One thing I find odd

[lexi4]

Let's stay on topic. I only mentioned the illnesses listed in the post as a response to a question and posted the link so that people could go over there if they wanted to continue that particular avenue of discussion. 

I respect your request to stay on topic. Although I have to admit when I first read this, I couldn't recall what the actual topic was 
If there is interest in this topic, and there is on my part at least, perhaps we could move it to another thread? That way those of you who are not interested in this dicussion and just ignore those of us who are.

[Tsarfan]

There seems to be a misunderstanding about the definition of the term "hemophilia".  It is really a generic reference to a failure of the body's blood coagulation mechanism.  That mechanism consists of 14 sequential steps, each of which requires a specific protein (or "factor").  When any one of those steps fail, the condition is known as "hemophilia".

The two most common forms of hemophilia are the asbence of either the eigth factor (Hemophilia A) or the ninth factor (Hemophilia B, also known as Christmas Disease).  But any disorder of the blood clotting mechanism is properly called "hemophilia".

So what's the point in this building debate about what the proper name was for Alexei's disease?  Mild to serious wounds resulted in uncontrolled, life-threatening bleeding.  The cumulative effects of those attacks had left him crippled and critically frail by mid-1918.

Alexei did not send anyone any telegrams from Canada in 1972 or 1973.

[lexi4]

There seems to be a misunderstanding about the definition of the term "hemophilia".  It is really a generic reference to a failure of the body's blood coagulation mechanism.  That mechanism consists of 14 sequential steps, each of which requires a specific protein (or "factor").  When any one of those steps fail, the condition is known as "hemophilia".

The two most common forms of hemophilia are the asbence of either the eigth factor (Hemophilia A) or the ninth factor (Hemophilia B, also known as Christmas Disease).  But any disorder of the blood clotting mechanism is properly called "hemophilia".

So what's the point in this building debate about what the proper name was for Alexei's disease?  Mild to serious wounds resulted in uncontrolled, life-threatening bleeding.  The cumulative effects of those attacks had left him crippled and critically frail by mid-1918.

Alexei did not send anyone any telegrams from Canada in 1972 or 1973.

Tsarfan,
I think this topic is moving to another thread about hemophilia. You might want to repost this there. 

[Tsarfan]

Nah . . . I just want to get off this diversion about hemophilia and back to the more interesting discussion about how bizarre claims of survival always manage to find an audience.

Moving the hemophilia discussion to another thread is a good idea, though.  Thanks.

[Forum Admin]

[Louis_Charles]

Well, bizarre claims of survival always seem to find Bear, anyway.

I am kind of curious (famous last words) about the mentality that drives this kind of thing. I exempt Anna Andersen from this category, even though I don't believe she was Anastasia, because whoever she was, she had an act going that lasted 60 years, and I think that has to be taken seriously as a successful phenomenon.

But what strikes me as odd is the idea that any candidate who surfaced during the 20th century will find some supporters. Indeed, any fake royal from Perkin Warbeck to Naundorff to Michael Goleniewski (even more improbable than Tammet) has had people willing to stake their lives and reputations upon the truth of their claims, in the face of overwhelmingly convincing evidence to the contrary. What drives this?

I'll throw out the first suggestion:

(1) Opportunism. For some of these claimants --- not all --- supporters could reasonably expect some compensation if the claim could have been upheld. Warbeck, certainly. And Naundorff was laying his claim to a going concern for at least part of his life, i.e. there was a Bourbon on the throne of France.

Anyone else?

[Ra-Ra-Rasputin]

Just as an aside-

We still haven't had a proper answer from Mr Kendrick as to why he believes Alexei escaped because of his missing body, and yet not Michael Romanov.

I want an answer to this question.  Why is absence of body evidence of escape in Alexei's case and not in Michael's? When Michael had more opportunity TO escape, I find this highly perplexing.

The only reason I can think of is that Mr Kendrick has found an 'Alexei' he wants to attach himself to, and not a 'Michael'.  If I found a 'Michael', would we be looking into his possible escape as well?

You can't pick and choose when it comes to this issue.  You can't accept one person with a missing body is dead and yet not another.  It doesn't make any sense and it certainly isn't responsible historical investigation.  It's choosing what you want to believe based on a personal agenda. 

Rachel
xx

[Louis_Charles]

You have answered your own question, Rachel, and correctly.

[Ra-Ra-Rasputin]

I like it when that happens.    Saves waiting around for an answer at any rate!

Though, I would like to hear the answer from the horse's mouth. 

