Author Topic: Re: So who WAS she, then?  (Read 94461 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: So who WAS she, then?
« Reply #15 on: October 28, 2004, 10:48:36 AM »
The range of conspiracy could range from a simple factory worker reading about the wealth which could be gained by deciet.... to a full bloom conspiracy from the top which was Lenin/Stalin  who wanted to cover the truth.

I used the word  "revolutionary" because it appears Anna Anderson knew information about the Royal Family which she would not have gained through newspapers/ mag. or casual conversations.  Therefore,  I'm leaning toward Lenin/Stalin.  Which means,  I don't think Anna Anderson  was a woman who jumped into a canal and ended up, just by chance,  in a bed, where for some reason,  someone thought she looked like Anastasia and her story was carried like wild fire to the Romanovs and others.    Too many puzzle  pieces do not fit for the mundane.  More puzzel pieces fit if the picture is that of a conspiracy.

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

IlyaBorisovich

  • Guest
Re: So who WAS she, then?
« Reply #16 on: October 28, 2004, 10:57:40 AM »
AGRBear,

Any piece will fit into any puzzle if you use a hammer.  Voltaire said, "Simplify, simplify."  The axion of engineering is K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple, Stupid).  The more complex a conspiracy, the more chances there are for the whole thing to unravel.  The mundane knows no such annoyances, but stands on its own long after conspiracy theories bog down in their own ludicrocity.  Mudanes of the world, unite!

Ilya

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: So who WAS she, then?
« Reply #17 on: October 28, 2004, 11:20:10 AM »
So who WAS she?

A   Berliner?

A Polish immigrant?

A Russian immigrant?

I don't think she was:  
(1)Just someone who happen to have  ears are shaped like Anatasia [one of the ways people were indenitifed in those years], (2) who has scars that resembled she'd been injured by bayonets, (3)  who had ____ bunyans,  (4) same color eyes,  (5) same color hair,  (6)  about the right height,  (7) a shape of the face, eyes and chin which were similar,  (8 ) who didn't have any family that came forth and said she belonged to them, (9) who acted more like a GD than a farm girl would have.....

Don't need a hammer to pound these puzzel pieces into place.

I don't understand why so many of you reject the theory of a conspircy?   Just as I don't understand why some of you are worried if  her background was "mundane" or not.  

Let's help Penny Wilson and Greg King  find  the truth of:  WHO WAS SHE.

To me,  this is an exciting journey.  But then,  I always find the discovery of truth exciting.

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

rskkiya

  • Guest
Re: So who WAS she, then?
« Reply #18 on: October 28, 2004, 11:22:19 AM »
Ilya!

--While in my vanity ( ;)) I dislike the "M" word - clearly such notions make a lot more sense than most popular conspiricies.
  For  the sake of arguement I don't quite understand who AA was if she was not Fransisca  S., but this is still an unusual topic.

Rskkiya

IlyaBorisovich

  • Guest
Re: So who WAS she, then?
« Reply #19 on: October 28, 2004, 03:47:13 PM »
Quote
AGRBear,

Any piece will fit into any puzzle if you use a hammer.  Voltaire said, "Simplify, simplify."  The axion of engineering is K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple, Stupid).  The more complex a conspiracy, the more chances there are for the whole thing to unravel.  The mundane knows no such annoyances, but stands on its own long after conspiracy theories bog down in their own ludicrocity.  Mudanes of the world, unite!


I forgot to add these words of wisdom:  

"The more pipes they put in, the easier it is to stop up the drain," and,

"Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me."

-Chief Engineer Montogomery "Scotty" Scott, USS Enterprise

I will ponder your "imagination flight" and let you know what I uncover.

Ilya

Dashkova

  • Guest
Re: So who WAS she, then?
« Reply #20 on: October 28, 2004, 04:07:41 PM »
I still agree with Ilya!  And also Voltaire (whom I adore).

I recently learned very well the truth in the "simplify, simplify" idea.  While working on a major project dealing with the Bayeux Tapestry it was SO easy and **tempting** to go off on ten dozen tangents.  It is COMPLEX, many-tentacled and treacherous, just like the Romanov saga.

If you allow yourself to become entangled you will never find the truth.

If you keep it simple I think you will be surprised at what pops up.

