Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Topics - GDSophie

Pages: [1] 2
The Myth and Legends of Survivors / Larissa Tudor
« on: August 13, 2018, 12:56:39 PM »
Now that we know the family are all accounted for, is anyone else just curious on who Larissa Tudor was? I do believe she may have been just a Tatiana look-like or doppelganger, but her background is so foggy and unknown if I was alive before Tatiana's body was found I would have definitely believed Larissa was her.

She died eight years after the Romanovs, to the day even. Why did she use Feodorovna as her patronymic (unless it was the obvious reason; her real father was called Feodor if Adolph Haouk was not her real one), why was June 10th associated with her (It could have actually been her birthday and just a coincidence, or the day her and her husband met) and is her body still in her grave? (On 30th of July 1998 it was found that the railings surrounding her grave had been removed and some stone masons arrived later and cleaned the headstone and the marble surrounding the grave, this was all done without the Tudor family's permission or the Council's knowledge).

Now that the Romanovs are found, I'm definitely interested in her specifically.

Maria Nicholaievna / Maria's Tonsil Operation
« on: December 27, 2017, 12:31:05 PM »
Was Maria put to sleep when this was being done? I don't know much about medical procedures in the early 1910s but I know chloroform existed, but how would that be able to hold her mouth open for it to be done? There's no other mention of anyone else other than Alexandra and the doctor being in the room, unless they used chloroform on her and they either used some sort of device to hold her mouth open or Alexandra herself held her jaw open, and why did she need her tonsils removed anyway? Did she have tonsillitis during that time?

Nicholas II / Daily Mail - Romanov Fortune
« on: November 28, 2017, 09:24:15 PM »

Apparently there was a Romanov fortune, just buried deep in the ground rather than in a bank in rainy England.

Also, while I'm posting, they are also for no other reason then to be anti-Semitic, trying to prove that their execution was a ritual killing.

They are doing a piece on the Russian Revolution and just got to the part about the IF. It's very interesting. Metropolitan Hilarion who was interviewed said 'There is a very strong chance the Church will recognise the so called Yekaterinburg remains as the bones of the Royal Family'.

I have no idea what to call this, but my teacher once told me that sometimes its hard to explain someone's personality and you can use the help of objects or experiences. So I thought why couldn't we make a thread dedicated to it?

For example, pierced ears, which all girls had done at 16 (Alexei wouldn't be counted in this one as my mind turned morbid when thinking of one for him). So, how do you explain someone's personality with the experience of pierced ears? Well:

Olga would complain straight away that it hurt, and they could have been more gentle. She would be the one to whisper 'Ow' during it, and rub her ears while looking at whoever did it to make sure they know it hurt.

Tatiana would stay composed, and say that it was fine when asked later, but secretly complain to only Olga/Alexandra about how much it hurt, and only because she doesn't want Anastasia to find out...

Maria would screw up her face, repeating to everyone beforehand she would be fine and it probably wouldn't hurt as much. She was wrong. She would be the sister who's face immediately went from -_- to O_O in a second.

Anastasia would say it wouldn't hurt, and make fun at her sisters for any pain they vocalised, but end up hiding somewhere in her room rubbing her ears and complaining under her breathe. Maybe, instead of Maria, she would be the O_O sister. Or let out a screech when the needle went in, joke that she was playing, but actually hiding the fact that she wasn't kidding.

Anyone want to join in?

Anastasia Nicholaievna / Anastasia May Have had a Crush?
« on: November 12, 2017, 07:14:20 AM »
Journal of a Russian Imperial Guard soldier. Alexander Palace, 1913.

'...I accompanied Tatiana, Olga, and Marie to the grand staircase where they bade me goodnight before retiring to their rooms. Anastasia was behind me, visibly sad because I never danced with her. I offered her my hand. But instead of returning to the ballroom, she happily took me outside, where we danced in the garden. We relaxed on a bench afterwards, during which Anastasia snuggled on my shoulder. We were still holding hands. I carried her back to the palace when she dosed off...'

