Franziska Schanzkowska and Grossman

What a wonderful photo!  I haven't seen it before.  So glad you got the photo thing worked out.

Excuse me Annie, but we have Crown Princess Cecilie of
Prussia's statements on the visits, as well I beleive some others within the German Imperial Family & their
circle....

Lexi, I am hoping that Greg will do as great of a job as he & Penny did with FOTR, and he did the books on Alexandra, and on the Duchess of Windsor.  All well worth the read if you haven't done so.

I am hoping his book on Ernie, will be as frank, open and honest an evaluation of his life as FOTR was on the Fate of the Romanovs.

Annie please again, I realize Ernie's personal losses after the war within his own family.  I realize well those losses, however, I am willing to bet the self preservation of his OWN FAMILY, position & fortune, take a forefront to the loss of his sisters.  Sorry Annie,
again you look at it from a different, less realisitic point of view.  Much as George V should have done more to save Nicholas, he was in a position where he could not.
He was worried about his own future.  

When it comes to these sort of decisions Annie they are not easy, I am not faulting Ernie for making it, but he was in Russia in 1916, and he didn't want it to become
public knowledge.

When it comes to these sort of decisions Annie they are not easy, I am not faulting Ernie for making it, but he was in Russia in 1916, and he didn't want it to become
public knowledge.

WHAT?
   We have no colabourating evidence of that whatsoever -- as far as I am concerned that is a rumour akin to the 'eye witness accounts" of large troops of Russian soldiers marching thru' Scotland in 1914!
   What credible sources do you have for that claim?
Michael?  

rskkiya

Rskkiya again there are statements made by Crown Princess Cecilie Of Prussia/Germany.

Another is Prince Dimitry Galitzin who testified at the trial, and had actually seen GD Ernie of Hesse at Tsarskoe during 1916.  (See "Riddle of Anna Anderson by Peter Kurth pgs 344-348)

The Grand Duke's letters home to his wife Onor for that period in the spring of 1916 which bore actual postmarks were grounds for suspicion, as he regularly sent his letters home by courier.

Riddle Of Anna Anderson Pg 354, from the testimony of Prince Ferdinand of Schonaich-Carolaith, stepson of the Kaiser, (admittedly 2nd hand & not the best source) who stated the Kaiser spoke of the 1916 Peace Mission of The Grand Duke of Hesse.

I am sure there is more proof, statements regarding this trip.    However you asked for proof, Annie the Omnipresent says there was absolutely no proof, and here I have presented it to you.

Michael

Can ROAA really be used as an objective source?

Can ROAA really be used as an objective source?

Now the answer to this will be interesting.  

Now the answer to this will be interesting.  

That's what I thought.

We used Kurth, Massie and others as objective and reliable source material in other debates on the survivor's thread previously and there was no issue with it then.  Don't see a problem now.  How about you Bear, or Denise anything else to add to those who want to remove using books as sources???

This is getting a bit ridiculous

Massie's book wasn't written to support Anna Anderson.

This is getting absolutely asinine.  Of course Kurth supported AA as AN , this is known fact.  Are you saying
he altered documents and testimonies and sworn affadavits in order to sell his book??  

ROAA was first copyrighted in 1983, I have the original printing which I bought new.  Some 11 years before the
DNA tests and their results were done or known.  So it makes your objections on objectivity moot.

Massie's book wasn't written to support Anna Anderson.

Point.

This is getting absolutely asinine.  Of course Kurth supported AA as AN , this is known fact.  Are you saying
he altered documents and testimonies and sworn affadavits in order to sell his book??  

ROAA was first copyrighted in 1983, I have the original printing which I bought new.  Some 11 years before the
DNA tests and their results were done or known.  So it makes your objections on objectivity moot.

In contrast to Massie's book (which many of you take as gospel, being pro FS as AA) Peter Kurth has carefully annotated and cited every piece of evidence he used to support his assertion.  Now, although his hypothesis that AA was Anastasia is false, it doesn't instantly negate his sources or say he made them up.  

Massie on the other hand has citations in his book, no end notes.  I am not saying he made anything up, but it would be easier to level a charge of truth stretching against an uncited work like Romanovs the Final Chapter, then one which is completely sourced like Anastasia: Riddle of Anna Anderson.

Both Kurth and Massie have done tremendous work in the area of Romanov history and I don't think EITHER of them "made it up as they went along."  They each wrote with a different purpose and their books reflect that.

Exactly Denise which is what they are accusing him of here.  To suggest that an author would purposely alter testimony to support his point of view is something unthinkable IMO.  While I am sure there are some who have done it, I have never read this regarding to Kurth.
I know there are those in the DNA enclave who accuse  other authors of the same thing, or only to sell another book.  Which they need to realize also throws a great deal of suspect on the Massie book.

I think that some beginning authors can be guilty of taking a source and using it out of context to support their suppositions on a topic.  I taught college composition and have seen it all!  

However, I think that both Massie and Kurth deserve the benefit of a doubt.  Particularly when you see the detailed endnotes in ROAA.  He really gives you more info than what was in the text, and further resources if you want to know more.  I think it is possible that both Massie and Kurth may have used the same sources in places, as some of their work overlaps. Does this mean we must only accept those portions of their books in which they are in agreement?  I think not.  Each author had their own thesis to support, hence the different sources used in places.  

WE can't dismiss Kurth's book as falsehood and fabrication just because the DNA says AA wasn't AN. His detailed account of the German court transcripts alone make the book a worthwhile read.  And just because Massie hasn't got footnotes doesn't mean that his detailed exposition of the confusion surrounding getting the DNA tests finalized by Remy and the Schweitzers any less gripping.