Author Topic: Anna Anderson decoy?  (Read 59221 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ChristineM

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2882
    • View Profile
Re: Anna Anderson decoy?
« Reply #225 on: June 10, 2007, 01:14:19 PM »
FA - I already made the point that Nicholas and Alexandra, using the British Ambassador - Sir George Buchanan - as their conduit, throughout the period of WWI - drew upon their British investment portfolio in order to help fund the faltering war.

The point I am making, and I do not think you will be able to produce one iota of evidence to the contrary, ruling and aristocratic families never disposed of the sums set aside as dowries for their daughters.   In the case of Emperor Nicholas II and Alexandra Feodorovna, that would have been a considerable sum - afterall they had no fewer than four dowries to consider.

Robert, when did I ever say there was any possibility of a claim made against Tsarist property/land/gold/jewels and etc within Russia, by any pretender?   What you write is heightening the point I made earlier.   Nicholas II may have been deemed naive, but he wasn't stupid.   Do you really believe he left himself, and his family, so exposed that there could ever have been a hint of a possibility of them facing financial ruin and destitution?   Of course he could not have imagined the ravages of the Bolsheviki, but I find it utterly incredulous that Nicholas left all his (proverbial) eggs in one basket... Russia.   The Japanese gold was a case in point.   There was more... much more and as long as there was someone alive who was being presented as a possible inheritrix, these assets remained, untouched.   THAT is precisely why Lord Mountbatten fought and funded two court cases.

tsaria

 

« Last Edit: June 10, 2007, 01:18:06 PM by tsaria »

Offline ChristineM

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2882
    • View Profile
Re: Anna Anderson decoy?
« Reply #226 on: June 10, 2007, 01:47:08 PM »
An amendment to the above -

.....the investment portfolio was drawn upon in order to help fund his country's faltering economy as a result of the war.

Also - I did write 'investments' - these come in different shapes and forms.   Not just bank deposits.

tsaria
« Last Edit: June 10, 2007, 01:50:24 PM by tsaria »

Alixz

  • Guest
Re: Anna Anderson decoy?
« Reply #227 on: June 10, 2007, 02:05:44 PM »
When I said that the Soviets would have just taken over the money, I meant inside of Russia and also in East Berlin and East Germany (after WWII)  where they had control of everything and everything belonged to the state.

And if the Bolsheviks were the true successors to the Revolution, then the money that belonged to the state (not the tsar's personal funds) belonged to the Soviet.  That is what they said and that is how they lived.

However, were the tsar's personal funds truly personally his?  Did he have title to the land and the mines and the profits thereof?  Or did the tsar (generic not in particular) own the property and the profits therefrom?  And would not the assets pass then onto the next in line?  And since the next in line were the Bolsheviks then wouldn't they have the right to do what they did and to simply absorb whatever they found as state property?

Remember that the Bolsheviks even banished currency and tried a barter system (that didn't work), but they truly believed in all power and all privilege to the Soviet.

I think it is truly hard for capitalists to image the mind set of the Bolsheviks and the idea of communal life.  Of course it was truly hard for Stalin, too.  ;D

Offline Robert_Hall

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6648
  • a site.
    • View Profile
Re: Anna Anderson decoy?
« Reply #228 on: June 10, 2007, 02:07:26 PM »
Tsaria, please, once again, I am not contradicting you, I am trying to point out to Charley that Russian state assests were no longer at the disposal of an abdicated emperor or his heirs. His [and their] PERSONAL funds are a different matter. I was not discussing them. As all legitimate governments had recognized  the Provisional, the Soviet then Republic of Russia, that entity is the only legal claimant to any stae assests of the formers regime. As for the personal accounts, well is there a statute in the UK that any unclaimed funds, after a certain period of time do indeed revert to the Crown?  However, here, the word "unclaimed" comes into play. If such funds existed and were quite substantial, I am sure there would have been many legitimate claimants for them. [previous post].
Life may not be the party we expected, but while we are here, might as well dance..

Do you want the truth, or my side of the story ?- Hank Ketchum.

Alixz

  • Guest
Re: Anna Anderson decoy?
« Reply #229 on: June 10, 2007, 02:25:50 PM »
Robert,

I don't know about the UK, but in the US, the unclaimed funds go to the state.  However the state does get not possession or ownership of the funds, but holds them and publishes a list of names and amounts every so often trying to find the rightful heirs.

Offline Forum Admin

  • Administrator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 4665
  • www.alexanderpalace.org
    • View Profile
    • Alexander Palace Time Machine
Re: Anna Anderson decoy?
« Reply #230 on: June 10, 2007, 03:17:46 PM »
Please use the search function. We have gone back into questions already discussed, particularly the difference between the Emperor's personal property and the State property.


Offline Robert_Hall

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6648
  • a site.
    • View Profile
Re: Anna Anderson decoy?
« Reply #231 on: June 10, 2007, 04:40:43 PM »
Quite right, FA. I was only trying to demonstrate that the theory of using any pretender as a "claimant" for any "tsarist" funds was a non-issue. As is the idea of a succession dispute. Politically, the Romanovs- real or otherwise- were impotent. So what was the point of being a "decoy"?
Life may not be the party we expected, but while we are here, might as well dance..

