Ermakov and the Grand Duchesses

[AGRBear]

Once upon a time, one of the regular posters here on AP was a person who had worked for Summers and Mangold.  She believed that they were  honest and did their homework.  They  had doubts that Anna Anderson was GD Anastasia, however, they did give her story.  Anyway, that said,  there were a few people who blasted their book here on AP from time to time and believed the book wasn't worth reading. I'll let all of you be your own judge on this.  However, from what I understand, it was shortly after their book that the Soviets realized the story about the Royal Family hadn't faded away and there was new interest.  There is a newer edition of their book which I have around here somewhere which if I remember was published before the DNA tests.  They were the ones who hired scientists and reported things like the dog found in the Four Brother's Mine could not have been in the mine all that time, a year, and remain in the condition it was found in July of 1919.  

Here is what they wrote about the hairs found on  pps. 67 and 68 in the first edition, hardback:

>>In the bathroom were dirty pillow slips....in the left-hand corner, on the linoleum near the water pipes, short pieces of hair cuttings.<<


>>...curiously, even more hair--this time a box with cut hair of four different colours.  Chemodurov later identified the hair as coming from the four grand duchesses.<<

>>In the vestibule outside the imperial quarters there were empty medicine bottles...more strands of hair....<<

This information was from the investigation of Nametkin

A quick look in Alekseyev's book and I didn't see the box with the cut hair mentioned but that doesn't mean it's not mentioned.

AGRBear





 

[AGRBear]

Fate of the Romanovs by King and Wilson's list of items Nametkin listed found upstairs p. 342:

>><<Pushed beneath the edge of the raised tub was a small wooden box containing three distinct colors of hair, which Chemodurov identified as having come from three of the grand duchesses, more hair, from all four girls was discovered on a corner shelf.<<

AGRBear

[Reco]

THE FILE ON THE TSAR by Summers and Mangold
 map p 143

[Sarushka]

Thank you tom, Lisa, and Bear for your help with this. I'm house-sitting and have only brought a few of my Romanov books, so I'm feeling very limited in terms of references for the next couple weeks.

My library system has a 1976 edition of FOTT, which I've just requested via interloan. Am I correct that this would be the earlier edition?

[Reco]

Sarushka "My library system has a 1976 edition of FOTT, which I've just requested via interloan. Am I correct that this would be the earlier edition?"

Yes, I have the Second Impresssion

First published by Victor Gollancz Ltd 1976
First Issued in Fontana Books 1977
Second Impresssion March 1978

[markjhnstn]

FOTT is still a hell of a good read.

It's hard to imagine the Romanov story now without all the details of the discovered grave, the Yurovsky note and access to the soviet archives etc but once upon a time we had absolutely none of that at all.

Once Summers and Mangold had disproved the official account of the bodies being totally destroyed at the Four Brothers mine then all speculations and theories could be made.

[Mexjames]

Having found the bodies was great.  A number of myths were debunked, and false pretenders were finally put in evidence, as people who needed psycotherapy... badly.

Now, I hope that the remains of the Heir and his sister (we all assume she was Maria) are buried as soon as possible.

Last  but not least, perhaps more files of the period would be discovered, still debunking more myths, creating new ones or just clarifying some situations.

The fascination that Nicholas II and his family have exerted on thousands and thousands of people, will never go away, though, but as time goes by, there will be no new information on them, and then someone will have to declare this as a "case closed".

[Romanov_fan]

I think there's a lot more in the archives though, and also new people interpret the Romanovs in new ways. Murder cases can be closed, and certainly we have solved all the mysteries of the Romanov's murder by now, but history can always be interpreted in new ways.

[AGRBear]

There is a "Revised and updated 2002 edition" by Sumers and Mangold.  On p. 19 they tell us:

>>...we accept that the new discoveries may have proved us wrong, that the evidence for survival of the tsarina and her daughters from some time after the tsar's murder may be ill-founded.  Our publishers, meanwhile believe this book remains a unique study of an extraordinary case, and should be [p. 20] republished.<<

>>May our readers enjoy pondering the puzzles that remain.<<

The few bones of a grand duchess and the Tsarvich would not be discovered until July of 2007.

AGRBear

[Romanov_fan]

Thanks for posting that, I didn't read the revised 2002 edition so had never read that. At least they are willing to admit they might have made a mistake with their research. I do think their book is worth reading, after all, it was written long before even the news of discovery of the remains of the IF in the late '80s, early '90s, and does contain interesting research, although since I read the book in 2001, and never since, the book has become a bit cloudy to me.

[wox24]

Yermakov lied about murder and motives of murder but why should he lie about grand duchess in the captivity? Besides these words does not five reasonf for not always good behaviour of guards. It does not make any sense.

[LisaDavidson]

Yermakov lied about murder and motives of murder but why should he lie about grand duchess in the captivity? Besides these words does not five reasonf for not always good behaviour of guards. It does not make any sense.

I don't quite understand your post and hence your point. The Bolsheviks were proud to be liars and did not necessarily need a reason to do so.

[wox24]

Yermakov lied about murder and motives of murder but why should he lie about grand duchess in the captivity? Besides these words does not five reasonf for not always good behaviour of guards. It does not make any sense.

I don't quite understand your post and hence your point. The Bolsheviks were proud to be liars and did not necessarily need a reason to do so.

In the thread some of you doubt Yermakovs witness of grand duchess. I know bolsheviks were the masters of lying but IMHO it is not this case.