Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What?

[Forum Admin]

BEAR STOP WASTING TIME AND EFFORT.

HERE IS WHAT CLARKE SAYS, ON PAGE 275-76, IN SUMMATION OF THE ENTIRE BOOK:
"The only personal funds we have detected abroad are those of the children in Berlin, which were inherited by Grand Duchess Xenia and her Romanoff relatives in 1933.
pg. 276: This leaves the 100 million pounds of tsarist accounts remaining in Paris, London and New York in 1918 the bulk of which have in any case been distributed by the British and American governments to other creditors of the former tsarist regime ... .Had Nicholas survived Ekaterinburg and returned to the throne or had Alexis been similarly restored under a regency ... this 100 million might have become the target of the restored regime and the restored Tsar, though not of his relatives.

THERE WAS NO OTHER MONEY. THE LONDON FUNDS WERE CONSIDERED GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS AND WERE USED TO PAY OFF ENGLISH DEBT HOLDERS OWED BY THE IMPERIAL GOVERNMENT.  THE FAMILY HAD NO CLAIM TO IT. WHAT PART OF THIS IS NOT CLEAR TO YOU?

[AGRBear]

BEAR STOP WASTING TIME AND EFFORT.

HERE IS WHAT CLARKE SAYS, ON PAGE 275-76, IN SUMMATION OF THE ENTIRE BOOK:
"The only personal funds we have detected abroad are those of the children in Berlin, which were inherited by Grand Duchess Xenia and her Romanoff relatives in 1933.
pg. 276: This leaves the 100 million pounds of tsarist accounts remaining in Paris, London and New York in 1918 the bulk of which have in any case been distributed by the British and American governments to other creditors of the former tsarist regime ... .Had Nicholas survived Ekaterinburg and returned to the throne or had Alexis been similarly restored under a regency ... this 100 million might have become the target of the restored regime and the restored Tsar, though not of his relatives.

THERE WAS NO OTHER MONEY. THE LONDON FUNDS WERE CONSIDERED GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS AND WERE USED TO PAY OFF ENGLISH DEBT HOLDERS OWED BY THE IMPERIAL GOVERNMENT.  THE FAMILY HAD NO CLAIM TO IT. WHAT PART OF THIS IS NOT CLEAR TO YOU?

Pardon me, FA,  but I believe there is a difference between "NO OTHER MONEY" and what Clarke voiced as "personsal funds" people  have "detected".   And,  his book talks a great deal about the possitilites of where more personal funds might be or were throughout his 276 pages.
For example, at the beginning of his  Chapter "Whose?"  he states:

>>When secrecy is allied to an autocrat's power to decide how and when money can be transferred, to and from his own accounts and those of the state, again in his name, as in the case of Nicholas II, then the labyrinth of their own monetary affairs becomes baffling indeed.  It is this intermingling of personal and "head of state' money, and the apparent need to protect it from prying eyes, that has added an extra obstacle to all subsequent inquiries.<< p. 270-1

He then talks about now Nicholas II and his predecessors deliberately separated the family money from state money,  etc. etc. etc. but during WWI  the monies mingled and this left people  >>..interpreting, the ownerhsip of the gold left scattered outside Russia.<< p. 273

Each country interrupted what they felt was the Tsar's and what was to be inherited by the Romanovs or used to pay off loans or return to Russia which was under new leadership.  Finland, for example, first denied GD Xenia the right of inheritiance of Halia estate and other properties  but  later, I believe,  gave GD Xenia some money ....  I believe this fact was posted here on this forum.  I don't recall what the amount was.

p. 273
>>To turn from gold to jewels and investments is to move to the heart of the royal dilemma about ownerships...<<

Over on p. 275:

>>There remain Romanoff and tsarist money and investments outside Russia.  The only personal funds we have detected abroad are those of the children in Berlin, which was inherited by Grand Duchess Zenia ad her Romanoff relatives in 1933.<<  Added to this Clarke also stated:
>>This does not mean that stray personal accounts of the royal family will not one day emerge in London, Paris, Geneva or even New York; simply that it now seems unlikely.  If such accounts did emerge and could be regarded as the private property of members of the former Russian royal family surviving relatives could certainly entertain some claim to them as they did in the case of the investments in Berlin.<<

True,  Clarke and others believe such accounts probably will not emerge at this late date.  And, they are probably right.

Thanks everyone for all of your help in trying to track down "Anastasia Inheritance Would Have Been What""  had she survived.

I hope everyone has learned a little something,  I know I have.

Like FA has said,  there's not much more to discuss unless someone comes up with new information.

AGRBear

[Forum Admin]

BEAR STOP WASTING TIME AND EFFORT.

HERE IS WHAT CLARKE SAYS, ON PAGE 275-76, IN SUMMATION OF THE ENTIRE BOOK:
"The only personal funds we have detected abroad are those of the children in Berlin, which were inherited by Grand Duchess Xenia and her Romanoff relatives in 1933.
pg. 276: This leaves the 100 million pounds of tsarist accounts remaining in Paris, London and New York in 1918 the bulk of which have in any case been distributed by the British and American governments to other creditors of the former tsarist regime ... .Had Nicholas survived Ekaterinburg and returned to the throne or had Alexis been similarly restored under a regency ... this 100 million might have become the target of the restored regime and the restored Tsar, though not of his relatives.

