One thing I find odd

[OTMA-fan]

Tsarfan, I never said that the ONLY possibility is Alexei’s survival. I specifically said that if Alexei’s dead and Red Army was doing a fake search, I would be interested in knowing why too. 

If my job were to write a comprehensive review of the 1918 execution for the Encyclopedia of Britannica, I would write down the all possibilities. But this is a damn internet thread, we just bring up the most interesting possibility. We don’t reiterate something everyone already knows, which is the established conventional view (i.e., all IF were killed). Otherwise it gets so boring that everyone goes asleep.

This is why I appreciate someone like Lexi4 who brings up a new information. If you are not interested, just ignore it. But I am very interested in what Lexi brought up, and want to explore any possibility. What’s wrong with that?

And to others, I think that it is nonsense to argue that “If young kids see this thread, we would harm them educationally.” Come on. What young kids should learn is that 99% of information on internet is junk, and people fight all the time on the forum because everyone thinks he/she is right. But people also fight because they have passion for something they believe in (look Annie, for whom I have some respect). We don’t have to baby-feed the young. Show the real world. If they want to study, they have a book called textbook and a paper called New York Times.

It seems that Lexi is busy and hasn’t post the original book. I’ve got to go now, but I will post more information as to why we should explore the Alexei survival theory. Again, the *most straightforward* interpretation of forensic/DNA evidence is that he was not killed at least on that day.

[helenazar]

The real question is: Was the Tatiana claimant still alive in 1973 and did she send a congratulatory note for Pss Anne's wedding and get a thank you note in return? Maybe she did too!

[Louis_Charles]

You know, I was having no trouble with this post worth mentioning until you get to the last sentence, OTMA. The most "straight-forward" interpretation of the forensic evidence is that Alexei survived? Really?

Such a statement flies in the face of every reputable historian and scientist who has worked on this case. I have asked for the name of one (1) recognized historian who supports the assertion that Alexei "survived" July 16, 1918, assuming that he was in the cellar with the rest of his family. No names so far, I see.

You are, of course, correct in your belief that you can hold any position you want on the internet. I have stumbled across websites that support housewives in Tennessee as being the illegitimate offspring of Edward and Wallis Windsor. I once worked with a poor man who thought he was the illegitimate grandson of George, Duke of Kent --- he revealed this to me in a conversation that began "Simon, have you ever heard of a family named . . .Windsor?" I swear to God, I am not making that up, and that as far as I could tell he really believed it. By now he probably has a website. Doesn't everyone?

But belief isn't enough to do history, OTMA, and while I tend to doubt that many young people are being "corrupted" by watching the adults have at it on threads like this --- for that matter, you yourself could be a teenager, OTMA --- I do think that it is a little cavalier to say that they can use your paralogistic, unresearched assumptions as some kind of life lesson.

Think of the children, OTMA. Think of the children.

[Ra-Ra-Rasputin]

Simon, I think I'm going to have to sue you for the damage you just inflicted on my computer.  I'll never drink while reading one of your posts again.  My keyboard just got a soaking.   

I have found these posts, especially surrounding the telegrams, hilarious.

Can I just say that, in England, we do not use the spelling 'Czar' or 'Czarevich'.  We use 'Tsar' and 'Tsarevich'.  Therefore, if someone at Buck House actually had carefully considered the title of the Tsarevich of Russia, they would have spelled it the English way and not the American way.  The fact that they spelled it exactly as it was sent suggests they used some sort of a database/mail merge program to send out the thankyous. Hardly unsurprising, as they must have been sent thousands.

And I'm STILL waiting for an answer on the Michael Romanov question. An actual, proper answer.

Why is it fine to accept Michael Romanov's death despite the absence of his body....but not Alexei's? Why aren't those of you who contend the death of two of the Romanov children who were shot at repeatedly in a confined space surrounded by guards, also questioning the death of a man who had ample opportunity to actually get away?

Mr Kendrick...OTMA-fan?

Rachel
xx

[Tsarfan]

Again, the *most straightforward* interpretation of forensic/DNA evidence is that he was not killed at least on that day.

If a single person who participated in that massacre said that Alexei was not in the murder room or that he survived, then you would have an argument.  As it is, the lack of Alexei's body in the grave corroborates -- not refutes -- the only eyewitness accounts.

