Messages

31

Having Fun! / Re: OTMA Poetry part 2

« on: September 09, 2016, 06:16:22 AM »

You ask for poetry?
Then I will not give you lyric abstractions!
Because they are lifeless.
Like the Romanovs. A dynasty. A concept.
Dead, buried, worn out, like their divine autocracy.
Instead I give you girls and a boy, women, men and a tsarʲ -
shivering under the weight
of a melting crown of ice.

Melting into a puddle of filthy slush
soon to be stained by drops of blood
krásnaya kommunist kommunion krovʲ
Killers, you people of killers, you killers of people.
You killers of a people.

This world is a material word.
Said material girl. Quoting Marx.
Look at the Word Game (Игра в слова)
which the irreverant bear started.
Nothing but nouns!
Concrete nouns.
To hold onto on the ice rink of the world.
Where the ballerinas skate.
Crashing into each other,
blinded by their obscure abstractions.

Edith Södergran sits ringside
petting a cat in her lap
and laughs her contemporary
grand duchesseses' Carelian
summer laugh,
like when Anastasia
no - isn't being mischievous
what an abstract aberration!
that's sooo Olga
but, when Tatiana isn't looking
throws a slimy frog at
Maria reading
Grimm's Le roi grenouille
for the lesson of monsieur Gilliard
secretly eyeing the handsome hockey hunks
on the frozen pond.

I really like that , particularly the first two verses  ;   honest , visceral , sad, devoid of notions of an afterlife. Well done.

32

Having Fun! / Re: OTMA Poetry part 2

« on: September 09, 2016, 06:05:49 AM »

Yeah, Katie, I doubt those murdering thugs gave a damn.  I hope they're enjoying  burning in Hell.

You said it, Tim. I certainly don't imagine them resting in paradise...

This was a nice one, Katie.  Of course, it included my favourite GD, Tatiana.

May I ask why she's your favorite? Just out of curiosity.

But isn't that what makes us better than them , that we are not motivated by vengeance and cruelty ? Even if there was a hell for them to go to, I wouldn't wish it upon them or anyone else for that matter . We have to deal out justice here and now , and even better ,try to prevent such crimes happening in the first place.

33

The Final Chapter / Re: The Remains Identified as Alexei and Maria. Story Closed.

« on: August 14, 2016, 08:55:15 AM »

http://www.angelfire.com/pa/ImperialRussian/blog/index.blog?topic_id=1069628

at bottom of page

34

Having Fun! / Re: How did you become interested in the Romanovs?

« on: August 11, 2016, 10:43:12 AM »

Touched upon the Russian Revolution whilst studying history a decade ago -  bought book on the revolution as a consequence , then Robert Services bio of Lenin , then Massie's book on N and A , and gradually became interested in the minutiae of the last Imperial family , lured in by the drama and tragedy I guess.

35

Having Fun! / Re: Then and now (Locations, clothes, etc)

« on: August 11, 2016, 10:24:36 AM »

Well, if you do mange to get there, have a nice trip.

I will find myself briefly in Frankfurt in late September so I will  make time to see Freidberg , Bad Naheim and Darmstadt as the chance may not arise again for a long time. Maybe if I then posted some new 'now' photos, Bryndis , or someone, could make some new 'then and now' images out of them ?

36

The Myth and Legends of Survivors / Re: Link to the Sites of Various Romanov Claimants

« on: August 11, 2016, 10:15:51 AM »

Even tho this isnt a claimant, i didnt know where to put this link.

Is the wackiest and confusing story i ve ever read

http://cartellingwindows.blogspot.com/2009/03/queen-of-bulshavicks-part-four-of.html

Just chek it out :-S

hahahaha, seriously! What did I just read X D

I hope that whatever this person was smoking they have now stopped.  This makes the likes of 'Boris Romanov' and 'Chocolate Lover' seem credible.

37

The Final Chapter / Re: Attempts of European royal families to save the Imperial family?

