People Who Knew the Imperial Family and Anna Anderson

My point exactly Alixz....

What is wrong with veneration of a human being?  Richard is HISTORY IN PERSON.  Leave him alone personally and let him share with us what he wants to....

Respect of anyone is a good thing. 

Arleen

Eastern Orthodox and others who forbid cremation

On the other hand, some branches of Christianity still oppose cremation, including some minority Protestant groups.[28] Most notably, the Eastern Orthodox Churches forbid cremation. Exceptions are made for circumstances where it may not be avoided (when civil authority demands it, or epidemics) or if it may be sought for good cause, but when a cremation is willfully chosen for no good cause by the one who is deceased, he or she is not permitted a funeral in the church and may also be permanently excluded from liturgical prayers for the departed. In Orthodoxy, cremation is a rejection of the dogma of the general resurrection, and as such is viewed harshly.[29][30]

This is from Wikipedia. It took me five, perhaps ten, seconds to access.

If the purpose of the question is to imply that AA could not have been ANR because she chose cremation --- well, perhaps we shall never know what a "truly believing" Grand Duchess would have chosen had she undergone what Anastasia Manahan claimed to have lived through. People who knew her in Charlottesville described her faith as more eclectic than simply Orthodox beliefs. I am unsure as to Olga Alexandrovna's religious beliefs at the end of her life, but certainly there was a fair amount of disparity among the members of the Imperial Family before the war. Even Nicholas and Alexandra put their faith in charlatans upon occasion. Would a "truly believing" Orthodox Tsar have had much truck with M. Philippe?

OK,

So as to try to keep some semblance of discussion here:

Gleb Botkin had no financial interest in Anna Manahan being ANR. We may take Mr. Schweitzer's good word on that without resorting to obtaining the documents he cited, at least in my opinion.

Gleb's church was not a tax shelter nor source of income.  These questions are now answered.

Thank you Mr. Schweitzer.

(by FA)Gleb Botkin had no financial interest in Anna Manahan being ANR. We may take Mr. Schweitzer's good word on that without resorting to obtaining the documents he cited, at least in my opinion.

So we can consider this his answer, in his personal opinion, to the best of his knowledge, yes. But this still does not rule out that there may have been things of which he was not aware, even years before they met,  isn't that possible? Though I do understand this is his 'final answer' and we are not to ask him again, this really doesn't put an end to the possibilities in speculation. Is it okay to continue the subject or not?

While I was aware that he did sign over anything from her will, this did not rule out that, in the past, before she was in Charlottesville, he may have been able to make money from other ways, such as writings about her, and Grandanor corp. Is this something we have to totally abandon?

(by Alixz)But as to our questions "picking on" Mr. Schweitzer which result in "embarrassment" of other posters - is Mr. Schweitzer not just a man regardless of whom he knew and whom he was married to?  Do we now not have the right to ask questions?  Or do we need to "venerate" him as many "venerate" AA?

I also wanted to say NO ONE is 'picking' on him. We have all been very fair and kind and careful and have asked honest questions to which we would like to get answers. He has graciously decided to come here and talk to us, so why is it a bad thing to bring up issues other than 'oh you're so wonderful thanks for coming' as some posters feel is the only appropriate comment? All of us who come here are posting on the same level playing field, famous, not famous, related to famous, scholar, world traveler or just plain Joe. Right?

I also don't know what Arleen means 'embarrassment for certain posters.' Does she mean we are only disagreeing so we won't be wrong? Do you not consider that we really don't think we are? This is as bad as AA supporters thinking the British royals have to cover up AA being AN so they won't be embarrassed! In the vernacular of my teenage daughter, uhhh....no.

Very well, Annie has a reasonable point.

Mr. Schweitzer, to the best of your personal knowledge, prior to the signing over of financial interest, as you have stated, at any time prior did Gleb have any actual financial interest in Anna Manahan, her story or claims or did he hope to gain financially at any time from his support of her claim to be ANR.

