The Fate of The Romanovs,Greg King,Penny Wilson

[Janet Ashton]

... I think people who are aware of the history of this will know who I am needling.

Time to put away your sewing Ms Ashton because your needles I assure you are quite blunt.

How curious it is that those who want to participate in a sensible and informed discussion about this book encounter selective hostility from you.

[/color]

Yes, blunt I am, which to me is a posting style preferable to ceaseless hoity-toity bitching, but I seem to have pierced your hide with my first very post on this board (second manifestation of both the board and my appearance here), because your hostility to me was apparent from the start, though I did not even address you. You're not selective in your bullying, I'll give you that: I have seen you throw tantrums at newbies who requested help with projects; at people you consider to be withholding due credit for your research, at people who ask that you stick to the topic in hand, at people attempting to discuss topics YOU consider unworthy of the imperial dignity, and all manner of things. My hostility is indeed selective: the only people on this board I have been snotty with are people who throw aspersions on others' honesty and are selective in doing so to boot; who will believe just about anything that anyone tells them so long as it does not appear in this book.

Not keen on humourless self-righteousness either. At least I can poke fun at my own zeal.

Edited to say: neither do I judge books unread, as you have done both Wendy Slater's (BAD: because of its COVER no less) and Helen Rappaport's (GOOD: on the assumption that she agrees with you.) And - only a "tabloid" would criticise the imperial family, said you somwhere here. Ye Gods!

Blunt enough for you?; I am still enjoying myself, but I've no doubt someone will appear and accuse me of tantrums/stalking off here or the like.

Edited further to say: I actually am INFINTELY more concerned about the many people who probably would post more here if they did not feel intimidated by the self-proclaimed gaurdians of imperial mores such as yourself than I am about anything you post about Greg, who is well beynd being damaged either personally or professionally by a load of newsgroup sniping, especially from the same bunch of fanatics year in year out.

[Belochka]

As a matter of fact, I do have copy of the relevant memoir - from my own researches, and clearly marked, "April -May 1922". I doubt it is the text that Penny used as it is in Russian, wheras her translation is from Russian and German.

The matter involves the material used for research in order to write the specific commentary as it appears in the FOTR book.

As the person who was instrumental in assisting with the final FOTR product why not provide some goodwill and scan the document in your possession?

[Belochka]

Edited to say: neither do I judge books unread, as you have done both Wendy Slater's (BAD: because of its COVER no less) and Helen Rappaport's (GOOD: on the assumption that she agrees with you.) And - only a "tabloid" would criticise the imperial family, said you somwhere here. Ye Gods!

To correct your presumption - I have purchased and read W. Slater's book.

It is patently clear that your mission here is to direct toxic criticisms towards posters who fail to unquestioningly revere any publication that you have personally been involved with.

[helenazar]

You have no reason to doubt MY word that the pages in question are wholly irrelevant to the topics discussed here ... As a matter of fact, I do have copy of the relevant memoir - from my own researches, and clearly marked, "April -May 1922". I doubt it is the text that Penny used as it is in Russian, wheras her translation is from Russian and German.  

Ok, I am confused. So which 1922 memoir did Penny Wilson use then, if not the one you have? Is there more than one 1922 Yurovsky memoir? And if you have the Russian version then why not just post it here? As I said, I would only like to see at least some of the Russian text to figure out what it says exactly about Yurovsky's "Jewish connection", and how it compares to what was published in FOTR... No one can possibly object to that, can they? If you really have a copy of this text, it would be easy enough for you to post it here and put this debate to rest, so why all these cat and mouse games?

[helenazar]

As the person who was instrumental in assisting with the final FOTR product why not provide some goodwill and scan the document in your possession?

Yes, absolutely. I don't understand why this wasn't done two weeks ago when this discussion started. If janet indeed has this document in her posession, why not just scan and post it here? It will be worth a thousand posts you make here trying to convince everyone about the validity of this source!

[LisaDavidson]

Everyone engaged with this thread needs to step back for a moment and take a deep breath.

It is fairly evident from reading Janet Ashton's posts that she does not have the copy of the 1922 Memoir that Penny Wilson used in FOTR. If I have misunderstood her, and she is a) in possession of a copy of the document that KW used for FOTR and is b) able to publish it somewhere on our site where it can be read, then she has been asked to do so and can decide where to go from there.

As far as any suggestion that Janet is in constant contact with Greg and Penny, I know that she was very helpful to them in their research for FOTR. So were alot of others who post here - me, Bob, Rob, Ilana, Arturo and Margarita - I believe we are all thanked in the acknowledgements. This does not mean that any of us, including Janet, are spokespeople for King and Wilson. They both can speak for themselves - and do. I would therefore ask that no one make any assumptions about anyone else based upon helping someone with their research.

