Re: Anastasia Claimant - Anna Anderson a.k.a Franziska Schanzkowska Part 7

[Cody]

Now the story of the baby has changed:

Her son was born in autumn of 1919

Strange this was never the date until after the long, hard "rape on the Rus" controversy here on this forum. AA supporters had alleged that the original date given of his birth, Dec. 5, 1918 was right and there for AA as 'AN' had to have been pregnant early in 1918 to make the baby viable (and miraculously survive the execution!) After all that mess fell through, they suddenly said it was 1919 and that no one had ever said different.

It's been a while since I read Anastasia: The Riddle of Anna Anderson, but somehow I thought the child was born in 1919.  If it said December 1918, I certainly would have caught on that as one of my criticisms of the book.  With that being said, I'll let the world know that one of my two biggest criticisms of Kurth's book was what took place in Romania.

[Cody]

 The facts are, there is no proof that AA committed deliberate fraud, and moreover, your extremely repetitive comments do absolutely nothing to improve or to enhance the discussion of this topic. We all know how you feel, so give it a rest.

I don't want to "stir the pot" in respect to Lisa and Dmitri, but I thought I would comment briefly on Anna Anderson thinking she was Anastasia.  I'm not a psychologist, but I did take a course, before I had to drop it, on Psychology of Religion.  One of the things we learned is what is called "role playing."  For example, I don't think how to act like a graduate student; it's just something that I am.  Anna Anderson, I think thought she really was Anastasia, and therefore, she acted how she thought Anastasia would act--based on things she either read, or what she was told.  What she read or was told simply became a part of her, and she thought nothing of it.  Of course, I'm sure there are others who might see this differently.

[Annie]

 The facts are, there is no proof that AA committed deliberate fraud, and moreover, your extremely repetitive comments do absolutely nothing to improve or to enhance the discussion of this topic. We all know how you feel, so give it a rest.

I don't want to "stir the pot" in respect to Lisa and Dmitri, but I thought I would comment briefly on Anna Anderson thinking she was Anastasia.  I'm not a psychologist, but I did take a course, before I had to drop it, on Psychology of Religion.  One of the things we learned is what is called "role playing."  For example, I don't think how to act like a graduate student; it's just something that I am.  Anna Anderson, I think thought she really was Anastasia, and therefore, she acted how she thought Anastasia would act--based on things she either read, or what she was told.  What she read or was told simply became a part of her, and she thought nothing of it.  Of course, I'm sure there are others who might see this differently.

I think you have something here, some people have stated that she seemed to put on an act of what she thought a Grand Duchess would act like- tossing her boa, etc, but it came off like a cheap imitation. Really, Anastasia was a tomboy, not at all prissy. It seems to me that AA passed as a generic Grand Duchess/piece of Imperial Russian nostalgia more than ANASTASIA herself. Hardly anyone identified her as specifically ANASTASIA, and very few people knew the real AN well enough to judge her one way or the other. Most of the people listed as 'accepting' her had little to no contact with the real thing (examples: Cecile of Germany, Martha of Sweden, Grand Duke Andre)

[Annie]

Now the story of the baby has changed:

Her son was born in autumn of 1919

Strange this was never the date until after the long, hard "rape on the Rus" controversy here on this forum. AA supporters had alleged that the original date given of his birth, Dec. 5, 1918 was right and there for AA as 'AN' had to have been pregnant early in 1918 to make the baby viable (and miraculously survive the execution!) After all that mess fell through, they suddenly said it was 1919 and that no one had ever said different.

It's been a while since I read Anastasia: The Riddle of Anna Anderson, but somehow I thought the child was born in 1919.  If it said December 1918, I certainly would have caught on that as one of my criticisms of the book.  With that being said, I'll let the world know that one of my two biggest criticisms of Kurth's book was what took place in Romania.

The original date was Dec. 5, 1918, when she was with the Von Kliests. Kurth will say at some point in 1922 she claimed the baby would be 'about 3' but no date is given. I noticed that after the dreaded 'Rape on the Rus' incident (some claiming the girls were raped aboard the Rus, thus making Anastasia time appropriately pregnant for a Dec. 1918 birth) that blew up here on this forum, AA supporters are now backing off that date. In Frances Welch's recent AA book "Life at the Court of AA" she gives the birthdate as Dec. 5, 1918.

[Alixz]

Annie:

You don't mean that she was with the von Kleists in 1918, but that when she was with the von Kleists she was telling everyone that the baby was born on December 5, 1918.

