Try and convince me- I'm undecided!

[Katherine_The_O.K.]

The more and more I read, the more and more I can't form a solid opinion on the mystery of Anna Anderson.

I think she ISN'T Anastasia because of
1.) The DNA evidence
2.) Her stunning resemblence to FS
3.) Her history of mental illness

I think she COULD be Anastasia because
1.) The huge amount of effort others put into discrediting her when they ignored similar claimants
2.) Her really amazing knowledge of intimate family details and traits... how did she know this?
3.) The many physical similarities beyond facial- the toe deformity, scars, etc.

What facts can the more educated of you provide me with to convince me one way or the other?

And if you could re-open the books on the AA case, or the Romanov murder in general, would you?

[Annie]

I"m not in the mood to get back into this, but I must comment on this part:

2.) Her really amazing knowledge of intimate family details and traits... how did she know this?

Easy. SOMEONE TOLD HER. One thing I never realized in the days of being a semi believer before the DNA tests was that Europe was full of Russian refugees and emigres'. Literally thousands of people made it out of Russia who had known the family or at least the royal court. There were 1600 members of the court who were around the family a lot, add to that their families and friends and the number grows even higher.

 Besides the famous ones we hear of, they originally took a rather large entourage into exile in Siberia with them, meaning dozens of people were with them right up until they were sent to Ekaterinburg. Only about 6 of these ended up dead as far as I know, 3 shot with the family, 3 others executed at other times.This leaves still more people who would have known a lot. Think about it, just about every Russian noble who wasn't killled in the revolution, civil war or terror fled the country, most of them to France or Germany. So what I'm saying is, there were PLENTY of people around who would have been able to give her tips, either intentionally or incidently in conversation, about the family and their surroundings.

Personally, my main suspects are Gleb Botkin and his siister Tatiana. Children of the family doctor, they had been in the palace, played wtih the children, and went with them to Tobolsk. Gleb was a very imaginitive person who had created entire animal lands full of named and illlustrated characers when he was just a kid, and was a journalist in NYC at the time he championed AA's cause. He was a writer, this was a good story. He had the memories, she played the part (kind of like Dmitri in the "Anastasia" cartoon?) It makes perfect sense to me. Her claim really didn't take off and gain worldwide acclaim or go to court until after she took up with the Botkins.I'm not sayign they were the first, or the only ones though. I'm saying she could have gotten infor from  many people, and the chances were there, since there were so many Russian emigres around.

One more thing to consider is that several people very close to the faimily, like Gilliard, Anna Vyrobova, Lili Dehn and Sophie Buxhoevedon all wrote very detailed books on their years with the royal family, and were published in the early 1920's. There were also other books, articles  and pictures she could have seen and read, or been shown or told about.

Another factor in this is that she really didn't know all that much, and what she did say was usually off the mark some.She got the details of a secret room wrong and confused an injury of Marie's with bieng Anastasia's. This tells me she was getting her info from somenoen with intimate yet limited knowledge of the family, like the Botkins, or a courtier, or a servant.

And then there's the issue of who verified these 'things only Anastasia would know?' The entire family was dead, and the closest friend, Anna V., was never consulted. I really think the statement that she knew a lot is very exaggerated and not accurate when you really look at the details. In the end, I donl't think there is anything she said that can't be explained away as having been told to her by someone who was there.

[Katherine_The_O.K.]

Thanks for the reply-

I want to stress that I'm really undecided- leaning to AA was FS based mainly on physical appearance. And while I could see the motive to feed a false GDs information (obviously for the 'money' it would supposedly later bring), I can't reconcile why Botkin or anyone else would pick someone so unlike Anastasia in appearance... and more so, why they would pick a mentally unstable woman.

You don't have to reply, I'm just musing to myself and anyone else who happens to read this thread.

[LisaDavidson]

I"m not in the mood to get back into this, but I must comment on this part:

2.) Her really amazing knowledge of intimate family details and traits... how did she know this?

Easy. SOMEONE TOLD HER. One thing I never realized in the days of being a semi believer before the DNA tests was that Europe was full of Russian refugees and emigres'. Literally thousands of people made it out of Russia who had known the family or at least the royal court. There were 1600 members of the court who were around the family a lot, add to that their families and friends and the number grows even higher.