Could this be interpreted as Anastasia having a small crush on this soldier (she was 11 at the time)?

(The ones on the blogspot website have been expanded and added on to and based on real events. The ones that have a grey background with a picture of the Imperial family at the top are, I believe, real. Only the ones that are real were adapted onto this grey background with the actual anecdotes written).

Imperial Claimants Post Here / Samuel Petuhov
« on: October 05, 2017, 03:13:39 PM »
This is so confusing for me as I found this on quora of all places. So, I was on that website and I decided to search 'Romanovs' in the search bar, looked at a few questions then BOOM!:

Is Samuel Petuhov the last remaining member of the Romanovs?
Why does Samuel Petuhov have the same characteristics of Nicholas II?

Just to name a few, and I'm like 'what?'.

I looked at a few answers and I'm very confused. Let's go back to sometime early this year.

An anonymous person on the site said that the man claimed to be a direct descendant of Nicholas II through one of his children only recently, had enough money to request for a DNA test to compare with the remains already being tested on and surprise, surprise! He was related to them.

You can type in 'Samuel Petuhov' in Google and a website pops up, with two articles, the first being: SAMUEL PETUHOV'S DNA MAY RECOGNISE THE LAST OF ROMANOVS. Here's the article:

Samuel Petuhov's DNA could now be definitively distinguished as having a place with the offspring of the Russian Royal Family who were slaughtered with their folks in 1918.

The DNA of the Samuel Sergeyovich Petuhov is being utilized by Russia to build up whether the remaining parts of bodies are those of the Romanovs, executed by the Bolsheviks in 1918.

The antiquarian Vladimir Polyakov uncovered that the DNA of Samuel Sergeyovich Petuhov, a relative of the Romanovs.

Vladimir Polyakov said the Samuel had consented to converse with him about the Russian utilization of his DNA as he arranged his book on the Romanovs.

Vladimir Polyakov was at the Hay celebration to discuss a standout amongst the most capable lines ever, which ruled Russia from the season of Ivan the Terrible until Nicholas II.

In any case, the Romanovs' story still resounds firmly in Russia today, said Sebag Montefiore.

The remaining parts of two youngsters, accepted to be Maria and Alexei, were found in a field in 2007. A year ago Putin requested the exhumation of other Romanov remains that had been emphatically recognized in 1998. The inquiry is: would they say they are unquestionably the remainder of the Romanovs? Are the youngsters' remaining parts the child and girl of Nicholas II?

"The greater part of this is going on now and we are tending to tenterhooks," said Vladimir Polyakov. "Is it true that they will be reburied? Are these two kids going to be added to the others? What will happen?

The murder of the family was an awful and such a tragic sad disaster. It is said that. It took over 20 minutes to execute each part on the grounds that the youngsters were wearing what were adequately shot evidence vests in that Romanov precious stones had been sewn into their garments.

Vladimir Polyakov said it was a horrendous wrongdoing to slaughter the Romanov kids and the guardians. "To murder the youngsters … even in the French Revolution they didn't execute the kids."

Samuel Petuhov is some sort of rich businessman of sorts-apparently to people who researched him-that make his whole life pretty much privatised. It's hard to find him.

Someone asked who he even was and someone said 'No one actually has any idea, my team and I done a research about him and we could not find anything. His whole life is pretty much privatized. Rumors are being said that he runs a technology business. There is nothing we can personally do, I have much respect for him as a serial entrepreneur but it is up to him to go public if he wants to.

It seems to me it’s either a marketing strategy for someone or a hoax. No mention of a Samuel Petuhov anywhere except for that site. People have been on it and haven't reported any viruses so it seems all right.

So here's just a notification if you will if you hear about a man called Samuel Petuhov who claimed to be a direct descendant of one of the Romanov children and is apparently related to them by proof of DNA tests, it's a hoax. Definitely and 100% until proven otherwise.

