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.

Messages - stacey

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11
The Final Chapter / Re: rape
« on: November 27, 2005, 11:52:37 AM »
Okay, I can understand people who've seen a particular topic discussed ad nauseum being tired of hearing it brought up once again--but I don't think it's fair to jump on someone new here for asking a sincere question. As someone said, there are a huge number of threads in this site and to expect us newbies to be familiar with all of them is not terribly realistic--I myself am coming across new things all the time. Which is good, I'm certainly not complaining about having lots of interesting things to look at, but for someone fairly new it is a bit overwhelming at first--of course we're going to miss some things til we get it all sorted out! And as for the idea that perhaps the Grand Duchesses might have been sexually abused--yes, it's very disturbing to imagine any young girl suffering such an indignity, but really! We're not a lot of sheltered Victorian spinsters here--surely we can discuss (tastefully of course) the widely-reported rumors of such assaults without resorting to smelling salts and fits of the vapours!! (Or losses of our tempers for that matter!) And the fact that persons close to the IF didn't support such rumors is not automatic proof that SOMETHING unpleasant didn't happen--first, these people DID have Victorian sensibilites about discussing sexual matters and second, it would have probably seemed to them like a betrayal of these young girls to suggest that such a thing might have happened, considering that in those days for a girl to have been raped was considered an absolute shame and a personal disgrace, however innocent the victim might have been. Let's act like adults here please!!

The Myth and Legends of Survivors / Re: Calling all judges!
« on: November 27, 2005, 07:11:28 AM »
To be honest, I was pretty much "on the fence" regarding AA's claim to be Anastasia until the DNA results were announced. I had actually been leaning somewhat in the direction of AA BEING Anastasia for several years, reading all I could find about this fascinating mystery. It's really this whole debate that got me interested in the Romanovs to begin with--and after that I found them very interesting in themselves. I first began to have serious doubts about AA's claim when reading the book "The Lost Princess" by James Blair Lovell (I hope I'm remembering his name correctly!) This was due to AA's increasingly bizarre and hard-to-believe claims (at least to me) about such things as a FIFTH Romanov daughter and other astonishing remarks AA made to Mr. Lovell. I really began to have serious doubts then, altho I reminded myself that by then AA was a very old lady and increasingly eccentric, so maybe she could still be "the real thing", just behaving a little, shall we say, outrageously? So I was still officially "undecided" until I heard the DNA results. After that, I just couldn't bring myself to believe that AA was truly Anastasia. What totally floored me was the evidence that AA may actually have been Franziska Schankowska (sorry, I probably butchered that name! I mean "the Polish peasant" anyway!) I was utterly stunned by that, since the only thing I WAS certain of, was that AA was no Polish peasant!!  ::) Oh well, so much for my "insight"! But I have to say: do I WISH that AA had really been Anastasia? YES I DO. I would LOVE for someone to have survived that awful massacre. And if anyone could have, it would probably have been the spirited and courageous GD Anastasia. So I'm really not happy to count myself among the "nonbelievers". I truly wish I could believe that Anastasia, or at least SOMEONE, survived those terrible murders in Ekaterinburg.

Nastya, you're right!! Thanks for pointing it out, I hadn't noticed that before! Yes, on the Anastasia section we'd been talking about why she wore bangs/a fringe (depending on which side of the Atlantic we're on!) and the consensus seemed to be that she injured herself in childhood and had a scar on her forehead as a result and so she wore her hair down to cover it. (Sorry, that was a long breathless sentence!) And this woman does indeed have a scar on her forehead which could have been covered by bangs/ a fringe. Hmmm...interesting!

Welcome New Users! Read 1st please. / Re: How do you give yourself an icon?
« on: November 26, 2005, 07:38:51 AM »
Oh help please!! I've tried to download an avatar from photobucket and I thought I did everything right but all mine shows is that stupid little square with the red cross in it (I don't even know what that's called!) A related question: When someone here puts up a photo like that, I know to right-click and pull up the instructions to "Show Picture" but it never works for me!! What on earth am I doing wrong??? And I did add gif to it!!(My avatar I mean!)