 Besides the famous ones we hear of, they originally took a rather large entourage into exile in Siberia with them, meaning dozens of people were with them right up until they were sent to Ekaterinburg. Only about 6 of these ended up dead as far as I know, 3 shot with the family, 3 others executed at other times.This leaves still more people who would have known a lot. Think about it, just about every Russian noble who wasn't killled in the revolution, civil war or terror fled the country, most of them to France or Germany. So what I'm saying is, there were PLENTY of people around who would have been able to give her tips, either intentionally or incidently in conversation, about the family and their surroundings.

Personally, my main suspects are Gleb Botkin and his siister Tatiana. Children of the family doctor, they had been in the palace, played wtih the children, and went with them to Tobolsk. Gleb was a very imaginitive person who had created entire animal lands full of named and illlustrated characers when he was just a kid, and was a journalist in NYC at the time he championed AA's cause. He was a writer, this was a good story. He had the memories, she played the part (kind of like Dmitri in the "Anastasia" cartoon?) It makes perfect sense to me. Her claim really didn't take off and gain worldwide acclaim or go to court until after she took up with the Botkins.I'm not sayign they were the first, or the only ones though. I'm saying she could have gotten infor from  many people, and the chances were there, since there were so many Russian emigres around.

One more thing to consider is that several people very close to the faimily, like Gilliard, Anna Vyrobova, Lili Dehn and Sophie Buxhoevedon all wrote very detailed books on their years with the royal family, and were published in the early 1920's. There were also other books, articles  and pictures she could have seen and read, or been shown or told about.

Another factor in this is that she really didn't know all that much, and what she did say was usually off the mark some.She got the details of a secret room wrong and confused an injury of Marie's with bieng Anastasia's. This tells me she was getting her info from somenoen with intimate yet limited knowledge of the family, like the Botkins, or a courtier, or a servant.

And then there's the issue of who verified these 'things only Anastasia would know?' The entire family was dead, and the closest friend, Anna V., was never consulted. I really think the statement that she knew a lot is very exaggerated and not accurate when you really look at the details. In the end, I donl't think there is anything she said that can't be explained away as having been told to her by someone who was there.

I have discussed this at some length with Peter Kurth. We agree that you can't include or exclude AA's identity based upon what she "knew". Here's why. If there were things that only the real Anastasia, and no other living person, knew, then how could you corroborate that information? If on the other hand AA knew a particular fact that another living person knew - and hence could be corroborated - then there would always be a chance that someone told her.

Such was the case of Prince Sigismund of Prussia. This prince moved to Costa Rica after WWI, and although he never met AA, he sent her questions through relatives to which he felt his cousin Anastasia would know the answers. Apparently, she answered all the questions correctly. He has been widely reported as "believing" in AA and in the Lake Como Olga. However, his son Prince Alfred of Prussia told me the only thing he did was to pose the questions and verify that they were answered correctly.

Katherine, if you are interested in this case, you should read Peter's book about AA.

[Annie]

Thanks for the reply-

I want to stress that I'm really undecided- leaning to AA was FS based mainly on physical appearance. And while I could see the motive to feed a false GDs information (obviously for the 'money' it would supposedly later bring), I can't reconcile why Botkin or anyone else would pick someone so unlike Anastasia in appearance... and more so, why they would pick a mentally unstable woman.

You don't have to reply, I'm just musing to myself and anyone else who happens to read this thread.

The thing is, no one "picked" her- she was already there, and at hand. After jumping into the canal and not admitting who she was (whether or not she really lost her memory, I've always wondered if she ever had amnesia or not) another mental patient showed her a picture in a magazine and told her she looked like Tatiana. While she never herself claimed to be the GD, people started coming to see her. Sophie Buxhoevedon came,but she hid under the sheets. Sophie pulled the sheets off and said 'she's too short to be Tatiana.' That was when someone gave her a piece of paper and she marked out all the names of the GD's except Anastasia (the only one who matched her height) and it was only then that she started claiming to be Anastasia. Then emigres and ex royals and nobles started flocking to see her. It wasn't until a few years later that the Botkins championed her cause, but it was then the case really took off and the court cases started.

So what I mean to explain is, nobody 'picked' her, she had already made the spectacle out of herself, and after that she was used by them. She chose herself, and they hopped on the bandwagon. We will never know which supporters really believed her and which were feeding her info and helping her case for money, people don't go around admitting to fraud.