« on: August 11, 2016, 08:59:15 AM »

Some issues:

1. "Constitutionality". It's becoming a kind of mantra in this thread. We have to accept that George V could not have behaved otherwise because "he was a constitutional monarch".

Let's check the facts:

There's a government in Russia that has been recognized by Britain and that is an ally in the ongoing war. A representative of that government, the Minister of Foreign Affairs Milyukov, officialy requests Britain to grant asylum to the Imperial Family. The Prime Minister, the head of the Cabinet, which has most information about the situation in Britain, decides to comply with that request of an ally. And then, the Constitutional Monarch George V panicks, and based in some letters that he has received, intervenes to block the whole matter via an informal contact through his secretary with Foreign Secretary Balfour.

Is that what a Constitutional Monarch is supposed to do? Block political decisions taken by a Prime Minister? Bypass the whole political system? Lobby Cabinet ministers in his favour? I am not an expert, but I think that isn't very constitutional.

2. "It would have dented his popularity or the popularity of the institution that is the British Monarchy". If a Monarch is called to do something callous (abandoning a close relative he called his friend fell in extremely dangerous circumstances), there's something very wrong with the system. Maybe he should challenge the system or give up his crown, pack his things and settle in Madeira or other island with a good climate.

3. "The chances of the Imperial family actually getting out of Russia were still pretty remote". That's a bogus argument.

A man is involved in a car crash in a small town and taken to the local hospital with very serious injuries. The only surgeon available refuses to operate him. The wounded man is put again in the ambulance and taken to a further hospital. He dies on the way. The autopsy determines that his chances of survival if he had been operated were small, around 5%. Even so, would the surgeon who refused to operate him get off scot-free? Wouldn't he incur at least moral censure?

And now, let's return to the Russian Imperial Family and George V. Maybe all of them could have been saved. Maybe only the children could have been saved. Maybe the Grand Duchesses (but not Alexey) could have been saved. I am not going to assign probabilities to each of those scenarios. You can make the chances as low as you want. The fact is that George V DID think that there was a real chance of taking them out of Russia to safety in Britain. That is why he acted to block it. If he had thought that was something purely hipotetical that would never materialized he would not have panicked.

"What does remain certain is that the King, by persuading his Government to withdraw their original offer of asylum, deprived the Imperial family of their best, perhaps their only, means of escape." Kenneth Rose, King George V

'George V.. Constitutional monarch...bypassing the political system... Lobbying ministers... maybe he should challenge the system or give up his crown , and settle in a remote place like Madeira' -- a forerunner of Charles III perhaps?

'George panicked..'   he  'bottled it'  as we say in England  ; and at that point in 1917 becoming accustomed to taking on slightly alarmist , paranoid advice from ultra-conservatives determined to save the monarchy from PR disasters during wartime by offering platitudes such as this to the 'working classes'  no matter how slight the threat of trouble. George it seems took little persuading ,and it appears , cleansed himself of any guilt or responsibility too - as we are wont to do when faced with unwelcome facts.

38

Having Fun! / Re: Things that annoy you because you're a Romanov fan

« on: July 08, 2016, 07:47:51 AM »

Agree with you entirely on (2) and (3).

As a pedant, I have to mention the habit of ill-informed writers of describing Nikolai Nikolaievich as Nicholas II's uncle, when he was actually his first cousin once removed (first cousin to Alexander III).

Ann

5) ...When you're accustomed to flitting around Europe without so much as  a passport check , visiting Russia seems a costly , complicated business and puts me off visiting, which is a shame.

1)...Well it is a curiosity more than an annoyance  ( I overstated my indignation) when the process of 'de-mythologising OTMA' goes out the window ( along with common sense ) when it comes to their appearance. Flights of fancy grip the imaginations of contemporaries , historians and fans alike , and much hand wringing ensues over Tatiana's cheekbones or Olga's wide face . Clear waters become muddied , and questionable assumptions go unchallenged  and are endlessly repeated . The prosaic reality is ... OTMA were German . Simple.
Opinions given on the subject of their appearance SHOULD begin with that basic fact in mind . Yet they rarely do . As I said..... curious.