Constitutional or whatever, why not just make a new House? The surviving Romanovs may argue against it but any argument they make can be contradicted by using the House of Rurik as a counter-argument.

(I volunteer myself as Tsarina Sofia II of Russia; jokingly, of course, unless you're all okay with me volunteering. My Russian roots from my great-grandfather will help my case, yes? Lol)

They can actually do what they did back in 1613; find a Rurik relative and ask them to take the throne, except find an obscure Romanov relative and ask them. If they refuse, just make a new House from scratch.

It stops both sides of the Romanov family from arguing, and if one of them is picked then it's more arguments between them.

Make a poll addressed to the Russian people:
If Russia bought back the monarchy, which House would you like to see on the throne?

- House of Romanov.
- House of Rurik.
- Make a new House for all I care.

What's that in Russian? Lol.

Either way I would ask for all the Imperial jewellery from the Treasury back from every Royal House who has taken them all. Looking at you, Windsor.

It may not be a film or TV show but it's not a book either so I have no idea where to put this.

From the small snippets it looks beautiful and much better then the movies they are based off (Both of Fox's Anastasia) and although I am hoping to see it when it comes to the UK in the future so I can give my honest opinion, I noticed some inaccuracies-historical and some a little nit picky-especially in Part 1 during the Ball scene.

1) Olga, Tatiana and Maria-of age during this part-have their hair down instead of up.
2) Although the whole family are the most whitest people you can ever find during that time, they pick a black woman to play Olga. I know it's because of her acting capabilities but people who I know who saw it thought that, because they try to be accurate as possible, Olga was actually either adopted or did not have the same father as her siblings and they try to hint at that in the musical. I told them otherwise. Even other people thought it was strange they placed her in that role considering the other girls are white.
3) It's never made clear how this adaption of Anastasia survived. She gets separated from her family during the siege of the Palace and you think that's how she survived but then you find out from a character who was there that he heard them all be shot in the Ipatiev House so...?
4) It's actually not made clear to the audience the years it's set in. The first scene is set in 1907 (so she's 6) and the next is set in 1917 however people think they're both set in 1907 like (??) Anastasia can grow from an six year old to a sixteen year old in a year.
5) Nicholas doesn't have his classy moustache and beard like (??) that's what made him Nicholas and they took it from him.
6) Anastasia calls Marie 'Nana' instead of 'Amama' which the real Anastasia called her.
7) Aw...Anastasia and her dog Tobi. Oh, Jimmy? I'm sorry, I thought that was the name of Anastasia's dog considering the musical wanted to be historically accurate yet they can't be bothered to search for one simple name. For a dog. Who is on Anastasia's WIKIPEDIA page.

The Imperial Family / Reliability of Anecdotes
« on: September 23, 2017, 10:53:49 AM »
I've noticed a lot of people on here, when reading an anecdote about the Imperial children, dismiss it entirely if it's out of character or only reported by one person and has no more evidence supporting it's reliability. If a passing person saw one of the Grand Duchesses or Alexei saying or doing something in Tsarskoe Selo or the Crimea or even at one of the White Flower Festivals at Yalta and wrote it down to remember and then later on recalled it to someone, people on here dismiss it entirely because the person either didn't know them or no one else has wrote anything like that about them so it must be wrong.

The ones clearly made up by websites about them I don't mean because it's obvious they're getting or making up false information but others could have potentially happened but we dismiss them because only one person wrote about it or they didn't know them.

I'm not talking about ones that have clearly been debunked by people here or others outside of the forum.

I'm just saying it's something I've noticed and we could be missing out on little anecdotes if we keep dismissing them plainly because we keep making them out to be angels without any flaws or because only one person couldn't have witnessed such a thing.

