Question and survey about claimants

I defer to those scientists in all of those labs who found her to be FS with an accuracy rate of 99.9%. It doesn't get any higher for who you ARE, the only way to get 100% is to prove who you AREN'T. (and she got that too when compared to Alexandra's family)

Again, it's a case of people seeing what they want to see (or perhaps wishful thinking or playing along in hopes of a payoff?) Also it's not a big deal to pretend to be somebody you're not, actresses do it all the time. Girls from dirt poor families play princesses, girls from well off families play homeless people. It means nothing in the end, only the scientific proof ends it.

One more thing to think about: there have been no other suspects, just as there has been no 'real killer' in the OJ case. At this point we can safely assume that OJ is guilty and AA was FS. (consider too that if she had been someone else, her relatives would surely have come forward asking for a share of the action by now!)

I understand that this is what you believe -- and you have stated this many times, as is your right.  But please now allow others to discuss their ideas and thoughts on this case.  I have a half-dozen on-going IM conversations with those who would like to talk about AA in this open forum, but who are scared to do so because of the shoddy treatment they see others -- and the memory of Anna Anderson herself -- experiencing here.

As I am sure you don't want to stifle or censor conversation in any way, I will thank you in advance for your cooperation.

It's not an opinion, it's proven fact. Unless you can prove the DNA tests were flawed, you really have no case. No one who complains about their opinion not being respected has yet to offer proof that the facts are wrong. I see no reason to censor the truth just because you find it intimidating.

It is still fun to talk about her story as long as no one is deluded into or encouraged into thinking there might still be a chance she was AN. There is still a lot to the mystery, but not her identity.

This is the point, Penny. I must be honest: my knowlegde about the AA case is not very deep, but when I read all the threads open about the question, I feel there´s something wrong concerning the "real" identity of the lady. I know, so well, that feelings mean a little or less than a little when we are rewiewing historical questions...but I believe curiosity is always a good start point

Even if one disregards (for the sake of peace) the question of whether or not AA was Anastasia, there is ample room for exploring if she was, indeed, one of these missing Russian girls.  And even if one accepts (for the sake of this argument) that AA bore mtDNA consistent with that of the Schanzkowsky family, it is still possible that she came from another family. 

I remain curious about the case.  I have not made a "god" of science. I accept that the scientific analyses -- be they anthropological, genetic, forensic, etc -- form a part of the evidence, but I think it's a mistake to exclude all of the other evidence.  To demonstrate:  Let's say that a candidate is presented for Anna Anderson's "real" identity.  The girl in question is of a Russian noble family which has mtDNA appropriately consistent with that of Franziska Schanzkowska.   The girl herself went missing during the Revolution and was not seen by her family again -- but we know from the family and their background that this girl was raised in an atmosphere entirely consistent with the manners and behavior that impressed Princesses Xenia and Nina and the Duke of Leuchtenberg.  Who now is the better candidate for Anna Anderson's true identity?  Franziska Schanzkowska or this Russian noble girl?  And do we refuse to investigate further the Russian noble girl because science has already "told us" that AA was Franziska?

I have a couple of large projects looming this year, but I do hope that one day in the not too distant future I will be able to do a little more research into these missing girls of the Russian nobility -- or I hope that someone else does it first! 

~Penny

It's not an opinion, it's proven fact. Unless you can prove the DNA tests were flawed, you really have no case.

With all due respect, Annie, Rob has asked that we not discuss any flaws or errors in the DNA tests unless we are ready to produce further information on this forum.  The correct time for discussion of that information will be after the publication of our book.  So let's not go further down this road at this time.

No one who complains about their opinion not being respected has yet to offer proof that the facts are wrong. I see no reason to censor the truth just because you find it intimidating.

I have investigated the rules here, and there is no requirement that one provides "proof" of anything before one is accorded basic human respect.  Politeness costs you nothing.  And it not necessary to bludgeon people into silence with what you perceive to be the truth just because you are intimidated by independent thought.  Let's just try to co-exist peacefully, OK?

It is still fun to talk about her story as long as no one is deluded into or encouraged into thinking there might still be a chance she was AN. There is still a lot to the mystery, but not her identity.

I agree that there are hours of fun to be had in discussing her story -- but I'm not so sure about her ultimate identity...

Look, Annie -- I'm trying to get along with you here.  Nothing of what you wrote below "had to be said."  You were not privy to the discussions between Rob, Bob, Lisa, Greg and I over the entirely inappropriate manner in which some posters here chose to use the opportunity to discuss FOTR.  Discussion of FOTR on this site is not a right.  Like all other discussions here, it was a privilege permitted by the board owners.  In this particular case, it was a privilege a few posters could not handle -- and so Bob withdrew permission to discuss the book here until further notice.  And further notice has not come yet. 

