Tania, thank you for taking the time to correct scorpio boy's post. I would have done it myself but I was posting at 1am last night and probably wouldn't have made much of an improvement!
Scorpioboy, I found this statement of yours particularly interesting:
'Some of the real facts we will never know, as she was tested privately with questions we will never hear.. So on other claimant could find out. I have read many books on AA..May I add strongly, that she could not have been "Told. Retainers and Courtiers did not enter the private sanctum of the mauve boudoir for example, and if indeed, she was so clever why didn’t she use all she knew?'
You are right. If retainers and courtiers never entered upon the private life of the family, then how do we know what AA said about life at court was actually true in the first place? There was no one to corroborate her! Her parents and siblings (talking hypothetically here, as I don't believe in AA) were dead, all of the people who had shared their captivity in Ekaterinburg were dead, and those who did know her on an intimate, day to day basis, denied AA. Pierre Gilliard, the girls' tutor, denied AA. Shura, Anastasia's nursemaid, denied AA. Sophie Buxhoeveden denied AA. GD Xenia and GD Olga, her two surviving paternal aunts, denied AA. Princess Irene and Princess Victoria, her two surviving maternal aunts, denied her.
The only people of any significance who did support her claim were distant royal relatives who probably knew the real Anastasia more from photographs than real life.
AA may have seemed like she 'knew' a lot of 'intimate' details, but we don't even know if what she said is true. All of those who were truly intimate and who would have known if she was telling the truth were dead or denied her flat out anyway. If she had said 'in private, with just the two of us, my mama used to call me Annie' or whatever, who's to say that's true or not? No could prove something like that was true. It may sound convincing, but when it comes down to it, anyone could say such things and sound convincing, especially when there's no one of a higher authority around to confirm or deny your statements.
AA was DNA tested, and she was proved to be no relation to the Hessian family, meaning she could not have been AN. She managed to hoodwink a lot of people for a long time; people who wanted to believe she was AN for their own reasons, which have been discussed many times on this board. If you look at this case objectively, you see the massive, gaping holes in the story. It's important not to just analyse one side.
Have you read 'The Quest for Anastasia' by John Klier and Helen Mingay? Have you read 'The Fall of the Romanovs' by Steinberg and Khrustalev? I strongly recommend that you read something scholarly and not sensational, as you need to see both sides of the story. Peter Kurth's book is most people's first port of call, and while very informative, it is reluctant to explore the other side of the story, ie. anything that doesn't agree with the conclusion that AA was AN. Peter Kurth's book was also written before the DNA testing came out, which is important to remember. 'The Fall of the Romanovs' and several other recent books are good in helping you to understand the sheer brutality of the execution and the remote possibility of anyone surviving such an attack.
I hope that helps you, and thanks again to Tania for taking the time to clean up scorpio boy's post.
Rachel
xx
