One thing i find odd part two.

[Tania]

None of what I post is veiled ! You must respond on your own conduct Louis Charles, as you are not a 'we', or are you ?
It is up to the moderator to ask any one of us to continue or not to continue, not you to take it upon yourself individually or as a group to take it upon yourselves to decide who is ok and who is not ok on this forum.

Your reactions are yours alone. As the forum states, stick to the topic, and not be personalized or to find something to attack another. Readers believe me are able to discern who is repetative in what they do and of what they post.

In my address I stick to the point of what is addressed nothing more. If you don't like it, then it is you who are looking to make problems where there are none to be made ! Agree to disagree on what is here, not on what you think you want to create discension on. Live for more than creating to distance people. Connect because your words can produce purpose, peacefully !

Tatiana+

[Annie]

A body switch between Nicholas and Michael?  And the transport of Michael's body from Perm to St. Petersburg to be burned in some blast furnace?  And these claims presented by an Orthodox Church website based in Boise, Idaho?

That is a wild one! But since Michael was a great deal taller than Nicholas, and had a very different face, I am sure the skeletons will bear this out to be false!

What next?  Spaceships and little green men?

You mean that one HASN'T been used?

[Annie]

 I can state without fear of reasonable contradiction that no one who knew Anna Anderson closely, who lived in her company for months and years, who tended and treated her through multiple illnesses as her doctor or nurse, who spoke with her at length and in detail about the stages of her life, who observed her comportment, carriage and demeanor and heard her converse intelligently on many subjects in several languages—I affirm that no one who knew her as I and others did can believe that she was born in an East Prussian farming village in 1896 as the daughter and sister of beet farmers. [/i]


http://www.peterkurth.com/TEXT%20ONLY%20VERSION.htm


 

I have several problems with this. First, it's an insult to East Prussian beet farmers! How dare  he stereotype them all?

Second, as someone mentioned in the last thread, many people of humble beginnings have manged to become great actresses (or actors) and play the role of an aristocrat convincingly, even winning Oscars! Where a person is from and what job they worked means nothing.

Third, I seriously doubt she conversed with people intelligently in several languages. Is there any evidence she used anything but German and her pathetic English (which was clearly not the English of a girl raised by parents who spoke proper British English every day)?

Her 'carriage and demeanor?' You mean the scruffy, crotchety old woman who rode around in a rattle trap station wagon and lived in squalor among dozens of cats and dogs and mounds of cans and garbage inside and outside the house? Does that look or sound like an uppity person to you? From what I have seen of her in videos and pics, and even read in books by her supporters, she seemed very common. I don't mean to insult her, I am sure she was a nice lady to care for all those animals, but hardly a princess!

[Ra-Ra-Rasputin]

Thanks for the Michael info, Penny.

So, does this mean that there are no claimants for Michael who have made consistent public claims of their identity? Do we think this is because Michael had a wife still living?

Rachel
xx

[Bev]

No one is "entitled" to a wrong opinion.  Opinion must be informed by facts, evidence and the rigourous application of logic.  You can draw any conclusion that you want, but you're not "entitled" to twist or ignore facts, disregard evidence or suspend belief in natural laws.  You may do it, you can do it, but the facts and evidence belong to all of us, and no one is "entitled" to his own facts  and evidence nor an opinion based on such.  No one has a particular license or privelege that allows them to hold opinion based on nothing more than romantic wishful thinking.  As I said, you can have an opinion, but you're not entitled to it and you have no right to foist it on others and not expect to be called on it.  When Kurth and Kendrick make claims in public based on bad evidence and/or no evidence then they should expect to be called on it and so should anyone else.

[AGRBear]

A poster wanted to know why people believe that the remains found in the mass grave were not Nicholas II's.  I gave you two  of their reasons.

I did not include myself because at this time I continue to believe the remains in the mass grave are Nicholas II's.

AND,  as I said,  Maples believe the arm bone belonged to one of the male servents and the Russians were mistaken to place it with Nicholas II's bones.  And he's probably correct.