You need to let this go.  What you have found out through the FOTR "wars" -- and what you don't like -- is that honest people will often strongly defend their reputations, especially against lies and liars.  That's all that happened here with the FOTR thread.  It went too far.  So let it go, and let's get back to discussing Anna Anderson.  The Survivors Forum has languished over the last year or so -- and there is a lot to discuss here -- after all, it's the mystery of Anna Anderson that brings many people to the Romanovs in the first place.

~Penny

It had to be said? At what point in Wilson's post were you personally attacked? She did not offer Anna Andersen as Anastasia, and pointed out that there are at least other possibilities in the case, which would explain certain anomalies raised by the non-DNA evidence. I think it is self-evident that Anna Andersen was Schanzkowska on the basis of the DNA, and I have no particular wish to get into the question of her identity again, but even I concede that the anomalies that made it difficult for people like Marina Schweitzer, Richard Schweitzer, and some additional people who had met both the real girl and Andersen to consider her as coming from a working-class Polish background.

Furthermore, I actually met the woman, and while her style of housing and dress was eccentric --- anyone see any pictures of the Queen Mother's hats, by the way? --- I don't really think royalty radiates class that makes them identifiable beneath poor clothing choices or squalid housing. Anymore than poor people do. I am flabbergasted by the number of people who think you can tell who a person is by looking at their table manners, taste in furniture, etc. Indeed, the real girl seems to have been quite a piece of work according to surviving diaries, and there is footage of the Heir slapping the tar out of a kid standing next to him in a mock review line. Princess Vera of Russia is on record as saying that they could be fairly horrible, rude children. That would be the Princess Vera who actually knew them. Wallis Simpson was the most regal of the Windsors in appearance (that was Givenchy at the funeral, kids), and we all know how the Firm felt about her boarding house background. "Common little thing"?  Have we suddenly been transported into a Marie Corelli novel? What's next? It sounds like Freddie Bartholomew in Captain's Courageous: "It's a dirty little boat and I wouldn't even spit on it!" The old lady has been dead for over twenty years, and she gets the kind of scorn I would reserve for people who might have been historically significant. Jeeze.


Is it not possible to have a discussion on these threads that does not degenerate into personalities? If you don't feel able to answer questions from people about Andersen without being brusque, might I suggest that you direct them to some of the countless threads dealing with her identity on this site, KingandWilson, or any of the others.


Simon

[statistics]

I don't really think royalty radiates class that makes them identifiable beneath poor clothing choices or squalid housing. Anymore than poor people do. I am flabbergasted by the number of people who think you can tell who a person is by looking at their table manners, taste in furniture, etc.

Exactly! Would you agree then that below is a meaningless statement?

The Duke of Leuchtenberg once said that he didn't know who AA was, but that she was definitely from his own small circle of society.  This is something which has stuck with me -- and which has been echoed by others who met AA, like Princess Nina Georgievna who strongly maintained that whoever she was, she was no "factory worker." 

I personally couldn't care less how Anna Anderson acted and what she wore. No matter what the "anomalies", it all comes down to statistics and DNA science in the end. I don't know about anyone else, but I would accept that over any statements made by the Duke of Leuchtenberg, et al... As would any court of law, BTW.

I think it is self-evident that Anna Andersen was Schanzkowska on the basis of the DNA...

It may be evident to you and me, Simon, and some other logical people, but alas, it is obviously not evident to everyone... by far. Especially when flawed line of thinking seems to be encouraged.... Anna Anderson is not really important here, as you say, the lady has been dead and gone for many years, and she was not really historically significant anyway - I just don't like to see "false logic" encouraged and real scientific facts swept under the rug (oh so subtly  ).

[statistics]

I don't really think royalty radiates class that makes them identifiable beneath poor clothing choices or squalid housing. Anymore than poor people do. I am flabbergasted by the number of people who think you can tell who a person is by looking at their table manners, taste in furniture, etc.

Exactly! Would you agree then that below is a meaningless statement?

The Duke of Leuchtenberg once said that he didn't know who AA was, but that she was definitely from his own small circle of society.  This is something which has stuck with me -- and which has been echoed by others who met AA, like Princess Nina Georgievna who strongly maintained that whoever she was, she was no "factory worker." 

I personally couldn't care less how Anna Anderson acted and what she wore. No matter what the "anomalies", it all comes down to statistics and DNA science in the end. I don't know about anyone else, but I would accept that over any statements made by the Duke of Leuchtenberg, et al... As would any court of law, BTW.

