Author Topic: Not allowed to be Tsar?  (Read 29379 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

dmitri

  • Guest
Re: Not allowed to be Tsar?
« Reply #75 on: September 15, 2007, 02:11:49 AM »
This thread seems to be way off topic. It is meant to have some relation to Tsarevich Alexis!

Nicolay

  • Guest
Re: Not allowed to be Tsar?
« Reply #76 on: September 15, 2007, 02:14:16 AM »
Hello William,
Lets say your theory has some validity ??? :-\
do you know what is coming at you,
they will ask you to cross reference your findings with hundreds of people (and still not be satisfied)
who have the same and or similar markings,
before they would consider your findings.

Most likely they would still through the book at you
after all your work!

You have taken on more than a handful with your endeavor  :(

Viel Glueck!

helenazar

  • Guest
Re: Not allowed to be Tsar?
« Reply #77 on: September 15, 2007, 08:38:33 AM »
This thread seems to be way off topic. It is meant to have some relation to Tsarevich Alexis!

Perhaps, much like the Tsarevich Alexei, William too is not allowed to be Tsar? Good, I think I now got the thread back on track!

helenazar

  • Guest
Re: Not allowed to be Tsar?
« Reply #78 on: September 15, 2007, 09:33:52 AM »
For all of you who might think that DNA testing is the A and O of it all,
For example if a Great Grand Aunt and I are the only survivors of a blood line.
DNA Testing as of today is not able to establish family ties between us!

Of course not. That's too distant of a relationship, unless both of you came through a direct female line of descent (which doesn't sound to be the case), in which case mtDNA testing can be done. Otherwise it would be virtually impossible to establish relationship between the two of you  through DNA and no one would even suggest otherwise. DNA testing only applies to close relatives or relations through a direct female (mtDNA) or direct male lines of descent (Y-chromosome linked testing), which works rather well.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2007, 09:37:40 AM by Helen_A »

dolgoruky18

  • Guest
Re: Not allowed to be Tsar?
« Reply #79 on: September 15, 2007, 10:00:21 AM »
In response to the poster whose 'professor' gave her incorrect information:

If indeed you were given this information, it is a serious professional matter from your teacher's point of view  -  and also yours as a student. S/he should have told you that it was not his/her 'period' and to suggest books or Internet sites. You could also ask an outside person of sufficient standing to contact the Head Teacher/Principal.

About Alexei:

He was a normal, high-spirited boy who naturally got tired of being carried around and of the restrictions on his freedom of movement. Naturally, he took risks whenever he had the opportunity. There can be no question of 'suicide attempts'.

Nicolay

  • Guest
Re: Not allowed to be Tsar?
« Reply #80 on: September 17, 2007, 05:25:16 AM »
Hi Helen,

An aunt is never in a direct line.

They wouldn't even be able to establish family ties
between me and and the sister of my grand father
my (grand aunt) ---
it does not matter which test you take.

Sorry for changing the subject!

dmitri

  • Guest
Time to get back to Alexis please!
« Reply #81 on: September 17, 2007, 05:40:07 AM »
Seems to be time to get back on track and to discuss Alexis and not matters very unrelated to him.

helenazar

  • Guest
Re: Not allowed to be Tsar?
« Reply #82 on: September 18, 2007, 11:42:29 AM »
Hi Helen,

An aunt is never in a direct line.


An aunt would be in the direct maternal line if she is your mother's sister, so she would have identical mtDNA as you. 

Sorry, lets get back to the topic of Alexei.

Robert_Hall

  • Guest
Re: Not allowed to be Tsar?
« Reply #83 on: September 18, 2007, 12:09:15 PM »
The original question was about some spurious professor saying that Alexei was "not allowed" to inherit the throne. [I may be pedantic, but he would not be "Tsar" anyway, he would have been "Emperor", Peter the Great abolished the old title]. Anyway, Nicholas' abdication maifesto , which included the exclusion of his son from  the throne has had questionable legal validity.  From what I have read and been told, Nicholas would have first to dis-inherit his son, for him to loose any rights of succession.  The only other viable option would have been a regency, as Alexei was so young, and that was unaccepatble to Nicholas.  As it obviously turned out, all this is  simply academic prattle, since events overtook the perons involved and they were sidelined into the curiosities of history.

dmitri

  • Guest
Re: Not allowed to be Tsar?
« Reply #84 on: September 18, 2007, 07:29:20 PM »
Yes it all really did not matter. Nicholas II had already abdicated. His alteration of the original abdication is highly questionable. Michael didn't take up the throne because he knew the Romanovs were finished. The forced abdication of Nicholas II showed this. If Nicholas had really wanted to safeguard the monarchy he would have ensured that matters did not get to the stage where he was forced to abdicate. Sadly he did not listen to any of the warnings given to him.

Noble_descendents

  • Guest
Re: Not allowed to be Tsar?
« Reply #85 on: September 19, 2007, 01:49:34 PM »

Since the person who signed their name as JK spoke of theroy I had going on in my mind, and that I inherited the ancestral markings of who I believed some royals inherited the same, (JK does know I so inhereited the ancsetral gentic markings).

As to his understanding of royals who did inhereit the same, that person did not bother looking at the book of photos presented a few years back when I opened the book to JK and friend to look at the royals who did inherit the markings spoken of. So if facts turn in to theroy and its all in my head then go with the theroy belief. 

You also spoke of if my theroy had some validity? and did I realize what I may face as to having the book thrown at me.  If that is one way of facts been known then let them throw as hard as they can.

As to your question if my theroy had some validity I will reply with this comment, Czar Nicholas 11 and his son mentioned in my previous comments both inherited the same markings, and if that so called theroy is only theroy then why do a few photos of father and son show what I speak of in photos on file in Tsarevich Alexei Nicholaievich section.

It is easy to critize when one wants to put a persons facts aside as theroy when they are not knowledgeable of the facts.  As to why I pursue my wish to have the markings discoverd it is like the gentlman who had a dream of palaces of the Czars, he wanted the truth to be known.


William

Noble_Decendents.bloodline@yahoo.ca
 


[Hello William,
Lets say your theory has some validity ??? :-\
do you know what is coming at you,
they will ask you to cross reference your findings with hundreds of people (and still not be satisfied)
who have the same and or similar markings,
before they would consider your findings.

Most likely they would still through the book at you
after all your work!

You have taken on more than a handful with your endeavor  :(

Viel Glueck!
[/quote]

helenazar

  • Guest
Re: Not allowed to be Tsar?
« Reply #86 on: September 19, 2007, 02:06:24 PM »
What's a "theroy"?

Noble_descendents

  • Guest
Re: Not allowed to be Tsar?
« Reply #87 on: September 19, 2007, 03:21:14 PM »
Correction of spelling noted

William

Ex-Princess Lisa

  • Guest
Re: Not allowed to be Tsar?
« Reply #88 on: September 19, 2007, 04:45:36 PM »
William,

I am curious as to what these markings look like.

Would it be possible for you to post a photo on this forum?

You mention a photo of father and son, Nicholas II and Alexis, where the markings are shown.

Would it be possible for you to post this photo.

Lisa

dmitri

  • Guest
Re: Not allowed to be Tsar?
« Reply #89 on: September 19, 2007, 04:47:04 PM »
Yes photographic evidence would assist in this issue.