Try and convince me- I'm undecided!

[komarov]

I'll see what I can find...mostly on the internet, because my phsyical library of books is a bit limited in scope.

[Rachael89]

And please don't blame that awful cartoon on Disney! It was not Disney, it was 20th Century Fox.
Suzie

What was awful about it? Sure if was historically inaccurate but it was beautifully animated with lovely songs and a heart warming story, even if it was all fictitious, to me it's no worse than Disney's 'version' of Pochahontas, which totally throws all facts out of the window.

Rachael

[Annie]

I feel the same way about "Pocahontas" as I do "Anastasia". They both fictionalized real people and told an incorrect version of history that was wrong because it misleads children. When Pocahontas was new, my daughter, then in second grade, wrote a Pocahontas report at school based on the cartoon, not reality, and we lived in VA just across the river from Jamestown, and the kids study VA history, and I'm a history buff from way back, so this was a disgrace! Being from VA, even the incorrect landscape they portrayed in that cartoon bugs me, on top of the history. If someone wanted to do a story about either girl that was historically inaccurate, they should have just used the basic ideas but called it something else and not used their real names.

A couple years ago, I found a DVD for $5 that had off brand versions of "Anastasia" and "Pocahontas" on it, and I knew it would be bad, so I bought it, really, just to make fun of. However, they were both so bad I couldn't laugh!

[Forum Admin]

Hi guys,

Just a reminder that there are several other separate threads to discuss the Anastasia cartoon, and this one isn't it. Thanks.

FA

[zackattack]

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

So, is your point that this new poster should simply accept what she is being told by members here without attempting to read up on the subject herself and make up her own mind? I'm willing to give her credit for being intelligent enough to read a few books. It won't take too long for her to discover that prior to DNA testing, many people believed AA, including Princess Xenia of Russia. And, upon DNA testing, the evidence is overwhelming that she was not Anastasia.

I agree that if she reads Kurth, she needs to bear the above in mind. But, are you saying that Peter's work does not deserve respect because DNA testing later disproved AA was Anastasia? I think AA's story is still an interesting one, no matter who she was.

I just think it's important that we treat everyone with respect, no matter what their ideas or beliefs. And, I also think that it's important to make up one's own mind. 

Just because AA turned out not to be Anastasia

With respect, why should there be respect for a body of research that only leads the reader to its singular sensational conclusion ... a conclusion that has been invalidated by impartial scientific analysis?

As for the author, there is no issue.

Margarita

I think that "The Riddle of AA" has also left many people with the mistaken impression that, prior to the DNA test results, all "evidence" in the AA case pointed towards the conclusion that she and AN were one and the same.

However, this is simply not the case. There is a mountain of testimony that would lead a reasonable thinking fair minded person to the exact opposite conclusion. MP Remy has one of the largest collections of AA related materials out there, including material that was used in "Riddle", and other material that was  ignored by the author because it didn't fit into his conclusion. After only several months of doing research, Remy came to the conclusion that there was no way that AA was anyone else other than FS.

Also, many in the Russian community in both Germany and France knew it was a scam right from the beginning. I was speaking to a friend of
mine who is a member of the Rodzianko family. Her Grandmother encountered AA in Germany in the 1920's. Well, Madame Rodzianko's interview
with the claiment, according to family legend, lasted about 5 minutes. She knew it wasn't her as soon as she walked into the room. 

 

[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

So, is your point that this new poster should simply accept what she is being told by members here without attempting to read up on the subject herself and make up her own mind? I'm willing to give her credit for being intelligent enough to read a few books. It won't take too long for her to discover that prior to DNA testing, many people believed AA, including Princess Xenia of Russia. And, upon DNA testing, the evidence is overwhelming that she was not Anastasia.

I agree that if she reads Kurth, she needs to bear the above in mind. But, are you saying that Peter's work does not deserve respect because DNA testing later disproved AA was Anastasia? I think AA's story is still an interesting one, no matter who she was.

I just think it's important that we treat everyone with respect, no matter what their ideas or beliefs. And, I also think that it's important to make up one's own mind. 

Just because AA turned out not to be Anastasia

With respect, why should there be respect for a body of research that only leads the reader to its singular sensational conclusion ... a conclusion that has been invalidated by impartial scientific analysis?

As for the author, there is no issue.

