"Resurrection of the Romanovs: Anastasia, Anna Anderson" by King And Wilson

[TimM]

Interesting, but I guess since no Romanov living now actually knew Nicky and his family, they can "move on".  Maybe Nicky and his family being canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church helped.

Anyway, as I said, the book is great.  Thanks for writing it, both of you.

[Greg_King]

You're welcome! Hopefully this answers questions in this case and offers new evidence that finally ends it

[TimM]

Well considering that there are still people out there who think the Earth is flat, I imagine there will be those who will hold to the idea that AA was Anastasia.  Anastasia's ghost could materialize in front of them and tell them first hand, and they STILL wouldn't believe she was murdered in 1918.

[Greg_King]

Had a message from AP member Primrose pointing out something interesting that we never noticed:

Franziska's brother Michael was born on her birthday in 1899 but died in infancy. Her brother Valerian was born April 25 1900. So he must have been born at barely five months-premature-and Franziska's mother Marianna must have become pregnant again right away, especially as we were able to obtain and confirm the dates of birth with church registries and certificates.

Just wanted to clarify in case someone read that and thought it must be wrong

[Elisabeth]

I've been everywhere this holiday season, and cannot find this book anywhere, despite all my best efforts. Is it only available on special order or something?

I think the question we should really ask is, to what extent was Anna Anderson/Franziscka Schanzkowska mentally ill? And to what extent was she a con artist? Both? I have no idea about the ultimate answers to these questions -- I am hoping Greg and Penny's book will supply answers to same -- but I suspect there are a lot of grey areas here. Which is to say, FS was never in reality AN, but she might truly have believed at times (AT TIMES!) that she was.

I just (re)watched the Leonardo DeCaprio movie Catch Me If You Can about the master con artist and check forger Frank Abignale Jr. who operated as a young adult during the 1960s and after his arrest ultimately became a special agent in the FBI check fraud unit. What was astonishing about him was first and foremost his incredible intelligence, which was obviously genius level, allowing him to pass as an airplane pilot, doctor, and lawyer, at various times during his juvenile career of nefarious impersonations ("how did you cheat the Louisiana bar exam, Frank?" "I studied for two weeks and then I took the test"). We underestimate these personalities at our own risk. Fortunately Abignale turned out to be "socially friendly" in the long run, and now works for Fortune 500 companies. But Anna Anderson? I sort of wonder if she was always a bit or even completely antisocial. I can't find the King and Wilson book anywhere, but I am yearning to read it for their take on such questions.

[Greg_King]

No-it should have massive distribution across North America and now in Europe. I know it was selling very well and perhaps stores were out if they ordered it, but it should always be available though Amazon or Barnes and Noble or Chapters in Canada or any other major retail distributor. If all else fails, any bookstore should be able to easily order a copy if you prefer not to order through Amazon.

We try to assess AA's mentality as best as is possible. She certainly was, up to the 1960s, quite aware of what she was doing and knew very well that she was in fact Franziska. By the 1970s, perhaps she had actually come to believe the lie, but so much of what she did was quite deliberate and demonstrates how she made real efforts to pass herself off-not quite as a valid Grand Duchess-but as just enough of an enigma for people to always wonder-and therefore to continue the mystery and support her.

[Kalafrana]

I wonder whether in the latter stages of her life she was suffering from Alzheimer's Disease.

To my mind that would fit in with her living in increasing squalor, although she had previously reduced the barrack hut in Bavaria to squalor during the 1950s.

Ann

[AGRBear]

Had a message from AP member Primrose pointing out something interesting that we never noticed:

Franziska's brother Michael was born on her birthday in 1899 but died in infancy. Her brother Valerian was born April 25 1900. So he must have been born at barely five months-premature-and Franziska's mother Marianna must have become pregnant again right away, especially as we were able to obtain and confirm the dates of birth with church registries and certificates.

Just wanted to clarify in case someone read that and thought it must be wrong

Greg,

Are you sure it wasn't 1901?

According to earlier posts,  this is what was written:

>>Family chart


Anton Schanskowsky (Schanzkowsky) m. (1) to 1890 to Josefina Peek
Issue: [unknown]
1. ?

Anton Schanskowsky m. (2) 1894 to Marianna Wiscek [Wilczek] b. 1866. Marriage ended in divorce abt 1910/1912. Both remarried. [Mother remarried to ___NN___ Knopf; no children listed]
Issue:
2. Martin Christian S. b. 16 November 1895
3. Franziska S. b. 16 December 1896 [date from Penny Wilson] also listed in some books as 22 December 1896, baptized 24 December 1896
4.  Gertrude S. b.  12 Nov 1898 m. ____ Ellerick
Children:
----- 1) Gertrud Ellerick m. __ Maucher Child was:
---------- (1) Carl Maucher +
-----2) Hedwig Ellerick m. __ Lander
----- 3) Margarete Ellerick+
----- 4) Magdalene Ellrick m. __ Weber Child was:
------------(1) Herbert Weber

5. Michael S. b. 16 December 1899
6. Valerian S. b. 25 April 1901
7. Felix S. b. 17 February 1903
8. Juliane Marianna S. (Maria Juliana) b. 30 April 1905

AGRBear<<

According to your last book, the name was, also, spelled Czenstkowski.

[Greg_King]

Bear, we'd have to look back through to confirm now if the church registry says 1900 or 1901-and who knows where they are at the moment? It could be that 1900 is an error and it should be 1901. I DO know we actually had confirmation of the date-but the year could be mistake either here as 1901 or in the book as 1900, as unfortunately such things happen. Luckily it doesn't affect anything having to do with Franziska, though!