I agree, it would make a great movie! So do you guys want me to write up the screenplay and present it to Steven Spielberg?!  ;D

Alexandra Feodorovna / Re: Alexandra and Rasputin
« on: November 22, 2005, 03:06:34 AM »
Oh I do--I feel VERY sorry for her! Alexandra had so much--not only wealth and social status, but a truly remarkable marriage and five lovely children who made her very happy. BUT--there was of course the hemophilia of her son which tortured her incessantly (I cannot begin to imagine what that must have done to both her physical and psychological health--I wonder if she really wouldn't have qualified nowadays as suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder--what do you folks think?) And except within the embrace of her husband and children and an extremely limited circle of friends and court ladies (Vyrubova, Lili Dehn, etc) she was very very lonely and her status, her aloofness and her shyness conspired to keep her that way. Her religion was a comfort to her, true, but it was an odd kind of religion--a strange hybrid of the Lutheranism of her birth, combined with a very emotional and symbol-laden personal version of Orthodoxy which even the Orthodox Russians themselves found peculiar. And even in that passionate religion she felt rejected by God, which is why she clung so desperately to Rasputin--she believed that for some reason God was refusing to answer her prayers for her son, but that God was willing and able to work thru Rasputin to help heal and comfort Alexei--so of course she could not let Rasputin go!!! Alix NEVER betrayed her husband or her wedding vows--NEVER. I'll go further and state that she was never in the slightest even TEMPTED to have any affair with anyone, least of all Rasputin. The very idea would have been revolting and repugnant to her. Nicholas was truly her soul-mate, in every sense of the word. And while Nicholas undoubtedly did have some affairs before marrying Alix (he even confessed them to her before the wedding and she very magnanamously (sp?) forgave him) I am equally convinced that he was totally faithful to his beloved wife thru the entirety of their marriage--from the wedding day(and even earlier) to the tragic night that they died together. It's true that many royal MEN had affairs and mistresses while married--but I would bet my life that Nicholas never did. He just loved Alix too much.

Alexandra Feodorovna / Re: Re: Alexandra and her Health Part 2
« on: November 22, 2005, 02:45:57 AM »
I absolutely do not believe that Alexandra had any kind of "psychotic" tendencies--that would be the technical form of the term "nutcase". ;)Neurotic though? Probably. "Hysteria" is a difficult term too, it's so loaded with Victorian/Freudian overtones (betcha never thought you'd see Victoria and Freud juxtaposed like that now did you?! ;D). Yes, she did show occasional "meltdowns" but I think they were understandable, considering all the strain under which she lived--her position in society, her son's poor health, the constant threat of assassination/revolution, her own unpopularity even within the Romanov family, her truly pathological shyness (yes, meds probably could have helped her there), and yes, her own instability. But I don't think that "instability" really went beyond the boundaries of some pretty "neurotic" behavior. To me the most disturbing trait she showed would be her "paranoia" as the poster above just mentioned. She did seem to be very defensive and suspicious of anyone who was not in complete agreement with her own view of how the Empire should be run. Exactly where and when and how that suspiciousness arose I'm not too clear about. But I do think it had a lot to do with her fears for her son's future, and that possibly could be traced back to those awful first weeks when she first realized she had borne a son with a deadly disease, which came from her. If anything truly "unhinged" poor unhappy Alix, I think that was it--Alexei's hemophilia and her own guilt at having passed it on to him.

Not meaning to go off-topic, but as famous royal phantom-pregnancies were mentioned---another famous sufferer was Henry V111's daughter Mary (aka "Bloody Mary"). She never did have a child, to her immense regret, but during her unhappy marriage to Philip of Spain, she several times "believed" herself to be pregnant, to the point of having all the classic symptoms of a pregnancy. This was apparently due to her intense desire to have a child and an heir.

Anastasia Nicholaievna / Re: Did Anastasia feel unloved?
« on: November 21, 2005, 01:22:23 AM »
I kind of agree with all of the above--now am I being diplomatic or what?? ::) I think we're all rather oversimplifying a very complex situation. I expect ANY child, in ANY family, sometimes feels unloved, if only because parents inevitably will have to put a foot down at some point and say, "No, you can't have/do this" and kids often feel this means their parents don't really love them. Sometimes when I was especially disappointed in my parents, I would decide I MUST have been adopted--no parents could treat their own flesh-and-blood so horribly! (Usually their "offense" was telling me I couldn't have any more candy or something equally reprehensible ;D). Remember, children think in very black-and-white terms--either you love me (always let me do exactly what I want) or you hate me (set limits or disappoint me in some way, i.e. prove that even parents are only human!) The situation for the Romanov children was even more complex because their father was, after all, the vastly wealthy and powerful Emperor of All The Russias and thus more than just an ordinary "Papa"--and because the youngest, Alexei, have the double burden of being heir to a great Empire AND the terrible diagnosis of hemophilia. So he was very unlike most little brothers in these regards. It must have affected how his older sisters viewed him--there probably WAS some innate jealousy since he was the center of attention, but still they loved and treasured him. I know this is very long-winded--sorry--but I guess I'm saying, sure sometimes Anastasia felt unloved--as did her siblings sometimes, as do probably ALL children sometimes--but WAS she unloved? Absolutely not, never!!! Nicholas and Alexandra loved all their children with all their hearts--"favorites" or not.