Dear Helen,

It is a meaningless statement --- in exactly the same sense the criticism of Andersen's appearance as an indication of her background is meaningless. No more and no less, although if it was someone who had known the real girl I would give more credence to his or her impressions. That's why I find Olga Alexandrovna's failure to recognize Andersen problematic. Wilson's point was that some --- not all ---people who shared an aristocratic background noticed Andersen's behavior seemed to indicate that she
also shared it. A few months ago debate was sharp about her feelings for Jack Manahan and his for her, with people who never set eyes on them holding forth about how real or fake their devotion was. I did see them, and offered an opinion, which was promptly discarded because it did not fit into the demonizing world view.

What false logic is being disseminated by the idea that Andersen might --- might --- have been someone other than Schanzkowska? If Wilson is correct, and these twenty or so Russian noblewomen went missing, is it beyond belief that one of them might have surfaced with this delusion? And the DNA evidence does not prove she was Franziska Schanzkowska (and one more time, I think she was), it proves that she was not a Romanov. In the interest of crossing the t's and dotting the i's, would it be so harmful if more effort was devoted into proving her identity?

Wilson did not suggest that newcomers to the site be told that Andersen was Anastasia. I have no idea if she thinks she was, but I can read what Wilson posts here as well as the next person, and I defy anyone to show me where she publically endorses the idea that Anastasia Nicholaevna was Anastasia Manahan. Why make these silly insinuations that cannot be discussed because we can't talk about the damned book on this website? It's the equivalent of sticking tongues out at people from behind the safety of a closed window.

Simon

That's why I find Olga Alexandrovna's failure to recognize Andersen problematic.
 

Would you mind elaborating on this, I am not sure I understand what you mean here. Should she have recognized AA, even though she wasn't her niece?

What false logic is being disseminated by the idea that Andersen might --- might --- have been someone other than Schanzkowska? If Wilson is correct, and these twenty or so Russian noblewomen went missing, is it beyond belief that one of them might have surfaced with this delusion? And the DNA evidence does not prove she was Franziska Schanzkowska...

Statistically speaking, yes it does. And this is exactly the type of false logic (or rather I should say "pseudo logic") that I am referring to: using semantics to argue a point that for all intents and purposes has already been proven... An asteroid might--- might--- hit the Earth and destroy it in the next hour. We know it won't... but can you prove to me that it won't? It all comes down to statistics - as I mentioned earlier - just as it does in the Schankozwka (sp?)/Anderson case...

Wilson did not suggest that newcomers to the site be told that Andersen was Anastasia. I have no idea if she thinks she was, but I can read what Wilson posts here as well as the next person, and I defy anyone to show me where she publically endorses the idea that Anastasia Nicholaevna was Anastasia Manahan. Why make these silly insinuations that cannot be discussed because we can't talk about the damned book on this website?

I am not sure if you are addressing me here, but I know that I didn't once insinuate in my posts that Wilson stated that AN was AM. She wisely stopped doing it some time ago and I have no idea if she still believes this or not. The entire time I was referring to the "Anna Anderson was not/could not have been FS" theory. BTW, this has nothing to do with the "damned book that we can't discuss on this website". It's an entirely different issue.

That's why I find Olga Alexandrovna's failure to recognize Andersen problematic.
 

Would you mind elaborating on this, I am not sure I understand what you mean here. Should she have recognized AA, even though she wasn't her niece?

What false logic is being disseminated by the idea that Andersen might --- might --- have been someone other than Schanzkowska? If Wilson is correct, and these twenty or so Russian noblewomen went missing, is it beyond belief that one of them might have surfaced with this delusion? And the DNA evidence does not prove she was Franziska Schanzkowska...

Statistically speaking, yes it does. And this is exactly the type of false logic (or rather I should say "pseudo logic") that I am referring to: using semantics to argue a point that for all intents and purposes has already been proven... A meteor might--- might--- hit the Earth and destroy it in the next hour. We know it won't... but can you prove to me that it won't? It all comes down to statistics - as I mentioned earlier - just as it does in the Schankozwka (sp?)/Anderson case...

Wilson did not suggest that newcomers to the site be told that Andersen was Anastasia. I have no idea if she thinks she was, but I can read what Wilson posts here as well as the next person, and I defy anyone to show me where she publically endorses the idea that Anastasia Nicholaevna was Anastasia Manahan. Why make these silly insinuations that cannot be discussed because we can't talk about the damned book on this website?

I am not sure if you are addressing me here, but I know that I didn't once insinuate in my posts that Wilson stated that AN was AM. She wisely stopped doing it some time ago and I have no idea if she still believes this or not. The entire time I was referring to the "Anna Anderson was not/could not have been FS" theory. BTW, this has nothing to do with the "damned book that we can't discuss on this website". It's an entirely different issue.

