One thing I find odd

[Annie]

Don't forget that Yurovsky and others have admitted to burning two bodies. They never thought they were missing because they knew what happened to them.

[Tania]

which two bodies ?

Tatiana+

[LisaDavidson]

His "Note" said Alexis and one of the women.

There's a couple of possibilities here. One is that he actually did burn two bodies. Another is that two of the bodies disappeared during the two days he spent disposing of the bodies of the Imperial Family, and he invented the burning story to explain why the grave was short two bodies.

To me, the second is the more plausible. The main reason is that it has been fairly well documented that the technology to completely destroy the bodies by burning did not exist in the rural environs of Ekaterinburg in 1918. So, it seems very unlikely that he did so. Also, with all the survivor rumors, it seems that a logical source of this was the men working with Yurovsky on the second burial, who would have been aware they were two bodies short.

[Tania]

Lisa,

For me, the second one seems more plausible. I still think it was such a wild night, that they might have had to make it up just to cover their rear...so for me, i'm still wondering...i guess because of no real valididity to date. Thanks always for  your great input.

Tatiana+

[lexi4]

His "Note" said Alexis and one of the women.

There's a couple of possibilities here. One is that he actually did burn two bodies. Another is that two of the bodies disappeared during the two days he spent disposing of the bodies of the Imperial Family, and he invented the burning story to explain why the grave was short two bodies.

To me, the second is the more plausible. The main reason is that it has been fairly well documented that the technology to completely destroy the bodies by burning did not exist in the rural environs of Ekaterinburg in 1918. So, it seems very unlikely that he did so. Also, with all the survivor rumors, it seems that a logical source of this was the men working with Yurovsky on the second burial, who would have been aware they were two bodies short.

So what happened to the other two bodies? I always wondered if they fell off the truck, discovered later and then buried nearby. 

[Romanov_fan]

It is a great mystery. I believe they were not burned. As stated, it would have been very difficult to do that back then, in those circumstances. They have never been found, but that is not proof of burning. I find the whole thing confusing..but I don't think it proves any survivors. I am not sure the bodies disapeared, sure he was confused, but he could have just buried them somewhere else. As for claimants, I think it is just that Anna Anderson/Anastasia was more widely known than the others. It is a common misconception there were more Anastasia claimants, one I believed until I came to this forum and begin reading the survivor threads. I don't think it has any bearing on anything that Anna Anderson just claimed to be Anastasia, whose remains have in my view never been found. It is just of the interesting parts of the story.

[Alixz]

I just wondered if AA truly thought out this plan in advance or just "kind of fell" into it.  When in the hospital she was mistaken for Tatiana (and in some of the picutres I can see why). did she begin planning then or was her plan complete on the day she was pulled from the canal?

The whole thing is so elaborate and complicated that is seems impossible that one person could have imagined it all.

I just don't understand why it was so hard to prove one way or the other.  It did seem that no matter what AA said she had to prove it and then what the others said she had to disprove.

Peter Kurth's book is an incredible adventure into the whole story and if there were no DNA evidence (as there was none when he wrote it) I can see why he believed her.

I find it sad that it seems so hard to prove identity and that so many were willing (for their own reasons) to go one way or the other.  I also feel sad for those who "threw away" their lives for her.  I know that most of them  (perhaps all) are now dead, but they gave a great deal in good faith and received nothing but ridicule in return. I mean the lawyers and the journalists, not the royal relatives.

[Bev]

Here's something I find odd - (and I'm not being smart alecy)  why would anyone believe a woman who had been and out of asylums for years?  I'm willing to bet that at the time there wasn't an asylum in the world where someone didn't claim to be some member of a royal family, why are people so gullible?  If these lunatics claim to be doctors, would they allow them to operate on them?  Or do you think they would reason that since these people have been committed for a few years, they better be cautious in believing them? 

There's just something about "claimants" that makes normally common sensical people lose are sense of reality.

[Annie]

Very good point, Bev, but then again common sense and deductive logic never works with the AA case. IMO what happened was this one got connected to the right people who were willing to feed her info and sponsor her and her claim, probably for a cut themselves if the charade paid off. Getting Gleb Botkin to take her to the US, make a story of her and help bring her claim to court was a big, big factor in her becoming more famous than any other claimant. IMO, Alex of Denmark's grandma looks more like AN, but she never got any backers Marketing is everything!

[lexi4]

Here's something I find odd - (and I'm not being smart alecy)  why would anyone believe a woman who had been and out of asylums for years?  I'm willing to bet that at the time there wasn't an asylum in the world where someone didn't claim to be some member of a royal family, why are people so gullible?  If these lunatics claim to be doctors, would they allow them to operate on them?  Or do you think they would reason that since these people have been committed for a few years, they better be cautious in believing them? 

There's just something about "claimants" that makes normally common sensical people lose are sense of reality.

You points are well taken, Bev.
I think people believed her because the truth of what happened to the IF was too much to bear. Maybe looking for hope..not necessarily that the IF would be returned to power, but that the unthinkable really didn't happen. People weren't as desensitized back then. They didn't see wars play out on television, or see gory sights on Crime Scene, so it was hard to imagine that the whole family could be executed.
They could not think the unthinkable so they clung to anything that would indicate a member might have survived that bloody night. Somehow, I think it make it didn't seem as awful if someone, at least one member of the IF survived.
But this is only a thought...I don't have answers.

