Claimants of the Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich

[Bob_the_builder]

Thank you for his her answers
It is believed that they have not found the bodies of Michael Romanov and Brian Johnson by that they were cremated or in a nearby factory or there in the forest  or that on where they buried them now there is offices or a parking
Out of the testimonies of his her assassins there is no proof of the death of any of the two

There is most certainly proof of death of both of these men, even without bodies. Johnson's wife never heard from her husband again. Not ever. Natasha never heard from her husband again. Not ever. Both men were in love with their wives and indeed sought to keep them safe after Michael's arrest. I disbelieve in Michael's survival because nothing convinces me that he would have abandoned his wife and family.

But Lisa, what you have stated is the obvious, but can certainly not be the same as "proof". Proof is something irrefutable. It's something that no one can argue with.

Actually, I believe you have overstated the definition of "proof". I just re-checked my dictionary to see if anything had changed (or if I had been misusing the word) - and it has not. Proof is defined as "evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth".

Let's look at an example. In my opinion, there was more than enough proof that O.J. Simpson murdered his ex-wife. As you know, the jury in his criminal trial disagreed with me - finding that there was not enough "proof" to convict him. Clearly, proof does not always preclude argument.

You say my statement is obvious - perhaps. But, in order to believe in the survival of Michael, one has to disregard nearly all obvious truths about the man- including the most obvious, which was that he was a man very much in love with his wife and completely unlikely to abandon her.

no, that is a matter of faith. That's like saying you know someone wouldn't do something because "they are not that kind of person". That's just not proof, not at all.

[LisaDavidson]

Thank you for his her answers
It is believed that they have not found the bodies of Michael Romanov and Brian Johnson by that they were cremated or in a nearby factory or there in the forest  or that on where they buried them now there is offices or a parking
Out of the testimonies of his her assassins there is no proof of the death of any of the two

There is most certainly proof of death of both of these men, even without bodies. Johnson's wife never heard from her husband again. Not ever. Natasha never heard from her husband again. Not ever. Both men were in love with their wives and indeed sought to keep them safe after Michael's arrest. I disbelieve in Michael's survival because nothing convinces me that he would have abandoned his wife and family.

But Lisa, what you have stated is the obvious, but can certainly not be the same as "proof". Proof is something irrefutable. It's something that no one can argue with.

Actually, I believe you have overstated the definition of "proof". I just re-checked my dictionary to see if anything had changed (or if I had been misusing the word) - and it has not. Proof is defined as "evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth".

Let's look at an example. In my opinion, there was more than enough proof that O.J. Simpson murdered his ex-wife. As you know, the jury in his criminal trial disagreed with me - finding that there was not enough "proof" to convict him. Clearly, proof does not always preclude argument.

You say my statement is obvious - perhaps. But, in order to believe in the survival of Michael, one has to disregard nearly all obvious truths about the man- including the most obvious, which was that he was a man very much in love with his wife and completely unlikely to abandon her.

no, that is a matter of faith. That's like saying you know someone wouldn't do something because "they are not that kind of person". That's just not proof, not at all.

With all due respect, you need to go to the dictionary and look up the definition of the word "proof". "Proof" can be evidence that causes one to believe.

[helenazar]

... in order to believe in the survival of Michael, one has to disregard nearly all obvious truths about the man- including the most obvious, which was that he was a man very much in love with his wife and completely unlikely to abandon her.

no, that is a matter of faith. That's like saying you know someone wouldn't do something because "they are not that kind of person". That's just not proof, not at all.

I have to agree with Martyr here. Saying that Michael was "not the kind of person who would abandon his wife" is not proof... That doesn't mean he survived of course, it just has nothing to do with "proof" that he didn't... It's a strange argument.

[Vecchiolarry]

Hi Everybody,

Just a suggestion as to what may have happened to the bodies:

I believe they were shot in the woods and local Russians would know if there were wolves in those woods, then they merely had to leave the bodies where they dropped and they would be gone by morning.  No trace of anything would remain.
Several years ago, I worked in a mining camp in Northern Canada.  The manager shot a menacing black bear there one night and it was dragged onto a clearing by the river and left there.  Next morning, nothing remained of the bear, not even bones or blood.  The wolves had done a good cleanup job.

Could this explain why no bodies were ever found?  Something to think about!!

Larry

[TheAce1918]

I have to agree with Martyr here. Saying that Michael was "not the kind of person who would abandon his wife" is not proof... That doesn't mean he survived of course, it just has nothing to do with "proof" that he didn't... It's a strange argument.

Ditto.  It seems far-fetch'd, but there was a possibility that it could have happened.  An example. (though not really thorough) is the US Federal Witness Protection Program.  Many are forced to erase their previous lives and start completely anew, abolishing any and all contacts to and from their old lives.

[Alixz]

Passing by the definition of "proof" - I read both of the links.

They are hard to understand due to the difficulty of translation.  However, while I don't take a stand one way or the other, it is interesting to read.

I believe that Lenin and his successors left the the "fate" of all of the Romanovs (except those shot at St. Peter and Paul) in doubt and confusion on purpose.  That may not have been their initial intent, but when it happened they ran with it.  The perfect cover up is no cover up.  Make no claims and let everyone else confuse and obfuscate.

Or make some claims but none that can be proven.  As to a mother's "heart knowing" The Dowager Empress never believed that Nicholas and company were dead either and they certainly were.

I guess I believe that Michael died in Perm with Brian Johnson.  I have no reason not to believe, but no "proof" (there is that word again  ) either.