(1) My bad on the phrasing. I find the fact that Olga did not recognize Andersen as her niece problematic for the supporters of Andersen -- as well as Gilliard's and Gibbes' failure to do so. These were people who knew the real girl reasonably well, and I would therefore pay more attention to their opionions than, say, Felix Dassel, who did not.

(2) The DNA does not prove she was Franziska Schanzkowska, sorry. I think she was, but the best it "proves" is that Andersen was not a Romanov, and that there are commonalities between her DNA and the DNA carried by the Schanzkowska family. The DNA doesn't "prove" that the people in the Pig's Meadow Grave were the Imperial Family; it simply makes it unreasonable to assume that they were anyone else. How many related groups of Romanovs that meet the description of the Imperial Family were strewn about Russia in 1918? But it doesn't prove their individual identities --- Maria's DNA would be the same as Tatiana's. for example. You and I may find it unreasonable to look for further proof of Andersen's identity once the commonality with the Schanzkowska grouping was determined, but there is a real difference between this case and the identifications of the Romanovs. Wilson is not inventing the anomalies that caused many people to accept Andersen as Anastasia. Some of those people have maintained their belief in her as a member  of their own "class" based upon her behaviors. Wilson has proposed that there was a significant number of young women who might have understood these behaviors that went missing post-1918. If Andersen turned out to be one of them, then by definition she remains an imposter, no? This seems to be something worth exploring, as the life of this woman is examined. I repeat, what on earth is the harm of doing it?

(3) I was not addressing you, Helen; my original post was in response to Annie. I was attempting to make the point that if someone asks about this issue, there are other options that simply reiterating that "She was FS". And I say that as someone who thinks she was FS. Moreover,  I am surprised to learn that Wilson has confided how she truly feels about AA's identity to you or anyone else on this board. Surely if she plans a book about the subject, this would be giving away the major plot point?

Simon

Wilson has proposed that there was a significant number of young women who might have understood these behaviors that went missing post-1918. If Andersen turned out to be one of them, then by definition she remains an imposter, no? This seems to be something worth exploring, as the life of this woman is examined. I repeat, what on earth is the harm of doing it?

Of course there is no harm in it, and this theory would even make sense, if it wasn't for the mtDNA. Yes, it's true that mtDNA does not prove someone's identity. But that's not really the point I am trying to make. AA could very well have been any one of random women in and around Berlin, and I personally don't care if she was or not, I only care about facts. In order to accept the idea that she could have been one of the missing Russian noble girls, we would have to take into consideration the astronomical odds of these 19 or 20 missing Russian noble girls "coincidentally" having the Schankowska mtDNA, which statistically speaking is extremely improbable (I am being generous). To ignore these statistics is to ignore major evidence in this case. At the same time, there is an excellent probability that she was in fact a missing Schankowska, i.e. Franciska, (with their rare mtDNA type). And this is what I meant by faulty logic.

Anyway, I realize that I am preaching to the choir here, not to mention the fact that we have been through all this on this forum before and it's all quite futile.

Moreover,  I am surprised to learn that Wilson has confided how she truly feels about AA's identity to you or anyone else on this board. 

Are you kidding, why would Wilson confide anything to me? LOL   If you are talking about her AA=AN theories, she used to post her beliefs quite freely and publicly here about 1.5-2 years ago. So this is common knowledge to those who were here back then.

Wow!

I would very much like to hear what Penny has to say and therefore ask the moderator to please intervene here assure that this discussion can continue in a courteous manner. I find the that the attacks, by a few posters, detract from the discussion. Like Penny, I don't want any part of that behavior.

Dear Annie,

Just a couple of things:

(1)  Thanks, but I have spent my life in the academic world, and I don't particularly need tips about doing it a disservice. You seem to confuse a willingness to engage in discussion with intellectual weakness --- a hallmark of the non-academic. It is obvious to anyone reading this thread that Wilson has attempted to maintain a civil tone, and I suggest you try to do so as well. Wilson gave you credit for your opinions. And believe it or not, one can argue without descending into personalities. I would pay attention to the idea she advanced that your attitude might be intimidating to newbie posters, Annie. Surely, given the concern you regularly describe yourself as feeling for the uninformed, you don't want to scare anyone away. Take a look at the topic of this thread, and it is readily apparent that Wilson was merely answering the question posed by the original query.

(2) My name is Simon, not Louis, something which I indicate by signing it to the end of most posts.

(3) There is simply no comparison between the farragos that Bear unleashed on these threads, and a desire to look into the backgrounds of these women.

Helen:  if we agree that there is no harm in it, I see no further point in discussing the matter.

I second the appeal to the moderators, by the way, and request that people be allowed to take the gloves off and discuss FATE OF THE ROMANOVS. There should be censorship for civility. If people are not going to be prevented from casting aspersions upon the authors, then there should be open discussion.

Simon.