[Tania]

Lexi4,

I believe your post is right in every way. It was a different era, and nobody, but nobody could have expected the horror of horrors to flood out, starting as they did with the IF. Your thoughts are quite valid. Thank you.

Tatiana+

[helenazar]

I think people believed her because the truth of what happened to the IF was too much to bear. Maybe looking for hope..not necessarily that the IF would be returned to power, but that the unthinkable really didn't happen. People weren't as desensitized back then. They didn't see wars play out on television, or see gory sights on Crime Scene, so it was hard to imagine that the whole family could be executed.
They could not think the unthinkable so they clung to anything that would indicate a member might have survived that bloody night. Somehow, I think it make it didn't seem as awful if someone, at least one member of the IF survived.
But this is only a thought...I don't have answers.

I am not so sure... IMO, if this were the case, who would have had more motive and desire to believe her than Anastasia's immediate family: her aunt, her grandmother, etc. Yet, they did not believe her. I think the other people, more removed from Anastasia, who didn't know her that well believed AA to be legit because it was an exciting thing to believe, it made a good story, it gave them somethihng to talk about, it may have brought them into the spotlight, it made their otherwise dull lives more interesting. This may be a more cynical view of the situation, but I have a feeling it may be a lot closer to the truth.

[Romanov_fan]

Well, I agree that Anna Anderson found the right connections. Every survivor story had the potential ( well, most did) of going as big as Anna Anderson's case became. But they did not, and often are not remembered today, unless they are in a list of claimants. Anna Anderson was no more believable than any other, and her story did not become popular for any reason of sensation unique to it. The other claimants provided that, for sure. I think it was a distraction, perhaps, and also a way of not facing brutal reality. As well, Anna Anderson believed in herself as a claimant, and perhaps if people sensed that she really thought that she was Anastasia, they believed more in her. The whole claimants thing in general was escapism.

[Lemur]

I think people believed her because the truth of what happened to the IF was too much to bear. Maybe looking for hope..not necessarily that the IF would be returned to power, but that the unthinkable really didn't happen. People weren't as desensitized back then. They didn't see wars play out on television, or see gory sights on Crime Scene, so it was hard to imagine that the whole family could be executed.
They could not think the unthinkable so they clung to anything that would indicate a member might have survived that bloody night. Somehow, I think it make it didn't seem as awful if someone, at least one member of the IF survived.
But this is only a thought...I don't have answers.

But it wouldn't be a happy thing for a person to live after being traumatized by what she saw happen to her loved ones. Anyone living with that kind of experience could never do so in any joy.

I am not so sure... IMO, if this were the case, who would have had more motive and desire to believe her than Anastasia's immediate family: her aunt, her grandmother, etc. Yet, they did not believe her.

You have really hit on something here. It would have been in the best interest of Olga Alexandrovna to accept Anastasia, not deny her! Even though they were female, Anastasia was the heir of the Tsar himself, and Olga a direct decendant of the royal line herself, so they could have teamed up to fight for the 'throne' or at the very least any fortune left to the family. Kyril was not well liked in the family; he'd been despised by Nicholas and Alexandra and all their branch of the family. Wouldn't it have been to Olga's advantage to fight Kyril with "Anastasia?" Her 'niece' could have given her a lot more money than whatever piddly amount she got from the 'family' which clearly wasn't much .Because of this, I find the attitude or theory that Olga denied "Anastasia" (Anderson) for money to be unrealistic and preposterous. It would have benefitted her much more to claim a real Anastasia, but since Anderson wasn't Anastasia, she didn't. It's as simple as that.

I think the other people, more removed from Anastasia, who didn't know her that well believed AA to be legit because it was an exciting thing to believe, it made a good story, it gave them somethihng to talk about, it may have brought them into the spotlight, it made their otherwise dull lives more interesting. This may be a more cynical view of the situation, but I have a feeling it may be a lot closer to the truth.

That may have been the case for some, but others may have known she was a fraud but were on her side just in case she won.

[LisaDavidson]

A few points of clarification:

1. Peter Kurth says in his Anastasia   that the claimant's story is really a story about exiles, specifically, Russian exiles. It's hard for those who have not lost their homeland to really understand the depth of such a loss, but it is such that I think those in Berlin in 1920 would have overlooked many things to "find" a surviving grand duchess. And, I think that's exactly what happened.

2. Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna was way down the list as a possible heir to the throne. During most of AA's life as a claimant, there were plenty of grand dukes and princes who had far stronger claims to the Imperial succession. And, if someone were to choose an heir irrespective of the Fundamental Law, the most popular candidate amongst the Romanovs was GD Nicholas Nicholievich. Grand Duke Dmitri was also favored by many of the younger Russians. And, if they would have chosen one of the tsar's sisters, Xenia, who was marreid to a grand duke and the mother of 6 sons would have been a far more logical choice than Olga A.