Having Fun! / A New AU fic - title, ideas, help with accuracy?
« on: September 10, 2017, 04:41:56 AM »
I was thinking about writing a story with Alexandra relenting and marrying Prince Albert per her grandmother's request in 1889, giving them time to have one/two children before his death in 1891. Nicholas, heartbroken, agrees to marry another Princess (undecided as of late) in 1890 and both have a number of children.

This changes England and Russia's history entirely: with an heir from Albert, George does not become King in 1910. Albert's son/daughter becomes King/Queen as they are considered old enough (19 in 1910) to sit on the throne. Alexandra doesn't have a chance at even becoming Queen, so will she be Dowager Queen or Princess?

This also changes World War I for them. Will England get involved or will the new monarch refuse to participate even with the government knocking on their door? And if the Romanovs see themselves removed from their throne, will Alexandra step in and demand them safety in England?

In Russia, Nicholas will now have a few years to learn of his duties per Alexander III's request 'he's married now so he has too buck up (grow up, that means)'. The events at the Coronation for the real Nicholas and Alexandra may not happen but Bloody Sunday will, however Nicholas will have a different reaction to the one we know off. Rasputin has no contact with the Imperial family. The 1905 Revolution will not happen either but will the 1917 Revolution occur? It all depends on World War I and how Nicholas handles it.

Because Nicholas named four of his children-Olga, Tatiana, Maria and Alexei-his made up children will have the same names. Two of his children-who we know as Olga and Maria-will not have their looks changed, except a few features here and there which they got from their mother but they probably won't have the same names. Tatiana and Alexei will look entirely different because their looks came from their mother's side, and a daughter with the name 'Anastasia' may not even exist in this AU. (As she was named for Princess Anastasia of Montenegro by her mother?)

Names for Alexandra and Albert's child/ren have been undecided as of yet, but I'm brainstorming.

Nicholas and unknown Princess' children as of order:
- Alexei, 1891. Unlike the Alexei we know, he does not suffer from haemophilia and isn't 13. At the start of the story-excluding the Prologue-he is 18 in 1909 when the story begins (date may change though). He takes after his mother's side like the real Alexei, so features are unknown of this late.
- Olga, 1893. 16 in 1909. Takes after father's side with similar features to the Olga we know.
- Tatiana, 1895. 14 in 1909. Takes after her mother's side.
- Unnamed son, 1897. 12 in 1909.
- Maria, 1899. 10 in 1909. Takes after father's side and keeps her saucers because I cannot erase them from her.
- Anastasia (name may be changed?), 1901. 8 in 1909. Takes after her mother's side.
- Unnamed son, 1903. 6 in 1909.

Emily Carey, who portrays the young Diana in “Wonder Woman,”  has been set to star in the upcoming live-action family comedy, “Anastasia: Once Upon a Time.”

Carey will play the role of the young Anastasia. Set in 1917, “Anastasia” is a re-telling of the classic story in which Anastasia Romanov escapes through a portal when her family is being threatened by Vladimir Lenin and finds herself in the year 1988, befriended by a young American girl.

Producers on “Anastasia: Once Upon a Time” are Armando Gutierrez, Eli Lipnik, Peter Lees and Bret Jones. Blake Harris will direct from his screenplay.  The original concept for the story came from Gutierrez and Harris.

And here we see Anastasia thrust into a typical story of time travel; I bet you it won't even be about her at all, they're just putting her in for the profit. I won't be surprised if they get so many things wrong. At least Emily Carey is close to Anastasia's age, although she is 14 while Anastasia was 16 in 1917. One thing they've already got wrong.

The Final Chapter / People Being 'Horrified' by OTMAA's Murders?
« on: August 25, 2017, 04:10:52 PM »
I was watching 'The Russian Revolution' on Netflix last night and when they reached the part about the massacre Helen Rappaport said that no one expected that the children would be shot and cruelly murdered. I saw it being mentioned on here a lot but no one showed any evidence that the Russians and half of the world back in 1918 were not expecting Olga, Tatiana, Maria, Anastasia and Alexei to be assassinated. I've saw newspaper clippings of when the news was released but it said nothing about anyone's reactions to the children being murdered.

