Anna Anderson's claim to be Grand Duchess Anastasia

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by ferrymansdaughter

Therefore she technically – as you put it – DID KNOW GERMAN.

Technically, she knew a few German words, she did not know or speak German. Big difference. Sophie B. said (this is quoted in the La Fausse thread) AN 'only knew a few German words.' Even I know a 'few German words' but have no working knowledge of it.

Incidentally, can you give us the quote where Olga said that - I'd like to know exactly what she said.

Again? Hasn't this been posted tons of times already? See this is why we need to keep threads on topics so they don't all turn out the same and have all the info lost. Okay here goes!

The Last Grand Duchess" by Ian Vorres: p. 174

When Olga entered the room, the woman lying on a bed asked a nurse: “Ist das die Tante?”[Is this the Aunt?] “That”, confessed Olga, “at once took me aback. A moment later I remembered that the young woman having spent five years in Germany, would naturally have learnt the language, but then I heard that when she was rescued from that canal in 1920, she spoke nothing but German – when she spoke at all- which was not often. I readily admit that a ghastly horror experienced in one’s youth can work havoc with one’s memory but I have never heard of any ghastly experience endowing anyone with a knowledge they had not had before it happened. My nieces knew no German at all. Mrs Anderson did not seem to understand a word of Russian or English, the two languages all the four sisters had spoken since babyhood. French came a little later, but German was never spoken in the family."

Massie p 181 - Faith Lavington referred to AA's "purest and best English accent." I certainly think that she would know a proper English accent when she heard one. (You do know who she was, don't you?)

Yet above, Olga tells us she not only didn't speak English but didn't understand it. Felix Yussoupov also stated that she would only speak German, no English, French or Russian. Sophie B. stated (again in the La Fausse thread) that she spoke to her in English phrases she had used on the Grand Duchesses, but it was clear by her face and her lack of response she didn't understand a word, and kept looking to the nurse and speaking to her in German.


"It was not the English of someone who had spoken English since childhood as Anastasia did." said the English writer, Michael Thornton, when he met her in 1960. "The accent was Germanic, the sentence structure German, the grammar hopeless." (Klier and Mingay)



Dave Howey, who met Anderson, by then Mrs. Manahan, when he was a cadet at a Virginia military academy in 1977, wrote of their meeting that "Her husband talked for her since she spoke very little English. Her only functional language was German, her Russian having been wiped out, we were told, as a result of the trauma from seeing her family gunned down in the cellar of a house in Ekaterinburg, Russia."

Listen to the tapes of her speaking. Her English was horrible even after living many years in the US. If anyone said she had a nice English accent, (assuming she's telling the truth) it must have meant AA was recently coached, and later lost the skill.

Well this is nothing but YOUR speculation. Of course, if you can find a photo of the Tsarina’s car showing the swastika and published before AA told this story, then it will not longer be speculation but a fact.

The whole thing is your speculation. As I said it's very possible Gilliard honestly never noticed the details of the car, it doesn't mean he lied.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

A historian who burns his archives? A corpse that stinks.....

As far as lies, he asserted in "False Anastasia" that AN knew no German. His own schedules and AN's schoolbooks tell us otherwise. When AA talked about the Malachite room, he stated that there was no such room in the palace. His photo of FS was heavily retouched to heighten the resemblance to AA, even earrings were added to indicate pierced ears. And when giving Bischoff a photo of AN for a photo comparison, he provided a photo of Olga instead so a comparison would result in a negative verdict. (Rathlef Keilmann.) When AA stated that the Empress' car had a little swastika on the hood, Gilliard published a photo of same car with a big swastika drawn in on the door of the car to show the world that anybody could see it. (Rathlef Keilmann.) And you still wonder why he burned his archives?

No, I don't wonder why he burned his archives because he said why he did so (assuming Peter Kurth's book is correct on that count).

If you believe he burned his archives for some other reason, you need to make it very clear it's simply your opinion and that it contradicts what's been written about the episode. In that post you made it appear that it's a verified fact that he burned the archives because he'd been caught lying under oath, and then we find that the truth is a bit more mundane than that.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by ferrymansdaughter

He is a liar - he told lies and was found out. As you know perfectly well, we are not saying that every single word that ever came out of his mouth was a lie - just certain things relating to certain events and why the heck would he lie about burning the papers when it made him look suspicious?

