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