Maria without jewels in Ipatiev house

[AlexP]

I was not judging Baroness Buxhoeveden, and BTW I don't think she was tortured.  She was guarunteed her safety, for her information.  In her position we would all possibly do the same, so NO I AM NOT judging her.

Baroness Buxhoeveden's role in this can be found in FOTR  pgs 68-69, 141-143, 148, 265 & 505-506/
If you have the book I suggest taking the time to read these pages, to have an understanding as to what I am referring to.

I do not want to discuss my great-great-aunt here in any more details than I already have done under another forum, but I will say that the Fate of the Romanov is HARDLY a book of any serious erudition.  It is a coffee-table compilation based upon a compilation of a compilation of a compilation and under close scrutiny parts of it have fallen apart.  It is a book written to make money and to provide its authors with a comfortable living, it is NOT a doctoral dissertation of highly instrinsic worth presented to the Russian Academy of Sciences.

I will say directly here that at no point did either of the authors contact any living relative of the Baroness to ascertain whether there may be any information in the von Buxhoeveden archives to either confirm or infirm their stories.   I review all readers to the New York Times Book Review of their work and to subsequent book reviews.  It is a glorified university research paperl, with a lot of suppositions, secondary and tertiary references and simply direct, unverifiable comments.

[Penny_Wilson]

Now, now -- grab those reins, AlexP!  

If you would like to discuss any points raised in FOTR -- especially the ones which you claim have "fallen apart" -- then let's do so civilly and without unnecessarily b.itchy comments and accusations.  Isn't that, after all, the academic and erudite way of doing things?

Now, as for items being "unverifiable":  I believe we annotated and footnoted FOTR rather heavily, but if there's anything that you feel has not been nailed down, please let us know, and we will provide the information.

If you could also verify for us your relationship with the Buxhoeveden family, we will be happy to communicate with you privately the details of our interaction with them.

[Penny_Wilson]

I don't know what to believe about her jewels. It still seems strange that she alone wouldn't have had any. I mean, being so precious, wouldn't she have sewn them in or whatever before she left?

Sarastasia

It's possible -- or even likely -- that Maria had jewels sewn into her clothes just as her sisters did.  The assertion that she had none -- and that they had been removed from her care by a mother who was angry with her because of her friendliness with a guard -- was made by Yurovsky.  Not us.    We added it into FOTR because it's part of the whole picture, and an interesting point to ponder -- for several reasons, including what may have been Yurovsky's motivation in suggesting this.

As for Maria's death:  Her remains show one gunshot wound to her thigh bone.  This doesn't mean that that one gunshot was the only injury she sustained; but we don't have any of her soft tissue left to determine what other damage was wrought on her body.  

In FOTR, we pieced together eyewitness testimony minute-by-minute on a time-line like the ones that Bear has used elsewhere on these forums.  In doing this, it seemed to us most likely that Maria was the daughter who broke free of the group of women to try and break through the storeroom doors.  One piece of testimony claimed that this girl was shot low, by a guard firing under the pall of smoke, and fell to the ground.  As Maria had the thigh-bone damage -- and none of the other girls did -- she fit this victim profile.  As for what happened to her after that, well, we know that she stayed down -- stunned, knocked out, playing dead -- we just don't know.  It was only after everyone else was down on the ground and the assassins made the rounds to check pulses that she was found to be alive.  

[Sarushka]

AlexP --

Do you have links to the NYT book review you can refer me to? And which "subsequent book reviews" would you have me look at to support your position? Which parts of FoTR do you believe have fallen apart under scrutiny?

I'm willing to consider your point of view, if you'd help by providing some specifics.

Sm

[Sarastasia]

What was this "incident" on Maria's birthday? Is this the solider that she courted before they were arrested or another one??


Sarastasia

[Sarushka]

This was a different soldier -- one of the Ipatiev house guards. You can find the details in Fate of the Romanovs.

[AGRBear]

Bumping this up since it has a great deal of information which is being discussed on another thread.