AGRBear

[Tania]

Well, until all facts are in, I will continue to offer like everyone else what imho i think is. Of course it will be or not be refuted, that is on whateve the subject matter may be, and or whatever, who is offering, whose opinion. Like it or not, we are all free to do, say, think, and offer what ever it is we wish, period. Until you see a moderator stating otherwise, the public will continue here and elsewhere to post what they wish !    

Tatiana+

[AGRBear]

I don't know about any claimants...

Various "Michaels" were popping up throughout Siberia relatively quickly after his death:  One of the first was allegedly in Turkestan, issuing a manifesto and trying to raise an army; a second was supposed to have been in Omsk at the head of a band of Cossacks.  Dmitri Pavlovich heard about the latter while he was in Persia and wrote: "Misha is advancing on Moscow with Cossacks and has been proclaimed Emperor." (DP's Diary, Houghton, Harvard University)  But it is difficult to ascertain if these two "Michaels" were real claimants or if they -- and their actions -- were merely rumors.

Beginning in 1919, there were sightings of Michael in the far east: Japan, China, Thailand.  Again, it's difficult to know if these are only rumors, or if there were real people making claims.  In February 1919, a man appeared at the Colonial Office in a town in French Indo-China, seeking a visa under Michael's name and titles.  There was a Top Secret report made, including photographs of the man who claimed to be Michael; these photos were shown to some friends of Michael and relatives of his wife -- and he was determined to be a fraud.  According to the Crawfords in their book Michael and Natasha, information on this claimant can be found at the Leeds Russian Archive MS 1363/101.

A later "Michael" appeared in Shanghai -- but by September 1919, Admiral Kolchak was writing to Natasha that there was no solid evidence of Michael having been anywhere after Perm, and that he did not know what had happened to him.

... but I did find this rather bizarre reference on a rather hyperbolic Orthodox Church website:  http://www.serfes.org/royal/romanovpretenders.htm:

"Recent claims made in the book, Blood Relative, by British history professor Michael Gray that the Tsarevich (from whom he claims illegitimate descent) escaped Russia with the Dowager Empress in 1919 onboard HMS Marlborough, and assumed the name Nikolai Chebotarev are likewise absurd.  As is his claim Nicholas II's corpse was switched with that of his brother the Grand Duke Michael to throw off investigators.  The fact that the Grand Duke's body was dismembered and incinerated by the Bolsheviks in a St. Petersburg blast furnace after his murder in 1918 (prior to the regicide) is ignored, and a host of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories involving forensic evidence tampering, combined with a loose (in place erroneous) interpretation of DNA analysis, advanced in a futile attempt to explain the alleged body switch and DNA results which do not prove his point." [emphasis added]

A body switch between Nicholas and Michael?  And the transport of Michael's body from Perm to St. Petersburg to be burned in some blast furnace?  And these claims presented by an Orthodox Church website based in Boise, Idaho?

What next?  Spaceships and little green men?

There have always been rumors about what happened to Michaels' remains.  One has them being buried in an area that was later paved over for housing; another says that he was not buried at all, but was burned up in a smelter at some sort of factory in or near Motovilikhi -- I think this last is where the above interpretation comes from.

~Penny

Thanks Penny.

[Louis_Charles]

Feel free to post, but you might try having an actual, you know, subject --- other than the general unworthiness of those who do not meet your obscure standards for discourse.
I repeat: if you insist upon issuing corrections to people who choose to disagree with you, then don't be upset if you are called on it, Tatiana.


She will now post something to the effect that everyone has a right to post whatever they want in the service of truth, justice, whatever, and that I am trying to deny her the right to hold whatever opinons she has. None of this is true. Sigh.

