Need Volunteer Editor for New Imperial Claimants Site

[BobAtchison]

I am starting a new section and database on Imperial Claimants in the Alexander Palace site - you can see the design at http://alexanderpalace.org/2006survive/.  There's nothing in here yet.  The purpose of the site is to give an written overview of each claimant with a picrture or two.  Each file would have information on the person claiming to be a survivor, who they say they are, their story, basic pros and cons, links to places to learn more about that claimant and any books written about them.

There would be a place for new claims to be submitted.

The purpose of this new part of the site is not to argue about Anna Anderson.  It's meant to be introduction for people who don't know anything about them and a place for new claims to be put forward.

We need an editor and a person who can write the bios on the claimants we know.  You need to know how to write, some basic HTML and be of a patient and kind nature.  We all know how intensely people can feel about this subject.  Email me at boba@pallasweb.com if you are interested.

Bob

[David_Pritchard]

It strikes me that this new section would do nothing for the educational standing of your excellent site. Why propagate fantasy and deception let alone include it with real historical material?

At the museum of the US Seventh Cavalry Regiment they might have the saddle from Custer's horse, they might have a photograph or two of the horse but I do not think that they have a display case of decaying horse dung labeled claimed to be from Custer's horse!

Why dirty up your wonderful site with lies? Do you really think that most of your readers can distinguish between fact and fiction even if you spell it out for them? Of course not. Adding garbage to an already good historical site only pulls the overall quality down.

Why must everything be included simply because some people feel strongly about it! All people may be created equal but they definitely do not stay that way for long. The ability to discern is a very important asset for a historian to acquire.

Maintain your site's integrity!

David

[Ortino]

There's nothing wrong with the creation of this new section--in fact, I think it's an excellent idea. It will help to organize the forum better as well as provide information to its members and visitors. Anna Anderson has no more claim than any of the other claimants (debatable I know, but I'm not starting a debate, only making a point) and therefore according to your train of thought David, there shouldn't be a section about her either. This is an all inclusive Romanov forum and whether you choose to accept it or not, the claimants are an important element in their story. ALL of them. Bob and the others are adding to the integrity of the site by helping to distinguish between fact and fiction. I say full steam ahead!

[Robert_Hall]

I do not think it will be part of the forum itself, but of the website. There already are plenty of threads about the bogus "survivors" and their proponets. Indeed, propogating such rubbish is the only raison d'etre for some in particular.
 I have to agree with David. I think such a chapter on the website is a mistake. Anyone who wants to know about the pretenders/claimants/survivors et al need only check the discussion forum where they too may add their thoughts.

[Sarushka]

I have to agree with Ortino. So long as this section is objective and limited to verifiable facts, I think it's a fine idea. There's no reason why the public shouldn't be allowed to educate themselves on the subject. In fact, I think it's better for them to learn basic facts from a database like this than to try and sort them out of the subjective ravings of the Survivors threads. We may not believe in the notion of survivors, but there's no denying that it's become a part of Romanov history. IMO, it's always better to acknowledge and educate than to bury or ignore what we don't agree with. Perhaps seeing just how many people have claimed to be Romanov survivors over the years will actually lessen the impact and believability not only of Anna Anderson's claim, but also of the idea of claimants as a group.

[Merrique]

I have to agree with Ortino. So long as this section is objective and limited to verifiable facts, I think it's a fine idea. There's no reason why the public shouldn't be allowed to educate themselves on the subject. In fact, I think it's better for them to learn basic facts from a database like this than to try and sort them out of the subjective ravings of the Survivors threads. We may not believe in the notion of survivors, but there's no denying that it's become a part of Romanov history. IMO, it's always better to acknowledge and educate than to bury or ignore what we don't agree with. Perhaps seeing just how many people have claimed to be Romanov survivors over the years will actually lessen the impact and believability not only of Anna Anderson's claim, but also of the idea of claimants as a group.

Very well said Sarushka.I agree completely.

[David_Pritchard]

There's nothing wrong with the creation of this new section--in fact, I think it's an excellent idea. It will help to organize the forum better as well as provide information to its members and visitors. Anna Anderson has no more claim than any of the other claimants (debatable I know, but I'm not starting a debate, only making a point) and therefore according to your train of thought David, there shouldn't be a section about her either. This is an all inclusive Romanov forum and whether you choose to accept it or not, the claimants are an important element in their story. ALL of them. Bob and the others are adding to the integrity of the site by helping to distinguish between fact and fiction. I say full steam ahead!