I do trust that you understand no personal insult or offense is meant to anyone in the Botkin family by these questions, rather, the genuine  motivation for Gleb's support of Anna Manahan is what is hoped to be learned.

Thank you for your time here.

For continued questions, I think those asking should endeavor to keep the questions direct and to the point, as I have tried to do here.

I agree, questions direct and to the point would be most appropriate.

I understand where Arleen is coming from. People can be very rude online in a way that they would never be rude in person. A degree of civility and respect for everyone would be most welcome on this Forum (and that's not to say we don't already have it at times).

With regard to Mr. Schweitzer, I think I speak for most of us when I say how profoundly sorry we are to learn he has lost his beloved wife.

If we are lucky, he may agree to continue to post here, and I hope he will be treated kindly and respectfully.

I don't believe that any one is "picking on" Mr. Schweitzer personally.

We just have some questions about his devotion to AA and the belief that she was ANR.

And we have all had questions about Gleb and Tatiana Botkin and their rolls in the whole AA story.  If he has the answers, why can't we ask him?

And in some way, we are all a part of history.  He just happens to be a part of the particular history that we came here to study and talk about.  That might make him special to some of us, however it is like AA being special to some of us and the rest of the world says "who?".

I would truly like to hear about his relationship with Gleb and with Marina.  How and why they sent money to AA when she was in Germany and so on and so forth.  Why did Gleb depend on his family for his support and not work for himself?  That sort of thing?

Alixz,
You have every right to ask such questions of Mr Schweitzer in a respectful manner. I really dont think anyone has taken your specific questions to be out of line.  you may be taking personally comments perhaps meant for others.

FA

Thanks FA for allowing my question. I also hope I am not one who anyone thinks has been rude, I thought I have been very careful and considerate in my posts. If any are out of line please let me know.

I really don't want to be rude or hurtful to anyone or their family, but I have had hard time accepting that Gleb NEVER profited from AA's claim as AN, even if just to help her claim at the time financially so they could continue to fight for a possible big payoff if they won.  While he and Fallows did not profit from Grandanor in the end,  it must have been a goal in the beginning. Not getting anything in her will really doesn't rule out any hope for gain, not only because she ended up outliving him, but because she could still have found a way to channel money to him while she was still alive in the event of winning a 'fortune' which was after all the goal of the court case. I hope everyone can understand how it appears that way to those examining the case, though I do understand how everyone wants to protect the memory of a late loved one. Sadly I don't think we can ever completely solve the AA mystery without digging into some things the dead would have wanted to stay buried. (I even dug around more than some thought I should have when researching my own ancestors, finding a few skeletons in the closet, but that's the only way to get the whole story)

[do not]

I had just spent abou an hour carefully replying to the suggestion and question in the Reply of the FA, only to have the site "flash off" as I tried to post, wiping out my reply.

When my frustration ebbs, sometime tomorrow, I will try to repeat the material and in my non-techie way post it.

Ihere, I will only repeat the first lines, rather than the answers  I gave.

I do not feel "picked" on. Within the topic, anyone is free to post inferences about my actions, motivations or my character. I am still among the living.

Thanks FA for allowing my question. I also hope I am not one who anyone thinks has been rude, I thought I have been very careful and considerate in my posts. If any are out of line please let me know.

Not getting anything in her will really doesn't rule out any hope for gain, not only because she ended up outliving him, but because she could still have found a way to channel money to him while she was still alive in the event of winning a 'fortune' which was after all the goal of the court case. I hope everyone can understand how it appears that way to those examining the case, though I do understand how everyone wants to protect the memory of a late loved one.

Ergo my question about the formation of a church which would have had tax free status under the very "friendly" US tax code.  What better way to channel money than through non profit organization which could own land and not pay property taxes and the "reverend" could even take a "vow of poverty" (which is seems that Gleb may have done or else why live off his relatives instead of working) and avoid social security tax.

There is so little selflessness in this world (no clones of Mother Theresa yet) that it is almost impossible to separate the motive of greed and Imperial wealth from any other motive that could have been had.