So she would have gotten pregnant in March?  December 5th being nine months from March 5th or there abouts.  How does that time-line fit in with the Russ?

I wonder what did happen the Francezka's child?  Since she was medically proven to have had one.  Does anyone know where FS was in March of 1918?

The only thing that would have made AA's assertion that she had a child and abandoned it fit the general scheme of things is that Marie Pavlovna
(the younger) did it twice!  She could have claimed it ran in the family.

[dmitri]

I don't think too many people are too interested in where an obscure Polish woman had a baby. It has nothing to in any way with the Romanovs.

[Alixz]

Since FS kept the world wondering about who she truly was and whether or not she was Anastasia Romanova, I don't think we can call her "obscure".

I am also always interested in the whys and wherefores of what people do.  Any mystery will peak my attention.

Suppose that baby were to have lived and had a family?  That baby could sill be living at the age of 89 almost 90.

[Forum Admin]

Nicholas, Alexandra and Maria left Tobolsk on April 13/26.  Anastasia et al left Tobolsk on May 7/20. (cf: Volkov "Memories").

A March conception date for a child thus would be highly unlikely to be possible, and as result of the non-existent "rape" on the Rus ("Rodianov shut up the Tsarevich in his cabin with the attendant Nagorny, leaving the grand duchesses in peace." see Volkov ch. 20.) virtually impossible.

Most likely is that the imposter FS had heard the Imperial Family were moved from Tobolsk in "early spring 1918" so she chose some date close to then for the pregnancy nonsense.

Of course, the recent confirmation of the DNA match of the last set of remains to the rest of the Romanov family gives the ultimate evidence that FS was indeed an imposter.

Rest in Peace Anastasia Nicholaievna. Rest in Peace, Anna Manahan,  whoever you were.

[Annie]

Annie:

You don't mean that she was with the von Kleists in 1918, but that when she was with the von Kleists she was telling everyone that the baby was born on December 5, 1918.

No, sorry if it came out that way. I meant she was with them when the details of her 'escape' story came out (and they likely had a hand in helping her invent it) They were very foolish, though, to disregard the extreme distance between Ekaterinburg and Romania, the terrain they'd have to cross, and the harsh weather they'd encounter, which would have made their journey much longer (and really, impossible, but of course it never happened)

So she would have gotten pregnant in March?  December 5th being nine months from March 5th or there abouts.  How does that time-line fit in with the Russ?

It does seem possible to me that the entire 'rape on the Rus' rumor was invented and spread to back up AA's claim (I mean in recent years, not AA herself.)

I wonder what did happen the Francezka's child?  Since she was medically proven to have had one.  Does anyone know where FS was in March of 1918?

I do, too. AA supporters like to tell you there is no record of FS having a child, but this doesn't mean she didn't have one. In those days, pregnancy 'out of wedlock' was a disgrace to the girl and her family, so it's not unusual she hid it from those she knew. (Even today, you still hear about girls who hide their pregnancies and toss their babies in the trash can) There are several things that could have happened to FS's child- miscarriage, backalley abortion, (as I have said many times, a baby of at least 4-5 months gestation leaves the same evidence on the uterus as a full term baby, my Grandmother's doctor told her he could tell she'd had five children, but one was actually a second trimester miscarriage) she could have thrown it in the trash,smothered it, abandoned it on a doorstep or orphanage. In all those cases there would be no record of its existence.  I believe that the loss, in whatever way, of this baby contributed to FS's depression which led to her suicide attempt.

I would like to say that this news today would put an end to the AA nonsense, but the AA fanatics are still claiming the bones were just leftovers from the old grave, planted, etc. 

[Romanov_fan]

 The facts are, there is no proof that AA committed deliberate fraud, and moreover, your extremely repetitive comments do absolutely nothing to improve or to enhance the discussion of this topic. We all know how you feel, so give it a rest.

I don't want to "stir the pot" in respect to Lisa and Dmitri, but I thought I would comment briefly on Anna Anderson thinking she was Anastasia.  I'm not a psychologist, but I did take a course, before I had to drop it, on Psychology of Religion.  One of the things we learned is what is called "role playing."  For example, I don't think how to act like a graduate student; it's just something that I am.  Anna Anderson, I think thought she really was Anastasia, and therefore, she acted how she thought Anastasia would act--based on things she either read, or what she was told.  What she read or was told simply became a part of her, and she thought nothing of it.  Of course, I'm sure there are others who might see this differently.

