One thing I find odd

[Tania]

Mazukov,

Obviously they do. How else would one receive a response as such. Receiving such a response, speaks in itself.

Tatiana+

[Louis_Charles]

I am constrained to point out that children receive letters from Santa Claus every Yuletide. Do you all think this means that Jolly Old St. Nick exists?

Do you think that the Royal Family hand-addressed the responses to the 60 million telegraphs they probably received from all over the Commonwealth when Princess Anne made an honest man out of Mark Phillips (well, she tried, and we give points for that.)?

You don't think that there is the teensiest, tiniest possibility that the claimant received a form response, do you? That perhaps it was addressed to him the way that it was because it was the most convenient way to handle it? You know, to send the form response to the address that caused it to be sent in the first place?

For what is this response pushing for ask I?

Oh, and sorry about the miscount on the grand dukes, Margarita. Since I have not actually seen their bodies, however, I don't think it really matters. I arbitrarily decree that they did not exist.

Sarcasm, sarcasm, the devil's weapon.

[Tsarfan]

I’ve heard about this clamant before, but the one thing that always struck me odd was, why Buckingham Palace sends back a reply with a Royal heading? Did they know something that the rest of do not?

If Buckingham Palace took this man seriously, it would have been a matter of considerable importance to them to get the honorifics right.  And that would mean addressing him by the title to which he would have ascended upon the death of his father:  Tsar Alexei.

The British royal family granted GD Xenia a grace-and-favor house.  On a visit to Canada, Queen Elizabeth invited GD Olga to lunch with her on the royal yacht.  The British royal family has consistently acknolwedged all the Romanovs they knew to be real.  Now we're being told that they knew Nicholas' son was alive and well in a British dominion just because some protocol officer repeated a title -- and an erroneous one -- in a rote response to one of thousands of congratulatory communications.

Think about it.  If any senior member of the royal household were involved in answering this telegram, it would have been a matter of state policy, given the sensitivity of the Russian government to having Britain publicly declare that Nicholas' son and heir was not killed in 1918 as the Russian government has claimed for decades.  And if the British government had some knowledge that they wanted to keep secret  -- as the conspiracy advocates are suggesting here -- the last thing they would have done is answer that telegram by repeating the title Tammet used.

Let's get real.  That telegram was answered by some hack in the protocol office who just copied the stylings of the sender.

  

[J_Kendrick]

Extract from Hainsworth's article:

"On Thursday, the remains of Maria Feodorovna, mother of Nicholas II, were returned to Russia and interred in the Imperial family tomb in St. Petersburg. She fled Russia after the Revolution and lived in Denmark, where she was buried after her death in 1928.

She would have been Tammet-Romanov's grandmother, if he is who Kendrick and his wife believe he is."

This derisory extract does speak for itself.

Margarita   

Just one thing that you should know about the copyrighted article you have seen fit to post on this board...

Yours Truly was the one who had encouraged the article's author, Jeremy Hainsworth, to report both sides of the story.  It was also Yours Truly who had directed the author, Jeremy Hainsworth, to contact both Professor Futrell and Marvin Lyons.

As a journalist, I will always encourage balanced reporting that tells both sides of the story.  I do not have a problem with telling both sides of the story.  I do have a problem, however, with being misquoted... but I will not pursue that issue here in regards to the aforementioned article.

jk

[Louis_Charles]

Dear Mr. Kendrick,

I was interested to read your response, as I was on the point of asking you about the article Belochka posted. Is it an accurate reflection of the conversations you had with its' author? Does it accurately reflect the view of the historians cited?

Thanks,

Simon

[J_Kendrick]

I’ve heard about this clamant before, but the one thing that always struck me odd was, why Buckingham Palace sends back a reply with a Royal heading? Did they know something that the rest of do not?

If Buckingham Palace took this man seriously, it would have been a matter of considerable importance to them to get the honorifics right.  And that would mean addressing him by the title to which he would have ascended upon the death of his father:  Tsar Alexei.

