Author Topic: Re: So who WAS she, then?  (Read 113050 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline stepan

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 145
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: So who WAS she, then?
« Reply #570 on: April 14, 2005, 04:04:40 PM »
I know that long before the DNA testing some people believed that Anna Anderson was really a Romanov because of her amazing knowledge about the imperial court. And they thought that she was perhaps the result of the liaison between Nicholas and Matilde Khessinska. Princess Vera Konstantinovna said after a visit from the Manahans that "the woman was not Anastasia. But there was something strange with her. Maybe she was the result of some escapade."   That she was a Polish peasant-factory worker was absolutely impossible to believe for most people who met her.  One who believed in the Schanzkowska theory was Dmitry Leuchtenberg, the son of George Leuchtenberg with whom AA stayed in1927. I believe he(Dmitry) was present at the confrontation in Wasserburg  with Felix Schanzkowsky and that he was sure she recognized. him. Felix Yussopov also visited her at castle Seeon and believed she was a nervous crazy actress. What was typical with her case was the absolutely different opinions people had of her.

Offline lexi4

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
  • don't take yourself too seriously
    • View Profile
Re: So who WAS she, then?
« Reply #571 on: April 14, 2005, 11:02:43 PM »
Stephan,
What is the Schanzkowska theory? Is that the theory that AA might have been the daughter of Nicolas and Matilde Khessinska?
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely, in a pretty and well preserved body; but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming, "Wow ---- What a ride!!!"

Offline Olga

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 0
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: So who WAS she, then?
« Reply #572 on: April 15, 2005, 12:06:13 AM »
It's a crock.  ;)

Offline stepan

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 145
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: So who WAS she, then?
« Reply #573 on: April 15, 2005, 05:51:24 AM »
Quote
Stephan,
What is the Schanzkowska theory? Is that the theory that AA might have been the daughter of Nicolas and Matilde Khessinska?


No ofcourse not!   :-[ They are two separate stories.  Maybe my post was confusing in this.  People used to discuss her case especially among Russian emigrees and the idea came up that she might be an illegitimate Romanov offspring.  But that was long before the result of the DNA test was made.  

Offline Helen_Azar

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 7472
  • Coming up Fall 2015: Tatiana's diaries and letters
    • View Profile
    • War-time diaries of Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna Romanov
Re: So who WAS she, then?
« Reply #574 on: April 15, 2005, 07:14:20 AM »
I just want to add again, that AA being someone who randomly matched Carl Maucher's mtDNA, is less than 1 chance in 8000, which is less than 0.000125%. Therefore, she could not have been some distant cousin whom no one even knew was related but who was nevertheless a maternal relative and just happened to randomly match Gertrude's mtDNA.

On the other hand, if she was a close cousin, why did they pick FS when they tried to prove AA's identity, when they could have easily picked this cousin instead and would not have to do any 'maneuvering" as claimed? Who really cared whether AA was FS, or FS's cousin, as long as she wasn't Anastasia. Would they really be that intent on proving specifically that she was FS for some weird reason? If she was really FS's missing cousin, then they could have just easily shown that and that would have been the end of that. BTW, was there a cousin of Gertrude and FS who went missing during the same time as FS dissapeared and AA appeared? If the answer is yes, then wouldn't someone have heard about that by now and figured it out?

So if you think about it, it comes down to this:

1. Either AA was in fact FS,

or

2. Some maternal relative of Gertrude Schankowska was purposefully planted there by someone for some reason, to pretend to be the Grand Duchess Anastasia, because someone back in the early 1920's somehow knew all about mtDNA and figured that in the 1990's DNA tests would be done on AA's intestine sample and would then match FS's relative, and that way AA can be accused of being FS,  ???

or

3. Against all odds the almost impossible happened and it was a completely random match with some distant relative, who by random chance also happened to look a lot like FS - practically a miracle due to the fact that there is only 0.000125% chance of a random DNA match happening.

I don't know about anyone else, but I tend to go with the most reasonable option.  The only thing that would make sense when you look at this evidence is if AA was FS, which in fact I am now convinced of, even if I wasn't 100% convinced earlier. The other evidence that implies the contrary must be mistaken or must have some other explanation.

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: So who WAS she, then?
« Reply #575 on: April 15, 2005, 10:30:33 AM »
We don't know if FS and Gertrude had the same mothers because we haven't seen the birth/bap. certificates, so, no one knows one way or the other.  Therefore, no evidence has been placed in front of us.  This possibility remains speculation.

I hate to break the news but a  certificate/certificates  just might tell us they did have different mothers.

As for AA and Gertrude ending up with the same mtDNA, well, I believe the word you're avoiding is called "coincidence" which occurs enough that a word was invented for things that happen randomly and chances of it occuring again is huge.  But, it does happen. daveK and his "clock" story provided us with just one example of "coincidence".  Remember?