Do you mean to say that he admitted that he burned his papers because he'd been caught lying? If so, please give some details about where this admission is published. If not, the answer to your last question appears to be the statement in Peter Kurth's book that he burned his papers because he thought the case was closed. You might not agree with that statement, but it still seems to be the closest thing we have to published verification of his motives.

[AGRBear]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

I'm asking how you know that the King-Ginther work wasn't published because of the prior publication of the Gill work. As opposed to not being published for some other reason.

Sorry everyone, but I've been really busy because of the addition to our home and my aging parents.

I contacted Curious One, who was the one who had told me about King's lost of interest, she couldn't recall Dr. Ginther exact words spoken on the telephone which was some time ago. But that was the impression she had gotten.

AGRBear

[AGRBear]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

Ferrymansdaughter, it's strange you would be so critical and doubtful of a piece of information that has been used and documented over many decades yet accept another's alleged existence sight unseen when no one can even produce a quote from it much less hard evidence. We have some very basic realities to go on- AA was FS, FS had scars. AA was not AN therefore she did not get the scars from "Ekaterinburg". AA was 99.9% FS therefore it's 'eminently likely' that she received those scars at the grenade factory. Still trying to prove AA to be AN simply isn't a valid position, regardless of these issues, due to the DNA testing.

Sometimes an assumption is repeated so many times it takes on it's own life and become a fact.

In this case, FS did not receive anything more physically then a headache ad a few scratches from the grenade which killed her foreman. There is an unpublished AEG doctors report and recorded information from Gertrude Ellrich.

If AA was not FS then we have no idea how she received all of her "old healed wounds", which the doctors at Dalldorf reported AA had when she was admitted.

As far as I'm concern, the evidence, especially the timelines of FS & AA should help prove they were the same person without the use of DNA/mtDNA but it does not. And this REALLY puzzles Bear. Just as it must have the German judges in AA's trial.

AGRBear

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by AGRBear

Sometimes an assumption is repeated so many times it takes on it's own life and become a fact.

I agree, I have seen this happen very often with AA supporters, but when I do background checks on what they claim, it rarely adds up to what was told for the truth.

There is an unpublished AEG doctors report

There is said to be, by one person on one message board. There is no proof, and until such proof is produced, this cannot be stated as fact. If you choose to believe one person on one message board, that is up to you, but you should not go around listing it among facts to everyone else when it doesn't qualify as one, especially since it is the opposite of previously published accounts of her injuries that have been around for years.

If AA was not FS then we have no idea how she received all of her "old healed wounds", which the doctors at Dalldorf reported AA had when she was admitted.

One thing we do know for sure, she sure didn't get them in Ekaterinburg.

As far as I'm concern, the evidence, especially the timelines of FS & AA should help prove they were the same person without the use of DNA/mtDNA but it does not. And this REALLY puzzles Bear. Just as it must have the German judges in AA's trial.

AGRBear

In what way? FS was reported missing 3 weeks after AA appeared. This is not unusual, considering the time and place and circumstances. Just the other day in my own newspaper, a family just now reported a man missing because they came concerned after not hearing from him for 3 weeks- and this in the days of cell phones and email, imagine how much less likely people were to have daily contact in those days. There is absolutely no proof they were 'accounted for at the same time' as AA supporters claim. I am puzzled at how you can put a few assumptions and pieces of questionable hearsay over the DNA and mtDNA.

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by ferrymansdaughter

He is a liar - he told lies and was found out.

This is an assumption that has not been proven.

As you know perfectly well, we are not saying that every single word that ever came out of his mouth was a lie - just certain things relating to certain events

Yes, I do know perfectly well, I have noticed that to you and Chat, anything that harms AA's case is a 'lie' and anything that appears to help her is not only given the benefit of the doubt, but even stated as fact. His lying must be very selective.

and why the heck would he lie about burning the papers when it made him look suspicious?

What - and not preserve them for posterity? Not nearly as likely as the fact that he was telling the truth.