The British royal family granted GD Xenia a grace-and-favor house.  On a visit to Canada, Queen Elizabeth invited GD Olga to lunch with her on the royal yacht.  The British royal family has consistently acknolwedged all the Romanovs they knew to be real.  Now we're being told that they knew Nicholas' son was alive and well in a British dominion just because some protocol officer repeated a title -- and an erroneous one -- in a rote response to one of thousands of congratulatory communications.

Think about it.  If any senior member of the royal household were involved in answering this telegram, it would have been a matter of state policy, given the sensitivity of the Russian government to having Britain publicly declare that Nicholas' son and heir was not killed in 1918 as the Russian government has claimed for decades.  And if the British government had some knowledge that they wanted to keep secret  -- as the conspiracy advocates are suggesting here -- the last thing they would have done is answer that telegram by repeating the title Tammet used.

Let's get real.  That telegram was answered by some hack in the protocol office who just copied the stylings of the sender.

In 1973, Alexei Tammet-Romanov had sent a telegram of congratulations to Princess Anne and Capt. Mark Phillips on the occasion of their wedding on November 14th of that same year.

Just one day later, Princess Anne and Capt. Mark Phillips themselves had promptly responded to Mr. Tammet-Romanov's message with a telegram of thanks in reply.

That very same telegram from the Palace, date stamped November 15th of 1973 and signed by Anne and Mark, just one day after Princess Anne's wedding, is very clearly addressed to:

"Alexei Nicolaievich, Czarevich, Grand Duke of Russia... Burnaby, British Columbia"

I now hold a verified copy of that same telegram right here in front of me as I am writing this post.

If this were a chess game, that would be check!

Your Move.... ;-)

[Louis_Charles]

I’ve heard about this clamant before, but the one thing that always struck me odd was, why Buckingham Palace sends back a reply with a Royal heading? Did they know something that the rest of do not?

If Buckingham Palace took this man seriously, it would have been a matter of considerable importance to them to get the honorifics right.  And that would mean addressing him by the title to which he would have ascended upon the death of his father:  Tsar Alexei.

The British royal family granted GD Xenia a grace-and-favor house.  On a visit to Canada, Queen Elizabeth invited GD Olga to lunch with her on the royal yacht.  The British royal family has consistently acknolwedged all the Romanovs they knew to be real.  Now we're being told that they knew Nicholas' son was alive and well in a British dominion just because some protocol officer repeated a title -- and an erroneous one -- in a rote response to one of thousands of congratulatory communications.

Think about it.  If any senior member of the royal household were involved in answering this telegram, it would have been a matter of state policy, given the sensitivity of the Russian government to having Britain publicly declare that Nicholas' son and heir was not killed in 1918 as the Russian government has claimed for decades.  And if the British government had some knowledge that they wanted to keep secret  -- as the conspiracy advocates are suggesting here -- the last thing they would have done is answer that telegram by repeating the title Tammet used.

Let's get real.  That telegram was answered by some hack in the protocol office who just copied the stylings of the sender.

In 1973, Alexei Tammet-Romanov had sent a telegram of congratulations to Princess Anne and Capt. Mark Phillips on the occasion of their wedding on November 14th of that same year.

Just one day later, Princess Anne and Capt. Mark Phillips themselves had promptly responded to Mr. Tammet-Romanov's message with a telegram of thanks in reply.

That very same telegram from the Palace, date stamped November 15th of 1973 and signed by Anne and Mark, just one day after Princess Anne's wedding, is very clearly addressed to:

"Alexei Nicolaievich, Czarevich, Grand Duke of Russia... Burnaby, British Columbia"

I now hold a verified copy of that same telegram right here in front of me as I am writing this post.

If this were a chess game, that would be check!

