The Heino Tammet case

[Belochka]

If Mrs Tammet really wanted some kind of closure, I find it difficult to understand why she would not avail herself with the opportunity offered by LisaD.  

[helenazar]

If Mrs Tammet really wanted some kind of closure, I find it difficult to understand why she would not avail herself with the opportunity offered by LisaD.  

Yes, I agree, it seems that since everything was in place, including the funding, all Mrs Tammet needed to do was provide another tooth. How sure are we that she actually gave the teeth to the British team? I heard that the scientists denied that they ever had the teeth. Does Mrs Tamment have any proof that she handed them over, or is it her word agaist theirs? I am not trying to accuse her of lying, but maybe there was some kind of confusion about that? Like Belochka, I tend to think that if she really wanted to get answers, and she had additional samples, she would have gone through with the testing when another opportunity presented itself...  

[helenazar]

In an attempt to resolve this, I was able to line up funding, a lab , and a scientist. All we needed was a tooth. I asked Mrs. Tammet-Romanov for a sample and told her if the preliminary test was positive, that I was sure I could line up funding for more definitive testing. She declined, citing the fact that she had already provided teeth to the UK scientists.

Lisa, I was wondering when it was that you had arranged all this? Was it recently? Thanks,
Helen

[Henry_Oak]

I don't know if someone read the whole story, but the reason why the DNA test issn't done is very clear.
If there's a proof that Heino Tammet IS Alexei, then he is the crown-prince.

"The accepted version of history says that sixteen months earlier Nicholas had abdicated the throne for both himself and his son.  However, there is some question about the validity of the Ex-Tsar's actions in March of 1917.  Nicholas abdicated not once, but twice.  The first time he had abdicated for himself but on the second occasion, some six or more hours later, he wrote a second abdication document that passed the throne to his brother Michael in order to protect his ailing son.  Although it has always been assumed that that document took the throne away from the Tsarevich Alexei, there are two problems with that assumption.

The second abdication document says, "Not wishing to part with our dear son, we transfer our legacy to our brother".  That wording does not actually say that Nicholas was abdicating on his son's behalf.  It neatly sidesteps the question of Alexei's claim to the throne and places it in Michael's lap.  That could well have left Alexei open to make a renewed claim at a later date.

The more important point is that the second document was probably not legal because Nicholas had already abdicated six hours earlier when he signed his name to the first set of papers.  He was no longer the Tsar when the second document was written and no longer in a legal position to abdicate on his son's behalf.  When Nicholas put pen to paper for that second time Alexei was the Tsar!  The son's abdication was his own decision to make... not his father's!"

-------------------------------------------------------
Sounds logical to me.....  
Therefor IF Heino is Alexei, then he was the Tsar since 1918 till 1977, and that makes his oldest son the current Tsar.  
And in that case he could stand up for his right for the trone and the Romanov tressuries.

[helenazar]

Therefor IF Heino is Alexei, then he was the Tsar since 1918 till 1977, and that makes his oldest son the current Tsar.  
And in that case he could stand up for his right for the trone and the Romanov tressuries.

 Henry_Oak, the throne of Russia no longer exists, has not existed since 1917, and most likely never will exist again. So even if Heino was Alexei, his oldest son is just a private citizen just like the rest of us.  

[LisaDavidson]

I don't know if someone read the whole story, but the reason why the DNA test issn't done is very clear.
If there's a proof that Heino Tammet IS Alexei, then he is the crown-prince.

"The accepted version of history says that sixteen months earlier Nicholas had abdicated the throne for both himself and his son.  However, there is some question about the validity of the Ex-Tsar's actions in March of 1917.  Nicholas abdicated not once, but twice.  The first time he had abdicated for himself but on the second occasion, some six or more hours later, he wrote a second abdication document that passed the throne to his brother Michael in order to protect his ailing son.  Although it has always been assumed that that document took the throne away from the Tsarevich Alexei, there are two problems with that assumption.

The second abdication document says, "Not wishing to part with our dear son, we transfer our legacy to our brother".  That wording does not actually say that Nicholas was abdicating on his son's behalf.  It neatly sidesteps the question of Alexei's claim to the throne and places it in Michael's lap.  That could well have left Alexei open to make a renewed claim at a later date.

The more important point is that the second document was probably not legal because Nicholas had already abdicated six hours earlier when he signed his name to the first set of papers.  He was no longer the Tsar when the second document was written and no longer in a legal position to abdicate on his son's behalf.  When Nicholas put pen to paper for that second time Alexei was the Tsar!  The son's abdication was his own decision to make... not his father's!"

-------------------------------------------------------
Sounds logical to me.....  
Therefor IF Heino is Alexei, then he was the Tsar since 1918 till 1977, and that makes his oldest son the current Tsar.  
And in that case he could stand up for his right for the trone and the Romanov tressuries.

First of all, please read William Clark's book on the Tsarist "fortune", because there really isn't one. A son of Heino Tammet would be ineligible for the throne because even Alexei N. would have had to make an equal marriage. If he made an unequal one and was proven to be Alexei, his children would be ineligible for the succession.

This was, by the way, one of the reasons I was skeptical about this case. Alexei N. would have been well aware of the Fundamental Law and its requirement of equal marriage.

[LisaDavidson]

Lisa, I was wondering when it was that you had arranged all this? Was it recently? Thanks,
Helen

No, Helen, it was not recently. It was some time in the late 1990's. A scientist at Brown University was willing to do preliminary testing for $500, which was quite reasonable at that time. He said it could tell us whether further testing would be in order.