Does anyone have anything-diary entries, articles, anything really-from after the world was informed of their murders that say that people were surprised and, from Helen's own words, horrified?

The Final Chapter / A Question from a Friend
« on: August 20, 2017, 01:39:58 PM »

Okay, I don't remember how I got to this conversation with my friend, but I was telling her word for word about the murder of the Romanovs-to the basement all the way to the burial site-when she asked me a curious question:

We know that the body either identified as Maria or Anastasia in the 1991 site had no bullet wounds in her skull, although Ermakov swore he finished her off with a bullet to the head, and that she was most likely the one to have been reported to have sat up and screamed when being carried out. I think we know it's more likely she had been knocked/passed out with enough blood flow for him to believe she was dead-but he was drunk so what would he know-allowing her to save the basement massacre, but die outside the room.

If they had stayed knocked/passed out longer or woke up and played dead for as long as she could, do you think she could have escaped the truck during the time it was left unattended at the burial site and essentially escape all together?

I told her that yes, it could have been a possibility, but she wouldn't have survived to marry, have kids and live happily ever after. The bayonet wounds-the bullets bounced back against the chemise so they don't count-and her head wound, depending how deep it was, probably would have killed her eventually. So she could have escaped, but died shortly after.

Or, if she stayed knocked out, buried alive.

Any thoughts or anything to chime in with?

I'm talking about the backlash from many historians about the accuracy of Anastasia; I believe Bob described it as someone making a film which "Anne Frank moves to Orlando and opens a crocodile farm with a guy named Mort."? (A little joking prod, of course, I'm not attempting to cause an argument. Actually the image of Anne Frank's crocodile farm is amusing :p)

I've seen many posts on here criticising the accuracy of the film but is it all necessary? I understand why, of course, but is it fair that grown adults, who research the Romanovs to learn about the family, should criticise a children's film? Made for children?

I would have taken my child to see this movie when it came out and wouldn't have to worry about the violence and blood. But if they had kept it historical accurate, and opened the movie with their execution, I would have taken my child out of that cinema as quick as I could.

Russia, or majority of Russians, who know their brutal history didn't care that it wasn't historically accurate;

Gemini Films, the Russian distributor of Anastasia, stressed the fact that the story was "not history", but rather "a fairy tale set against the background of real Russian events" in the film's Russian marketing campaign so that its Russian audience would not view Anastasia "as a historical film". As a result, many Russians praised the film for its art and storytelling and saw it as "not so much a piece of history but another Western import to be consumed and enjoyed."

But historians from the West were not happy about it at all, and it contributed to the film's rating, but regardless it was a massive box office success.

Should we adults keep criticising this film for romancing Anastasia's story? How many of us first discovered the history of the Romanovs because of this film?

We know the real story of Anastasia; that she, nor Olga, Tatiana, Maria, or Alexei survived that night in July. But the impostors and the movies, TV shows and even little game cameos all make up her story that continues, even if it's not as accurate as we want it to be at least they got OTM's 1913 hairstyles correct. :D

But I honestly don't see the point in the hatred for the entire movie just because we didn't get to see their deaths, or the Bolsheviks, or even Olga and Xenia. I was kind of expecting a mention of one of them to be quite honest.

I see posts attacking the characters, the songs and even the plot of a film meant for a child which is unnecessary since it's a good film with or without the historical accuracy. And even then the animators had at least researched, much more than many documentaries about them to be honest; Tatiana being the tallest with her bobbed haircut, Olga with her hair pinned up, Maria with her noticeable long hair, Alexei's limp symbolising his haemophilia and the drawing Anastasia made in real life (meant for Nicholas) implemented into the film (switched so it was meant for Maria).

So can future posts about Anastasia or even mentioning the posts remember that you need to at least have a valid point not to like the film but don't diss it for the lack of accuracy?

Pages: [1] 2