One thing I find odd

[David_Pritchard]

I've had enough of the pious hectoring, Tania.

I suggest that you protest by throwing yourself off of a very tall building. May I suggest the Carew Tower or that silly building on the UC Campus that looks like a gigantic water fountain.

[grandduchessella]

Please no suggestions, even humorously given, that someone do themselves physical harm.

[J_Kendrick]

SEARCH continues to look for them because whether they are insignificant in the grand scheme of things or not, depending on how attached you are to the Romanovs, they are still two missing children and their bodies deserve to be found and put to rest beside their family. 

Also, a lot of people want to put the whole survivor theory to rest once and for all, and in finding the final two bodies, this would be achieved.

Rachel
xx

... and when SEARCH finally admits that it has failed to find those two misssing bodies? 

Your goal of putting "the whole survivor theory to rest" will also have failed.

So...  Then what?

No matter what you may be searching for... whether it's a missing person... a cure for cancer... or evidence of water on Mars.. you must continue to pursue every possibility imaginable, if you ever expect to be successful.  If you insist on restricting your search parameters to only one possibility -- as SEARCH is now doing -- then your chances of success will remain negligible, if not non-existent.

Unless it sees fit to change its outlook, vastly expands its search parameters well beyond the confines of Pig's Meadow, and finally decides to pursue every possibility imaginable -- not just the one possibility that it now favours -- SEARCH will not succeed.

jk

[Ra-Ra-Rasputin]

Seeing as I'm not a part of SEARCH, there's no need to address me as if I am.  If you've got any better ideas as to where they should be searching, do tell.  Though, of course, you'd suggest we look no further than Heino 'Romanov' Tammet's grave, wouldn't you?

And Tania, Elisabeth is right; I wasn't referring to the two children as being insignificant in personal terms, merely in a political one.  Every person's life has a significance, and I never meant to imply otherwise.  I did not use the term 'worthless', and I wouldn't presume to about anyone.  However, you must realise that the vast majority of the world couldn't really care less about the Romanovs; many don't even know the first thing about them.  Perhaps the Orthodox world may revere them, but hardly anyone else does, I'm afraid.  I'm just stating the truth.  I'm not saying it's right, but it's the way it is.  That's why the whole cover up thing is ridiculous; they're simply not important enough to enough people to warrant a hundred year cover up resulting in the conspiracy theories we have today.

Rachel
xx

[Tania]

Rachel,

I think by now you know me, and how i write and my thoughts therein. I responded to Elizabeth's post and expressed myself, as every other member, and or guest is allowed to do as this AP Forum has been offered. I understood what Elizabeth said, and in fairness her response earlier today, in regards to what your post was about. No qualm, and I thought I stated that forthwith. Others have stated their views, and I responded equally.

I must say though, the entirety of the Orthodox world is not a small sum, and they are not insignificant by any means. That would be like me stating that in terms of other countries, and of their faiths. To offer statement, or give inuendo that they were insignificant as well as countries, or to any regard of their faith, I did not, and I will not because that is un-needed. As we all know, this is a global forum and all content, nations, faiths are respected equally, and there should be no differences in these addresses.

My right, or your right is not always what the world is, and sometimes it leaves us askance. That is why when we are here, our thoughts offered, are if you will, remain singular in view, but with a reflection if you will and unerstanding, that there are others with the same views, and sometimes equal to a whole country, sometimes a whole continent, etc.

Many as you see here on the AP Forum, are just viewers, and to my understanding over 4,000 have dropped by, but that does not mean we have heard their complete views, etc. I am sure they are more than welcome to equally give their views, as free speech is always welcomed.

My content is to that of which i directed my comments, nothing more. Politics being what they are, and to whom they encircle, remain as they are. So as long as you now understand my content, i hope you can attend to what your needs are to be focused on. I meant no ill will, but clearly stated what is the balance of thought, as one would look at the other side of a coin. Thank you for taking time to respond to my post. I hope you are well, and all is fine.

Tatiana+

[Elisabeth]

Tania, the sad fact of the matter is that as long as Nicholas and Alexandra were living, they were despised by much of the Orthodox faithful in Russia, but the minute they died at the hands of the Bolsheviks, they became martyrs to the Orthodox faith. The point is that the family of Nicholas II was more important, politically speaking, when they were dead than when they were living. Dead, they became a rallying point for the Whites, alive, they only served as a source of dissension and disorganization for that same cause.