It did not take too much work for me to find an "angel" to bankroll this. But, let me be clear - I do understand Sandra T-R's reluctance to part with more samples after what happened to her with the UK team. It's a shame they will not be more cooperative.

[Pravoslavnaya]

I don't know if someone read the whole story, but the reason why the DNA test issn't done is very clear.]

AND your REASONING IS?  Let's not read a conspiracy theory into this when a far more likely reason is that Sandra Tammet, among other interested parties, did not PAY for the DNA testing to be completed.


[If there's a proof that Heino Tammet IS Alexei, then he is the crown-prince.]


That, sir, is a big IF.  

["The accepted version of history says that sixteen months earlier Nicholas had abdicated the throne for both himself and his son.  However, there is some question about the validity of the Ex-Tsar's actions in March of 1917.  Nicholas abdicated not once, but twice.  The first time he had abdicated for himself but on the second occasion, some six or more hours later, he wrote a second abdication document that passed the throne to his brother Michael in order to protect his ailing son.  Although it has always been assumed that that document took the throne away from the Tsarevich Alexei, there are two problems with that assumption.

The second abdication document says, "Not wishing to part with our dear son, we transfer our legacy to our brother".  That wording does not actually say that Nicholas was abdicating on his son's behalf.  It neatly sidesteps the question of Alexei's claim to the throne and places it in Michael's lap.  That could well have left Alexei open to make a renewed claim at a later date.

The more important point is that the second document was probably not legal because Nicholas had already abdicated six hours earlier when he signed his name to the first set of papers.  He was no longer the Tsar when the second document was written and no longer in a legal position to abdicate on his son's behalf.  When Nicholas put pen to paper for that second time Alexei was the Tsar!  The son's abdication was his own decision to make... not his father's!"

-------------------------------------------------------
Sounds logical to me.....  ]

 Sounds like an oft repeated argument brought up elsewhere.  Could you tell us exactly WHAT made you believe in the Heino Tammet claim if it is anything other than the faulty premise that 'Maybe Alexei did not have hemophilia?

[Therefor IF Heino is Alexei, then he was the Tsar since 1918 till 1977, and that makes his oldest son the current Tsar.  
And in that case he could stand up for his right for the trone and the Romanov tressuries.

But since Heino Tammet was not the Tsesarevich, all the legalese is moot.  A very familiar argument from other discussion boards.  Another question:  have you read the post from 'Alekseovich' in this thread?  It is not lost on me that according to this poster, many things on the website were wrong, (apparently Tammet had been under the delusion that he was the Tsarevich for many years) and that possibly a picture of Mr. Tammet's head was pasted on a picture of someone else's body in a certain picture on the Kendrick website because he was apparently 5' 1", SHORTER than ALEXEI probably would have been as a grown man.

[Henry_Oak]

Well, I only belive it's a possibility.
Heino Tammet issn't proof enough for me to say that it is true, but I won't say he couldn't have been Alexei.  

But I guess it'll never come out who was the real Alexei.

Do you suggest that he died in 1918 or did he survive?

[Pravoslavnaya]

Since Alexei Nikolaevich was murdered with the rest of his family in 1918, I, for one, accept no substitutes.  I was taken aback at how you sounded just like John Kendrick in your first post though -- almost word for word off of another discussion forum that deals with royalty in general.  Also -- your nom de plume suggests that you are familiar with his site on this false Tsarevich.

[AlexeiLVR]

Ok i don't realy think that Alexei survived and that the Tannet guy is him! But alot of my friends think its him! I've noticed in the coomparason picture on the main paige Heino Tammet doese resemble some features of Alexei's, but thats only from one picture!

Doese any one els think that?

[Georgiy]

Personally I don't think he looks anything like him. You can always find photos though where from certain angles one person resembles another - for example, some people can see a resemblence between Anna Anderson and GD Anastasiya, and as we found on the Tatiana thread, from a certain angle Amelia Earhart resembled Tatiana!

[Denise]

Alexei, you need to remember that when we are looking at Black and white photos, the shadows will make the face look different than if you saw the person face to face.  So, in many cases a claimant may have a similarity to a specific picture of Alexei (or Anastasia and Anna Anderson) but look nothing like him in real life.  

But no, I don't think Heino looks like Alexei....

[Pravoslavnaya]

Respected Pravoslavnaya; I've been looking for information on a person i met in 1959 from BC Canada who i was told was Aleksei Nikolaevich Romanov. When i found John Kendrick's web site, i recognised the man i met. Kendrick has several things wrong; He claims the man with that face was 5 foot 10 inches tall, he was closer to 5 foot 0 inches. Kendrick claims he died in 1977, but he came to me in 1969 terminally ill.
If you find the photo of him suposedly wearing the star of the Black Eagle, it is his face imposed on another body. I met him because my mother said he was my real father. She secretly married him in a Russian orthodox church and he told me her father was a king the same way mine was. I would welcome any investigation as to who he was. It would answer who i am. This whole thing has ruined my life.
Alekseovich

The earlier post re stature of Mr. Tammet.  Relevant to later statement

[griffin]

I have always tried to stay open minded about the possibility of survivors, but most of the Alexis claimants base the entire claim on the theory that Alexis didn't have hemophilia, and that is just one straw I can't grasp.