I said that I was too old to part of the "me first" generation, but I was part of the "question the establishment" generation of the sixties.  We questioned and rejected everything.  So I still, as a proper child of the sixties, question and question and question.

If someone doesn't want to answer my questions, that is, of course, their right.  But I would like to get some solid sources.

Mr. Schweitzer, was AA's will ever published?  Was it ever probated?  Did she actually own anything of value to leave?  If it was published and is now public record and public domain, I for one, would like to have you post it here so that we can all see what her last wishes were.  That might shed a great deal of light on the woman herself and why others believed in her so much.

With regard and respect,
Alixz

Alixz has it ever occured to you that Gleb Botkin might not have been able to work and that is why Mr & Mrs Schweitzer supported him?   I imagine that a state pension wouldn't amount to much - it certainly doesn't here.  Many people help their elderly parents out - what is odd about that?   Also,  I don't know much about his health in later years but from what I read I assumed it was poor.   

In Gleb's time people were not as selfish as they are today.    Why does there have to be an ulterior motive to everything he did?  I just don't understand this fixation that some people have about him only doing things in order to profit.

If AA's will is in the public domain, surely any of us could look it up for ourselves?  That would certainly be the case in Britain.

[not]

Because Anna Anderson was not Anastasia.  Someone had to have helped her over the years, even with the books and magazines she would have had access to, for her to have had any "inside" knowledge of the Imperial Family. What other reason would someone have for helping an impostor?

At that time Gleb was employed as a novelist and illustrator.  From Kurth The Riddle of Anna Anderson chapter 9, page 199:  "  At the end of April 1927, he was invited by the North American Newspaper Alliance in New York to travel to Castle Seeon for a meeting with Anastasia.  In return for his expenses, of course, a story was expected."

And as to whom could have alerted AA to the "funny animals" that Gleb drew, how about his sister Tatiana?  She was with AA for a while before Gleb came to Europe to see her.

Gleb did have a heart condition, and Kurth describes him as "chain smoking". So as to his health at the end of his life?  I don't know when he abandoned his career to focus on his "church" but by doing that he almost assured that he would not be able to support himself.

And about the DNA evidence which no one can come to terms with:


"DNA used to identify father's remains

Botkin and his wife had four children, daughter Marina and sons Nikita, Peter, and one other son. He also had a stepdaughter, Kyra.[18][19] His daughter Marina Botkina Schweitzer's DNA was later used to help identify the remains of her grandfather, Eugene Botkin, after they were exhumed in 1991 from a mass grave discovered in the woods near Yekaterinburg. Schweitzer's DNA was compared against the DNA of her maternal half-sister Kyra, who also gave a blood sample, to help scientists isolate the DNA Schweitzer shared in common with her grandfather. This enabled scientists to create a "Botkin DNA profile" and use it to positively identify Dr. Botkin. Scientists in the early 1990s were unable to identify Dr. Botkin using mitochondrial DNA, or DNA that is passed down from mother to child, as they used it to identify the Romanovs. Schweitzer was descended from Dr. Botkin in the paternal line and didn't share mitochondrial DNA with her father and grandfather.[20]

Schweitzer later expressed skepticism about the DNA results proving that Anna Anderson could not have been the Grand Duchess Anastasia"

It would seem that Mr & Mrs. Schweitzer accepted the DNA evidence to prove that Dr. Botkin's remains were in the meadow outside of Yekaterinburg, yet rejected the evidence that the same DNA testing proved that Anna Manahan was Franziska Schanzkowska.

It truly doesn't matter what anyone thinks about this subject.  No one is going to change any minds or get any new facts because everyone is invested in one side or the other. 

I am not sure why any of us care.  As a former boss of mine used to say , "In 50 years no one will care." (In this case in 50 years we won't be here to care, but I would bet that some one will still be hashing this thing over and over.)

And I would like Mr. Schweitzer to post the will because he has said that he has the original.  It would be nice to see a scanned in copy of the original will not a typed in facsimile.