[Tania]

Elizabeth,

As long as Russia was held captive, and incommunicado by the communists, the IF were indeed politically and by all other understandings, held as despised non persons. For many till today, in outside Russia, of those who are against the Orthodox faith, the old imperial regieme, of course, it will have continuance. There in Russia, and elsewhere wherein people continue to hold on to these thoughts, that remains. It will continue to remain untill the whole government is changed for the better in Russia.

But, there are, still inside Russia, and outside Russia a heavy contingency of Orthodox flock who as well believe totally, along with Russian Orthodox Catholics, and that is the other side of the coin, to allow balance of thought. Until the whole remains of the old communist machine have died out, the Imperial Family will continue to have this offering of political placement throughout Russia.

Russia still has not been delivered from the over 80 years of communist control and desparing issues that still continue to haunt much of the populations lives. The control of the minds, hearts, and faith stolen from the people, still have yet to be healed. This of course transpired in most of the sattelite countries, and so they also can attest to how their countries were hijacked, and people of note, as well as the rest of these nations, were continually and savagely maligned, indoctrinated, as well, considered, persona non grata. So, it is again, how and who is looking down or who has had to look down the barrel of a cannon and decidedly, how one is to look at the remainder and outcome of their countries history, a history again i might remind most readers, they did not ask for....so, Russia as these nations who were held under communist seige, still have yet to evolve. In time, perhaps another 100 years will allow the world a better understanding of what communist rule offered in reality, millions under captive rule !

Tatiana+

[Elisabeth]

Tatiana, I agree that communist rule was terrible. But we're talking about the specific political situation back in July 1918. The Bolsheviks were still struggling for political survival at this point. They were in a brutal contest with the Whites, and no one could yet be sure who would emerge as the ultimate victor. In this struggle, during the Civil War, as far as the Whites were concerned Nicholas and Alexandra and their children were more symbolically important dead than living. I don't think anyone can really contest that fact. It simply is the truth. Alive, they were an embarrassment and no one amongst the Whites could agree as to what their fate should be. No one wanted the monarchy back, but then what were they to do with Nicholas, Alexandra, Alexei, and the daughters? It was a very perplexing problem. On the other hand, if the entire family was dead, it was all quite plain and simple: the former tsar and his family were martyrs to the enemy Bolsheviks and a rallying point for the White cause.

I don't understand why you keep arguing this point because it really is quite easy to understand and one made by virtually every historian of the Russian Revolution I have ever read... you mustn't confuse present-day Orthodox feelings for the IF with the feelings of most Russians towards the IF back in 1918. That was a whole different ballgame.

[lexi4]

Tatiana, I agree that communist rule was terrible. But we're talking about the specific political situation back in July 1918. The Bolsheviks were still struggling for political survival at this point. They were in a brutal contest with the Whites, and no one could yet be sure who would emerge as the ultimate victor. In this struggle, during the Civil War, as far as the Whites were concerned Nicholas and Alexandra and their children were more symbolically important dead than living. I don't think anyone can really contest that fact. It simply is the truth. Alive, they were an embarrassment and no one amongst the Whites could agree as to what their fate should be. No one wanted the monarchy back, but then what were they to do with Nicholas, Alexandra, Alexei, and the daughters? It was a very perplexing problem. On the other hand, if the entire family was dead, it was all quite plain and simple: the former tsar and his family were martyrs to the enemy Bolsheviks and a rallying point for the White cause.

I don't understand why you keep arguing this point because it really is quite easy to understand and one made by virtually every historian of the Russian Revolution I have ever read... you mustn't confuse present-day Orthodox feelings for the IF with the feelings of most Russians towards the IF back in 1918. That was a whole different ballgame.

Elisabeth,
Very good post. And an accurate description of the climate in Russia at the time. The Whites did not want the monaarchy back. Mostly, the IF was in the way. No one really rallied around the IF. But when they were dead then the Whites could use that against the Bolsheviks. It obviously didn't work.
The members of the IF, imo, had done little in win the respect of the Russian people. In the end, Nicholas did not even have the support of his own army.
Tania, hindsight is always 20-20. It is important to keep in context in mind.

