the 90th anniversary of the killing of the family in Ekaterinburg. Said Patriarch was in the pay of the KGB for many years. The Communists do not want to take responsibility for liquidating the 11 people - or the millions of others they slaughtered.

So they still will not accept these remains (or the old ones) as legitimate?

So they still will not accept these remains (or the old ones) as legitimate?

Not yet. Who knows? Once it's announced (if this is the case) that the 2007 remains are who we think they are, they may re-evaluate their stance.

However, the Ekaterinburg officials who get the reports are letting lots of people know on the QT that the tests are positive - surely the ROC has also been told this. And, assuming they have, why isn't the patriarch going to Ekaterinburg in July?

Discussions are "under way". That is all Bob and I are permitted to say at this time. Please don't ask for details, you won't get them. I suggest patience.

Discussions are "under way". That is all Bob and I are permitted to say at this time. Please don't ask for details, you won't get them. I suggest patience.

Well, at least it sounds somewhat promising.. Hopefully they will finally come to their senses. It's about time. 

[Studies of suspected Russian royal remains continues - expert]

Studies of suspected Russian royal remains continues - expert

http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=4803

Lets hope they are laid to rest with the family and given their names back after all these years.

Lets hope they are laid to rest with the family and given their names back after all these years.

We can hope that if the results are indeed positive.

Lets hope they are laid to rest with the family and given their names back after all these years.

We can hope that if the results are indeed positive.

I was under the impression that this has already been established. Or are there still some doubts?

Lets hope they are laid to rest with the family and given their names back after all these years.

We can hope that if the results are indeed positive.

I was under the impression that this has already been established. Or are there still some doubts?

We have been told both officially and unofficially that it's a positive identification. The thing is, we have also been told that the official official results will be coming out soon - perhaps this month. There is still testing going on, so I advise caution. There's no sense rushing into this after so much time. I personally have no reason to doubt what I have been told is true, but I want to read the scientific reports.