Do you want the truth, or my side of the story ?- Hank Ketchum.

Alixz

  • Guest
Re: Anna Anderson decoy?
« Reply #232 on: June 10, 2007, 05:51:56 PM »
Robert,

I think FA was replying to me.  However, I can never make the "search function" work.  No mater what I look for I get nothing.

Maybe I'm just "search function" impaired.   ???

However, I have been trying to figure out a reason why the Soviets would want to use AA as a decoy and what good it would do if she were one!  She was not even a threat to Cyril because of Paul's laws. 

What a strange creature she was (AA, I mean) and how she has stamped herself onto the pages of history.  No matter what is written about the end of the Imperial Family, she will always be at least a footnote in every manuscript.

Even when (and I believe it will happen) the bones of the two "missing children" are found, there will always be a need to mention her and her part in the years following the Yekaterinburg murder.  The amount of type space will keep diminishing, but she will always be there.

Offline charley

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 208
    • View Profile
Re: Anna Anderson decoy?
« Reply #233 on: June 10, 2007, 06:36:13 PM »
So does anyone think AA could have been used as a decoy or just used?  ;D
I would still like to know more about Lenin and AA.

Offline ChristineM

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2882
    • View Profile
Re: Anna Anderson decoy?
« Reply #234 on: June 11, 2007, 02:36:48 AM »
YES, I think she was used.   However, probably not as a 'decoy' - just USED.

tsaria

Offline Annie

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4756
    • View Profile
    • Anna Anderson Exposed!
Re: Anna Anderson decoy?
« Reply #235 on: June 11, 2007, 07:40:03 AM »

I can never make the "search function" work.  No mater what I look for I get nothing.

Maybe I'm just "search function" impaired.   ???

Me too! No matter what I search for, I always get nothing! It always tells me no matches were found. :P
 
Quote

Even when (and I believe it will happen) the bones of the two "missing children" are found, there will always be a need to mention her and her part in the years following the Yekaterinburg murder.  The amount of type space will keep diminishing, but she will always be there.

I'm afraid even when the missing children are found, there will still be conspiracy theorists who will say those are the wrong bones, somebody was paid off by the Queen, etc. ::) :( It'll never end because some people won't let it end. But it's good to see fewer people falling for the silly story these days.

Alixz

  • Guest
Re: Anna Anderson decoy?
« Reply #236 on: June 11, 2007, 07:53:48 AM »
Annie - its good to know that someone else has the problem with the search function.  But I think the problem is exact wording or accuracy.

I recently searched for "Our Royal Bookshelves" and was told no matches were found.  So I did the long thing and went thread by thread under the subject title where I thought it would be and, sure enough, I found what I was looking for "Our Royalty Bookshelves".  Just that one change in the word prevented the search function from giving me anything.   :-\

Even though I think that it should have matched at least some of the words, it matched none of them  ???

And if AA was used, she used others in return.  No strike no foul.  And in the end, the poor old woman began to live her own legend.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2007, 07:56:36 AM by Alixz »

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: Anna Anderson decoy?
« Reply #237 on: June 11, 2007, 10:27:29 AM »
Since the "search"  method rarely works for me,  does anyone  know where the discussion which FA refers is / are?

Meanwhile,  I'll go find the  "Anastasia would have inherited what had she lived"  thread and post a quote here so others can find it.

AGRBear

PS  Follow the link:
Since I haven't any idea what was left of Anastasia's inheritance, if she had lived  what would she have inherited that was kept out of the hands of the Bolsheviks?
OR
If Anna Anderson or another claimant had proven in court they were the children of Nicholas II and Alexandra,  what would they have gain in money, jewels, lands, stocks "in" or "outside" of Russia by the late 1920s?

Reason I'm asking is because,  last night  I watched  a program about the Royal Jewels of England's Queen Elisabeth and other royals and saw how much some of these jewels were worth.   Just one tiria was worth a mint which was enough for most of us to live nicely for the rest of our lives.  There was talk about some jewels having been Russian that had been inherited.

For those who have doubts about there being a conspiracy,  it seems just a couple of huge diamonds worth millions might have been a motive.

AGRBear
« Last Edit: June 11, 2007, 10:42:06 AM by AGRBear »
"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

TheAce1918

  • Guest
Re: Anna Anderson decoy?
« Reply #238 on: June 11, 2007, 05:57:08 PM »
Those who have had trouble with the search function.  I hear ye.  I've had so many problems with the search engine on this site that I've stopped using it except if I am truly desperate.
I've come to the method of simply looking through thoroughly the part of the forum that might contain the info I am looking for.

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: Anna Anderson decoy?
« Reply #239 on: June 15, 2007, 11:49:36 AM »
YES, I think she was used.   However, probably not as a 'decoy' - just USED.

tsaria

Does anyone  think it's possible that because people  "used" AA for their own cause,  this is why it is so difficult to pin point how she knew so much about the IF family? 

This  does seem quite possible, but, how did you know what was true information and what was misinformation? 

AGRBear
"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152