39

The Final Chapter / Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC

« on: June 01, 2016, 07:19:01 AM »

The article itself is of little importance . It is one article and it is hostile to the tsars - hence your disgust , and attempts to savage Greg King and Penny Wilson , two well respected Romanov experts. However , numerous  primary sources , letters , documents , diary entries, etc , ARE important . Nicholas condemns himself in the sources. Sorry if you disagree.

No I did not say extermination was on the Tsars mind, nor am I trying to prove so. Anti-semitic thoughts certainly were .

I questioned why , if Nicholas cared about stability , he would allow these groups to exist , unless it pleased him for them to unleash violence on perceived opponents including Jews . Not being a political party isn't relevant to me. He supported and sympathized with their aims.  Does that make him  Stalin ? Of course not . He was nowhere near as astute or as ruthless. God would see things right in the end and he would answer only to god. Standard despotic amorality coupled with fatalism - a common affliction in tyrants throughout history , as is anti-semitism. Your wish to portray him and his empire as anodyne and essentially benevolent, and even somewhat democratic and progressive , when there is ample evidence to the contrary , baffles me , as does your tendency to compare Tsarism favourably to its repugnant successor - Bolshevism . It's an easy get out clause .  Your tolerance level for Tsarism is higher than mine. Your definition of 'police state' clearly differs from mine.

The 'bad taste'  is your failure to seriously confront and condemn the Tsars personal anti-semitism and to belittle the sufferings of Jews under his rule .

Look, it is very difficult to have a discussion with someone that cannot follow a quite simple argument.

Ok, let's accept your argument: pogroms happened because Nicholas II allowed them to happen. Therefore Nicholas II also allowed his uncle Sergei to be blown to bits, his Minister of Interior Plehve and Prime Minister Stolypin to be murdered, the cruiser Potemkin to mutiny, peasants to plunder manors in the countryside, revolutionary propaganda to be smuggled into Russia, revolutionaries to scape from their place of exile, banks to be robbed and finally, the monarchy to be overthrown.

The Tsar's being an autocratic ruler does not mean that he was all-powerful and had a total control of everything that happened in the Russian Empire. He couldn't.

Let me say what I find not "bad taste", but simply disgusting: Someone joins a forum devoted to the memory of a family that were cruelly murdered, spouts insults ("despot", "amoral" and "tyrant" just in your last post), suggests that they to certain extent deserved their fate (at least, the parents) because they "harbored anti-Semitic thoughts" and shows more sympathy for the murderers ("Yurovsky wanted to minimize their suffering") than for the victims.

If you have a minimum of intellectual honesty, could you answer with YES or NO a simple question?

Did Emperor Nicholas II or Empress Alexandra plan, promote or endorse the beating, robbery, murder or rape of their Jewish subjects? That is, did they take part in organizing pogroms?

Obviously the tsar wasn't some all controlling , all knowing , vengeful maniac responsible for every act of violence in his empire . Only a deluded, rabid anti-monarchist would believe such nonsense.  That is not MY 'simple' argument and you know it . In this case  I am pointing to evidence of his personal anti-semitism (and many would agree there is ample evidence of it) and questioning his handling of , and relationships with , anti-semitism , pogroms , terror groups, etc, in his empire  . What did he have to do to show he was anti-semitic ?  Walk down the Nevsky Prospekt with a placard stating 'I am an anti-semite'

On to the other 'simple' question, and what you find 'simply disgusting'. Considering what we are discussing, I find this an inappropriate moment to accuse ME of all people of behaving in a 'disgusting' manner . You are righteously indignant when people attempt to rationalize George V's decision not to rescue the Tsar , and passionately rail against any criticism of the Tsar , his prejudices and his system  - how about a similar display of passionate indignation against the Tsars anti-semitic comments, among other things ?