[zackattack]

I"m not in the mood to get back into this, but I must comment on this part:

2.) Her really amazing knowledge of intimate family details and traits... how did she know this?

Easy. SOMEONE TOLD HER. One thing I never realized in the days of being a semi believer before the DNA tests was that Europe was full of Russian refugees and emigres'. Literally thousands of people made it out of Russia who had known the family or at least the royal court. There were 1600 members of the court who were around the family a lot, add to that their families and friends and the number grows even higher.

 Besides the famous ones we hear of, they originally took a rather large entourage into exile in Siberia with them, meaning dozens of people were with them right up until they were sent to Ekaterinburg. Only about 6 of these ended up dead as far as I know, 3 shot with the family, 3 others executed at other times.This leaves still more people who would have known a lot. Think about it, just about every Russian noble who wasn't killled in the revolution, civil war or terror fled the country, most of them to France or Germany. So what I'm saying is, there were PLENTY of people around who would have been able to give her tips, either intentionally or incidently in conversation, about the family and their surroundings.

Personally, my main suspects are Gleb Botkin and his siister Tatiana. Children of the family doctor, they had been in the palace, played wtih the children, and went with them to Tobolsk. Gleb was a very imaginitive person who had created entire animal lands full of named and illlustrated characers when he was just a kid, and was a journalist in NYC at the time he championed AA's cause. He was a writer, this was a good story. He had the memories, she played the part (kind of like Dmitri in the "Anastasia" cartoon?) It makes perfect sense to me. Her claim really didn't take off and gain worldwide acclaim or go to court until after she took up with the Botkins.I'm not sayign they were the first, or the only ones though. I'm saying she could have gotten infor from  many people, and the chances were there, since there were so many Russian emigres around.

One more thing to consider is that several people very close to the faimily, like Gilliard, Anna Vyrobova, Lili Dehn and Sophie Buxhoevedon all wrote very detailed books on their years with the royal family, and were published in the early 1920's. There were also other books, articles  and pictures she could have seen and read, or been shown or told about.

Another factor in this is that she really didn't know all that much, and what she did say was usually off the mark some.She got the details of a secret room wrong and confused an injury of Marie's with bieng Anastasia's. This tells me she was getting her info from somenoen with intimate yet limited knowledge of the family, like the Botkins, or a courtier, or a servant.

And then there's the issue of who verified these 'things only Anastasia would know?' The entire family was dead, and the closest friend, Anna V., was never consulted. I really think the statement that she knew a lot is very exaggerated and not accurate when you really look at the details. In the end, I donl't think there is anything she said that can't be explained away as having been told to her by someone who was there.

I have discussed this at some length with Peter Kurth. We agree that you can't include or exclude AA's identity based upon what she "knew". Here's why. If there were things that only the real Anastasia, and no other living person, knew, then how could you corroborate that information? If on the other hand AA knew a particular fact that another living person knew - and hence could be corroborated - then there would always be a chance that someone told her.

Such was the case of Prince Sigismund of Prussia. This prince moved to Costa Rica after WWI, and although he never met AA, he sent her questions through relatives to which he felt his cousin Anastasia would know the answers. Apparently, she answered all the questions correctly. He has been widely reported as "believing" in AA and in the Lake Como Olga. However, his son Prince Alfred of Prussia told me the only thing he did was to pose the questions and verify that they were answered correctly.

Katherine, if you are interested in this case, you should read Peter's book about AA.

Yes, but how could you corroborate the "information" if only one other person knows the answer? Person A can always say that Person B got the correct answer to a number that Person A was thinking in his head. But if only Person A knows whether this is true or not, then persons C-Z only have Person A's word to go by. And it all depends on how much Person A wants to believe, as well as persons C-Z for that matter!

The fact that Prince Sigismund also believed in the lake Como "Olga." proves this point.

 

[Belochka]

Katherine, if you are interested in this case, you should read Peter's book about AA.

It should be stressed that this author not only attempts to validate his presumption about AA, but that it was published before DNA analyses became available as an analytical tool. The book should be read with these considerations in mind.

[Annie]

Very true and good point. It should be read but it shouldn't be the only thing that's read. Sadly, no one opposing her claim has ever written a book (Other than Les Faux Anastasie by Giliiard in the 20's) so unfortunately,there is nothing to compare the other side to. I guess everyone who doesn't believe in her felt there was no need for a book since the DNA results now speak for themselves. Still we frequently get new people here who have read Kurth's book and are here asking questions but seem to believe AA's claim based on that book. So yes, please read it considering it was written before DNA testing was done, and consider that the writer still believes in her even after the tests, and the book was written from his point of view.