[not]

Because Anna Anderson was not Anastasia.  Someone had to have helped her over the years, even with the books and magazines she would have had access to, for her to have had any "inside" knowledge of the Imperial Family. What other reason would someone have for helping an impostor?

Maybe because they actually believed her?  Why is that so hard to accept?

At that time Gleb was employed as a novelist and illustrator.  From Kurth The Riddle of Anna Anderson chapter 9, page 199:  "  At the end of April 1927, he was invited by the North American Newspaper Alliance in New York to travel to Castle Seeon for a meeting with Anastasia.  In return for his expenses, of course, a story was expected."

And as to whom could have alerted AA to the "funny animals" that Gleb drew, how about his sister Tatiana?  She was with AA for a while before Gleb came to Europe to see her.

Gleb did have a heart condition, and Kurth describes him as "chain smoking". So as to his health at the end of his life?  I don't know when he abandoned his career to focus on his "church" but by doing that he almost assured that he would not be able to support himself.

And about the DNA evidence which no one can come to terms with:


"DNA used to identify father's remains

Botkin and his wife had four children, daughter Marina and sons Nikita, Peter, and one other son. He also had a stepdaughter, Kyra.[18][19] His daughter Marina Botkina Schweitzer's DNA was later used to help identify the remains of her grandfather, Eugene Botkin, after they were exhumed in 1991 from a mass grave discovered in the woods near Yekaterinburg. Schweitzer's DNA was compared against the DNA of her maternal half-sister Kyra, who also gave a blood sample, to help scientists isolate the DNA Schweitzer shared in common with her grandfather. This enabled scientists to create a "Botkin DNA profile" and use it to positively identify Dr. Botkin. Scientists in the early 1990s were unable to identify Dr. Botkin using mitochondrial DNA, or DNA that is passed down from mother to child, as they used it to identify the Romanovs. Schweitzer was descended from Dr. Botkin in the paternal line and didn't share mitochondrial DNA with her father and grandfather.[20]

Schweitzer later expressed skepticism about the DNA results proving that Anna Anderson could not have been the Grand Duchess Anastasia"

It would seem that Mr & Mrs. Schweitzer accepted the DNA evidence to prove that Dr. Botkin's remains were in the meadow outside of Yekaterinburg, yet rejected the evidence that the same DNA testing proved that Anna Manahan was Franziska Schanzkowska.

It truly doesn't matter what anyone thinks about this subject.  No one is going to change any minds or get any new facts because everyone is invested in one side or the other. 

I am not sure why any of us care.  As a former boss of mine used to say , "In 50 years no one will care."

You bet they'll care!  This story will run and run ...

[believed]

Maybe because they actually believed her?  Why is that so hard to accept?

Because she really, really wasn't AN, she didn't look like her and couldn't have had her memories. It seems like, if he knew her well enough to identify her, he'd have known it wasn't really her, even if it took time to be sure as it did for Olga and Gilliard. On the other hand, if he didn't know her well enough to identify her, how could he have known if it was really her, or if the memories were correct? I just can't get over the fact that his sister was close to AA for at least 2 years before they met. She could so easily have given her the info to fool Gleb, or maybe, just maybe, even have cued Gleb in on the charade? Those of us who are completely convinced the DNA tests are true have a hard time not wondering about this.

It truly doesn't matter what anyone thinks about this subject.  No one is going to change any minds or get any new facts because everyone is invested in one side or the other.

I think what she's trying say is, if the AA supporters don't accept the Romanov bones as the Romanovs, than how can they accept that the bones of the servants, including Dr. Botkin, are with the Tsar, or that they died with the Tsar, and if they accept the DNA proving that Botkin was among the dead, why do they criticize it as invalid in the AA case? You can't have it both ways. Either the bones are who they are or they are not, either the DNA is valid or it is not.

I am not sure why any of us care.  As a former boss of mine used to say , "In 50 years no one will care."



You bet they'll care!  This story will run and run ...

If those with the agenda of perpetuating the myth of the AA saga have their way. I hope in 50  years everyone will have enough sense to know the truth and not fall for it.