Margarita

I think that "The Riddle of AA" has also left many people with the mistaken impression that, prior to the DNA test results, all "evidence" in the AA case pointed towards the conclusion that she and AN were one and the same.

However, this is simply not the case. There is a mountain of testimony that would lead a reasonable thinking fair minded person to the exact opposite conclusion. MP Remy has one of the largest collections of AA related materials out there, including material that was used in "Riddle", and other material that was  ignored by the author because it didn't fit into his conclusion. After only several months of doing research, Remy came to the conclusion that there was no way that AA was anyone else other than FS.

Also, many in the Russian community in both Germany and France knew it was a scam right from the beginning. I was speaking to a friend of
mine who is a member of the Rodzianko family. Her Grandmother encountered AA in Germany in the 1920's. Well, Madame Rodzianko's interview
with the claiment, according to family legend, lasted about 5 minutes. She knew it wasn't her as soon as she walked into the room. 

Thank you Zackattack for your wonderful posting. 

You are indeed correct. Many people who became interested in the AA saga especially those outside of the Russian émigré communities around the world, only had a few tiresome English language authorships to rely upon. Regretfully, there was little publically available to rebut AA fallacious claim, courtesy of her minders and associates. Essentially, prior to the DNA revelation, these masterful authors created marvellous assumptions and picturesque scenarios that best fitted their presumptive conclusion.

Their fiction intrigued many, and not a few of their captive audience became convinced by these unilateral assessments, until Professor Gill and his laboratory staff revealed the impartial truth, not by best fit write-up, but by forensic analysis of AA's tissue sample.

Why is the simple truth harder to believe?

Best regards,

Margarita
 

[Annie]

Thanks Zack for the new info!

Thanks Beochka for your beautifully worded description of exactly what happened. It is sad that even today there are those who choose to believe the fiction because it's more interesting.

Even though the mystery of AA is solved, there is still a fascinating tale to investigate, exactly how AA pulled it off, who was involved, how, why, and what was behind it all. This can never be known for sure because frauds don't usually leave paper trails, but it's a pity that we never even get to discuss this subject without the old tired and dull 'was she Anastasia' argument rearing its head again.

[Raegan]

Why is the simple truth harder to believe?

There is no reason for anyone to believe Anna Anderson was Anastasia because the DNA proves she was a fraud. Sadly, I think a lot of people out there just want to believe the fairy tale of a young Grand Duchess surviving a terrible execution.

[Annie]

I can understand people wanting to believe that for fun, but I cannot understand the viciousness and outrageous behavior some resort to when you tell them they are wrong, she wasn't AN, DNA proves it, and that belief AA was AN is not an 'opinion' you have a 'right' to, but a proven falsehood.

[Belochka]

Thanks Zack for the new info!

Thanks Beochka for your beautifully worded description of exactly what happened. It is sad that even today there are those who choose to believe the fiction because it's more interesting.

Even though the mystery of AA is solved, there is still a fascinating tale to investigate, exactly how AA pulled it off, who was involved, how, why, and what was behind it all. This can never be known for sure because frauds don't usually leave paper trails, but it's a pity that we never even get to discuss this subject without the old tired and dull 'was she Anastasia' argument rearing its head again.

IMHO a thorough investigative assessment such as the one you have proposed Annie, may actually cause more litigation against its publication, than the one involving AA.

Margarita   

[zackattack]

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

So, is your point that this new poster should simply accept what she is being told by members here without attempting to read up on the subject herself and make up her own mind? I'm willing to give her credit for being intelligent enough to read a few books. It won't take too long for her to discover that prior to DNA testing, many people believed AA, including Princess Xenia of Russia. And, upon DNA testing, the evidence is overwhelming that she was not Anastasia.

I agree that if she reads Kurth, she needs to bear the above in mind. But, are you saying that Peter's work does not deserve respect because DNA testing later disproved AA was Anastasia? I think AA's story is still an interesting one, no matter who she was.

I just think it's important that we treat everyone with respect, no matter what their ideas or beliefs. And, I also think that it's important to make up one's own mind. 

Just because AA turned out not to be Anastasia

With respect, why should there be respect for a body of research that only leads the reader to its singular sensational conclusion ... a conclusion that has been invalidated by impartial scientific analysis?

As for the author, there is no issue.

Margarita

I think that "The Riddle of AA" has also left many people with the mistaken impression that, prior to the DNA test results, all "evidence" in the AA case pointed towards the conclusion that she and AN were one and the same.