THERE WAS NO OTHER MONEY. THE LONDON FUNDS WERE CONSIDERED GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS AND WERE USED TO PAY OFF ENGLISH DEBT HOLDERS OWED BY THE IMPERIAL GOVERNMENT.  THE FAMILY HAD NO CLAIM TO IT. WHAT PART OF THIS IS NOT CLEAR TO YOU?

Pardon me, FA,  but I believe there is a difference between "NO OTHER MONEY" and what Clarke voiced as "personsal funds" people  have "detected".   And,  his book talks a great deal about the possitilites of where more personal funds might be or were throughout his 276 pages.

The problem Bear is this: NOBODY STILL KNOWS where those funds are or even IF they exist. Nobody knew about them THEN either, thus the question of whether Anastasia "could" have inherited them is moot, because AT THE TIME, they were still unknown and 'undiscovered'...Therefore they could not have been part of any inheritance claim.

[Nikl]

What about this article. Is this truth?
http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/90/363/13367_Nicholas.html

[Forum Admin]

The first 2/3 of the article are a good summation of the major Anastasia impostors.  The last part is not true.  Nicholas never shipped "150 cases of personal property to England" in 1917 nor sent gold abroad to prepare for leaving the country.  That gold was sent, but all the records show it was in payment for materials to support the war. There was NO personal money sent abroad.  The money in Barings was used to pay for supporting the war, it was not personal funds.

THERE IS NO VAST FORTUNE OUT THERE OF NICHOLAS' PERSONAL MONEY.

[Annie]

The first 2/3 of the article are a good summation of the major Anastasia impostors.

Actually it's not, it can be picked apart badly for inaccuracy. For example:

A policeman patrolling along a Berlin canal was not surprised at all when he saw a young lady jump off into the water. However, he darted to rescue her. The poor woman received first aid and was sent to a mental hospital where those who attempted a suicide were compulsorily institutionalised.

“Well, Freulein, can you tell us your name and home address? We found no papers on you,” the doctor asked her gently when she came to herself.

“I have to make an important statement”, said she in a feeble voice. “My name is Anastasia Nikolayevna Romanova. I’m a Russian Princess, Grand Duchess Anastasia, the daughter of the last Russian Emperor, Nicholas. By miracle, I managed to survive the slaughter in Yekaterinburg.”

No, she did not tell the policeman who saved her she was AN, it took her 2 years in the asylum to make the claim.

It's also very unfair to Olga A. by only giving one misleading quote without the rest of the story.

Then there is this complete falsehood

In 1928, every Romanov alive,  totalling twelve people,

Twelve? That was all that signed, not all that was alive.

She died in Charlottesville, Virginia, USA,  in 1984. A single word is carved on her tombstone – “Anastasia”.

Actually she was cremated, but a stone at the site of her ashes in Germany says Anastasia Manahan 1901-1984

It also makes no mention of the DNA tests.

You may say none of this matters, but remember this article may be the only thing some people see about the story, and will be misinformed. How do such mistakes get by?

[LisaDavidson]

The first 2/3 of the article are a good summation of the major Anastasia impostors.

Actually it's not, it can be picked apart badly for inaccuracy. For example:

A policeman patrolling along a Berlin canal was not surprised at all when he saw a young lady jump off into the water. However, he darted to rescue her. The poor woman received first aid and was sent to a mental hospital where those who attempted a suicide were compulsorily institutionalised.

“Well, Freulein, can you tell us your name and home address? We found no papers on you,” the doctor asked her gently when she came to herself.

“I have to make an important statement”, said she in a feeble voice. “My name is Anastasia Nikolayevna Romanova. I’m a Russian Princess, Grand Duchess Anastasia, the daughter of the last Russian Emperor, Nicholas. By miracle, I managed to survive the slaughter in Yekaterinburg.”

No, she did not tell the policeman who saved her she was AN, it took her 2 years in the asylum to make the claim.

It's also very unfair to Olga A. by only giving one misleading quote without the rest of the story.

Then there is this complete falsehood

In 1928, every Romanov alive,  totalling twelve people,

Twelve? That was all that signed, not all that was alive.

She died in Charlottesville, Virginia, USA,  in 1984. A single word is carved on her tombstone – “Anastasia”.

Actually she was cremated, but a stone at the site of her ashes in Germany says Anastasia Manahan 1901-1984

It also makes no mention of the DNA tests.

You may say none of this matters, but remember this article may be the only thing some people see about the story, and will be misinformed. How do such mistakes get by?

There are factual mistakes in the media far too often these days. Budgets are being cut along with jobs. That's why I say, repeat a lie often enough, and people start to think it's true.

But, to wrap this up, Rob has clearly explained what a surviving grand duchess' inheritance would have been. The question has been answered.

[Annie]

There are factual mistakes in the media far too often these days. Budgets are being cut along with jobs. That's why I say, repeat a lie often enough, and people start to think it's true.

That's why they should be careful about stating facts that aren't.

But, to wrap this up, Rob has clearly explained what a surviving grand duchess' inheritance would have been. The question has been answered.

Yes, it has so technically this thread should be closed. (just like the 'how to do you put someone on ignore' went OT after the answer from FA that you can't do it for posts. Allowing threads to continue OT and fester into attacks and fights are a shameful detriment to a forum)

[LisaDavidson]

It appears, in fact that it has been locked.

Please bear in mind that there are nearly 10K topics on this site and over 300K posts, so in fact, unless drawn to our attention, such situations can occur.