I would also like to remind posters that this is supposed to be a meeting of friends as if it were taking place in Bob's living room. Please be civil to one another and be mindful that we can all sound much more harsh in writing than we intend to be!

Oh, and I have a translated copy of that document, I believe. However, I cannot publish it because I don't hold the copyright. But, I think at one time, it was published in full on King and Wilson's site.

[AGRBear]

OKAY,  what have we accomplished thus far?

1. Some of us are of the opinion that Buxhoveden was not a traitor to the Royal Family.  BUT,  King and Wilson are of the opinion that she was.

2.  "savage orgy" was taken from a source from which   Moshein used, however, once the original was tranlated, (I am assuming this was correctly accomplished), that "savage orgy" was not part of the original.  At the moment I don't recall if King and Wilson, also, used the same source. 

There is some disagreement in the degree of harasement occurred toward the Grand Duchess on the Russ.  All based on opinions.  The conclusions are all the same,  no one knows everything that occurred on the Russ.

3.  Some of the errors found in the book can be contributed to  publishers, editors,  readers not catching mistakes,  all of which King and Wilson place upon their shoulders since they are the authors.  One of those errors placed a number which directs us to a footnote and the source.  Unfortunately,  the  number had been moved to the end of a sentence which was not part of the source.   

4.  The unpublished memoir of Yurovsky is not available, so, until it's published here or somewhere else,  we either trust King and Wilson translation or we don't. 

Is there a 5th?  After nearly 40 pages,  it's time we get to it,  unless,  "that all there is".

AGRBear

No Bear it is not all there is. The first several pages of this thread allude to further problems in interpretation of references that were supposedly seen, translated and read by the FOTR authors. There are the stylistic segments that have outlined in many pages highly derogatory statements about the Imperial Family without cause. Then there are many scientific issues that they disparaged, which I have raised in a separate published review which you may care to read here:

http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/Book-Review.html

It may be a good time to discuss Yurovsky's alleged expression of remorse for his part in the assassinations. The FOTR authors claimed that he did do so but there is not one shred of evidence that he had done so. In fact there is published proof that he had not so.

Over to you ...

Margarita

While I was looking for the "There are the stylistic segments that have outlined in many pages highly derogatory statements about the Imperial Family without cause" I found #5 and #6:

Well... we weren't confused over the Church(es).  This is one example in our book of a type-setting error.  There were several that we corrected on the galley proofs.  Some were altered successfully by Wiley -- and some weren't.  This one wasn't, though I think it's clear how we meant it to read.  It WILL be corrected in all future editions, believe me! 

The error that really frosts me is in Nagorny's paragraph, where one sentence says he had black hair and the next says he had red.  Nagorny, of course, had black hair.  The red-headed sentence was misplaced in typesetting from Sednev's paragraph, which followed Nagorny's.  For some reason, this one bothers me most of all!

But in any book -- so I'm told by more experienced authors -- there are going to be a certain number of these things going on.  File under "sh** happens," I guess... 

Edited to say:  Hey!  Who knew that that was a forbidden word!  I demand my expletives!  He he he...

....

I read your article but I don't believe we can discuss it here.

AGRBear

[AGRBear]

I myself chocked this anecdote up to the same sort of bad press the family got from Princess Catherine Radziwill and others who stood on the outside of the Imperial Family looking in.  I cannot imagine an invalid child actually punching, biting or otherwise assaulting another person like this.

I think that it is a little short-sighted to chalk this anecdote up to erroneous bad press; Alexei has been "caught on tape" in the Finnish Skerries, smacking a person upside the head, and we have the words of other Romanov family members, such as the estimable KR as confirmation that the Heir could be badly-behaved.

Alexei was not an "invalid child."  He had a chronic illness, and at this point in the story was too young to appreciate that an ounce of prevention was worth a pound of cure.  At this age -- he must have been five, six, seven at the most, I think -- he was ready to explore the world and test his boundaries, and being restricted from doing so must have been very frustrating, I think, especially as he must have felt quite well in himself.  In a young child -- especially one exalted from birth and, yes, a little spoiled -- frustration can manifest itself in a little bit of petty violence: biting, kicking, hitting, etc.  My own neighbor has a five-year-old girl with chronic asthma; a nice little girl most of the time, but when temper takes her over not being allowed out on certain days -- or whatever -- she bites!

