Author Topic: Why Anastasia ??  (Read 33934 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Annie

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4757
    • View Profile
    • Anna Anderson Exposed!
Re: Why Anastasia ??
« Reply #15 on: August 10, 2004, 06:45:21 PM »
Oh thank you Lisa!

Offline Helen_Azar

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 7472
  • Coming up Fall 2015: Tatiana's diaries and letters
    • View Profile
    • War-time diaries of Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna Romanov
Re: Why Anastasia ??
« Reply #16 on: August 11, 2004, 12:06:38 PM »
In my opinion, none of the girls on the cover of this newspaper look that much like themselves, at least the way we are used to seeing them in other pictures. Maybe Olga does look like herself sort of, if that's her in the middle, but I am not even sure which of the sisters is the one on the right, is it Tatiana or Marie? Usually I can recognize them all right away! These pictures almost look like they have been doctored up, although why  that would be the case back then I can't imagine....Maybe it's just my perception  ???

Helen

Offline Helen_Azar

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 7472
  • Coming up Fall 2015: Tatiana's diaries and letters
    • View Profile
    • War-time diaries of Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna Romanov
Re: Why Anastasia ??
« Reply #17 on: August 11, 2004, 12:13:50 PM »
I just noticed that Lisa, who posted the newspaper, has them labeled as Anastasia, Maria and Tatiana, and I had mistaken the one in the middle for Olga who usually looks nothing like Maria! I can usually tell in all the other pictures which one is which, since none of the sisters look that much alike, so this is what I meant when I said that I can't recognize who is whom in this picture,  to me these pictures look sort of odd and distorted, and not too much like the usual pictures of these girls. Does anyone else think so?

Helen
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by helenazar »

Offline Michelle

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 998
  • No more school forever!  Well,except college.
    • View Profile
Re: Why Anastasia ??
« Reply #18 on: August 11, 2004, 04:35:43 PM »
Actually, I thought they all looked like themselves--especially Maria.  Anastasia is also pretty recognizable, as is Tatiana.  The problem Tatiana has in that picture is that she is not at ALL flattered by that picture; her face just looks so pointy and almost witchlike.  Probably due to the angle and the bad quality of the picture.  It is quite grainy/fuzzy. . .

But Maria definitely looks like herself and not Olga, who didn't have quite as full a face as Maria, and whose eyes were not as big.  It was definitely Maria.  To some, Anastasia probably doesn't look like herself because she has her hair up in a bun, which we're not used to seeing very much.  She just seemed to always have it down because she only turned sixteen in 1917 when pictures of the family became a bit more rare (sixteen was the age girls would begin to wear their hair up like grown ladies because that age was considered the "coming out" age).

Offline Helen_Azar

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 7472
  • Coming up Fall 2015: Tatiana's diaries and letters
    • View Profile
    • War-time diaries of Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna Romanov
Re: Why Anastasia ??
« Reply #19 on: August 11, 2004, 04:47:50 PM »
Oh, I wasn't disputing their identities, Michelle, I was just saying that to me they look different than usual. And to me, Anastasia looks most recognizable out of the three in this picture! Just goes to show how different everyone's perception is!  :)

Quote
Actually, I thought they all looked like themselves--especially Maria.  Anastasia is also pretty recognizable, as is Tatiana.  The problem Tatiana has in that picture is that she is not at ALL flattered by that picture; her face just looks so pointy and almost witchlike.  Probably due to the angle and the bad quality of the picture.  It is quite grainy/fuzzy. . .

But Maria definitely looks like herself and not Olga, who didn't have quite as full a face as Maria, and whose eyes were not as big.  It was definitely Maria.  To some, Anastasia probably doesn't look like herself because she has her hair up in a bun, which we're not used to seeing very much.  She just seemed to always have it down because she only turned sixteen in 1917 when pictures of the family became a bit more rare (sixteen was the age girls would begin to wear their hair up like grown ladies because that age was considered the "coming out" age).


Offline Kim

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 0
  • I Love YaBB 2!
    • View Profile
Re: Why Anastasia ??
« Reply #20 on: August 11, 2004, 05:22:40 PM »
That picture would have to have been taken earlier than April 1917 since as of Feb. 1917 they had no hair.

Offline Lanie

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1533
    • View Profile
Re: Why Anastasia ??
« Reply #21 on: August 11, 2004, 06:22:29 PM »
They had wigsmade of their old hair, I believe.