Everyone feels differently about this. I am a packrat, very sentimental and keep everything. This doesn't mean everyone else does the same. This is evident from our own family stories published here. When my grandfather died, my uncle burned all his diaries, letters and old magazines, just because they were cluttering a closet he wanted to remodel. They would have meant so much to me, but to my uncle they were just a mess that needed to be cleaned. Not everyone thinks of saving things for posterity. Gilliard already had his published book left for 'posterity' and it contained all his evidence anyway. You have drawn a lot of conclusions based on your own assumptions without proof.

[AGRBear]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

Bear, we've been through this many times before, but for the benefit (and misfortune) of anyone who hasn't seen it before I'll do my part. What you show here, bear, is people who are traveling together, in a well organized party, such as the pioneers in the US "Oregon Trail". Sure, a group like that, using main roads, busy towns and river ferries could possibly have made AA's alleged journey in 5 months, but that's not what the AA story tells us.

Remember that (and this is just for the sake of discussion, of course her story is false) AA said they had to hide from Bolsheviks and were in constant fear of being caught and killed. For goodness sakes, she was a Grand Duchess who escaped a massacre and he a deserted red soldier, sure to be shot on sight! They wouldn't have had the 'luxury' of main roads, towns, ferries and help from anyone. They'd have to be hiding, staying off roads, going through muddy areas, forests, sneaking around, I think one of her accounts claimed they only traveled at night. Don't forget that she was allegedly very injured and had no medical care. The infection alone would have killed her, if the wounds did not. How did they eat? What did they do in bad weather?

I really don't think those who invented this story took all this into consideration, or the rocky mountains and rough terrain along the way, and especially the very early and harsh Russian winter. Ever heard of the Donner party? They had planned to cross the mountains before the first snowfall but it caught them early and deadly. People on those organized trips such as shown in bear's picture, in any country, made sure winter would not be a factor and planned their trips accordingly. Leaving in July is TOO LATE. An alleged 'witness' claims to have helped them cross the Dniester in early Dec.- but considering the time and place, the river would have been frozen! The entire story is logistically impossible UNDER THE CONDITIONS DESCRIBED.

an online trip calculator estimated the distance between Ekaterinburg and Bucharest to be 1,719 AIR miles, as the crow flies...but considering it would have been, according her her own story, on back roads, unimproved, and at some places no roads at all, it would have been a much longer distance and taken much more time than their claimed Dec. 5, 1918 arrival date. Online map sites tell me they cannot calculate a driving distance between the two cities, meaning that even today, there aren't enough improved roads to make a direct connection. Adding it up via the legend on a world atlas, the trip would have been at least 2,300 miles, perhaps as many as 2,800 if they had to go around certain impassible terrain. So you see the logisitics of such a trip under the circumstances is completely impossible.

And bear, I really want to know, WHY, if you 'don't believe she was AN' do ALL yes ALL of your posts support AA and her supporters, you are a common ally of them and always against those of us telling the other side? If you don't believe she was AN, why don't your posts reflect this? Look- suppose I put at the top of my posts "I BELIEVE AA WAS AN!" then everything in my posts was against that position. Would you believe me? This really does make one wonder.

I've already told you that this trip was not impossible and explained that others, some also wounded, survived this same trip. Remember, just in Berlin alone there were 50,000* Russians who fled the Bolsheviks. The majority walked beside carts pulled by horse or oxen or dogs or humans. I've read many of the diaries and letters. Have you?

We agree that AA wasn't GD Anastasia, however, if the real GD Anastasia had not been executed, she could have survived even with severe wounds and found herself in Bucherest by Dec. of 1918.

As for my posts asking you to be accurate, I'll continue to do so. Everyone who believes AA wasn't GD Anastasia should demand the same from you and anyone else who posts.

AGRBear

*Should read 500,000

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by AGRBear

Sorry everyone, but I've been really busy because of the addition to our home and my aging parents.

I contacted Curious One, who was the one who had told me about King's lost of interest, she couldn't recall Dr. Ginther exact words spoken on the telephone which was some time ago. But that was the impression she had gotten.

AGRBear

I see. But that doesn't alter the fact that Dr Ginther said in his letter that his sample was too contaminated to give consistent results, that there was very little original DNA present, and that the results were therefore not believable. That alone would make the results unpublishable.

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

No, I don't wonder why he burned his archives because he said why he did so (assuming Peter Kurth's book is correct on that count).