[Guinastasia]

Exactly, lexi.  Let's face it-as a husband and father, Nicholas was exemplary, but as a ruler, he was terrible.  I certainly wouldn't have wanted him in charge.

And likewise, there were good rulers that I wouldn't want to be acquainted with personally.  That's just life.

[lori_c]

Lori, with all due respect, what you are repeating is all (recent) legend and hearsay. As far as professional (that is, academic) historians can gather, there were NO contemporary rumors that two bodies were missing from Pig's Meadow. Yurovsky makes NO special attempt in any of his numerous accounts of the murder and burial of the IF to "explain" the apparent "absence" of two missing bodies. On the contrary, in one account he even jacks up the death toll by adding a twelfth victim to the number killed in the Ipatiev House. If he was so concerned about missing bodies, why add a third "missing" body to the mix?

Moreover, if there was some contemporary rumor that two bodies were missing, why didn't Anna Anderson or any of her supporters avail themselves of it? Why don't any contemporary Soviet documents address themselves to this issue? Why was Yurovsky allowed to die in his own bed? Why, why, why - the questions multiply the longer you look at this issue.

The fact of the matter is, there were NO contemporary rumors amongst the Bolsheviks, the peasants, or anywhere else that two bodies had gone missing, because two bodies had NOT gone missing. All the rumors to this effect are very, very recent and can largely be traced to conspiracy theorists trying to prove that Anastasia somehow survived the slaughter in the Ipatiev House.

P.S. Well, that's decidedly odd. The post I thought I was addressing has suddenly disappeared. Maybe I'm in the wrong thread? Or on the wrong page? But I honestly can't find anywhere the post from Lori that I responded to! My apologies, especially to Lori!

Elisabeth:  here is the quote you were chastising me about:

I believe that given the timeframe of the burial of the IF and the fact that Yurovsky and his men had to rebury them one could argue that peasants within range of the Koptyaki Forest (unnoticed) could have known that 2 bodies were not buried with the common grave - NOT that I am inferring anybody survived. I don't want to go down that path for this post. 

However, I do think that gossip and spreading tales - true or exaggerated was a preponderance of the Russian Guard as well.  So this may have been how the rumor started that 2 survived.  Considering the 2 missing were Almost named correctly in Yurovsky's note (he said Demidova and Alexei), I am guessing it was someone that was there that day and helped rebury the bodies the second time and noticed not all were accounted for.  Then probably went on to discuss this horrible day with others which spread like wildfire.  This is probably why Yurovsky felt the need to account for two missing bodies.[/font]

I believe that Edvard Razdzinsky is a very well respected historian and much of the information above was taken from his book The Last Tsar.  He argues to the contrary that Yurovsky DID try in two different written accounts which Mr. Razdzinsky waas privy to- to explain the absence of two bodies from the mass grave.

My theory on the rumors was my own.  It would be plausible to think that SOMEBODY lingering around Pig's Meadow undetected, someone who knew and lived in the area could have witnessed everything.  Including the reburial.  When it was discovered two bodies were not accounted for, someone may have known and passed it on. 

Not missing as in "they got away", but perhaps in the reburial process their bodies were not included with the rest of those in the mass grave later found under the railroad ties. 

I don't for any reason believe Anastasia or any of the others survived the execution.  I was just trying to decide how, before even the grave was opened, rumors WERE circulating that the heir and one of the Grand Duchessess survived.

I guess what i was trying to say was there could have been a possibility two bodies and were "missing" their identities and sex were no secret.  For whatever reason, they were not buried with the rest of the family as evidenced by the bones found in the grave. That is what I mean by missing.  As a result of this "rumor", amongst the guard or even people in the area ---the way could have been paved already for future people claiming to be survivors based on this rumor alone.  It was this point that I was making that AA already know one of the daughters wasn't in the grave therefore giving rise to the belief that she resembled one, at first Tatiana and then AN. 

Not that they lived.  Just that others new they were buried somewhere else.  Anyway, except for information from The Last Tsary the rest is just my theory.


Lori C.

[Elisabeth]

Thanks for being so patient with my lack of computer skills, Lori. I thought I was on the last page of this thread when actually I was on the first page! One must be ever-vigilant when following links...