I do wonder why, though, that no big "fuss" was made over Michael as was made of Nicholas and his family.  I am sure that there was come kind of investigation at the time or later, but I guess the civil war and the ensuing Bolshevik take over would have brought any impartial investigation to a halt.

[Annie]

I agree that 'not that kind of person' means nothing. Whenever I try to suggest Gleb Botkin was a likely suspect in being involved in the AA fraud, people will say he couldn't have because 'the Schweitzers were such nice people.' Well, that really doesn't mean a thing. Even if they were nice, that doesn't mean he was not capable of something less than on the level. Besides, people can justify things in their head so they don't think they're doing anything wrong, so I'm sure he never thought of himself as a bad guy and taught his daughter to be a fraud. I've discussed with others  on other sites that maybe a certain star is not as sincere about something as he pretends to be, and other fans go 'oh no I read this interview..' Well, that's one interview where he was careful, or one news spot where he made sure he said just the right thing. You can't be sure what he may also be thinking and doing on his on time.

Another point is, anyone can be nice for five minutes when you meet them or talk on the phone, it's not an indication of their entire life. No offense to anyone in particular, this goes for everyone. Just because you may think someone is 'a nice person who wouldn't to that' or transfer that to their family members, it really doesn't mean a thing. No one knows what anyone would do under certain circumstances. We'd probably even surprise ourselves to know what we might be capable of if things became extreme, that's why I don't even buy it when a person tells me THEY would NEVER do blankedy blank, no one really knows until you're faced with it. And we can never be sure of anything concerning others we never met or only spoke to briefly, or only read about.

[Robert_Hall]

You are right, Michael's actions speak louder than any words. His determined devotion to the woman he sacrificed so much to marry, his constant concern over the welfare of his family and  his refusal of the throne under his own volition demostrates his integrity. Such a man would be most unlikely to abandon a family he had worked so hard for.

[Robert_Hall]

You are right, Michael's actions speak louder than any words. His determined devotion to the woman he sacrificed so much to marry, his constant concern over the welfare of his family and  his refusal of the throne under his own volition demostrates his integrity. Such a man would be most unlikely to abandon a family he had worked so hard for.Especially to become a monk! As he had never demonstarted any religous procivity in his past.

[helenazar]

Maybe someone had him confused with Alexander I 

[lexi4]

... in order to believe in the survival of Michael, one has to disregard nearly all obvious truths about the man- including the most obvious, which was that he was a man very much in love with his wife and completely unlikely to abandon her.

no, that is a matter of faith. That's like saying you know someone wouldn't do something because "they are not that kind of person". That's just not proof, not at all.

I have to agree with Martyr here. Saying that Michael was "not the kind of person who would abandon his wife" is not proof... That doesn't mean he survived of course, it just has nothing to do with "proof" that he didn't... It's a strange argument.

I have to agree. Perhaps Micheal would abandon his wife if it would assure her safety. So now I have cast reasonable doubt.

[Belochka]

... in order to believe in the survival of Michael, one has to disregard nearly all obvious truths about the man- including the most obvious, which was that he was a man very much in love with his wife and completely unlikely to abandon her.

no, that is a matter of faith. That's like saying you know someone wouldn't do something because "they are not that kind of person". That's just not proof, not at all.

I have to agree with Martyr here. Saying that Michael was "not the kind of person who would abandon his wife" is not proof... That doesn't mean he survived of course, it just has nothing to do with "proof" that he didn't... It's a strange argument.

I have to agree. Perhaps Micheal would abandon his wife if it would assure her safety. So now I have cast reasonable doubt.

Reasonable doubt or is there another stupid survival idea brewing in the Siberian wind?

Margarita 

[lexi4]

... in order to believe in the survival of Michael, one has to disregard nearly all obvious truths about the man- including the most obvious, which was that he was a man very much in love with his wife and completely unlikely to abandon her.

no, that is a matter of faith. That's like saying you know someone wouldn't do something because "they are not that kind of person". That's just not proof, not at all.

I have to agree with Martyr here. Saying that Michael was "not the kind of person who would abandon his wife" is not proof... That doesn't mean he survived of course, it just has nothing to do with "proof" that he didn't... It's a strange argument.

I have to agree. Perhaps Micheal would abandon his wife if it would assure her safety. So now I have cast reasonable doubt.

Reasonable doubt or is there another stupid survival idea brewing in the Siberian wind?

Margarita 

Margarity,
Cool your jets. 
We are just enjoying the discussion.
Lexi

[FaithWhiteRose]

I read in one it paginates a little of internet strange that Michael didn't die that I am able to escape wounded and I arrive at a monastery where they changed their identity and he lived as monk until they send it to a field of Stanlin and it dies there for the conditions of the place.
This it is the first link where it begins this history  http://www.philosophi.org/lasttsar.htm
and in this he comes the continuation and the comparison of the pictures among Michael and the monk that said it was the one
http://www.philosophi.org/russkiy_tsar.htm
In my opinion I don't believe in this plaintiff if Michael had survived monk had not been made, he would have returned beside Nathasa and of George, it is very similar to the story that Anastasia survived and nun became.
 ¿You that they say on this case?
 

there's a good chance of this happening since Michael's body is not found yet . . . which leads to another question: did anyone claim that they were Michael Alexandrovich? 

[Robert_Hall]

No. No one ever claimed to be Michael. He had a living wife and relatives that could identify him easily. Also, no one ever escaped "wounded" from a Bolshevik execution squad! They were brutal, but thorogh and sloppily efficient.