Your Move.... ;-)

You seriously think that because the mailroom at Buckingham Palace fired off a telegram to a well-wisher as part of its normal duties that Princess Anne and the rest of the British royal family were directing how such a telegram was to be addressed? Poor Anne in 1973. 24 hours after the poor girl is married, and she's slaving over the thank-you notes. On the other hand, I'm impressed. We all know what a Tartar she can be. Maybe she feared the Romanov might and knuckled down to her duty.

Had the return address been "Bozo the Clown", I have no doubts as to what the verified copy of the telegram would read.


And if this is a chess game, you are playing cricket.

[J_Kendrick]

Dear Mr. Kendrick,

I was interested to read your response, as I was on the point of asking you about the article Belochka posted. Is it an accurate reflection of the conversations you had with its' author?

Not entirely, but as I have said, I will not pursue that issue here.

Does it accurately reflect the view of the historians cited?

Thanks,

Simon

That is for the historians in question to say.  I was not privy to their conversations with the author.

I can tell you, however, that there is more to the research that prompted the article that has yet to be reported.

[Louis_Charles]

Thanks for answering.

[Belochka]

Extract from Hainsworth's article:

"On Thursday, the remains of Maria Feodorovna, mother of Nicholas II, were returned to Russia and interred in the Imperial family tomb in St. Petersburg. She fled Russia after the Revolution and lived in Denmark, where she was buried after her death in 1928.

She would have been Tammet-Romanov's grandmother, if he is who Kendrick and his wife believe he is."

This derisory extract does speak for itself.

Margarita   

Just one thing that you should know about the copyrighted article you have seen fit to post on this board...

Yours Truly was the one who had encouraged the article's author, Jeremy Hainsworth, to report both sides of the story.  It was also Yours Truly who had directed the author, Jeremy Hainsworth, to contact both Professor Futrell and Marvin Lyons.

As a journalist, I will always encourage balanced reporting that tells both sides of the story.  I do not have a problem with telling both sides of the story.  I do have a problem, however, with being misquoted... but I will not pursue that issue here in regards to the aforementioned article.

jk

You were not misquoted Mr Kendrick - the boldface however was mine. Nothing was omitted or deleted between those two extracted sentences.

This "balanced" article appeared two days after the Dowager Empress Mariya Fedorovna was re-buried in St. Petersburg. However I will also not pursue this issue either. The timing of this "balanced" article speaks for itself.

Margarita

[Belochka]

In 1973, Alexei Tammet-Romanov had sent a telegram of congratulations to Princess Anne and Capt. Mark Phillips on the occasion of their wedding on November 14th of that same year.

Just one day later, Princess Anne and Capt. Mark Phillips themselves had promptly responded to Mr. Tammet-Romanov's message with a telegram of thanks in reply.

That very same telegram from the Palace, date stamped November 15th of 1973 and signed by Anne and Mark, just one day after Princess Anne's wedding, is very clearly addressed to:

"Alexei Nicolaievich, Czarevich, Grand Duke of Russia... Burnaby, British Columbia"

I now hold a verified copy of that same telegram right here in front of me as I am writing this post.

If this were a chess game, that would be check!

Your Move.... ;-)

Signatures can be written using an autopen.

Prove to us that Princess Anne and Captain Mark Phillips actually cited Tammet's congratulatory telegram AND promptly provided their own real signatures. I doubt that the happy newlyweds would have been concerned in replying to any congratulatory telegrams from the public 24hrs after their wedding.

Can anyone please verify if the couple were actually in London 24hrs after their wedding?

Why does Buckingham Palace remain silent about this matter? The magnitude of this issue would have been extraordinary had there been any veracity to Tammet's claim.

Margarita

[J_Kendrick]

Extract from Hainsworth's article:

"On Thursday, the remains of Maria Feodorovna, mother of Nicholas II, were returned to Russia and interred in the Imperial family tomb in St. Petersburg. She fled Russia after the Revolution and lived in Denmark, where she was buried after her death in 1928.