So our inclusion of this anecdote was NOT a condemnation of Alexei, but rather an illustration of where he was in his life at that time. 

In the days before people were taken to court for defamation of character, slander, libel, misrepresentation and plagiarism, people could write anything and get away with it.  Look at the coarser and more hostile things the Bolshevik executioners said about the Romanovs!  Can they be trusted as entirely unbiased judges of character?  (Now I do realize that that's a question like a double edged sword?)

This anecdote about Alexei originated neither from a Bolshevik during the revolution, nor from a Communist during the Soviet years.  It came from a woman called Catherine Frolova, who lived in the vicinity of Livadia in the first decades of the twentieth century; she was a close contemporary of Alexei's, being probably only a year or two older.  She did not make her statement until the 1990s, well after the fall of the Soviet regime.  Combined with statements from people like KR, and the evidence of the film that caught Alexei smacking his friend, we have no reason to doubt her word. 

Margarita,

Here is Wilson's words about their  discussion about Alexei's behavior.

Is this one of the discussion which upset you?

Margarita's quote in part....>>"There are the stylistic segments that have outlined in many pages highly derogatory statements about the Imperial Family without cause" <<

If not, could you give us your example, please?

[Belochka]

Despite Ms Ashton’s noticeable endeavor to avert further discussion about the problems contained in FOTR, there is no rational reason for discussions about this publication to cease on a public forum. The book was published in 2003 and it remains available. Therefore to suggest that this book is best left immune from discussion serves no one favorably. That tactic suppresses freedom of expression which to my understanding contradicts the purpose of this discussion Forum.
 
When a poster shows hostility against another, rather than addressing the issues raised then it is patently clear that that person has no case to argue. Instead the tactic seen here recently has been to smudge the dissenter, seeking their disappearance from the forum in order to suppress opinion. Any reasonable person must see the tactics used by Ms Ashton have not met an acceptable standard of public behavior.

In attempt to lift the tenor of the discussions on this thread I will not respond to any further insults, however in the interest of historic truth, I reserve the right to correct any errors of fact that I may become aware of.

Margarita Nelipa

[Janet Ashton]

Despite Ms Ashton’s noticeable endeavor to avert further discussion about the problems contained in FOTR, there is no rational reason for discussions about this publication to cease on a public forum. The book was published in 2003 and it remains available. Therefore to suggest that this book is best left immune from discussion serves no one favorably. That tactic suppresses freedom of expression which to my understanding contradicts the purpose of this discussion Forum.
 
When a poster shows hostility against another, rather than addressing the issues raised then it is patently clear that that person has no case to argue. Instead the tactic seen here recently has been to smudge the dissenter, seeking their disappearance from the forum in order to suppress opinion. Any reasonable person must see the tactics used by Ms Ashton have not met an acceptable standard of public behavior.

In attempt to lift the tenor of the discussions on this thread I will not respond to any further insults, however in the interest of historic truth, I reserve the right to correct any errors of fact that I may become aware of.

Margarita Nelipa

I think you need to calm down. If you think that I have any desire to "drive you away" from this forum you seriously over-estimate its - and your - importance in my life. But as you are free to asperse my objectivity, my intelligence and my behaviour, so too am I at liberty to take issue with yours. I am not overly impressed, as an example of public conduct, with the baying, jeering mob you and others formed on other screens in this thread - which I finally read. If you think my solitary response to you - and several others - comes anywhere close you need to re-evaluate your notion of what is acceptable. Otherwise, best refrain from moral judgements.
As to discussion of this book - again - be aware that your sheet persistence is doing you no favours; I need say nothing at all. And yet nevertheless my contributions to this thread have been helpful and informative as regards the manuscript, editorial issues and indeed the methodology of you and your fellow-detractors. The only posts I have ever requested removed - in the event they be deemed inappropriate by the moderators - have been my own, and the only person I have ever tried to influence to leave this forum has been Greg King - back in 2004, when I feared the fire storm his presence could unleash against him. But if he didn't worry, why should I?

Now, I have no interest in breaking any more of Bob's best china, so I'll stand aside....

[helenazar]

Now, I have no interest in breaking any more of Bob's best china, so I'll stand aside....

Permanently or temporarily? 

[grandduchessella]

On that note, it seems like it might be a good time to start a second thread. I've debated it for awhile since this thread is sooo huge--usually we break into another part around page 20 or so but that's often because photos cause it to move slower. I'm going to lock this thread and 'sticky' it so that it will be at the top if anyone wants to pull a quote to continue a discussion (hopefully one on topic and not personalities  ) and it will keep it from being lost in the numerous pages of the book section.