[Tania]

Louis,

Wow, now you are allowing me ? ...in telling me that I am free to post. How kind of you, though this is not your forum.... But, I love you in spite of your remarks and unwarranted behviour. Your too good to be true 
Wow, your clarivoyant as well, stupendous ! We are so lucky,  I hope though you don't make a living declaring what people will do next. Oh boy could Saddam use your abilities

But, back to the thread, and what is being discussed and of real importance....

Penny, it is true of where this last interpretation comes from. Thank you for sharing it with the forum members.

Tatiana+

[Louis_Charles]

Glad you appreciate my largesse, Tatiana. And yes, you may return to the discussion. I assume since you accepted my permission you will also try to avoid the personal attacks? Good.

And I love you too. 

[AGRBear]

No one is "entitled" to a wrong opinion.  Opinion must be informed by facts, evidence and the rigourous application of logic.  You can draw any conclusion that you want, but you're not "entitled" to twist or ignore facts, disregard evidence or suspend belief in natural laws.  You may do it, you can do it, but the facts and evidence belong to all of us, and no one is "entitled" to his own facts  and evidence nor an opinion based on such.  No one has a particular license or privelege that allows them to hold opinion based on nothing more than romantic wishful thinking.  As I said, you can have an opinion, but you're not entitled to it and you have no right to foist it on others and not expect to be called on it.  When Kurth and Kendrick make claims in public based on bad evidence and/or no evidence then they should expect to be called on it and so should anyone else.

Everyone is entitled their their opinion based on what they think the facts are.  This is why it is so important to tell us your sources so I can go to the source and see for myself  what or who is behind the "facts".    My conclusion may be  the same as yours or it may be different than yours for a number of reasons.   One reason  may be that I  know a great deal about  the particular subject,  I  can  present a dozen sources which I believe nulify the source  given.   It is this give and take of facts in a discussion which others can read and make their own opinions, even though Bev and I  do not convince each other.

If a person knowingly gives facts which they know are not true,  then this is wrong.  Far as I can see Kurth continues to believe AA was GD Anastasia,  or so  Helen has presented in her post.  He has a book full of sources.  Kendrick  believes in Tammet being  Alexei and he has told us so in threads on AP.  Now,  if we can "give and take" the facts without throwing stones,  we can all learn from each other , AND, it will be a nice day for all.

AGRBear

[Louis_Charles]

This is getting somewhat off-topic, but this thread seems to meander.

I would like to agree with the idea that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion because it sounds nice, but if you subject it to scrutiny it doesn't hold up. Surely people with the "opinion" that other races or religions are subservient to their own are not "entitled" to hold such an opinion without challenge, nor can their interpetation of "facts" be allowed to stand without attack. Surely you accept that there are truths, Bear, and that not every single thing in life is open to question? Actually, I may have put that incorrectly. The verities HAVE been questioned, and answers have been found.

Well, if it works on a larger scale (discrimination), it can also work on a smaller scale (history). It is possible to arrive at the truth about whether, say, Nicholas II was in the grave or whether Princess Anne was covertly recognizing Tammet as Alexei when "she" sent him a telegram incorrectly addressed.

Opinions can be disputed, and if they are proved wrong, is one entitled to hold them? As a teacher, I would have to say no.

[Tania]

I agree Bear, right on! and oh yes LC, or Louis Charles, you did not honestly think i or anyone could ever think you to have the ability to 'give permission' to anyone, did you? Oh you make me laugh outloud, you silly boy !

I will continue as every free person does, to review facts that are offered, agree, disagree, or refute what I don't wish. You and anyone else has no control on these forums save those who are legally allowed to do so, and I don't see yours or anyone else's save the names of Bob, Rob, and Lisa.

They for me, and considerably for the rest of the membership and readers, remain the only ones who are identifiably proved to be able to say what they will and in giving permission to all or none. You might want their positions, but i don't think they will offer it even to you....

Tatiana+

[Louis_Charles]

Tatiana,

I was only going by what you posted. In the future, it might be best if you let us know when you are kidding. I think I speak for all of us when I say that it will make it much easier to deal with your posts.

But I still love you.