Are you really suggesting if the certificate/certificates tell us FS and Gertrude did have different mothers that it's a mistake?  :o.

Okay, let's say Penny has given us the proof of a certificate and Gertrude is the daughter of Anton S.'s first wife and Gertrude is in fact not FS's full sister. [ This is just a "what if" scenario and no one is saying you have to believe it when replying.  But let's just say this is true.]  What kind of response will you really have to explain the mtDNA?  Will you sound like the AA followers who say, "It isn't possible." or will you look around for new possibilities?

AGRBear
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by AGRBear »
"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Offline Annie

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4756
    • View Profile
    • Anna Anderson Exposed!
Re: So who WAS she, then?
« Reply #576 on: April 15, 2005, 11:55:26 AM »
Quote
We don't know if FS and Gertrude had the same mothers because we haven't seen the birth/bap. certificates, so, no one knows one way or the other.  Therefore, no evidence has been placed in front of us.  This possibility remains speculation.


How convenient. Now it can never end and the game can go on!

Quote
I hate to break the news but a  certificate/certificates  just might tell us they did have different mothers.


Show me!

Quote
As for AA and Gertrude ending up with the same mtDNA, well, I believe the word you're avoiding is called "coincidence" which occurs enough that a word was invented for things that happen randomly and chances of it occuring again is huge.  But, it does happen. daveK and his "clock" story provided us with just one example of "coincidence".  Remember?


Remember Helen Azar's recent post that the chances of that are less than 0000.125%? Are you really that desperate? And adding to the fact that FS looked like AA and that they disappeared at the same time, I have to bring up the walk like a duck comment again.

Quote
Are you really suggesting if the certificate/certificates tell us FS and Gertrude did have different mothers that it's a mistake?  :o.


I said nothing of the kind, since there is no certificate. But I wonder if there is one, and it says they were whole sisters, that some will say it was falsified :P

Quote
Okay, let's say Penny has given us the proof of a certificate and Gertrude is the daughter of Anton S.'s first wife and Gertrude is in fact not FS's full sister. [ This is just a "what if" scenario and no one is saying you have to believe it when replying.  But let's just say this is true.]  What kind of response will you really have to explain the mtDNA?


I would seriously question the validity of such a document (as you would if it came out the other way!) I do think it's interesting that for awhile when this 'half sister' theory was being highly touted when seemed some believed the proof was within reach, and now that no proof now all of a sudden there is no birth record. I do wonder if maybe there was and it didn't say what it was supposed to and something happened to it! (no worse than your speculation, huh?) Or, if indeed there really is no certificate, (which could be true, as I said my aunt doesn't have one) then we will NEVER know so we will have to be satisfied with what we do have, or just keep playing games.
 

Quote
Will you sound like the AA followers who say, "It isn't possible." or will you look around for new possibilities?

AGRBear


Sorry but in this case I do not believe there is any more room left for other possibilities.

In other cases, I'm still open, like what happened to those 2 missing bodies?

I am not a cold skeptic by any means. I believe in ghosts, UFOs, lots of weirdness could be true. Strange things do happen and I find the unusual fascinating. However, this AA being someone other than FS thing just doesn't have a ghost of a chance anymore.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by Annie »

Offline Olga

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 0
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: So who WAS she, then?
« Reply #577 on: April 15, 2005, 12:05:39 PM »
Quote
I said nothing of the kind, since there is no certificate. But I wonder if there is one, and it says they were whole sisters, that some will say it was falsified :P


There are many scapegoats AGRBear could bring up for this. The Reds are by far her favourite.

Offline Olga

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 0
  • I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
    • View Profile
Re: So who WAS she, then?
« Reply #578 on: April 15, 2005, 12:12:53 PM »
Quote
Okay, let's say Penny has given us the proof of a certificate and Gertrude is the daughter of Anton S.'s first wife and Gertrude is in fact not FS's full sister.


Why are you always relying on Penny for information? Can you not do your own research?

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: So who WAS she, then?
« Reply #579 on: April 15, 2005, 12:17:33 PM »
Quote

..[in part]...
I don't know about anyone else, but I tend to go with the most reasonable option.  The only thing that would make sense when you look at this evidence is if AA was FS, which in fact I am now convinced of, even if I wasn't 100% convinced earlier. The other evidence that implies the contrary must be mistaken or must have some other explanation.


>> The other evidence that implies the contrary must be mistaken or must have some other explanation.<<

It appears to me when you said  that  "...other evidence that implies the contrary must be a mistaken..." was also referring to a birth/bap. record if it is found.

Or are you reffering to the list of differences of AA and FS that I post every once in awhile?

Quote
Differences between AA and FS:

I. Photographs:
Photograph comparisons won't make everyone happy as to their looking alike....  

II.  Shoe sizes
FS wore shoes that were three sizes larger than AA
 AA wore shoes that were three sizes smaller than FS

Shoes sizes still doesn't accomplish any agreement even though at the trial  there  shown that there was three size difference.