This has always been my opinion too, as I'm sure I have said on many past threads. Thanks so much though though for the part about role playing, from Psychology of Religion. It gives more of an authoritative and different source on this matter than just another person saying that's what they think. I'd agree with you anyway, but that part makes it all the more intriguing. We will never be able to enter Anna Anderson's head and know why she pretended she was Anastasia, etc. There have been different answers to this topic, as well as  to why she got away with it so well. In the end, the role playing answers two questions in one though. Also, I agree with Annie about her being a generic grand duchess, and in my opinion, people wanted to believe in her, it was a function of nostalgia, of longing for the past and for there being a survivor of the Imperial Family's murder, when the facts pointed in a totally different direction.

[Janet Ashton]

It does seem possible to me that the entire 'rape on the Rus' rumor was invented and spread to back up AA's claim (I mean in recent years, not AA herself.)

By whom? You are the only person talking about rapes and what have you, just as you loudly proclaim your delight in the demise of Anna Anderson conversation while running a website on her and mentioning her in every post.
You're certainly right about one thing - to the best of my limited knowledge on her, FS never claimed that Anastasia became pregnant as a result of anything that happened on this boat, so the connection betwen that dialogue (which concerns mainly Olga and no suggestion of rape) and AA is one which exists nowhere except in the imagination of people with a fanatical interest in Anna Anderson.

[Annie]

It does seem possible to me that the entire 'rape on the Rus' rumor was invented and spread to back up AA's claim (I mean in recent years, not AA herself.)

By whom? You are the only person talking about rapes and what have you, just as you loudly proclaim your delight in the demise of Anna Anderson conversation while running a website on her and mentioning her in every post.

Not every post, only the ones where it's appropriate to the subject. I am not getting into the background on that story, I'm sure everyone here, even you, knows it all too well.

You're certainly right about one thing - to the best of my limited knowledge on her, FS never claimed that Anastasia became pregnant as a result of anything that happened on this boat, so the connection betwen that dialogue (which concerns mainly Olga and no suggestion of rape) and AA is one which exists nowhere except in the imagination of people with a fanatical interest in Anna Anderson.

That is true, she never did, which always made me think it was pointless.

I did, however, read one account of AA claiming to have had relations with a Bolshevik soldier while in capitivity,  maybe this was her way of explaining the pregnancy? Hopefully no one was foolish enough to believe she'd gotten pregnant by Tchiakovsky on the trip, the baby wouldn't have even been viable by Dec.! (but I do think I've heard that one, too)

[Janet Ashton]

It does seem possible to me that the entire 'rape on the Rus' rumor was invented and spread to back up AA's claim (I mean in recent years, not AA herself.)

By whom? You are the only person talking about rapes and what have you, just as you loudly proclaim your delight in the demise of Anna Anderson conversation while running a website on her and mentioning her in every post.

Not every post, only the ones where it's appropriate to the subject. I am not getting into the background on that story, I'm sure everyone here, even you, knows it all too well.

I don't actually - and had rather not get involved.....Excuse me my momentary lapse of cool - you have your interests as you wish... I just was recalling when I previously was here in 2004 getting frustrated that it didn't seem possible to talk about Ernst Ludwig's putative trip to Russia without it being about AA for you - though the questoins are in my view separate, and people who have written on EL in this context do not have to be at all interested in AA, necessarily

[dmitri]

Where is the hard evidence of any trip to Russia by the last Tsarina's brother, the Grand Duke of Hesse-Darmstadt? The answer is there in none whatsoever. The so-called "evidence" comes from the proven imposter Anderson who was committed to asylums on more than one occasion. As such her opinions have no validity. She wasn't who she claimed to be. This has been scientifically proven. It's time for the gross mistruths to stop as this peculiar woman did countless harm to many living by her preposterous claim and also deeply insulted the memory of the real Grand Duchess Anastasia by connecting it to her bizarre behaviour. It's time Anderson was relegated to the garbage bin of history. She was as Romanov as a Pugachev and he was executed for his impudence. Anderson got off lightly by comparison. 

[Annie]

It's really funny how so may AA supporters use the 'secret trip' to Russia as 'dropping the bomb' which caused Ernie to go ballistic and set out to destroy her by framing her to be FS (whom she really was, but they say it was only made up by Ernie) because she 'knew' about the trip. Thanks to a German girl who posted here, I have found out that there was a book published in Germany in 1922 that alleged the trip, so her saying it in 1925 (probably because she or her supporters had seen the book) was certainly no big shock that led him to attack AA as AA supporters like to tell you.