You wish to venerate the memory of the tsar and his family and not subject them to scrutiny  ? Fine . You can do that in your own time,  and there are plenty of Russian Orthodox Church websites for that too, and indeed your posts sometimes remind me of the uncritical literature the ROC has produced on these matters. This a forum ,not a place of veneration,  hence you have to deal with people who disagree with you . You dislike my views ? Fine . I often dislike yours . They  appear to be biased, partial and agenda-driven . And sometimes you make fair points that I agree with . Yes, that was a compliment, which you scarcely deserve after posting such a provocative hatchet job.

 I will continue to provide my views  on the forum whenever I am moved to do so ( which in fact isn't very often) or until I am told I cannot do so anymore . I defy you or  anybody else to point to any posts or comments I have made that 'cross a line ' . I also ask you to understand that not everyone on the forum views the Romanovs as sympathetically as you do, or views Tsarism as a positive force . Many didn't when it existed , and many feel that way now . 'Questioning' is not 'disrespecting'. I have said many times Tsarism was preferable to Communism , but that I fundamentally dislike both .

To deal with specifics - cruelly murdered ? Yes. Spouting insults ? I contest they were not insults but fair criticisms. Deserving their fate to a certain extent ? Absolutely not . I have made that very clear , and I will do it again - I am absolutely AGAINST the  murder or execution of ANYBODY for ANY reason . Sympathy for the perpetrators ? Why would I sympathise with a psychopath like Ermakov , or support Yurovsky shooting a boy twice in the head out of 'revolutionary duty' ? I pointed out there is little evidence Yurovsky relished the killings and that the bloody chaos that followed the botched first volley of shots wasn't his intention , that is all . I sympathize with the victims not the perpetrators.

40

The Final Chapter / Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC

« on: May 30, 2016, 04:20:15 PM »

The last Tsars personal views on Jews and their persecution  are on record , like them or not - as is the institutional and societal anti-semitism of Russia during his reign . You are all too fond of dismissing evidence that casts him in a negative light  , yet seize upon evidence that reflects well on him , and use those as gospel truth.

 But using a couple of well known interventions he made on behalf of Jews as  'gotcha' pieces of evidence , as well as downplaying the violence by suggesting that things weren't that bad - look at Trotsky's dad , he had a farm  - will never be enough to erase this odious aspect of his character and rule , and it's in poor taste to make such arguments . Cherry picking a few quotes you dislike ,or dismiss entirely, from a lengthy non-academic , yet source filled , article - won't do it either.
To ignore or minimize the unsavoury and calamitous aspects of his  reign (of which there are many)  , and maybe even absolve him of culpability (autocracy without responsibility) ...makes little sense to me , possibly because I support nothing he represented.

Yes I would class all of those empires and nations as having strong racist overtones at the time. And I detest imperialism in all its guises past and present.

'Why would an autocratic system that wanted stability.... endorse or promote anarchic acts of violence ?'  What did it matter to the Tsar  if the victims were Jews or other perceived ' enemies' of his rule? And why even allow the Black Hundreds , the Union, etc to exist at all in that case?

It is funny that you accuse me of "cherry picking" when the article by King and Wilson you posted a link to is a complete exercise in cherry picking. If Nicholas II expresses his dislike of a man he has met and the man happens to be Jewish (although Nicholas II does not mention it or makes any reference to his ethnicity), that means that he hates Jews. If a man who wrote a prologue to a book written by a revolutionary claims in another book that Grand Duke Sergei said that all Jews should be crucified, we should believe him, even if Grand Duke Sergei was already dead when the book was published and could not complain.

The article by King is non-academic. That is not a problem: most of the books I read are non-academic. The problem is that the article is rubbish.