Yes I would erase all evidence of Anna Anderson and her confidence scheme if possible. The continuous discussion of her and her imitators simply detract from more serious and viable historical discussions. I too believe that this forum and the attached website should be an all inclusive Romanov forum that is why I think the fake Romanovs should be consigned to the historical dustbin. The inclusion of fake Romanovs with real Russian history will only serve to confuse the uninformed visitors to the site. I will not waste another word trying to explain a reallity that should be obvious to anyone of substance.

[David_Pritchard]

I have to agree with Ortino. So long as this section is objective and limited to verifiable facts, I think it's a fine idea. There's no reason why the public shouldn't be allowed to educate themselves on the subject. In fact, I think it's better for them to learn basic facts from a database like this than to try and sort them out of the subjective ravings of the Survivors threads. We may not believe in the notion of survivors, but there's no denying that it's become a part of Romanov history. IMO, it's always better to acknowledge and educate than to bury or ignore what we don't agree with. Perhaps seeing just how many people have claimed to be Romanov survivors over the years will actually lessen the impact and believability not only of Anna Anderson's claim, but also of the idea of claimants as a group.

Do you actually believe that the public educates themselves? Is that why US high school students think that Belgium is adjacent to Utah, despite the fact that they can pull up a thousand different maps on their computers?

The Romanov fakes, imposters and fraud have people, like many of those on this forum to thank for their notoriety. To quote Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbles A lie repeated often enough soon becomes the truth It is we on this forum that help to perpetuate these lies by discussing them.

To educate the public, one must present the facts to the populace in a manner in which they can grasp and comprehend them. Presenting historical options will only confuse the majority.

[Ortino]

Very well said Sarushka.I agree completely.

Are you expressing your solidarity or is this a girl power thing? I think I could write most any bit of nonsense and have someone on this forum chime in.

It has nothing to do with being female and your cynical attitude towards just about everything is starting to irritate me. Obviously Bob and Rob, who know more about the Romanovs than either of us, felt the need for this new section and that should be enough for you. If you don't like it, you don't have to venture in there. Leave that to the US high school twits.

[David_Pritchard]

Ortino,

I will differ from you again in that intelligent people make unfortunate choices all the time, not because they are deficient in some way or another but because they are too close to the subject matter or have too narrow of a focus.

The rest of your thoughts shall receive the response that they deserve.

David

[BobAtchison]

David:

Thank you for your comments - I always appreciate what you have to say, even when your comments are a bit sharp.  I have been asked by a number of teachers and parents involved with home teaching who use the Alexcander Palace site  to add something on Anna Anderson.  The "Anastasia" cartoon film is still being shown on cable all the tiime and they get asked about Anastasia by their kids.  Rather than doing a page on Anna Anderson, I thought it would be better to have a small database in a fun design that would present - briefly - all the major claimants with links or books to learn more.  As always the elephant in the room is Anna Anderson.  People feel very strongly one way or another.  I think everyone knows my own opinion.  Just letting the facts speak for themselves - pro and con -  I suspect 95% ot the readers will draw their own conclusions from the science.

The claimants are a part of the story of the Romanovs.  For most people the story of Anna Anderson is how people come to discover the subject.  That was true for me when I was 8.  I am Anastasia was the first Romanov book I read.  When Peter Kurth's book came out I wanted to believe it was true - until the DNA came out I wasn't 100% sure - there was always a little doubt - "Could it be true?".  So I think there are a lot of people out there - especially these kids - these smart kids of today - who really could benefit from this section of ther AP site - not in the forum...

David, does this help clarify things?

Bob

[David_Pritchard]

Dear Bob,

I have wondered myself what damage the Anastasia animated film was doing to the minds of the children of the world. If the section to be added is to counter the mass of misinformation on the Internet about the fate of the IF then it is a wonderful idea. My worry was that it would simply serve as more advertising for the various frauds, fakes and deluded persons claiming to be survivors or more likely at this late date to be descendents of survivors.

I might just volunteer for the position myself. You know that I would give all the claimants the treatment that they deserve.

