"Resurrection of the Romanovs: Anastasia, Anna Anderson" by King And Wilson

[Nesterov]

Hurrah, just got the book and beginning to read...

I am a bit confused - why does the introduction always write "Gudunov" (re Boris Godunov)? Is this an older or more correct form of the surname Godunov?

Also, it says on page 5 that the second Dimitri "fled to the town of Kostroma, where, in December 1610, he was killed."

But is this not Kaluga? All my sources state Kaluga. There is one source I have found for Kostroma, but that is Wikipedia (!). I cannot find the source used in the K&W book

I don't want to nit pick, it is just that I am a slow reader, because I pour over everything. I like to go slowly and absorb every sentence. I think I must be wrong, I usually am, I find, but if anyone else can add to this, they will be doing me a favor by correcting my own faulty knowledge.

[Griae]

My copy of the book arrived just before Christmas, and I have been reading it, although I have not finished the book yet. I find it a really readable book, the style is very easy. ( In Dutch we have the expression, 'it reads like a train', and this is such a book) Even my mum, who does not read in English looked through the book, read a few bits here and there and said 'I think even I can read this book and understand it'. So my compliments to the writers for their easy and well-readable style.

I am now reading the part about Anna Anderson and I am fascinated by the fact how facts were changed, how people told her things and gave her photographs and later people thought she could really remember things and people.

What a horrible situation it must have been for the family. Not knowing for sure what happened, hoping, against better judgement perhaps, that one of the family survived, this woman and all that does not add up, and always the hope that maybe, maybe, it might be true.

It seems very sad that this woman was so caught up in the fact that she was Anastasia. I do not know if she actually believed it herself, or that she said it and than it spiralled out of control and she could not stop anymore. I do not know what much about her, I am very new to reading about the Romanovs and all the things related to them, but I think when I finished this book, I will know more about AA and her motives.

greetings, Bettina

[Forum Admin]

Hurrah, just got the book and beginning to read...

I am a bit confused - why does the introduction always write "Gudunov" (re Boris Godunov)? Is this an older or more correct form of the surname Godunov?

Also, it says on page 5 that the second Dimitri "fled to the town of Kostroma, where, in December 1610, he was killed."

But is this not Kaluga? All my sources state Kaluga. There is one source I have found for Kostroma, but that is Wikipedia (!). I cannot find the source used in the K&W book

I don't want to nit pick, it is just that I am a slow reader, because I pour over everything. I like to go slowly and absorb every sentence. I think I must be wrong, I usually am, I find, but if anyone else can add to this, they will be doing me a favor by correcting my own faulty knowledge.

I can not speak specifically for Penny or Greg of course. However, as someone who read and re-read the earlier drafts to assist them, I can vouch for the fact that Penny and Greg were highly concerned with accuracy in their sources and materials. All of us who were privileged to have been asked to help were.  "Gudonov" is the more recognizable spelling of the name, at least in the US. As for the other re Dmitri, well, small mistakes "fall through the cracks" in every book, no matter who the author if that is the case. I'm certain someone will have the answer (and of course, in the end, what does it really matter where Dmitri was killed in 1610, in the story of AA three hundred plus years later??)

[TimM]

I do not know if she actually believed it herself

It's possible that towards the end of her life, the Manahan years, that she did come to believe she was Anastasia.  She had been "playing the part" for decades by then.  As old age set in, she could have come to belief her own stories.  Of course, there is no way we'll ever know for sure.

Apparently, as he got old, Johnny Weismuller, who played Tarzan in a bunch of movies in the 1930's/40's, was sometimes found wandering his neighbourhood and doing the Tarzan yell.  Dementia had set in and he started to believe he WAS Tarzan.  Something similar could have happened to FS/AA.

[Nesterov]

"Gudonov" is the more recognizable spelling of the name, at least in the US. As for the other re Dmitri, well, small mistakes "fall through the cracks" in every book, no matter who the author if that is the case. I'm certain someone will have the answer (and of course, in the end, what does it really matter where Dmitri was killed in 1610, in the story of AA three hundred plus years later??)

I thank you, that is very interesting for me! I am glad to have that information from such an important source as the Forum Administrator himself!

I just asked about the other thing because sometimes when I start a book and I see a small mistake, I start to lose my faith in what will come next. I could not find the exact source for this information in the bibliography. But there is quite a difference between Kaluga and Kostroma, it is like two different US states! But I think I am probably wrong also there, because I did not know that the proper name was Gudunov, for example. The book certainly reads well, flows well.

