One thing i find odd part two.

[Eddie_uk]

As Lisa suggested am starting a new thread. It's EXTREMELY entertaining. Please continue.  . I would be interested to see Mr Kendrick dig himself out of the hole he has created. 

P.S anyone doubting Alexies diagnosis of heamophilia should really read "Nicholas and Alexandra" by Robert Massie. An excellent book. There's a whole chapter on it if my memory serves me correctly.

[Annie]

What's the topic here, Eddieboy? I agree, it is odd that people will not believe Alexei had hemophilia, and yes, Nicholas and Alexandra is an excellent book! It was the first Romanov book I read when I was 13.

[grandduchessella]

Let's just try to keep the tone more civil than on Part One. I noticed (as I was reading which was very disconcerting  ) posts were being deleted because of the tone. In addition, before I finished, the thread was locked. I am presuming Lisa did this and she must've had good reason. So if posters don't want this thread to suffer the same fate, let's try to keep an elevated tone here.

[skirt]

perhaps naming the thread "Mr.Kendricks' highly anticipated response"
what i find odd/ amusing.. is how many have already decided whether or not AA was GD Anastasia or in this case if Tammet was Alexei- but just wait for another reply from Mr.Kendrick (anyone pro-claimant or someone just looking down a different road) to jump all over any detail they get.
They proclaim that these threads hold no historical information, nothing intellectual!
This is the good stuff- keeps the energy flowing, the boards busy..
Most importantly its about a family that (supposedly) perished nearly a century ago, but is still able to captivate all of us .. for hours I might add- now thats surviving!!
I wonder what Mr.Kendricks theory is to WHY anyone would keep Alexei alive? I'm still waiting for that answer...

[Bev]

You know, Lord Simon, I must take issue with your comment that Kurth wasn't "conned".  That is because that is exactly what these people are - con artists.  They are no different from "Nigerian business men" or "communicators with the dead" or "ghost hunters".  They might not be physically stealing from people*, but they are thieves all the same, because they're taking advantage of human vulnerability and civility, which is exactly what thieves do. 

*Unless you define stealing as taking money under false pretenses, which is what Anna Anderson did.

[LisaDavidson]

You know, Lord Simon, I must take issue with your comment that Kurth wasn't "conned".  That is because that is exactly what these people are - con artists.  They are no different from "Nigerian business men" or "communicators with the dead" or "ghost hunters".  They might not be physically stealing from people*, but they are thieves all the same, because they're taking advantage of human vulnerability and civility, which is exactly what thieves do. 

*Unless you define stealing as taking money under false pretenses, which is what Anna Anderson did.

As to Peter Kurth, he spent considerable time with AA and as I understand it, he accepts the DNA results that indicate she was not GD Anastasia but does not believe AA was Franziska Shanzkowska. I don't think he or the Schweitzers feel they were conned.

[Belochka]

You know, Lord Simon, I must take issue with your comment that Kurth wasn't "conned".  That is because that is exactly what these people are - con artists.  They are no different from "Nigerian business men" or "communicators with the dead" or "ghost hunters".  They might not be physically stealing from people*, but they are thieves all the same, because they're taking advantage of human vulnerability and civility, which is exactly what thieves do. 

*Unless you define stealing as taking money under false pretenses, which is what Anna Anderson did.

I don't think he or the Schweitzers feel they were conned.

Is there any public indication what the Schweitzers really felt about the matter?

Margarita

[LisaDavidson]

You know, Lord Simon, I must take issue with your comment that Kurth wasn't "conned".  That is because that is exactly what these people are - con artists.  They are no different from "Nigerian business men" or "communicators with the dead" or "ghost hunters".  They might not be physically stealing from people*, but they are thieves all the same, because they're taking advantage of human vulnerability and civility, which is exactly what thieves do. 

*Unless you define stealing as taking money under false pretenses, which is what Anna Anderson did.

I don't think he or the Schweitzers feel they were conned.

Is there any public indication what the Schweitzers really felt about the matter?

Margarita

Richard Schweitzer posted here for a time. I don't recall him saying anything explicitly about this, but I definitely got the impression they felt as Peter Kurth does.

[Belochka]

You know, Lord Simon, I must take issue with your comment that Kurth wasn't "conned".  That is because that is exactly what these people are - con artists.  They are no different from "Nigerian business men" or "communicators with the dead" or "ghost hunters".  They might not be physically stealing from people*, but they are thieves all the same, because they're taking advantage of human vulnerability and civility, which is exactly what thieves do. 