David

[Annie]

Dear Bob,

I have wondered myself what damage the Anastasia animated film was doing to the minds of the children of the world.

I have too. The only 'good' thing is that it seems to have led a lot of people here looking for the REAL story, and it's a postivie thing if they can find it, not the fantasy of AA, but the real story. Also, perhaps we could use the "Dmitri" character feeding "Anastasia" the info as a way to explain to kids how the real AA was able to fake what she 'knew' and 'remembered.'

I might just volunteer for the position myself. You know that I would give all the claimants the treatment that they deserve.

David

I fear they're going to choose someone very pro AA who will make it appear she was AN, or at least leave the door wide open. That would be a disservice to all of those trying to learn. I really believe that this is just a way for a certain person who is actively researching AA, and who believes in her to allow her view to become an endorsed part of this board. I hope I'm wrong.

If the section to be added is to counter the mass of misinformation on the Internet about the fate of the IF then it is a wonderful idea. My worry was that it would simply serve as more advertising for the various frauds, fakes and deluded persons claiming to be survivors or more likely at this late date to be descendents of survivors.

I really thiink that if this section becomes reality, it should come with a disclaimer stating emphatically that NONE of the claimants are who they claimed to be, and that AA was proven false by several DNA tests. Allowing a 'fair to both sides' list would only cause things to get worse. We'll have more conspiracy theories and wild goose chases. All that needs to END!  We must specify that the claimants were false. And if AA is allowed to be shown as a possible AN, I say let the "Alex of Denmark" tell about his grandma too.

It's fine to have it there as part of the entire story of the tragedy of the Romanovs, but as David and Robert said, if it's going to be used to perpetuate the myth of AA and encourage more supporters, it's a BAD BAD thing. It needs to be made VERY clear that the claimants were all frauds, and the section is for entertainment value only- not historical or educational!

[Penny_Wilson]

... Also, perhaps we could use the "Dmitri" character feeding "Anastasia" the info as a way to explain to kids how the real AA was able to fake what she 'knew' and 'remembered.'

Only if you want to make up history.

I really believe that this is just a way for a certain person who is actively researching AA, and who believes in her to allow her view to become an endorsed part of this board.

Whatever can you be suggesting, Annie? 

I really thiink that if this section becomes reality, it should come with a disclaimer stating emphatically that NONE of the claimants are who they claimed to be, and that AA was proven false by several DNA tests. Allowing a 'fair to both sides' list would only cause things to get worse. We'll have more conspiracy theories and wild goose chases. All that needs to END!  We must specify that the claimants were false. And if AA is allowed to be shown as a possible AN, I say let the "Alex of Denmark" tell about his grandma too.

It's fine to have it there as part of the entire story of the tragedy of the Romanovs, but as David and Robert said, if it's going to be used to perpetuate the myth of AA and encourage more supporters, it's a BAD BAD thing. It needs to be made VERY clear that the claimants were all frauds, and the section is for entertainment value only- not historical or educational!

And I think you ought to trust Bob and Rob to make correct decisions concerning the running of what is -- after all -- their board.  They've done a good job so far, don't you think?

~Penny

[BobAtchison]

Dear Annie:

No, we didn't do this with anyone in mind.  I thought I would do it myself, I asked Saruska.  I am a terrible writer, too busy with my real job and so is Saruska, so I thought to ask for a volunteer.  I would like it be be someone who can write and certainly they would have to have the time.

In a way I think it's amusing that I was considered one of the most extreme advocates for the case against Anna a few years ago.... now someone thinks I might be headed in the opposite direction.  No, my opinions have not chanaged, but I also and getting older and am less interested in fighting about it.  I don't need to.  The facts can speak for themselves.

What is important - and I am sure you would agree - that kids get the information in a fun way that helps them learn.  We need more kids interested in history.  I don't know for sure, but I think there has been a huge drop off in interest in Russian history in the USA and history in general has suffered.  I find this very depressing.  I was a Byzantiinist in earlier days and now-a-days no one at all is studying Byzantium in the USA.  Ancient languages are in the same situation.  Only students in Bible colleges and Hebrew Schools are learning Koine Greek and Hebrew.

I think one thing we can all come together on and help promote is kids getting interesting in history and using the AP site.  We have to keep adding to it and producing more interesting content - I am DESPERATE for VIDEO of the AP....

Bob