Even though he does seem to present a pro AA case, in re-reading the book recently for the first time in years, I can see the holes in her story quite clearly. Some of the worst evidence against her is right in the book if you examine how her claim came to be in the first place, and how her 'escape' story was fabricated.

[Annie]

Yes, but how could you corroborate the "information" if only one other person knows the answer? Person A can always say that Person B got the correct answer to a number that Person A was thinking in his head. But if only Person A knows whether this is true or not, then persons C-Z only have Person A's word to go by. And it all depends on how much Person A wants to believe, as well as persons C-Z for that matter!

The fact that Prince Sigismund also believed in the lake Como "Olga." proves this point.

 

This is a good point I always wondered about too. WHO vaslidated her answers as right or wrong,  and would they have even known? This legend of her 'knowing' and 'remembering' things 'only Anastasia could havei known' sounds good and mysterious in a post, but really, where is the proof in details, and how do we know the person, if any, who backed her up was even right?

Another thing I have my suspicions about is that I feel it's likely that some of those who 'backed up' her 'memoires' may have been the ones to give them to her in the first place, in secret, then have her 'astonish' someone in public to help her claim. For example, Botkin and the 'funny animals' and Felix Dassel and the 'man with the pockets.' How do we know they didn't tip her off ahead of time? Now that we know from DNA she wasn't AN, this HAD to be the case. But even not using the DNA as evidence, I still smell a rat.

It also has always surprised me that those who opposed AA get accused of being greedy money grabbers who lied for a big payoff, but the supporters on thie forum have always ignored or denied the very real possibility that some of those on her side may well have been the ones lying for money! Think about it.

[Bev]

I wouldn't recommend Kurth's book.  It's nothing but silly assumptions and suppositions based on junk science and the ravings of a certified lunatic.  You might as well watch the Disney movie - they're both about as accurate.

[LisaDavidson]

Regardless of one's opinion of Anna Anderson, Peter Kurth has long been a friend of the Alexander Palace website and this Forum. Many of us became interested in the Palace and Imperial Family due to her story. And, in finding out about AA, an excellent place to start is his book.

It's one thing to think poorly of her as a person and another to disregard the hard work that Kurth put into his book. He did considerable research, and even if you disagree with his conclusions, it is nonetheless research.

What I try to encourage is people reading about topics that interest them and then drawing their own conclusions. For those of us who have studied AA, we have already decided our own opinions. The original poster said - convince me! To which I said, why not look into this yourself?

[Tania]

The reason why many of us stay on this acclaimed forum is because you allow each to draw their own conclusionsl, and offer other avenues to help us understand the issues at hand.
 
Another conclusive reason of why we all love and respect you Lisa, Your fair, balanced and always objective ! Thank You!


Tatiana+

[Bev]

Lisa, are you telling me that Kurth funds this forum?  Honestly, I had no idea that he did.

[Belochka]

Regardless of one's opinion of Anna Anderson, Peter Kurth has long been a friend of the Alexander Palace website and this Forum. Many of us became interested in the Palace and Imperial Family due to her story. And, in finding out about AA, an excellent place to start is his book.

It's one thing to think poorly of her as a person and another to disregard the hard work that Kurth put into his book. He did considerable research, and even if you disagree with his conclusions, it is nonetheless research.

There was considerable research directed in proving Cold Fusion. Subsequently it was shown that all those efforts were shown to be creative science without scientific merit. International scientists debunked that notion, while the investigators were left standing with egg on their faces. Plainly, the research no matter how fervent was proven to be worthless. The outcome being that all the years involved in reaching the point of publication become irrelevant.

There are other many research projects that have created sensation and controversy in the public domain. Not all are worthy of continuing public attention, and can be best seen as a historic curiosity.

Margarita

[LisaDavidson]

Lisa, are you telling me that Kurth funds this forum?  Honestly, I had no idea that he did.

No, I am not. I said he was a friend of ours. Bob's friend, my friend, and firend of many other members here.

I don't see any need to be sarcastic about it, if indeed you are being sarcastic. It's hard to read tone in an email, so if you did not intend it this way, please excuse me.

This forum is owned by Bob Atchison, who provides the funding for it.