*Unless you define stealing as taking money under false pretenses, which is what Anna Anderson did.

I don't think he or the Schweitzers feel they were conned.

Is there any public indication what the Schweitzers really felt about the matter?

Margarita

Richard Schweitzer posted here for a time. I don't recall him saying anything explicitly about this, but I definitely got the impression they felt as Peter Kurth does.

... and that is exactly what? 

Margarita

[LisaDavidson]

My understanding - from numerous conversations over the years with Peter Kurth - is that he accepts the DNA testing to the extent that he agrees AA was not GD Anastasia but does not believe AA was Franziska Shanzkowska. I mentioned this a couple of posts above.

[Ra-Ra-Rasputin]

What I find odd is that I and Annie still haven't had an answer to our question from those who believe Alexei and also Anastasia escaped:

Why is absence of a body evidence of escape in Alexei and Anastasia's case, and not in Michael Romanov's? Why is it deemed more likely that two teenagers with extensive serious wounds inflicted on them in a confined space by several men escaped when the rest of their family were so violently disposed of, and yet their uncle was a fit and healthy adult, attacked in an open space, and actually had opportunity to escape, and yet he MUST have been killed, no questions asked?

Please, please, tell me why.  This is a VERY important contradiction in the survivor theories arguments.  'There's no body so there's no evidence of death'.  So why aren't we looking for Michael, then? He WAS the last Tsar, after all! You can't have one rule for one person and another for someone else! Mr Kendrick, I want an answer! As a journalist, surely you should be looking into ALL angles, not just one...you being so objective and all.

Rachel
xx

[Belochka]

My understanding - from numerous conversations over the years with Peter Kurth - is that he accepts the DNA testing to the extent that he agrees AA was not GD Anastasia but does not believe AA was Franziska Shanzkowska. I mentioned this a couple of posts above.

This reply was not what I was asking. While pk may have come to terms with the DNA finding (as you have stated previously) your reply however fails to describe how he felt at that time.

Margarita

[Tsarfan]

Today I telephoned the Office of the Private Secretary in the Princess Royal's Office at Buckingham Palace.

I was directed to one of her Private Secretaries (there are several, apparently) to whom I posed three questions:

• Has the Princess Royal ever extended any recognition whatsoever, in any form whatsoever, to any claimaint for the Russian throne or to anyone claiming to be a survivor of Nicholas II's immediate family and, in particular, to someone from British Columbia claiming to be Alexei?

• Did the Princess Royal personally send a telegram of thanks in 1973 acknowledging a congratulatory telegram from a Czaervich Alexei, Grand Duke of Russia, or to anyone of similar title?
• What was the procedure used for sending telegrams from members of the royal family?

His answer to the first question was, "absolutely not". 

His answer to the second question was that Princess Anne was not personally involved in responding to the congratulatory telegrams she received upon her wedding.

His answer to the third question was that the incoming telegrams and their addresses were cataloged so that mass form responses could be sent out from her office.  The Princess was not personally invovled in the process whatsoever.  He additionally pointed out that telegraphic communications from that time period provided no means for a written signature -- original or otherwise -- to be transmitted with a telegram.

So, Mr. Kendrick . . .

Would you disclose to us the means you used to confirm the authenticity of the telegram and Princess Anne's personal signature?  As an investigative reporter, I'm sure you would not have published such a claim without first thoroughly checking it out.

Thank you.

[helenazar]

Is it possible that the Princess Anne telegram was forged?

[helenazar]

What I find odd is that I and Annie still haven't had an answer to our question from those who believe Alexei and also Anastasia escaped:

Why is absence of a body evidence of escape in Alexei and Anastasia's case, and not in Michael Romanov's? Why is it deemed more likely that two teenagers with extensive serious wounds inflicted on them in a confined space by several men escaped when the rest of their family were so violently disposed of, and yet their uncle was a fit and healthy adult, attacked in an open space, and actually had opportunity to escape, and yet he MUST have been killed, no questions asked?

Please, please, tell me why.  This is a VERY important contradiction in the survivor theories arguments.  'There's no body so there's no evidence of death'.  So why aren't we looking for Michael, then? He WAS the last Tsar, after all! You can't have one rule for one person and another for someone else! Mr Kendrick, I want an answer! As a journalist, surely you should be looking into ALL angles, not just one...you being so objective and all.

Rachel
xx

Just out of curiousity, how many claimants were there for Michael? I know there had to be some (not nearly as much as for Alexei - I am sure of that, but there had to be a few). Does anyone know?