The wealth of Trotsky's father is not just some anedoctic remark. I don't think that saying that thousands of Jews were granted in exceptionally favourable conditions good farmland to settle is a "bad taste argument". Specially if we take into account that at that time millions of Russian were serfs or former serfs freed with a minimum allotment of land and you are trying to prove that the Tsarist regime hated Jews and wanted to exterminate them. I would say it is quite relevant to the topic.

Why did "Black Hundred" exist in the Russian Empire?

First of all, because the "Black Hundred" were not a political party, with a program, offices, membership, etc... That was the pejorative name applied by revolutionaries to a myriad of groups who supported the Tsarist regime and opposed them. If a mob stormed shops owned by Jews and beat or killed Jews, they were not acting following the orders of some "Black Hundred movement" with offices in Tverskaya.

And in the Russian Empire Social Democrats (Lenin's party) were allowed to exist. And Socialist Revolutionaries, who approved the use of terrorism. They had newspapers, they took part in elections after 1905. And Constitutional Democrats (Kadets), who had called for a total boycott of the tsarist regime after the first Duma was dissolved. And Guchkov, the leader of the Octobrist Party, a man who Nicholas II detested because he had published Empress Alexandra's letters to Rasputin (which he got through monk Iliodor, a former associate of Rasputin turned into blackmailer), was a member of the Tsarist Duma instead of a prisoner in a tsarist prison.

The fact is that the Tsarist regime was not the police-state, repressive, tyranic regime that many, including Lochlanach, depict. That came later, with the bolsheviks. In fact the Russian Empire was a quite weak state.

"The Bolsheviks attacked the Russian state not because it was oppresive, but because it was weak. The Russia of 1908 did nearly as much for its citizens as the states of western Europe did for theirs. Trial by jury, equality before the law, enlightened treatment of ethic minorities, religious tolerance, cheap credits for farmers, an efficient postal and railway service, a free press, flourishing universities with leading scientists, doctor and scholars, universal (if impoverished) primary education and primary medical care, the most powerful outburst of creativity in all the arts that Europe had known since the Italian Renaissance - all this outweighted for many observers the endemic alcoholism and syphilis, the idleness and bribery, the foul roads, the idle bureaucrats, the general poverty. Russia's ills seemed curable by economic progress."

Donald Rayfield, Stalin and his hangmen, Penguin Books, 2005, p. 33.

 

The article itself is of little importance . It is one article and it is hostile to the tsars - hence your disgust , and attempts to savage Greg King and Penny Wilson , two well respected Romanov experts. However , numerous  primary sources , letters , documents , diary entries, etc , ARE important . Nicholas condemns himself in the sources. Sorry if you disagree.

No I did not say extermination was on the Tsars mind, nor am I trying to prove so. Anti-semitic thoughts certainly were .

I questioned why , if Nicholas cared about stability , he would allow these groups to exist , unless it pleased him for them to unleash violence on perceived opponents including Jews . Not being a political party isn't relevant to me. He supported and sympathized with their aims.  Does that make him  Stalin ? Of course not . He was nowhere near as astute or as ruthless. God would see things right in the end and he would answer only to god. Standard despotic amorality coupled with fatalism - a common affliction in tyrants throughout history , as is anti-semitism. Your wish to portray him and his empire as anodyne and essentially benevolent, and even somewhat democratic and progressive , when there is ample evidence to the contrary , baffles me , as does your tendency to compare Tsarism favourably to its repugnant successor - Bolshevism . It's an easy get out clause .  Your tolerance level for Tsarism is higher than mine. Your definition of 'police state' clearly differs from mine.

The 'bad taste'  is your failure to seriously confront and condemn the Tsars personal anti-semitism and to belittle the sufferings of Jews under his rule .

