Passionate Beliefs

[Louise]

Thank you FA for the lesson in DNA!

Louise

[Elisabeth]

I think part of the appeal of Anna Anderson as the "real" Anastasia is that it makes a kind of narrative sense that goes beyond the factual and enters the realm of the purely mythic. It exerts a tremendous pull on the imagination, especially for the more artistically inclined among us. I mean, think about it, if you were to write a novel, you could not come up with better plot and thematics than those found in the story of Anna Anderson. It incorporates elements of fairy tales like "The Princess and the Pea" (as Peter Kurth once pointed out) and "Cinderella" - it even harkens back to the Greek myth of Persephone. It touches upon some of our deepest primal fears - loss of country, loss of family, loss of identity, loss of self. The name "Anastasia" itself is symbolic of someone who comes back from the dead, since it literally means "resurrection." The story of Anna Anderson is truly a story worthy of Shakespeare, if only he were still around to write it!

And this is why I think the appeal of Anna Anderson will never die, no matter how many tests are done, no matter how many advances science makes. She's achieved the immortality of  Legend, even if you don't (as I don't) believe she was actually Grand Duchess Anastasia Nicolaevna.

[Denise]

It touches upon some of our deepest primal fears - loss of country, loss of family, loss of identity, loss of self. The name "Anastasia" itself is symbolic of someone who comes back from the dead, since it literally means "resurrection." The story of Anna Anderson is truly a story worthy of Shakespeare, if only he were still around to write it!

And this is why I think the appeal of Anna Anderson will never die, no matter how many tests are done, no matter how many advances science makes. She's achieved the immortality of  Legend, even if you don't (as I don't) believe she was actually Grand Duchess Anastasia Nicolaevna.

Oh, Elisabeth, beautifully put!!  I am speechless to add a thing!  

D

[Elisabeth]

Thank you for your kind words, Denise!   I've given this a lot of thought over the years, and it's one of the reasons why I wish people would not get so angry with each other over this topic... even if we can't agree, even if art and science are irreconcilable in cases like this one, still - isn't there an inherent power and beauty in both worldviews?

[helenazar]

Elisabeth, what you say is true, and I have always felt that even though she was not Anastasia, Anna Anderson was a very interesting person in her own right. In fact, I personally think she became a lot more interesting than the real AN, since the latter did not, unfortunately, get much of a chance to fully form her personality and to live up to her potential, at least as far as we know.

This woman, AA, came seemingly out of nowhere and took the world by storm, so to speak. To this day, already a few decades after her death, she still doesn't fail to stir up very strong feelings in people who had never even met her. She is indeed a legend and she gave the real Anastasia a legendary status as well, something that AN would not have achieved otherwise! If not for AA, Anastasia would just have remained one of the four sisters, whereas she now stands very much apart from the rest - has had many books and films made about her, etc. So, not in a biological way, but in a metaphorical way (for the lack of a better term), Anna Anderson is Anastasia.

[helenazar]

ok, I can smile again !

Robert,

What a sentimentalist, who would have thought! That's so sweet.  

If you'd like, I too can tell you stories about my 15-year- old cat Mushka and my other cat Skimmer who was fished out of a swimming pool as a 5-week-old kitten two years ago! Talk about a miraculous survival story

[Denise]

So, not in a biological way, but in a metaphorical way (for the lack of a better term), Anna Anderson is Anastasia.

Perhaps this why some people can't bear to hear anything against AA being AN.  After all, our knowledge of AN is largely colored by AA's interpretation.  I agree entirely that if AA is NOT AN (as indicated by DNA)  she is still a unique individual.  I personally would love to know more about her even if she is not AN or FS.  Unfortunately, that looks impossible.  

The story of Anna Anderson and her "phoenix from the ashes" life has become a modern myth.   Anastasia was such a young girl at the time of her murder that her life had hardly begun.  As such, like Helen states, she was just one of four sisters.  Through AA's claims we were able to imagine life with the IF and see them as real people.  Many people were led to study the IF through AA, as I was myself.  Even though I no longer consider her to be AN, I still cannot regret the time I spent learning about her, as it has led me to a study of a lost era I find fascinating.

Denise

[Robert_Hall]

Same here, Denise. Even the cursury study of the case is part of the whole Romanov picture, pro & con.. Particularly if interested in the end chapters. Same with Rasputin, the war, revolution, and the balls, jewels, family fighting. The pretty & the not-so-pretty.
One must at least see a rudimentary outline in order to get a hold on the whole story.
IMO that is.
Cheers,
Robert

[chatelaa]

Actually,
In order to make a genuinely "clear judgment", one must not just "look" at the evidence, one must assess the credibility and evidentiary "weight" as well. Some bits of evidence are "worth more" so to speak than others.

To my mind, the DNA evidence is far more compelling than anything else. It does not rely on "opinion" or "belief" nor someone's "subjective analysis"...It is "science" , obviously a dirty or scary word to some. But it is what it is, regardless of your beliefs. The sun still rises every morning, gravity holds you down on the floor, and the moon revolves around the earth, and both revolve around the sun...AA had mtDNA that simply can not have come from anyone related maternally in the Hesse family. period. end of story.

The "rest" of the evidence, in a court of law, for example, is far LESS probative of evidentiary value. It just isn't "worth" as much, no matter how much one emotionally might want it to be...but LOGICALLY speaking, OBJECTIVE evidence is simply more valuable than "SUBJECTIVE" and emotional evidence...
I was so sad to see Michelle write that we are 'heartless' because we "don't want Anastasia to have survived"...Nothing can be further from the truth...None of us wanted any of the IF to be killed. But, regardless of our emotions, the facts are what they are...Like Joe Friday used to say, when I was a kid...."Just the facts, M'am, just the facts."