However, this is simply not the case. There is a mountain of testimony that would lead a reasonable thinking fair minded person to the exact opposite conclusion. MP Remy has one of the largest collections of AA related materials out there, including material that was used in "Riddle", and other material that was  ignored by the author because it didn't fit into his conclusion. After only several months of doing research, Remy came to the conclusion that there was no way that AA was anyone else other than FS.

Also, many in the Russian community in both Germany and France knew it was a scam right from the beginning. I was speaking to a friend of
mine who is a member of the Rodzianko family. Her Grandmother encountered AA in Germany in the 1920's. Well, Madame Rodzianko's interview
with the claiment, according to family legend, lasted about 5 minutes. She knew it wasn't her as soon as she walked into the room. 

Thank you Zackattack for your wonderful posting. 

You are indeed correct. Many people who became interested in the AA saga especially those outside of the Russian émigré communities around the world, only had a few tiresome English language authorships to rely upon. Regretfully, there was little publically available to rebut AA fallacious claim, courtesy of her minders and associates. Essentially, prior to the DNA revelation, these masterful authors created marvellous assumptions and picturesque scenarios that best fitted their presumptive conclusion.

Their fiction intrigued many, and not a few of their captive audience became convinced by these unilateral assessments, until Professor Gill and his laboratory staff revealed the impartial truth, not by best fit write-up, but by forensic analysis of AA's tissue sample.

Why is the simple truth harder to believe?

Best regards,

Margarita
 

Thank you Belochka

Another issue I'd like to add: the book "Riddle of AA" attempts to paint the charectors of Grand Duchess Olga A.,Grand Duke Ernest, Gilliard, and others in a negative light.

Should one continue to respect a work that casts a negative slur over people who have been proven to be innocent beyond a reasonable doubt? Of course not.

[Eddie_uk]

Another issue I'd like to add: the book "Riddle of AA" attempts to paint the charectors of Grand Duchess Olga A.,Grand Duke Ernest, Gilliard, and others in a negative light.

Should one continue to respect a work that casts a negative slur over people who have been proven to be innocent beyond a reasonable doubt? Of course not.

Yes excellent point! This does the author more harm than anyone, as it's quite clear what he's capable of to write such dispicable slur!!! Very disrespectful & unfair to the memories of thoroughly good and loyal persons!!!! Is to much.

[Raegan]

I can understand people wanting to believe that for fun, but I cannot understand the viciousness and outrageous behavior some resort to when you tell them they are wrong, she wasn't AN, DNA proves it, and that belief AA was AN is not an 'opinion' you have a 'right' to, but a proven falsehood.

I also don't understand why some people take the DNA fact personally. I well remember when some posters were downright nasty towards you, Annie, for simply pointing out the fact that DNA proves Anna Anderson was an imposter. I also don't get the people who state that they believe the DNA when it comes to proving she wasn't Anastasia, but don't accept the DNA when it comes to showing that she was most likely Franziska Schanzkowska. Anyone with any knowledge of DNA knows that the chances of her being anyone but Schanzowska are slim to none.

Sorry, but the mystery is over. She wasn't Anastasia.

[Ra-Ra-Rasputin]

There are a lot of interesting and informative posts here.

ZackAttack is absolutely right; there always has been a huge amount of evidence AGAINST AA's claim, but the only stuff that has been flagged up and made public in books is the evidence that DOES support her claim, giving a highly skewed version of reality. Not to mention all of the conspiracy theories surrounding the missing 'fortune', etc.

AA wasn't Anastasia; that has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.  Sure, read Peter Kurth; it has a lot of information in it.  But be aware of what Peter Kurth DOESN'T include, ie anything that disproves his claims.  The Riddle of Anna Anderson is far from a balanced assessment of the case and so needs to be treated with caution.

Rachel
xx

[Eddie_uk]

I can understand people wanting to believe that for fun, but I cannot understand the viciousness and outrageous behavior some resort to when you tell them they are wrong, she wasn't AN, DNA proves it, and that belief AA was AN is not an 'opinion' you have a 'right' to, but a proven falsehood.

I well remember when some posters were downright nasty towards you, Annie, for simply pointing out the fact that DNA proves Anna Anderson was an imposter.

I know! Awful isn't it??? I guess they just don't like to be proved wrong!! 

Annies lot has been a heavy one!!!