41

The Final Chapter / Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC

« on: May 30, 2016, 02:25:56 PM »

To get back to the subject title and to clear it up for myself; I believe it went Nicholas, Alexandra, Trupp, Botkin, Anna (?), Olga/Tatiana, Tatiana/Olga, Alexei, Maria/Anastasia, Anastasia/Maria. (Too many sources say Olga or Tatiana died first out of the girls and Maria or Anastasia died last.)

Nicholas - Bullet wound(s) to the head/heart.

Alexandra - Bullet to the side of the head.

Anna - Bayoneted to death.

Olga - Gunshot wound to the head by either falling back or by Yurovsky when she tried to stand up. (I believe we all agree she definitely died from a bullet to the head).

Tatiana - Gunshot wound to the head by Yurovsky, bayoneted to death trying to protect Anastasia and Maria (some sources say that, don't they?) or rifle butt if you believe she was one of the girls who cried out when carried out.

Maria - Gunshot wound to the head (if you believe the body found in the 1991 burial is not Maria), or rifle butt if you believe she was one of the girls who cried out.

Anastasia - Gunshot wound to the head (if you believe the body found in the 1991 burial is not Anastasia), or rifle butt if you believe she was one of the girls who cried out.

Alexei - Gunshot wound to the head.

I do not remember hearing how Trupp and Botkin died but I do believe someone wrote somewhere Botkin survived the first round of the bullets but Trupp did not.

There was another servant with them but I cannot recall his name at this moment of time. If you think I've made some mistakes please tell me.

Indeed , back to the thread. Everyone has their own theory as to who is who in the two grave sites and some may dispute the details of their deaths . My own interpretation is below, based on accounts of the murders and the skeletal remains  (if some don't like reading the details of the killings then don't continue to read the post - it is for GDSophie) ;

In order ;

Nicholas - shot in chest , died instantly , (NOT in head ), and bayonetted after death .
Alix - shot in head , probably died instantly , bayonetted after death.
Trupp and Kharitonov also died in this first volley of shots ; Botkin was shot but not fatally ; Maria apparently shot in the leg , as was Demidova.

2nd round of shots /general mayhem

Botkin - already seriously injured , shot dead
Alexei - finally shot in head at close range , after being shot and bayonetted  ;   his remains are fragmentary , and as far as I know, one cannot determine cause of death from them.
Olga - shot in head and probably died instantly.
Tatiana - shot in head and probably died instantly ; probably not bayonetted ; probably in the main grave .
Maria - already injured , bayonetted , NOT shot in head ; probably finally killed by rifle butts to the head en route to to the truck in the courtyard ; probably in the main grave.
Anastasia -  bayonetted , maybe shot in head (non fatally) , probably finally killed by rifle butts to the head en route to the truck  ; probably not in the main grave ; her remains are fragmentary , and as far as I know , one cannot determine the cause of death from them.
Demidova - bayonetted , and assumed by the killers to be the final one to die , until the two youngest girls  seemingly showed signs of life as they were moved to the truck .

All faces were destroyed by rifle butts at burial site and bodies doused in acid ; two bodies , Alexei and either Anastasia (I believe) or Maria - were partially burnt and buried separately.

The Fate of the Romanovs  by Greg King and Penny Wilson , has the most complete account of the murders .

42

The Final Chapter / Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC

« on: May 30, 2016, 11:31:20 AM »

The last Tsars personal views on Jews and their persecution  are on record , like them or not - as is the institutional and societal anti-semitism of Russia during his reign . You are all too fond of dismissing evidence that casts him in a negative light  , yet seize upon evidence that reflects well on him , and use those as gospel truth.

 But using a couple of well known interventions he made on behalf of Jews as  'gotcha' pieces of evidence , as well as downplaying the violence by suggesting that things weren't that bad - look at Trotsky's dad , he had a farm  - will never be enough to erase this odious aspect of his character and rule , and it's in poor taste to make such arguments . Cherry picking a few quotes you dislike ,or dismiss entirely, from a lengthy non-academic , yet source filled , article - won't do it either.
To ignore or minimize the unsavoury and calamitous aspects of his  reign (of which there are many)  , and maybe even absolve him of culpability (autocracy without responsibility) ...makes little sense to me , possibly because I support nothing he represented.