III. Pregnancy
AA- Evidence of a pregnancy but no proof of when.  Claimed to have had a son.
FS- No pregnancy known.

IV. Scars.
FS -  no unusual scars remembered by family; no scars inflicted in factory accident
AA - scars which were claimed to have been inflicted by a bayonet;  small scar on finger claimed to have been from a door; scar from removal of a mole..... Some scar may have been caused by tb and surgery.  Penny mentioned that AA had a "grove" on the side of her head which may prove to be a injury of some kind had occured....

IIV. Height
FS is reported to have been 5'6", which is about 4 inches taller than AA - Helen was th source on this fact.
AA was about 5'2"" tall

IIIV.  Knowledge of Languages
FS - knew German and Katchoubian.  Did not know Russian or English.
AA - knew Russian, German and English

IX.  Ears pierced
FS - one retouched photo shows earrings and pierced ears but this may be in error
FS -Some said she did not have pierced ears
AA - doesn't appear to have pierced ears but some said she did

Anyone have anything to add?

AGRBear


AGRBear
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by AGRBear »
"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Offline AGRBear

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6611
  • The road to truth is the best one to travel.
    • View Profile
    • Romanov's  Russia
Re: So who WAS she, then?
« Reply #580 on: April 15, 2005, 12:20:14 PM »
Quote

There are many scapegoats AGRBear could bring up for this. The Reds are by far her favourite.


I don't know what Reds have to do with  birth/bap. certificiates.

Quote

Why are you always relying on Penny for information? Can you not do your own research?


It is obvious that you do not know how expensive it is to hire a professional genealogist who can read, write and speak the various languages needed to go through records in foreign villages, translate and then report their findings.

On another thread,  I've given people who do want to do there own search URLs where they can begin just such a search.  I, however, will accept Penny's findings on this subject.

AGRBear
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 06:00:00 PM by AGRBear »
"What is true by lamplight is not always true by sunlight."

Joubert, Pensees, No. 152

Offline Helen_Azar

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 7472
  • Coming up Fall 2015: Tatiana's diaries and letters
    • View Profile
    • War-time diaries of Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna Romanov
Re: So who WAS she, then?
« Reply #581 on: April 15, 2005, 06:47:08 PM »
Quote
I hate to break the news but a  certificate/certificates  just might tell us they did have different mothers.


Yeah, and the earth just might be hit by a meteor tonight and we all go up in smoke  ::). Fact is, there is no certificate that says they had different mothers. There is no reason to think that they had different mothers - the only reason this was even brought up as a possibilty was to try to somehow prove that AA was not FS.  

rskkiya

  • Guest
Re: So who WAS she, then?
« Reply #582 on: April 15, 2005, 08:15:35 PM »
Occamm's Razor seems to have it...Oh well.

Sarcasm warning -- Sarcasm warning

WWWWEEEELLLL ...  Maybe angels do dance on pinheads - and maybe hobgoblins/freemasons/aliens from Altair VI have the real DNA {hehehe} but until we know about the "oft hinted at but never revealed" new and secret information about the "TRUTH" we have to trust the materials we have ...

Warning Over

    To all doubters of the FS AA connection, you may have your reasons for questioning this and please know that I will gladly agree with you when and only when you can show me the evidence.

rskkiya

Offline Helen_Azar

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 7472
  • Coming up Fall 2015: Tatiana's diaries and letters
    • View Profile
    • War-time diaries of Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna Romanov
Re: So who WAS she, then?
« Reply #583 on: April 15, 2005, 08:48:06 PM »
Bear, in case you are wondering what Occam's Razor has to do with anything:

Occam's Razor is a logical principle attributed to the medieval philosopher William of Occam (or Ockham). The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. This principle is often called the principle of parsimony. It underlies all scientific modelling and theory building. It admonishes us to choose from a set of otherwise equivalent models of a given phenomenon the simplest one. In any given model, Occam's Razor helps us to "shave off" those concepts, variables or constructs that are not really needed to explain the phenomenon. By doing that, developing the model will become much easier, and there is less chance of introducing inconsistencies, ambiguities and redundancies.

Offline lexi4

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
  • don't take yourself too seriously
    • View Profile
Re: So who WAS she, then?
« Reply #584 on: April 15, 2005, 11:23:59 PM »
I am with you Helen. We don't have anything that tells us the two did have different mothers. From what I have been able to tell, this all stems from some obscure reference made by someone, I'm not even sure here. I think AA was coached by her supporters. I have no idea what their motives were. Maybe they thought there was something to be gained or maybe they couldn't deal with the reality that the IF was executed. I don't know. If someone comes up with any real evidence regarding different mothers, I will stand corrected. But I am not going to hold by breath on this one. I don't know who AA was, but I know who she wasn't. :)
Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely, in a pretty and well preserved body; but rather to skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming, "Wow ---- What a ride!!!"