[Alixz]

Tsarfan - Long time!  Good to see you!

Hope all is well or at least acceptable.

I have not yet finished the book, but I am still working on it.  It is amazing how so many things were believed to be unrelated to AA's knowledge, but it makes sense that those who thought she was ANR would just talk to her about the past.  I am sure that AA picked up a lot of her "insider" information that way.

I haven't gotten to the FS part yet.  I am currently on Gleb Botkin et al.

It is still a mystery to me as to when FS decided that she could "become" Anastasia but the why is clear.  Those in the hospital with her gave her the idea.  She was actually brave to take on the role.  She could have bombed and she must have known that might happen.  That is probably why she fell back on her "injuries" as the reason that she couldn't remember.  It was a good cover and those who truly wanted to believe wouldn't want to hurt her feelings any more than they thought those feelings had already been hurt.

[Tsarfan]

Hi, Alixz.  I've got a lot going on still that has kept me away from Russian history for a while:  retirement, a move, transition to caregiver role.

But I've waded back in recently to bone up for a couple of lectures I'm going to be giving on Russian history, and the publication of the new King and Wilson book was just too much temptation to start posting again.  I was so glad to see real analytic rigor brought to a subject that has suffered so long for having been too much a part of popular mythology.  Especially with all the nonsense going on in Russia these days with a new wave of historical revision about the monarchical era and the ROC's politically-driven posturing about Romanov remains, it was refreshing to see an insertion of true, disciplined historiography back into the picture.  I know the question of a surviving grand duchess is a bit of a sideshow to the central flow of Russian history.  But as probably ten times the number of people follow this kind of saga rather than political, social, and economic history, it does acquaint a larger audience with real tools of proper analysis.  And to me, that is really where King's and Wilson's work shines here.

I see you've been busy as a moderator.  Hands full, huh?

[Greg_King]

Hurrah, just got the book and beginning to read...

I am a bit confused - why does the introduction always write "Gudunov" (re Boris Godunov)? Is this an older or more correct form of the surname Godunov?

Also, it says on page 5 that the second Dimitri "fled to the town of Kostroma, where, in December 1610, he was killed."

But is this not Kaluga? All my sources state Kaluga. There is one source I have found for Kostroma, but that is Wikipedia (!). I cannot find the source used in the K&W book

I don't want to nit pick, it is just that I am a slow reader, because I pour over everything. I like to go slowly and absorb every sentence. I think I must be wrong, I usually am, I find, but if anyone else can add to this, they will be doing me a favor by correcting my own faulty knowledge.

I can not speak specifically for Penny or Greg of course. However, as someone who read and re-read the earlier drafts to assist them, I can vouch for the fact that Penny and Greg were highly concerned with accuracy in their sources and materials. All of us who were privileged to have been asked to help were.  "Gudonov" is the more recognizable spelling of the name, at least in the US. As for the other re Dmitri, well, small mistakes "fall through the cracks" in every book, no matter who the author if that is the case. I'm certain someone will have the answer (and of course, in the end, what does it really matter where Dmitri was killed in 1610, in the story of AA three hundred plus years later??)

Thanks Rob-and I am sure there ARE somemistakes in it-there always are in any book that is published-things that escape checking at the point when eyes are glazed over after reading it the eighteenth time.

And along with other people here noted in the acknowledgements I do want to say a big public thank you to Rob, who went above and beyond to help out this book, especially at a time when he had many other issues with which to deal.

[Kalafrana]

I'm certainly not going to trash this book, which I think is extremely good.

There is, however, one point which I found extremely interesting and worth developing (though I take Greg's point that he had to make some drastic cuts in the length of the book). That is that the examination of Anastasia's teeth showed features associated with congenital syphiliis. This certainly surprised me. Based on what we know Alexandra could only have got syphilis from Nicholas, whose only other sexual partner that we know of was Mathilde K, who lived to be 95, so presumably didn't have syphilis or was successfully treated in the early stages. Could some of Alexandra's ill-health have been syphilis?

Ann

[Greg_King]

I'm certainly not going to trash this book, which I think is extremely good.

There is, however, one point which I found extremely interesting and worth developing (though I take Greg's point that he had to make some drastic cuts in the length of the book). That is that the examination of Anastasia's teeth showed features associated with congenital syphiliis. This certainly surprised me. Based on what we know Alexandra could only have got syphilis from Nicholas, whose only other sexual partner that we know of was Mathilde K, who lived to be 95, so presumably didn't have syphilis or was successfully treated in the early stages. Could some of Alexandra's ill-health have been syphilis?

