Author Topic: 101 Reasons AA was not Anastasia Nikolaevna  (Read 21251 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Tsarina_Liz

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 569
  • Existence is not a predicate.  - Kant
    • View Profile
Re: 101 Reasons AA was not Anastasia Nikolaevna
« Reply #30 on: December 20, 2005, 08:18:04 PM »
This is a pretty obvious one:

49. Anna Anderson looked nothing like Anatasia - AA's eyes bug out and have huge bags under them.

50.  Anna Anderson understood Russian but was never communicatively competent in it - not exactly normal for a Russian GD.  The obvious reason why: Anna was FS and raised on the Polish border where she would have been regularly exposed to Russian and would have to know some of it to get around but would not have to possess extensive communicative ability in it.
Hindsight is 20/20.  When the myopic haze of of the present is lifted by the march of time we see it clearly as the past.  Sociology, psychology, anthropology.  They are all means of understanding that which came before.  History cannot stand alone.

Offline Lemur

  • Graf
  • ***
  • Posts: 268
  • reach for the top!
    • View Profile
Re: 101 Reasons AA was not Anastasia Nikolaevna
« Reply #31 on: July 19, 2007, 10:24:26 AM »
22. People who "recognized" AA/FS as AN were offered lfinancial incentives from the "Grandanor corporation", should AA/FS win recognition in the courts.  

This is interesting! I'd like to know more about this "Grandanor corporation.' I have suspected it was something like that but of course the Anderson supporters who write books would never tell you that. Jeremy if you're still around can you tell us how you found out? I'll investigate it more if you give me a lead.

Offline Annie

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4757
    • View Profile
    • Anna Anderson Exposed!
Re: 101 Reasons AA was not Anastasia Nikolaevna
« Reply #32 on: July 19, 2007, 04:43:07 PM »
22. People who "recognized" AA/FS as AN were offered lfinancial incentives from the "Grandanor corporation", should AA/FS win recognition in the courts. 

This is interesting! I'd like to know more about this "Grandanor corporation.' I have suspected it was something like that but of course the Anderson supporters who write books would never tell you that. Jeremy if you're still around can you tell us how you found out? I'll investigate it more if you give me a lead.

I'd like to hear what he knows, but I did find this today:

http://www.serfes.org/royal/rememberingAnnaAndersonii.htm

Dr. Gunther Von Berenberg-Gossler (attorney opposing AA in 1955 trial)

Dr. Von Berenberg-Gossler believes that although wishful thinking in Russian émigré circles played a part in the affair money was the principal motivation behind Anderson's claims, the supposed lost fortune of the tsar estimated at US$80.000.000.

"I believe it was at the beginning of the 1930's a corporation (Grandanor) came into existence," he says, "which sold certificates in proportion to tsarist gold roubles allegedly held by the Bank of England and redeemable if or when Anderson should "inherit" said funds. Naturally these papers were not worth anything, they served only to enrich the initiator".


Who was 'the initiator?' It does look like Jeremy was onto something, that there really was a company that was selling shares of promised Tsarist fortune to people should AA win her case. It's not out of the question to assume there may have been some who supported her ,or testified on her behalf, in hopes of this payoff? How many of them owned shares? Who knows, maybe even her silbings denied  and kept her claim alive for a promise of this share!

Money and greed can do TERRIBLE things to otherwise good people. I have seen this myself personally in real life. So don't assume it can't happen.

ferrymansdaughter

  • Guest
Re: 101 Reasons AA was not Anastasia Nikolaevna
« Reply #33 on: July 20, 2007, 06:13:13 AM »
There is a reasonably full account of the Grandanor corporation in Peter Kurth's book.  I can't quote you chapter and verse as I don't have the book at the moment but there is a bit of detail about who set it up and why.

Offline Annie

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4757
    • View Profile
    • Anna Anderson Exposed!
Re: 101 Reasons AA was not Anastasia Nikolaevna
« Reply #34 on: July 20, 2007, 09:36:32 AM »
There is a reasonably full account of the Grandanor corporation in Peter Kurth's book.  I can't quote you chapter and verse as I don't have the book at the moment but there is a bit of detail about who set it up and why.

"Full" account? I don't think so, because if anything made AA or her buddies look bad, I bet he wouldn't have told it.

Offline dmitri

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2018
    • View Profile
Re: 101 Reasons AA was not Anastasia Nikolaevna
« Reply #35 on: July 20, 2007, 10:36:59 AM »
Precisely. Kurth's so-called book is full of holes as large as a swiss cheese. It should be a must be comedy writers as it is so hilarious and obviously completely unobjective. It is good though for pulping or using as a fire starter in winter. 