IlyaBorisovich

  • Guest
Re: So who WAS she, then?
« Reply #21 on: October 28, 2004, 04:30:13 PM »
Quote
If not Anastasia or Franziska Schanzkowska, then who was Anna Anderson?  How about this theory? Could Mrs. Unknown [FU] been a very well informed revolutionary who ended up liking the good life and enjoyed the game of being whom her new rich and royal friends wanted her to be, and, too,  she probably believed she should have been born a Grand Duchess, and, in old age,   her mind allowed her to be who she wasn't?


I would assume that if she were a Revolutionary planted by Lenin/Stalin that she most likely would have been liquidated by the KGB the moment she started to enjoy her new life or show any signs of mental instability.  If she were a plant she wouldn't have been allowed to deteriorate like that at the risk of revealing her "secret."  Stalin was much too careful and/or paranoid for that.

Ilya

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: So who WAS she, then?
« Reply #22 on: October 29, 2004, 02:14:46 PM »
If you'd like to rule out Stalin,  that is fine,  since Lenin was dictator at that time and was probably the one involved if the conspiracy went the distant to Moscow.

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

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Offline Robert_Hall

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6649
  • a site.
    • View Profile
Re: So who WAS she, then?
« Reply #23 on: October 29, 2004, 03:04:17 PM »
Lenin died in 1924. I doubt very much that he spent any time at all concerned about a bunch of silly, politically impotent Romanovs.
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.

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: So who WAS she, then?
« Reply #24 on: October 29, 2004, 03:14:50 PM »
Not true.

Lenin worried a great deal about the masses and their devotion to the Tsar.

The peasant's devotion went deeply into their religion and the priests were talking as fast as they could about the "evil" of the Bolsheviks who didn't believe in God.

Lenin knew that anytime,  if the right person came along and swooped up Alexei and carried him back to the throne that he could lose his gripe on Russia....

Remember,  the Reds and the Whites were even in their so-called Civil War and it wasn't until 1925 that things finally fell toward the Reds.

It is my opinion,  of course, but I think Lenin had a huge interest in Anna Anderson....  And his part of her story may never be known.

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 Annie

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4757
    • View Profile
    • Anna Anderson Exposed!
Re: So who WAS she, then?
« Reply #25 on: October 29, 2004, 03:20:36 PM »
I know, I said I'd stay out of this and here I am. I'll try to be as 'civil' as possible. Don't you think if she were the daughter of someone at court she'd have spoken Russian? I don't see why it's a 'simple' or 'mundane' idea to guess she was the daughter of someone at court, it is kind of a stretch to me considering the (lack of) evidence. But by all means keep exploring.

Offline Robert_Hall

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6649
  • a site.
    • View Profile
Re: So who WAS she, then?
« Reply #26 on: October 29, 2004, 05:01:32 PM »
Annie, it could be just as possible that she might have been the daughter of someone who did not speak Russian. It was a pretty international court and family, afetr all. At the same time, spending enough time around Russian speakers, she also could have been familiar with the language, but not secure enough with it to actually speak it ??
Cheers,
Robert
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.

Offline Annie

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4757
    • View Profile
    • Anna Anderson Exposed!
Re: So who WAS she, then?
« Reply #27 on: October 29, 2004, 05:03:56 PM »
Well I won't even speculate since I am more than convinced she was FS so I will duck out of this thread.

rskkiya

  • Guest
Re: So who WAS she, then?
« Reply #28 on: October 29, 2004, 05:57:24 PM »
I think Annie is right about this point-- as far as I can tell Anna was Francesksa...The more ifs we throw into this equation the sillier it seems --- By the way are there any books that the folks here would suggest about the "Identity" issue?

Rskkiya

PS.
Agrbear
Your faith in "the peasant's devotion to the Tsar" seems as sentimental, romantic and unjustifiable as Nicholas' similar notion...Too bad!
R ;)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by rskkiya »

Dashkova

  • Guest
Re: So who WAS she, then?
« Reply #29 on: October 29, 2004, 06:49:01 PM »
Oh God...what fun I've been missing....lol.

PLEASE someone who believes that peasants were in ANY way devoted to the worthless tsar, PLEASE post some quotes from peasants who expressed these views.

Quotes from nobility/aristocracy (unless said individuals were actually *living* among the peasants, and yes there were a few) won't do.