In essence, you are saying that the lack of Alexei's body in the grave is proof that Yurovsky was lying 60 years earlier when he said that he murdered Alexei and that the body was not in the grave.  Since when is there anything remotely "straightforward" about that kind of logic? 

[Tsarfan]

By the way, OTMA-fan . . . would you please quit changing the name of the thread when you post to it?  When people scan the forum register for new posts, they should be able to see whether someone has posted to a thread they have been following.

Ra-Ra-Rasputin, who started this thread, has already asked you to desist.  I really don't understand why you think it is your prerogative constantly to retitle it to suit your purposes.

[AGRBear]

The spelling of Tsar here in the US has a very complex base.

As far as I know, most people here in the US who talk about Nicholas II  label him as Tsar before the Revolution.

The spelling of "Czar" occured after the Revolution and was meant to be a slur toward Nicholas II and was created by the Bolshviks.

Unfortunately,  many foreign historians and reporters were not aware that making the "T" ad "C" was a slur.

Those who understand it was and is  a slur spell out of respect use the word "Tsar".


I'm not around my one book that would explain more and will add to this when I can.

AGRBear

[Tsarfan]

The spelling of "Czar" occured after the Revolution and was meant to be a slur toward Nicholas II and was created by the Bolshviks.

There is a very well-informed thread elsewhere on this board that explains the difference between "czar" and "tsar".  "Czar" was the spelling used in Poland that referred to Nicholas's title as Czar of Poland, which was a title held separate and apart from that of Tsar of Russia.  That distinction may well have been why the Bolsheviks thought the title "czar" was a bit of a derogatory taunt.

The real Alexei -- in laying claim to his father's heritage -- would certainly have used the more encompassing title of "tsar" instead of the more limited title of "czar".  I really doubt the Windsors would work themselves into quite so much of a lather over the re-emergence of Poland's lost suzerain.

This kind of stumbling over the arcane distinctions in which a real Romanov would have been thoroughly schooled is just one more indicator that our Mr. Tammet was quite the huckster . . . and a rather poorly-informed one at that.

I just hope the eagles face away from each other on his gravestone.

[Tania]

I had to laugh, because that was a really good one. Some people don't care if they lived or they died, much less, which way the eagles face. The tone by many has already been set, so please, no humor.....or attempted humor, too many boards are getting soaked!

Tatiana+

[RichC]

....is this thread.

[Bev]

Not one person has stated that he/she doesn't care if the family lived or died. 

[LisaDavidson]

By the way, OTMA-fan . . . would you please quit changing the name of the thread when you post to it?  When people scan the forum register for new posts, they should be able to see whether someone has posted to a thread they have been following.

Ra-Ra-Rasputin, who started this thread, has already asked you to desist.  I really don't understand why you think it is your prerogative constantly to retitle it to suit your purposes.

Mon cher, all you have to do is ask me. I have corrected the titles on this page of posts and will try to get to the rest as time permits. Use your "report to moderator" option, and your Moderator will act. In an exciting tournament of "rock, paper, sissors"  with Bob and Rob, I "won" the Survivor Forum, so help me out, babe!

[LisaDavidson]

The real question is: Was the Tatiana claimant still alive in 1973 and did she send a congratulatory note for Pss Anne's wedding and get a thank you note in return? Maybe she did too!

If it's the "Tatiana" I spoke about, I hope not. She died in the late 1960;s.

[Belochka]

There is a very well-informed thread elsewhere on this board that explains the difference between "czar" and "tsar".  "Czar" was the spelling used in Poland that referred to Nicholas's title as Czar of Poland, which was a title held separate and apart from that of Tsar of Russia.  That distinction may well have been why the Bolsheviks thought the title "czar" was a bit of a derogatory taunt.

This kind of stumbling over the arcane distinctions in which a real Romanov would have been thoroughly schooled is just one more indicator that our Mr. Tammet was quite the huckster . . . and a rather poorly-informed one at that.

Actually had the Estonian-Canadian been correctly schooled he should have used the more formal definition: Emperor.

Margarita

[helenazar]

The real question is: Was the Tatiana claimant still alive in 1973 and did she send a congratulatory note for Pss Anne's wedding and get a thank you note in return? Maybe she did too!

If it's the "Tatiana" I spoke about, I hope not. She died in the late 1960's.

In which case, did her son (you know, the adopted one) send one?