Aren't you leaving out one fact?  That it's a human being who tested the DNA, and human beings are subject to (intentional?) error.    For example, this past week, on CNN,  it was found that a private lab (California?)  was found to be giving false evidence; or rather they 'adjusted' the 'facts' of the DNA testing over a period of a couple of years.  Consequently, some  people were found guilty based on 'scientific' evidence, but it was false evidence (which is my point, here).

As long as a human being is involved in any way in any scientific testing, there is a possibility for error.

What I find so interesting in this Forum, however, is how attached people are to their opinions, to a point of rudeness.  It's as though their opinions are some kind of permanent velcro attached to their egos.

Why can't someone just innocently voice an opinion about Anastasia without being devoured?  Part of the question itself (about Anastasia) has to do with wonderment and fascination. What's wrong with that?   After all,  there is such a thing as a neutral statement.  And there is also something else called 'restraint', which many times can and should be applied here.  

Argument does not necessarily have to be a (verbal or otherwise) blood sport.  

Adele

[Forum Admin]

Aren't you leaving out one fact?  That it's a human being who tested the DNA, and human beings are subject to (intentional?) error.    For example, this past week, on CNN,  it was found that a private lab (California?)  was found to be giving false evidence; or rather they 'adjusted' the 'facts' of the DNA testing over a period of a couple of years.  Consequently, some  people were found guilty based on 'scientific' evidence, but it was false evidence (which is my point, here).

As long as a human being is involved in any way in any scientific testing, there is a possibility for error.

The only logical problem with this statement Adele, is this: FOUR different labs, each with blind samples and different sets of people doing the work got the EXACT same results as each other. Thus eliminating the possiblility of "human error" from one lab's results.

[helenazar]

Aren't you leaving out one fact?  That it's a human being who tested the DNA, and human beings are subject to (intentional?) error.    For example, this past week, on CNN,  it was found that a private lab (California?)  was found to be giving false evidence; or rather they 'adjusted' the 'facts' of the DNA testing over a period of a couple of years.  Consequently, some  people were found guilty based on 'scientific' evidence, but it was false evidence (which is my point, here).

As long as a human being is involved in any way in any scientific testing, there is a possibility for error.

What I find so interesting in this Forum, however, is how attached people are to their opinions, to a point of rudeness.  It's as though their opinions are some kind of permanent velcro attached to their egos.

Why can't someone just innocently voice an opinion about Anastasia without being devoured?  Part of the question itself (about Anastasia) has to do with wonderment and fascination. What's wrong with that?   After all,  there is such a thing as a neutral statement.  And there is also something else called 'restraint', which many times can and should be applied here.  

Argument does not necessarily have to be a (verbal or otherwise) blood sport.  

Adele

Hi Adele,

You do make a very good point about human error and of course that can happen. But, because generally DNA is used for very important evidence, the standard protocol is to make sure human error can be detected and the experimental methods are specifically designed to account for the possibility of error. This is what experimental controls are used for, and in addition, as FA also mentioned, this is why several different independent labs often perform the same tests. If all of them get identical results, as was the case in the AA case, then human error is definitely not an issue. This is a form of data quality control and it works very well. Of course there are labs who don't do this, but generally their data is not accepted, at least by serious scientists. I am not sure which case you are talking about on CNN, since I don't know anything about it,  but I can tell you for sure that human error (accidental or intentional) is not possible in the AA case.

I'm sorry if I sound like I am too attached to my opinion, but so far no other argument or evidence has convinced me otherwise, so I don't really see any reason to detach myself from this particular opinion  . If someone can show me reasonable proof why these DNA results are not to be trusted, and I mean in a technical sense, not in the "Queen of England must have rigged them because she didn't want anyone to know" sense, then I will very happily reconsider and defer to their opinions!

I hope I don't sound like I am trying to 'devour' you for your opinion, this is not my intention at all, as I am only trying to share what I know so that others can make informed decisions about this case.

And yes, I agree, and I already said this earlier, that this is an interesting case to talk about and that we should all be able to voice an opinion about it, as long as our opinions can be backed up by something reasonable, and don't get completely out of control as it happens sometimes when certain conspiracy theories emerge!  

[Val289]

What I find so interesting in this Forum, however, is how attached people are to their opinions, to a point of rudeness.  It's as though their opinions are some kind of permanent velcro attached to their egos.

Why can't someone just innocently voice an opinion about Anastasia without being devoured?  Part of the question itself (about Anastasia) has to do with wonderment and fascination. What's wrong with that?   After all,  there is such a thing as a neutral statement.  And there is also something else called 'restraint', which many times can and should be applied here.  

Argument does not necessarily have to be a (verbal or otherwise) blood sport.  

Adele

So very well stated Adele - thank you!

[helenazar]

So very well stated Adele - thank you!

Hi Val289,

Please see my previous post for an explanation about my own attachment to a particular opinion. I think I probably speak for many others too. Absolutely nothing to do with closed-mindness, only with rational thinking.  

[Val289]

Hi Helen,

Thanks for your reply.  I can completely understand why you have the opinions that you do, and you certainly don't impress me as being close minded.  Whenever you debate you do so in a respectful and courteous manner (withOUT sarcasm) - thank you!   I wish I could say the same for everyone here........... :-/

Val  

[helenazar]

Val,

I think that some people just tend to get sarcastic when they get frustrated with others, it's almost like an automatic response. I don't think it's anything personal, it's just how some people react. Hopefully this is what this "group therapy" thread will improve...