AGRBear

[Sarushka]

Bumping this up since it has a great deal of information which is being discussed on another thread.

AGRBear

It would be MUCH more useful in the long run if you'd link the relevant threads together instead of just bumping one up, particularly when the threads are in different forums. A bumped thread can disappear to the bottom of the list within hours on a busy day, but if you post the link for this thread (http://forum.alexanderpalace.org/index.php/topic,1227.0.html) into your other discussions, it will be far easier for your readers to find, even months from now.

[AGRBear]

Many new posters don't know that some of these old threads exist because they have become buried  and I find it helpful when others dump up old threads long forgotten.

 

AGRBear

[Sarushka]

I find it helpful when others dump up old threads long forgotten.

So I've noticed.

But think about it: by posting links to related threads, you bind them together much more permanently AND bump them up at the same time.

[Robert_Hall]

Helpful ?  The SEARCH function is to be used. The INDEX is here as well. Agility in actually READING is apparently lost on massive posters.  More interested in numbers than content.

[AGRBear]

I find it helpful when others dump up old threads long forgotten.

So I've noticed.

But think about it: by posting links to related threads, you bind them together much more permanently AND bump them up at the same time.

Since you think there are other threads which need to be grouped with this one, then, please,  bump them up, too.

AGRBear

[griffh]

It is fascinating that the jewels were sewn into the chemise and not the corsets.  I though it might be helpful to quickly review corsets from the 1890’s to 1918 to get a sense of what the Empress’ daughters may have worn in exile.   You can see a frilled chemise is worn under the corset.  The wasp waste corsets that the Empress wore in the 1890’s made her the ideal of that era of straight lacing and tiny waists.  An example of a wasp-waist corset for 1899 is below…

By 1900 the new mono-bosomed corsets, which the Young Empress also wore with great style, emphasized the s-curve or “Grecian Bend” that complimented the curvaceous silhouette of the period and is seen below.  The new straight line corsets got rid of the tiny waists and were a bit more comfortable.  You can also see that instead of wearing a chemise, the lady is wearing a lace corset cover.  Corset covers were worn during the day time and removed for the deep décolleté dinner and evening gowns.  These corset covers were considered by some fashion historians as the precursor of the bra...

However by 1911 the Empress refused to streamline her hips to conform to sleek new hobble skirt silhouette by wearing the new long-line corsets as seen below.  Wearing the older straight front corsets made her gowns during the teens not quite as chic as they could have been with the right foundation.  However the Empress always managed to look majestic in public.  The new long-line corset can be seen below…   

By 1913 corsets became almost girdles as seen below and therefore allowed for greater freedom.  In 1913 the Wick’s Special Sports Corset was so flexible that it was suitable for even the Tango.  By 1914 the Wick’s Special Sports Corset was advertised as being especially suited for Nursing and Red Cross work  It is seen below…

By 1914 sophisticated women were wearing bras and cotton sateen girdles as seen below which is a fashion that the Empress’ daughter probably never wore as seen below…

You can see that from 1915 to 1918 corsets remained fairly unaltered as seen below…


The only corset I could find that might have been more in keeping with what the Empress’s daughters might have worn in exile is the 1913 “De Bevoise” even though it is listed as a boned brassiere.  You can see the open-work cambric chemise under the corselet.  The Empress’ daughters could not have been wearing any fashionable corset from the period as those corsets would have left their bosoms unprotected.  They must have been wearing something more like the “De Bevoise” as it covers the bosom and would allow for the chemise. 

 

[ashanti01]

Does anyone know where they got the idea to have their jewels sewn into their clothing? Did any other Romanov or member of nobility do this?

[Robert_Hall]

Jewels, and other valuables, sewn inside  clothes is an old, time tested way of hiding one's assets. Not very secure any more though, as that is the first place someone searching would look! The Romanovs were by no means the first, nor last to use this method. I would almost say it betrays their naivete except they got away with it until their deaths.  [then again, if the authorities already knew their fate, why bother them about it beforehand?]