Rachel
xx

[lexi4]

Well, bizarre claims of survival always seem to find Bear, anyway.

I am kind of curious (famous last words) about the mentality that drives this kind of thing. I exempt Anna Andersen from this category, even though I don't believe she was Anastasia, because whoever she was, she had an act going that lasted 60 years, and I think that has to be taken seriously as a successful phenomenon.

But what strikes me as odd is the idea that any candidate who surfaced during the 20th century will find some supporters. Indeed, any fake royal from Perkin Warbeck to Naundorff to Michael Goleniewski (even more improbable than Tammet) has had people willing to stake their lives and reputations upon the truth of their claims, in the face of overwhelmingly convincing evidence to the contrary. What drives this?

I'll throw out the first suggestion:

(1) Opportunism. For some of these claimants --- not all --- supporters could reasonably expect some compensation if the claim could have been upheld. Warbeck, certainly. And Naundorff was laying his claim to a going concern for at least part of his life, i.e. there was a Bourbon on the throne of France.

Anyone else?

Louis-Charles,
Opportunism is certainly at the top of my list. But I would like to also offer another possibility for consideration.

The Hopeless Romantic. I think there will always be those who reallly want to believe that someone did survive the horrors of the execution. I think we look for heros in life, people who have survived against impossible odds. The Rising Phoenix, if you will. And I don't think that is a bad characteristic so I hope I don't come across as critical here. I think that it is part of human nature to look for a happy ending as a reason to justify suffering/cruelty etc. If one or more of the IF did survive, I think some would see that has a happy ending.
How's that?

[grandduchessella]

Nah . . . I just want to get off this diversion about hemophilia and back to the more interesting discussion about how bizarre claims of survival always manage to find an audience.

Moving the hemophilia discussion to another thread is a good idea, though.  Thanks.

That's what the link provided is for. If you look on the Alexei thread there is one about his hemophilia and one about what it was if it wasn't hemophilia.

[Tsarfan]

I am kind of curious (famous last words) about the mentality that drives this kind of thing . . . .  But what strikes me as odd is the idea that any candidate who surfaced during the 20th century will find some supporters.

Anyone else?

It seems that royals have always been the most difficult people to dispose of permanently.  They have had more lives than any twenty cats you'll meet.  It's clearly not a 20th-century-only phenomenon, though. A partial list beyond the ones Louis Charles has already mentioned:

• Lambert Simnel convinces some people he is Edward VI and manages to get himself crowned in Dublin in 1486.
• Four King Sebastians of Portugal turn up in 1578.

• Russia gets its first False Tsar Dimitry in 1605.
• 1610 produces a bumper crop of two more False Dimitrys.

• Three False Peters of Russia emerge in the 1760's.
• Thirty people proclaim themselves Louis XVII in the 1790's.

• Russia gets back in the game in the 1830's with a False Constantine.

• And . . . of course . . . a veritable bonanza of survivors from Ekaterinburg.

Why?  Who knows?  Perhaps a combination of greed, delusion, romantic daydreaming, and frustration with one's own drab existence.  All given the breath of royal life by an uninterrupted supply of gullible people.

[Bev]

Excellent suggestions as to why people can be so easily deluded, not to mention gullible.  Sadly, people are ashamed when they've been conned and can't bring themselves to admit it.  Which of course is why Amway salespeople can act with impunity and bigamists are seldom prosecuted.  In fact, in the face of all facts to the contrary, they'll continue to believe and usually redouble their efforts to convince others. 

Look At Kurth - a seemingly well educated and intelligent man, and yet he cannot bring himself to admit he was conned by some old crazy lady.  There is also a narcissitic element - we all believe we're smarter than the average bear and if the facts don't support our beliefs then it must be that someone has conspired to prove us wrong.

[Louis_Charles]

Bev,

With respect, I don't think that is an accurate characterization of Peter Kurth. I think Andersen was Franziska Schanzkowska (and have actually said that to Peter Kurth), but I wouldn't describe him as being "conned". He will have to deal with the DNA issue to maintain his position, that's all.

Oh, dear. I specifically exempted Andersen from the discussion to avoid bogging down on her claims, which were considerable --- whether you believe in her or not. There was a lot of circumstantial evidence on her side.

Of course, Lambert Simnel was just a dirty little sneak and crook. 

Simon

[J_Kendrick]

 But any disorder of the blood clotting mechanism is properly called "hemophilia".

That statement could not be more wrong if it tried !!

Haemophilia is a very specific type of blood disorder.  It is only one of as many as 150 known blood disorders that all have what is called a "haemorrhagic diathesis'.