Offline Kim

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 0
  • I Love YaBB 2!
    • View Profile
Re: Why Anastasia ??
« Reply #22 on: August 11, 2004, 07:29:50 PM »
But the hair was found in boxes in the Ipatiev house after the murder, remember? You can see Olga's is not a wig because you can see the part in her hair. Also I believe this is before the revolution, you never saw any happy pics of them in pretty clothes while they were being held at Tsarskoe Selo. My guess is this is from a magazine dated April 1917 but the pictures were taken a few months earlier. This happens all the time with magazines, they usually take the pictures and have the stories ready a couple months ahead of time, even today.

Offline Michelle

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 998
  • No more school forever!  Well,except college.
    • View Profile
Re: Why Anastasia ??
« Reply #23 on: August 11, 2004, 09:41:58 PM »
Kim, I'm not quite sure what you're saying. :)

Olga wasn't in the picture.  Are you talking about one of the other girls' parts in their hair? :-/

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: Why Anastasia ??
« Reply #24 on: August 11, 2004, 10:01:49 PM »
The fold of the newspaper on the first photo distorted the chin and there is a flaw on the photo on the second photo.  So, you can see how her chin was given the look of being "pointy".  Obviously these two photos are from different sources.   Am I right?  And, where did these photos come from, if I may ask?

AGRBear

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by AGRBear »
"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Offline Abby

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 638
  • July 18th 2005: 87 years
    • View Profile
Re: Why Anastasia ??
« Reply #25 on: August 11, 2004, 10:06:48 PM »
I think Kim meant "Marie" and thought she was Olga.

I have seen this picture before but not in such good quality; Marie's face is particularly striking and they look relaxed but it is almost a forced expression, as if they are really preoccupied with something. If the newspaper was dated April 1917 I think that would make sense...they could have been wearing anything in Tsarskoe Selo, even their "pretty" clothes while under house arrest...just because every picture we've seen of them is when they were in the garden one day working doesn't mean they didn't wear anything else.
..but I really don't know!

Offline Kim

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 0
  • I Love YaBB 2!
    • View Profile
Re: Why Anastasia ??
« Reply #26 on: August 12, 2004, 11:30:25 AM »
Quote
Kim, I'm not quite sure what you're saying. :)

Olga wasn't in the picture.  Are you talking about one of the other girls' parts in their hair? :-/



It doesn't matter which girl it is, the fact is these girls have real hair and not wigs so the picture had to have been taken before the revolution, before their heads were shaved. From what I've read they did not have wigs made of the hair, it was saved and found in boxes at the Ipatiev house after they were gone. In Alexandra's diaries from 1917 she describes how the girls had to wear hats and scarves to cover their shorn heads, and by Christmas wrote in a letter to someone that "their hair has grown so beautifully they can now go without scarves."

This is a silly thing to argue over, I am sorry. But I do not believe the picture was taken after the revolution. We also need to consider that they were prisoners and pictures of them were not readily sent to the media and everything coming in and out was searched. Most of the pictures we have of them in captivity came out much later, such as in Gilliard's book.

Offline Abby

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 638
  • July 18th 2005: 87 years
    • View Profile
Re: Why Anastasia ??
« Reply #27 on: August 12, 2004, 12:46:12 PM »
True, Kim. You bring up some very good points. The fact that their hair was cut right as the revolution started (it was cut in March 1917? Is that right? Because isn't that when they all came down with measles? Or was it February 1917?) gives us a good timeline as to when certain pictures were taken. But in the pictures we have of them working in the yard, they are bald but they have on hats with some kind of hair piece underneath which makes it look like they have hair.

for example, this picture must be in March/April 1917, and it LOOKS like they have hair...but in the other pic which must have been taken the same week or month, we see they are bald!



« Last Edit: May 29, 2009, 01:55:10 PM by Alixz »

Offline Katya04

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 39
  • a galaxy far far away
    • View Profile
Re: Why Anastasia ??
« Reply #28 on: August 12, 2004, 04:22:32 PM »

I believe that picture was taken in Tobolsk much later in the year.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2009, 01:55:35 PM by Alixz »

Offline Abby

  • Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 638
  • July 18th 2005: 87 years
    • View Profile
Re: Why Anastasia ??
« Reply #29 on: August 12, 2004, 04:45:52 PM »
I'm pretty sure it was taken in Tsarskoe Selo, in the garden.