Ann

Uhm...you MIGHT want to read that section again before certain elements go berserk! We ACTUALLY wrote that Anna Anderson's teeth-not Anastasia-revealed the signs of one or both of her parents having had congenital syphilis! Nothing to do with Anastasia unless you believe Anna Anderson was the Grand Duchess!

[Kalafrana]

Apologies!! I'm writing this at work and haven't got the book to hand!

If it was Anna Anderson who had congenital syphilis then the picture changes entirely.

Ann

[Alixz]

I just finished the book this morning.  I read late last night and then finished at about 6:30 AM.

Wonderful!  I know that I should have made notes.  I know there are things that I would like to discuss, but I realized that after I posted yesterday that Franciska was quite bold to have done what she did, it seems that she was actually found out several times, but somehow the nostalgia and pain on the part of the Russian Refugees and the incomprehensible waffling of the Duke of Leuchtenberg helped her to pull this off.

So much now makes sense.  By the way, I did understand that it was Anderson's teeth which showed signs of inherited syphilis and when I read that I had an "Aha!" moment.  It would never have crossed my mind that either Nicholas of Alix would ever have had syphilis and so that would show, to me, that Anderson was not and never could be Anastasia.

Oh and those pesky "ears". Have we please heard the last of them, yet?  (Praying ever so strongly.)

One question.  The hair found in the basement of the bookstore in the box of books saved from Manahan's estate.  It has been said that it was kept in sterile conditions in a safe deposit box.  However, how sterile were the conditions in Manahan's house or in the box that contained the books or even in the basement of the bookstore itself?  And how many others might have looked through that box as it was packed and then placed in the basement of the bookstore?  Might others who were interested in the books ever looked at or touched the hair samples during the time before Susan Grindstaff Burkhart found them?

But I want to say, "I knew it!"  I could never believe that any Grand Duchess or any other person brought up under the close supervision of Alexandra in the nursery at Tsarskoe Selo and within the close confines under which the four Grand Duchesses were raised could ever have devolved into the course, unkempt, slovenly woman who was Anastasia Manahan.

I also believe that, if any of the Grand Duchesses had survived Yekaterinburg, she would have bee able to go directly to a close relative like Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna and tell her something that would immediately identify her as Olga's niece.  Olga would not have rejected someone who was truly a Grand Duchess just for the money involved.  That would be the end of story - case closed.

The only off thing that I found was a picture on page 219 of Anderson which was compared to a picture of Grand Duchess Anastasia in 1920 and I was again struck by the resemblance, not to Anastasia, but to Tatiana.  But since Tatiana didn't have "hallux valgus" that deception would have been easy to unmask.

I wonder if Franciska found out about the foot condition that both she and Anastasia shared and then thought that it might help her out?

Kudos to Greg and Penney.  A wonderful, readable, intelligently presented book.

[Louis_Charles]

Greg,

Congrats to you and Penny, the book is just terrific. This case has fascinated me for years, and continues to do so. Not because I thought AA=ANR (the DNA evidence and the Lovell book pretty much took care of that years ago), but because I have always wanted to know how FS pulled it off. The Resurrection of the Romanovs gives the most lucid explanation of the process imaginable, along with a wealth of new information.  Going to start re-reading it this weekend!

Best,

Simon

[TimM]

Kind of sad how Franciska's family basically turned their backs on her.  The woman needed help, and all they could think was "If she goes down for this, she'll take us with her!" 

Besides, from what was revealed of Franciska's backgroud, that her father may have sexually abused her and her mother didn't give a damn, it's no wonder she might attach herself to a close knit family like the Romanovs.

[Janet Ashton]

FA  Thank you for the explanation.  It had me finally thinking that I understand but then Janet said:

"No, a DNA result is not a "verdict". It indicates a probability, which taken in conjunction with other indicators and evidence inform one's personal opinion" 

That is the kind of statement (and Janet please forgive me, I am not at all slamming you, I am just confused) that does confuse me!

No problem, I know just what you mean. It doesn't help that some authors (Mangold and Summers spring to mind, though to be fair they did admit they knew little about DNA) have used the whole probability issue rather disingenuously to suggest that the verdicts can not be relied on. As Rob says, the probability AGAINST is usually very small. But it wrong to say that the judgement made does not involve an element which is not scientific. Peter Gill and others have developed what they call a "Likelihood Ratio" for their results, but his former employer, the FSS, even disputes the need for it.