Lass: may I ask what you have read that suggests St. Alexei did not have hemophilia?
First off, addressing the Tsarevich Alexei as a saint clearly suggests a pre-existing bias. A "passion-bearer", as he has now been named by the Orthodox Church, is not a saint.
So... What makes you so certain that Alexei was a haemophiliac? Were you there as a witness? How can you possibly know that he was not the victim of any one of more than 150 other medical disorders now known to medical science that are perfectly capable of producing all of the very same symptoms of a haemorrhagic diathesis?
Have you based your belief in the legend only on what you have read and what you have been told by others, thereby allowing the still unproven hypothesis of those before you to influence your thoughts on this subject? Or... Do you base your beliefs on the details of your own in-depth study of the symptoms and research into the field of haematology, thereby having drawn your own conclusions purely on the basis of completely new and independent thought?
Who was the first person ever in any public record to claim that Alexei may have been a haemophiliac? Give the name, date and source of your information.
How many times did Nicholas II actually use the word "haemophilia" in any of his personal diaries and private correspondence? The answer: Not even once. Did Alexei's mother Alexandra ever use the word "haemophilia" in any of her personal diaries or private correspondence? Answer: No. Did the Empress ever actually use the word the word "haemophilia" in any of her known conversations with others? Answer: No. Did any one of Alexei's four sisters ever use the word "haemophilia" in any of their own personal diaries or private correspondence? Answer: No.
Did Alexei himself ever actually use the word "haemophilia" in any of his known conversations, personal diaries, or private correspondence? Answer: No. Is there first-hand evidence from any of Alexei's own doctors, Botkin, Fedorov, Rauhkfus, Ostrogorsky, et al., clearly stating the word "haemophilia" in any of their own hand-written medical reports or private correspondence? Answer: No.
Absolutely every single piece of testimonial evidence that is now known to use the word "haemophilia" in reference to Alexei's case is entirely second and third hand evidence, and all of it coming long after the fact. The closest people to Alexei to actually use the word in print were first Gilliard, three years after the murders when his book was first published in 1921, and Spiridovich ten years after the assassination in 1928. Neither of these men were doctors and both were relying entirely on decade old memories of what little they had been told of the diagnosis by others at Spala in 1912.
The best known episodes of the Tsarevich's illness -- the bleeding at the navel as an infant, the fall when he was three, the near-death episode at Spala,
The only evidence of the new born Alexei's bleeding navel is the four brief entries in Nicholas II's private diaries from September 8th through 11th of 1904. Careful reading of this evidence reveals the bleeding had occurred only during the afternoon and evening of the first day. There was evidence of blood on the first bandage from the night before when it was changed the next morning, but every other bandage then applied after that point was clear of any further evidence. That one single blood-stained bandage reported only by Nicholas does not constitute an "episode". No other evidence of this incident is known to exist.
When were Nicholas II's private diaries first made available for public access? Answer: 1924 ... a full 20 years after Alexei's birth and six years after Nicholas II's murder. Who was the first person ever to suggest that those four brief diary entries from 1904 might have been evidence of "haemophilia"? Answer: Catherine Radziwill.. in 1931.. in a book that was written 27 years after the fact.
One curious note: Nicholas himself had used the word "bleeding" in that first single diary entry of Sept. 8, 1904. Sixty years later, the author Robert Massie chose to quote Nicholas II's description of "bleeding" in that same diary entry of Sept 8, 1904 by using the word "hemorrhage" instead in his now famous book "Nicholas and Alexandra" in 1967. Massie, however was not quoting directly from Nicholas II's diary. He was, in fact, quoting from Catherine Radziwill's interpretation of Nicholas II's words in her book "Taint of the Romanovs" from 1931.
So, which of these quotes was correct? Did Nicholas actually write the word "bleeding" or did he write the word "haemorrhage" in his diary of September of 1904? There's a considerable difference in degree between those two words. Which ever version of Nicky's September 1904 diary entry is incorrect, is it merely an innocent misquote or is it, in fact, a carefully calculated embellishment? Which ever the case may be, it's certainly intriguing to observe how altering just one single word in the evidence can have such an incredibly huge impression on public understanding.
Just one more thing about the event that everyone points to as the very first evidence of Alexei's disease before we move on. Umbilical bleeding in neonates is known to be fairly ordinary up to six weeks and more after birth, depending on when the umbilical stump falls away, which can take as long as a month. This is especially true in new-born baby boys, which has nothing to do maternal inheritance and everything to do with an obvious problem that any parent of boys who has ever changed a diaper will surely understand. New parents faced with this problem have often been told just to dab the navel with rubbing alcohol to make it dry out.. and stop worrying about it.
The bottom line? Bleeding navels in new-born babies are *not* considered to be proof of haemophilia without the aid of additional laboratory testing.
The only evidence of the fall at the age of three is in just one single letter from Alexei's grandmother. Thousands upon thousands of kids at that tender age have fallen and bruised themselves as they're busy running around but still trying to find their feet.. So... Who was the very first person in any public record to interpret the quote in that one single letter from 1907 as evidence of "haemophilia"? Give the name, date and source of your information.
As for Spala.. well... for that we can write an entire book. To save precious space here on Bob's discussion board, my response to your comment about that most serious of episodes can be read in the September 2004 issue of the American Journal of Hematology.
(Continued in following post)