[grandduchessella]

More to the point, I think Franziska had a deep desire to feel loved, to belong, and in the Romanovs she found something that had been lacking in her life-an idealized family, even if only by proxy. So while she certainly knew what she was doing, there is an undeniable psychological aspect to what happened that mitigates to some extent the effect it had on others. I don't know that she can be held completely responsible in the same way we might do with someone lacking her psychological background and overwhelming despair. That's why I think it's best to tread gingerly in assigning motives to her to fit preconceptions-she wasn't good nor evil, merely human, and clearly unequipped emotionally to make correct choices in life that would not harm others.

I think this is an interesting point. (And congratulations and welcome back to both you and Penny!) I never believed that AA was Anastasia but I always felt (with no proof mind you) that she somehow believed it--either because of a mental illness, because she wanted it so badly, because she was sad and lonely, whatever the reason. She just seemed to cling so hard to the idea--not wavering from it--for so long and through so many battles. Other wannabes quickly fell by the wayside but she hung in there. I can agree with the earlier poster (Lisa?) who was 'incensed' with what she put the family through but at the same time feel pity because I don't believe (again, just my opinion) that she had the same hard-bitten motives that many claimants (and perhaps some of those around her) had. I always just found her a sad, pitiful figure.

I have bought all your books (from FOTR onward) for our library recently and look forward to adding this one as well.  I just wish the Grand Duke Ernst Ludwig one hadn't fallen away. One can always dream, I suppose. 

[Penny_Wilson]

I think this is an interesting point. (And congratulations and welcome back to both you and Penny!) I never believed that AA was Anastasia but I always felt (with no proof mind you) that she somehow believed it--either because of a mental illness, because she wanted it so badly, because she was sad and lonely, whatever the reason. She just seemed to cling so hard to the idea--not wavering from it--for so long and through so many battles. Other wannabes quickly fell by the wayside but she hung in there. I can agree with the earlier poster (Lisa?) who was 'incensed' with what she put the family through but at the same time feel pity because I don't believe (again, just my opinion) that she had the same hard-bitten motives that many claimants (and perhaps some of those around her) had. I always just found her a sad, pitiful figure.

I had never really thought that she was "in it for the money" because it became evident fairly soon that there wasn't any money to be had -- not really.  She just sort of eked out an existence, sometimes staying in palaces or Fifth Avenue apartments -- but just as often living in psychiatric clinics or a Quonset hut in the Black Forest.  

For a real con-artist, I think, the lack of any real cash and the freedom to do as she wanted would have meant a quick exit.  If she "disappeared" to get into the role, she could just as easily "disappear" to get out of it.  I believe the turning point for Franziska was the one occasion on which she did disappear for a few days and returned to her previous life.  Whatever those few days said to her, they propelled her back into the charade, and she never broke with it again.

I have bought all your books (from FOTR onward) for our library recently and look forward to adding this one as well.  

Thank you!

I just wish the Grand Duke Ernst Ludwig one hadn't fallen away. One can always dream, I suppose.  

I wouldn't worry too much!   King and Wilson will ride again soon -- and Ernst Ludwig could well be part of things!!!  

[TimM]

I believe the turning point for Franziska was the one occasion on which she did disappear for a few days and returned to her previous life.  Whatever those few days said to her, they propelled her back into the charade, and she never broke with it again

A role she kept playing until the day she died.  By then it was far too late.  Well, at least she found a kindred spirit in Jack Manahan.  He was just as eccentric as she was.

[matushka]

Mr King, I wish to know if you could explain in your book the "Felix Dassel' case", in your book. This very story was still confusing for me, even if  I never believed Anna Anderson beeing AN, party because every traumatical death of famous people almost automatically call such an answer as claimant. Even in such a family as mine (nothing famous, I should say) we have our legende, our claim. Is seems to be a psychological reflex of self-defense before death or something else difficult.

[Tsarfan]

Interesting, but I guess since no Romanov living now actually knew Nicky and his family, they can "move on".

I know what you mean here, but in a way quite a few people, including some Romanovs, who actually knew Nicholas and Alexandra moved on, as it were.

For instance, Ella was so disgusted with their obtuseness in turning away warnings of the coming cataclysm that she made no attempt to visit her sister and her family during their captivity at Tsarskoye Selo.  And there was precious little sentiment in the White Army to put Nicholas back on the throne.  And his cousin George in England was willing to see the family go into captivity rather than risk discredit to the British crown.

Many people have commented over the years on the lack of credible, known attempts to rescue Nicholas and his family.  I think the reasons for that go well beyond the logistical difficulties.  In fact, I suspect that quite a few people who wanted a restoration of the monarchy would have viewed Nicholas' availability to step back into the role to be more of a problem than a solution.

Today many people have lost the sense of just how Nicholas was viewed in the aftermath of Bloody Sunday in 1905.  The outright revulsion of him personally as well as his government can be read simply by looking at the newspapers of the day in London, Paris, and New York.  And a different kind of frustration with his handling of things can be found in the private papers of his sister Olga and other family members.  In fact, the image of Nicholas that emerged from Bloody Sunday was the proximate cause of George's difficulty more than a decade later in extending sanctuary to him and his family.

In some ways, the people that seem to have the most trouble moving on are not Romanovs but today's starry-eyed romantics who keep dreaming of the princess who must, simply must, have survived.

[TimM]

I don't think Nicholas would have wanted to rule again, even if it had been offered.  His writings give no indication of this.  He might have been more than happy to spend the rest of his life in exile on a farm somewhere sawing wood.

However bad a leader he may have been, it did NOT justify the brutal murder of himself and his family.  If a man is guilty of a crime, you put him on trial for said crime.  Of course, thugs and murderers like the Bolsheviks were didn't believe in due process.

Anyway, we're off topic again.  Sorry folks.