Anastasia Nicholaievna / Re: Favorite Perfume?
« on: November 20, 2005, 11:26:36 PM »
Yes, and it's interesting to note that they were all manufactured by "Coty" which of course is still around--so you might be able to find something very similar indeed!!  :D

Anastasia Nicholaievna / :-/Re: Anastasia's "figure"
« on: November 20, 2005, 11:21:44 PM »
I have so much sympathy for Anastasia! Her two oldest sisters were always tall and slender and willowy, and while Marie did go thru a brief period of "baby fat" she did have the height to handle it, and anyway slimmed down pretty quickly. Poor Anastasia! She was always short and at that height (or lack of it!) unless you're VERY slim and small-boned the slightest bit of extra weight will give you that dumpy look, even if you're not THAT much overweight. I,er,speak as an expert here.  :-[ From what I've read, Anastasia was just over 5' tall, maybe about 5'2" tops. I'm about the same height, and I promise you, if my weight goes much over 110 pounds I start to look like a turkey dumpling.  ;D My own guess is that Anastasia was between 135-140 pounds at her plumpest--cause I know how I looked at about that weight when I was 16. HELLO---it wasn't pretty!!!! I do think that as Anastasia got a little older she too would have lost weight and had a figure much more along the lines of Marie's--slim but with nice curves, never of course as willowy as Olga and Tatiana--she just didn't have the height for that! *sigh* Height can help out a lot--for a much more recent example. NOT to criticize the late Queen Mother (I liked her and admired her) but as she got into even her twenties, and especially into middle age, she became, I have to say, kind of "dumpy" like Anastasia. Why? Cause like Anastasia (and me!!) she was short! In order to retain a trim figure at our height, you have to stay very slim--and yes, as a matter of fact, I AM whining!!!  :D I envy you tall people!!! And I expect poor Anastasia did too--remember when Alexandra was commenting that "A is getting very fat" she added "to her despair"?? How well I know THAT feeling! Still, at that age we all tend to be a little dramatic, and I still think Anastasia was lovely. Plus she had that wonderful sparkling personality and a terrific sense of humor--I doubt if she wasted TOO much time worrying about her figure!!  ;)

Anastasia Nicholaievna / Re: About that hair-style....
« on: November 20, 2005, 08:08:23 PM »
Now I'm wondering about the question of whether or not Anastasia had a widow's peak? I'm curious because I have one, and as a child I also wore bangs (a fringe for our neighbors over the pond!!)  ;D Now that I'm an adult I wear my hair long and my hair is drawn straight back from my forehead and usually tied into a knot at the back--yes, I'm too lazy to do it up properly!! I'm trying to decide if my widow's peak makes it easier to wear bangs or not--my vote is not, because it makes bangs kind of hard to manage, like having a "cowlick".  Still it never stopped me wearing bangs for years! And I do wonder why they're called "bangs" and why it's plural--it really doesn't make much sense!!

Tatiana Nicholaievna / Re: Bone in Tatiana's Nose
« on: November 20, 2005, 06:12:48 PM »
What a relief! When I first saw the title of this thread I had a horrifying mental image of the lovely and refined Tatiana running around with a bone stuck thru her nose like some kind of savage!!  ::) I do think she was the most beautiful of the girls, altho all of them were lovely (and thank heaven none of them wore bones thru their pretty noses!!  ;D) but I suspect most of the different "images" we see of Tatiana's nose are due mostly to the angle of the camera and light/shadow effects. I do wish we had at least a few genuine full-color photos of the girls--I've heard their coloring described, but it's still hard to picture and also some of the accounts seem to contradict each other!  ???

Tatiana Nicholaievna / Re: GD Tatiana's Illness
« on: November 20, 2005, 05:10:35 PM »
Er---no antibiotics in existence in 1913 (first used to treat wounded soldiers during WW11)--so poor Tatiana had to fight the infections off all on her own basically. This is a fascinating thread, until I read something about it on here just last night I had no idea Tatiana had had this illness or lost her hair twice--in 1913 AND 1917, after the measles. Poor girl!!

Tatiana Nicholaievna / Re: Question about and/or Help with a Picture
« on: November 20, 2005, 04:50:55 AM »
 :-[ Okay--I stand corrected! Back to the history books!

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10 11