Yes I would class all of those empires and nations as having strong racist overtones at the time. And I detest imperialism in all its guises past and present.

'Why would an autocratic system that wanted stability.... endorse or promote anarchic acts of violence ?'  What did it matter to the Tsar  if the victims were Jews or other perceived ' enemies' of his rule? And why even allow the Black Hundreds , the Union, etc to exist at all in that case?

43

The Final Chapter / Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC

« on: May 27, 2016, 10:50:38 AM »

If there were "enemies of the people" in Russia in 1918, they were the band of revolutionaries that reached power after a coup in November 1917 and imposed terror, war, famine, misery and religious persecution on the Russian people.

And nearly a century later, the shadow of Lenin and his thugs still hangs over Russia. 

Don't ignore the horrors and iniquities of Tsarism just because what followed happened to be a lot worse. Absolute monarchy / dictatorship ;  both are as abhorrent now as they were then . Terror , war , misery and religious persecution were part of Nicholas II's reign too (see article below for instance) . Russians didn't revolt twice under his rule for a lark.

 I understand the fall and demise of the last ruling family fascinates many with its high drama and tragic ending (me too) but I cannot allow sentiment to cloud my judgement or political principles. As such , the gloss quickly wears off Nicky and Alix and the system they propped up for 23 years.

 And to be clear , I find killing as punishment for ANY crime to be totally unacceptable (unlike Nicholas) and I deplore his and his familys murder . My heart goes out to their children , less so to Nicholas and Alix , who bear some responsibility for Russia's fall into the abyss  , and whom I find to be deeply troubling , unsympathetic characters . Nevertheless , their end was unwarranted.

http://www.kingandwilson.com/AtlantisArticles/Inheritance.htm

44

The Final Chapter / Re: Execution details: who died how, in what order, etc. GRAPHIC

« on: May 20, 2016, 11:47:57 AM »

To me, naturally, it was murder. Yet I can accept the term "execution" too, even use it sometimes. The biggest difference from the murders above to me is especially the fact that those men were all pretty much "ambushed". What happened with the Romanovs had many features of "execution". They were prisoners. They were officially enemies of the people. According to what we know they were informed about their imminent death, albeit mere seconds before it. Their deathwas decided by one or more people in power - that means the decision was within their legal rights (as sick as that sounds). None of this plays any part with Lincoln, Kennedy or King.

The Romanovs were murdered. The Romanovs were executed. Both are correct.

Re : your last sentence - that is correct for me also . In this particular context one ought to be able to flit between both words without incongruity or misunderstanding (one would hope) . We can split hairs ad nauseum .  It doesn't have to be either/or . It should only become objectionable if you were to argue  for 'execution' , not 'murder' (which has been thoroughly debated on the 'Murder or Execution ?' thread ) . But you aren't making that argument and neither am I.

45

Tatiana Nicholaievna / Re: The Spirit of Tatiana Nikolaevna

« on: May 09, 2016, 02:38:51 PM »

I do find it interesting that it mentions AA as a fraud, and kind of amusing that-if it is true-Tatiana came and told Prince Christopher. You would think it would be Anastasia to confirm to his own eyes that she died that fateful night, but Tatiana was someone who went to straight to point, so it would make sense she wanted to stop Anna Anderson claiming to be her little sister to someone who would believe her-as a spirit or alive herself

Kind of reminds me of a short story I wrote some years back called "Afterlife".  In it, after AA dies and goes to the spirit world, she is met, and called out by Anastasia.   If you're curious about it:

http://casahalliwell.proboards.com/thread/172/halloween-shorts?page=2

Good story . If it were ever possible for Anastasia to have known about AA's claims ,  I think she would have seen the funny side of it , although the joke may have worn thin by about 1929.