She would have been Tammet-Romanov's grandmother, if he is who Kendrick and his wife believe he is."

This derisory extract does speak for itself.

Margarita   

Just one thing that you should know about the copyrighted article you have seen fit to post on this board...

Yours Truly was the one who had encouraged the article's author, Jeremy Hainsworth, to report both sides of the story.  It was also Yours Truly who had directed the author, Jeremy Hainsworth, to contact both Professor Futrell and Marvin Lyons.

As a journalist, I will always encourage balanced reporting that tells both sides of the story.  I do not have a problem with telling both sides of the story.  I do have a problem, however, with being misquoted... but I will not pursue that issue here in regards to the aforementioned article.

jk

You were not misquoted Mr Kendrick - the boldface however was mine. Nothing was omitted or deleted between those two extracted sentences.

I was referring to the quotes that were written by the article's author.  Not by its poster.  Don't take everything so personally.

This "balanced" article appeared two days after the Dowager Empress Mariya Fedorovna was re-buried in St. Petersburg. However I will also not pursue this issue either. The timing of this "balanced" article speaks for itself.

Margarita

The article's publication and timing was purely of its author's own choosing and at the direction of his employer, the Canadian Press newswire service.

If you have a problem with the timing of their article, then you should be placing it at their door.  Not at mine.

jk

[Tsarfan]

Just one day later, Princess Anne and Capt. Mark Phillips themselves had promptly responded to Mr. Tammet-Romanov's message with a telegram of thanks in reply.

That very same telegram from the Palace, date stamped November 15th of 1973 and signed by Anne and Mark, just one day after Princess Anne's wedding, is very clearly addressed to:

"Alexei Nicolaievich, Czarevich, Grand Duke of Russia... Burnaby, British Columbia"

I now hold a verified copy of that same telegram right here in front of me as I am writing this post.

If this were a chess game, that would be check!

Your Move.... ;-)

You've either got to be kidding, or you've spent so much time selling your story to gullible dreamers that you've forgotten that some people can actually think for themselves.

What you're suggesting is that the British royal family knew Tammet was the legitimate claimant to the Russian throne, and they were willing to risk their knowledge being made public through this means . . . but they otherwise intended to ignore him completely.

First, the suggestion is cleverly planted that the British are holding a couple of teeth that must prove Tammet's identity, because the secret results of the DNA tests conducted on the teeth have never been reported to the family.  Then a couple of people post their agreement that this might, indeed, signal a nefarious British conspiracy to keep Tammet's real identity from being revealed.  Then, to draw the dreamers in further, a telegram is tantalizingly claimed to be personally signed by Princess Anne that verifies the royal family's belief that Alexei lives.

Of course, this little scenario depends on these dreamers not noticing that the claim of critical DNA proof mysteriously kept secret is inherently inconsistent with a journalist publicly brandishing a telegram that purports to be written proof that the British royals recognize Tammet as Alexei.  That's the beauty of dreamers and conspiracists, though.  They don't worry overly much about these kinds of gaps in logic.

You and/or the Tammets are not the first enterprising people who have arranged to send some correspondence to a government official with an embedded claim and then waved a form letter response around as "proof" of that embedded claim.  It's a trick that's as old as the hills and one I'm surprised someone would try to pull off on this forum.  But as working journalist, I guess you have to try to move copy somehow.

[Tsarfan]

Can anyone please verify if the couple were actually in London 24hrs after their wedding?

Princess Anne and Mark Phillips were married at Westminster Abbey on November 14.  After the wedding, they went to Buckingham Palace for lunch, after which they repaired to White House Lodge in Richmond Park for their wedding night.  From there, they flew the next morning to Barbados where they boarded the royal yacht Britannia for an 18-day honeymoon cruise.

However, I'm sure they took time personally to sign thank-you notes before they left.  It's what most newlyweds do in the hours between their wedding and honeymoon.

[Bev]

Why wasn't he invited to the wedding?