At any rate, I have to insist that there's no factual evidence of rumors to the effect that two bodies were missing in 1918 Russia. There were rumors that one or more of the grand duchesses had escaped (please note: living bodies, not corpses!), but these seem to have been put about by the Ural Regional Bolsheviks themselves from their new headquarters in Perm, in order to confuse the White investigation as to the ultimate fate of the former empress and her four daughters.

I'd also be the first to admit that I don't find Radzinsky to be a reliable historian. Let's just say I find him an interesting one. He's a Romantic, with a capital R, and he practices the art of the Romantic biography, in the nineteenth-century sense of the term. He's biased, he's partisan, and he's very emotional. All of these are traits I definitely do not look for in a good historian... That said, I don't doubt that he had (and has) inside connections to the former Soviet KGB and other governmental entities who helped him with his research. For that reason, I am always careful to read what Radzinsky has to say - but always with a large grain of salt on hand! Radzinsky's chief talent lies in manufacturing a new national myth for Russia, as he did in his biography of Nicholas II, The Last Tsar. However, as a historian, as opposed to a mythologist, for the most part he lacks credibility.

[Tania]

Elizabeth,

Per your statement, "you mustn't confuse present-day Orthodox feelings for the IF with the feelings of most Russians towards the IF back in 1918", is not my only point, but I see that there is a void of understanding in what I have tried to convey. I don't have the energy, nor does it seem of importance for many, so I will skip it. As others have stated so well, but most politely, we continue to agree, to disagree.

We all have our particular understandings, given various points of writings, historical narratives, most importantly, first person recountings, etc.. Based on these, I have my choice to hold on to what I feel, in wanting to take into consideration and beliefs for bottom line takes, as I am understanding in having received all of these. Each person through their own quests of combining all of what histories offer, and that includes first person narratives, has a better understanding than those who have just read historical writings. Outside of being there in person, this is as close any person could be.

One might make suggestion to another, that there are other viewpoints, but one should not state, 'you should not continue to think this or that'. I am neither your student, nor someone who has lesser of understanding, nor a person without ability to discern. I have not gone into detail of what I do or don't know, so your comment is based purely at present on conjucture of what you think, i think, and so is Lori's. I am in my late 60's, and you are both very young women, learned to be sure about many historical parts of Russian History, but still removed somewhat. I am thankful for your being able to allow those in the Western communities to know about Russian History, etc., but those of us whom have been raised from church, early russian history, and home and cultural environments of our centuries old Russian culture, do have our beliefs, etc. We are aware of before the revolution, till present, thanks, and continue to absorb and read extensively. For many of us whose families come from a very long lineage of Russia's past, we are hopeful for Russia's future, and look to the day when Russia will become as she once was, before the communist take over.

Thanks again always for your input.

Tatiana+

[Belochka]

For many of us whose families come from a very long lineage of Russia's past, we are hopeful for Russia's future, and look to the day when Russia will become as she once was, before the communist take over.

Tatiana+

Respectfully, Russia is herself today. Russia will never return to its Imperial past: society changes and ideally progresses forward but it can never go backwards. Too much has happened inbetween and those events can never be forgotten.

Margarita

[Tsarfan]

we are hopeful for Russia's future, and look to the day when Russia will become as she once was, before the communist take over.

Hopeful for the day Russia will become as she once was . . . ?

When the vast majority of the people were peasants, many of them illiterate?  When government was completely unanswerable to the people?  When Russia's wealth was concentrated in the smallest percentage of the population of any major nation?  When a creaking, corrupt civil and military bureaucracy delivered one defeat after another to Russia throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries?  When religious minorities were barred from most professions and forced to live in pales of settlement?  When all public political discussion was censored?  When any impetus toward reform that came from outside governing circles was outlawed and driven underground?  When terrorism was the only available means of political discourse?  When crank ideologies such as Marxism seemed to offer more promise to masses of Russians than Romanov rule?

That's quite an aspiration for a nation that one holds dear.

Belochka is right.  The best hope for Russia's people lies down a new path, well away from both their autocratic and their communist pasts.  The history of Russia's autocracy is a fascinating topic for study.  Her fairytale palaces, fabulous balls, vast jewel cabinets, miles of wardrobes packed with silks and ermines, armies of liveried servants are wonderful fodder for endless daydreams.  But they are a bleak future to wish upon a people who have had more than their fair share of tyranny and deprivation.