If you believe he burned his archives for some other reason, you need to make it very clear it's simply your opinion and that it contradicts what's been written about the episode. In that post you made it appear that it's a verified fact that he burned the archives because he'd been caught lying under oath, and then we find that the truth is a bit more mundane than that.

I never said he burned his archives because he was found lying under oath, the burning took place more than 20 years before the trial. And the reason he gave for the burning, is stated in Aucleres II. (Kurth)

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

And here I've been reading and looking up stuff on the Romanovs for 34 years and I've never seen that book and never seen or heard of that pic until now. It's very possible Gilliard never noticed it or paid any attention. This still does not mean he lied.

So what is your definition of drawing in details in a photo after the fact?

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

Technically, she knew a few German words, she did not know or speak German. Big difference. Sophie B. said (this is quoted in the La Fausse thread) AN 'only knew a few German words.' Even I know a 'few German words' but have no working knowledge of it.

This is correct. Her German was, according to witnesses, "very bad with a very small vocabulary." Not something you would have expected from Franziska Schanzkowska.

[AGRBear]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

I agree, I have seen this happen very often with AA supporters, but when I do background checks on what they claim, it rarely adds up to what was told for the truth.

There is said to be, by one person on one message board. There is no proof, and until such proof is produced, this cannot be stated as fact. If you choose to believe one person on one message board, that is up to you, but you should not go around listing it among facts to everyone else when it doesn't qualify as one, especially since it is the opposite of previously published accounts of her injuries that have been around for years.

One thing we do know for sure, she sure didn't get them in Ekaterinburg.

In what way? FS was reported missing 3 weeks after AA appeared. This is not unusual, considering the time and place and circumstances. Just the other day in my own newspaper, a family just now reported a man missing because they came concerned after not hearing from him for 3 weeks- and this in the days of cell phones and email, imagine how much less likely people were to have daily contact in those days. There is absolutely no proof they were 'accounted for at the same time' as AA supporters claim. I am puzzled at how you can put a few assumptions and pieces of questionable hearsay over the DNA and mtDNA.

Let us take this one step at a time and see if you can finally convince me that AA was FS without the use of DNA/mtDNA.

AA jumped into the Berlin canal 17 Feb 1918.

About 3 weeks later: The report of the police [I forget the term Chat used earlier on this thread] tells us that the Wingenders established, I believe, it was around the 12th of March 1918 that AA had not returned to her place of residence, which was a room in their home/flat/apartment building [this is unclear to me].

This is not an assumption nor "questionable heresay", this is a report which is dated. And, evidence like this should be noted by everyone.

If Chat has time, perhaps he could repeat this information so we have the dates and the rest of the information correct.

AGRBear

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by AGRBear

I've already told you that this trip was not impossible and explained that others, some also wounded, survived this same trip.

It wasn't 'the same trip.' Hers was in hiding not using the same roads. The people in your pictures could have come from different areas and not had to cross the same terrain. And don't forget the harsh early winter. You also ignore the civil war and political implications- Bux describes these in her book and how hard it was to avoid them, which is why it took her and Gibbes and Gilliard 13 months (as opposed to AA's alleged 5 months in a cart) to get out of Russia, though they usually had the use of motorized vehicles. The people you keep bringing up were going to Germany, not Romania, meaning they would have taken a different path with different roads and terrain.

There are few details of just how AA's trip was done, of course, since it never happened. So speculating what is or is not possible by either of us is useless. If you want to write a novel on what you think happened, it might be an interesting read. Otherwise, what other people did in different circumstances means nothing.

Remember, just in Berlin alone there were 50,000 Russians who fled the Bolsheviks. The majority walked beside carts pulled by horse or oxen or dogs or humans.

Actually it was 500,000 and most of them were aristocrats who most likely had better transportation after they left the country.

We agree that AA wasn't GD Anastasia, however, if the real GD Anastasia had not been executed, she could have survived even with severe wounds and found herself in Bucherest by Dec. of 1918.

This is no more than your estimation and hypothetical guess, and what's the difference between yours and mine? That's all either of them are.

As for my posts asking you to be accurate, I'll continue to do so. Everyone who believes AA wasn't GD Anastasia should demand the same from you and anyone else who posts.

AGRBear

Yo