Offline PrincessSophie

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
Re: 101 Reasons AA was not Anastasia Nikolaevna
« Reply #36 on: August 11, 2007, 04:31:37 AM »
Precisely. Kurth's so-called book is full of holes as large as a swiss cheese. It should be a must be comedy writers as it is so hilarious and obviously completely unobjective. It is good though for pulping or using as a fire starter in winter. 

That's an opinion, Dmitri.  Not a fact.  Speaking of which, this was meant to be 101 reasons why AA was not AN.  I think we are only half way through ...

Offline dmitri

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2018
    • View Profile
Re: 101 Reasons AA was not Anastasia Nikolaevna
« Reply #37 on: August 11, 2007, 05:43:59 AM »
I wonder who would be so desperate to want to know any more!!!

Offline PrincessSophie

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
Re: 101 Reasons AA was not Anastasia Nikolaevna
« Reply #38 on: August 11, 2007, 06:10:09 AM »
I wonder who would be so desperate to want to know any more!!!

Ah, Dmitri.  The search for knowledge is not a desperate act!    In any case, why use a title of 101 reasons AA was not AN unless there were 101 reasons?   ??? ??? ???

Offline dmitri

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2018
    • View Profile
Re: 101 Reasons AA was not Anastasia Nikolaevna
« Reply #39 on: August 11, 2007, 09:15:08 PM »
There is no need for further knowledge about the fraud Anna Anderson. It has all been revealed in all its boring detail.

Offline PrincessSophie

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
Re: 101 Reasons AA was not Anastasia Nikolaevna
« Reply #40 on: August 11, 2007, 09:29:42 PM »
There is no need for further knowledge about the fraud Anna Anderson. It has all been revealed in all its boring detail.

If you find the topic "boring", why do you pursue it (and the people who still have questions)?

Olishka~ Pincess

  • Guest
Re: 101 Reasons AA was not Anastasia Nikolaevna
« Reply #41 on: August 11, 2007, 09:47:34 PM »
There is no need for further knowledge about the fraud Anna Anderson. It has all been revealed in all its boring detail.
It is the total truth the problem is people still refuse to believe in the real facts, yet they still continue to belive what they want to. I guess he thinks it is so boring because he may be sick of us talking about AA and being focused on her often, nothing more than just an Polish peasant woman who was a fraud. People can believe whatever they want but that is just their choice.
« Last Edit: August 11, 2007, 09:51:58 PM by Elizabeth~Princess »

Offline LisaDavidson

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 2665
    • View Profile
Re: 101 Reasons AA was not Anastasia Nikolaevna
« Reply #42 on: August 21, 2007, 05:55:27 PM »
There is a reasonably full account of the Grandanor corporation in Peter Kurth's book.  I can't quote you chapter and verse as I don't have the book at the moment but there is a bit of detail about who set it up and why.

"Full" account? I don't think so, because if anything made AA or her buddies look bad, I bet he wouldn't have told it.

So, have you looked this up and determined that there is nothing about Grandanor in Kurth? I found otherwise. I would be most interested in hearing about your research.

Offline Annie

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4757
    • View Profile
    • Anna Anderson Exposed!
Re: 101 Reasons AA was not Anastasia Nikolaevna
« Reply #43 on: August 21, 2007, 07:28:55 PM »
There is a reasonably full account of the Grandanor corporation in Peter Kurth's book.  I can't quote you chapter and verse as I don't have the book at the moment but there is a bit of detail about who set it up and why.

"Full" account? I don't think so, because if anything made AA or her buddies look bad, I bet he wouldn't have told it.

So, have you looked this up and determined that there is nothing about Grandanor in Kurth? I found otherwise. I would be most interested in hearing about your research.

Why, yes, I have! But what I was saying is that you will never get the entire story from an avid Anderson supporter when it concerns something possibly negative about her or her supporters. In my research, and I have done quite a bit recently, I have found out a lot from other sources, especially an interview with Dr. Berenberg- Gossler who was the opposing attorney for AA. All sides need to be examined, so we need to look beyond only the defenders of AA for our information.

Your brutal crackdown of late seems to be very much in favor of AA supporters. There is another forum they can all hang out at, where those with opposing views are not welcome to even lurk. I had thought we on this forum were free to speak out about how we really feel about her claim and supporters without being censored. If things have changed, and AA and her supporters are to be protected from all possible allegations, and questions about their opinions, let us know now.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2007, 07:30:28 PM by Annie »

Offline PrincessSophie

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
Re: 101 Reasons AA was not Anastasia Nikolaevna
« Reply #44 on: August 21, 2007, 11:57:39 PM »
I agree, Annie.

This site should be a safe haven for people to express their views on the topic at hand without fear of personal attack.  Perhaps the site moderator will intervene?

Kind regards
Sophie