Anna Anderson's claim to be Grand Duchess Anastasia

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

It's no use trying to put the hysterics off on me, everyone knows you're a total fanatic, and will stop at nothing to make your case for AA.

Quite frankly, not that many people know me or who I am.

I only want reality, truth and common sense, and integrity in history and science, to prevail over your fantasy stories.

No, my dear, you want only the things that go with your take on the story.

Why would you even bother to keep stating all the things this and that person said decades ago, unless you believe it trumps the DNA? If you don't accept the DNA, give us good reason why, or there's nothing left to say.

I am just here to irritate you, remember?

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

Different is good, but in this case, science have taken over I humble opinions.

Somehow, I just don't think that the Botkin's unshakable recognition of their old friend was an opinion.

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

Different is good, but in this case, science have taken over I humble opinions.

And there's still more to the story that we don't know about.
I'll sit tight and keep soaking up the information!

[Anna was Franziska]

No, my dear, you want only the things that go with your take on the story.

Sorry, but 'my take' happens to be proven scientific fact. This means it's no longer up to opinion, and anyone 'thinking differently' is mistaken.

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

Sorry, but 'my take' happens to be proven scientific fact. This means it's no longer up to opinion, and anyone 'thinking differently' is mistaken.

Your take is: I DON'T BELIEVE IT or IT DIDN'T HAPPEN if it doesn't correspond with your way of thinking. Please see previous posts.

Can we get back to Anna Anderson now?

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

Your take is: I DON'T BELIEVE IT or IT DIDN'T HAPPEN if it doesn't correspond with your way of thinking. Please see previous posts.

You miss the main issue here. Because DNA proved her not to be AN, we KNOW, yes KNOW, it didn't happen, and it can't be believed. However, you give basically "I don't believe it" as an answer to the DNA. IF not, you wouldn't even consider her 'side' to be valid, because it isn't.

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

You miss the main issue here. Because DNA proved her not to be AN, we KNOW, yes KNOW, it didn't happen, and it can't be believed. However, you give basically "I don't believe it" as an answer to the DNA. IF not, you wouldn't even consider her 'side' to be valid, because it isn't.

As I have said before: The DNA says NO! But since we cannot be 100% sure if the samples in question really did belong to AA, it leaves the door open for the mystery to continue.
And that is just that. If you do not believe it, all you have to do is to quit the board and live your life in peace while those of us who enjoy the discussion continue without dealing with all of your denials of the things that do not correspond with your beliefs.

[Anna was Franziska]

The intestines and the hair were both labeled with her name and there is no evidence of tampering, in fact, the hospital explained how certain it was they were hers. The hair was labeled as hers, why would it be anyone else's? Most of all, it's all voided by the finding of the last 2 bodies and their identification of them as the children of Nicholas and Alexandra. It's more than an outrageous fantasy to suggest ALL THREE (hair, intestines, and bones) were wrong. Any rational person can see and accept this. I'm sure you'd love for me to shut up and go away and allow you to spread your wild fantasies as fact to a community dedicated to history. I have a suggestion for you, perhaps you should start a fanfiction site where you can write alternate endings to the Romanov story, if it's so entertaining to you. But you'll never change the true one- they all died in 1918. This is not my 'beliefs'- this is reality.

You wanting me to go away and stop disagreeing with your fairy tale versions can go the other way, too. I find it frustrating that we cannot discuss this story in a historical sense of 'how FS did it' without 'what if she really was AN' always being brought up with the same old rhetoric, ilsts and quotes to be answered again and again. It would be very nice to have different threads discussing various aspect os the case without you always going in circles saying the same exact repetitive things until the mods merge the threads and it all becomes a dog chasing his tail again. Of course anyone would find it more peaceful and pleasant if their adversary would just shut up and let them have their way.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

I refuse to speculate on this. I am more interested in the story itself. At the end, it doesn't really matter much who AA was or was not. What is immensely interesting, is to follow the story from the beginning and see how she was recognized by friends and family, how she scared the pants off some of the family, how scientists and doctors came to the conclusion that she was Anastasia, how she presented her enormous knowledge of the IF, the history of the Romanovs and her familiarity with other royal houses. And most of all, how she still has the power to greatly upset people like you.

Only by some, apparently.

If Princess Mary had disappeared late in World War I at a time when the royal family was alleged to have been executed and then suddenly showed up four or five years later, or if Princess Margaret had done so after World War II, I can't imagine that there'd have been any doubt in anyone's mind. The two princesses looked so similar at age 17 or 18 and in their mid-20s; it's not as though Anastasia disappeared at the age of 10 and reappeared at the age of 35, when there would have been some significant changes. Yet for every family member who claims that Anna Anderson was Anastasia, there seems to be one who's sure she isn't. I just can't imagine that much doubt surrounding Princess Margaret in 1948 or Princess Mary in 1922.

As for Peter Kurth being an expert on Anastasia and shrugging off everyone else's expertise - he's the guy who pooh-poohed the DNA evidence from Prince Philip on account of a lack of witnesses when the hair sample was collected, even though the sample in question was a blood sample, not a hair sample. In contrast, the scientists who did the DNA tests actually ARE experts.

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

The intestines and the hair were both labeled with her name and there is no evidence of tampering, in fact, the hospital explained how certain it was they were hers. The hair was labeled as hers, why would it be anyone else's?

So labeling is now foolproof, is it?

Most of all, it's all voided by the finding of the last 2 bodies and their identification of them as the children of Nicholas and Alexandra. It's more than an outrageous fantasy to suggest ALL THREE (hair, intestines, and bones) were wrong. Any rational person can see and accept this. I'm sure you'd love for me to shut up and go away and allow you to spread your wild fantasies as fact to a community dedicated to history. I have a suggestion for you, perhaps you should start a fanfiction site where you can write alternate endings to the Romanov story, if it's so entertaining to you. But you'll never change the true one- they all died in 1918. This is not my 'beliefs'- this is reality.

Then take it to court and let's have a legal decision.

You wanting me to go away and stop disagreeing with your fairy tale versions can go the other way, too. I find it frustrating that we cannot discuss this story in a historical sense of 'how FS did it' without 'what if she really was AN' always being brought up with the same old rhetoric, ilsts and quotes to be answered again and again. It would be very nice to have different threads discussing various aspect os the case without you always going in circles saying the same exact repetitive things until the mods merge the threads and it all becomes a dog chasing his tail again. Of course anyone would find it more peaceful and pleasant if their adversary would just shut up and let them have their way.

It would be more peaceful and pleasant if you could discuss it in a grown-up manner instead of just stating that it didn't happen and I don't believe it when things don't go your way.

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

Only by some, apparently.

Yes, by her aunt Olga and her uncle Andrew. Her aunt Irene was doubtful, and no other close relatives saw her. Xenia Leeds recognized her, but had not seen her since they were children and based her recognition on AA's memory and general behaviour. But the Botkin children who were among the last to see her, recognized her immediately.

If Princess Mary had disappeared late in World War I at a time when the royal family was alleged to have been executed and then suddenly showed up four or five years later, or if Princess Margaret had done so after World War II, I can't imagine that there'd have been any doubt in anyone's mind. The two princesses looked so similar at age 17 or 18 and in their mid-20s; it's not as though Anastasia disappeared at the age of 10 and reappeared at the age of 35, when there would have been some significant changes.

You forget that Anastasia was a rather plump teenager who later showed up as thin as a rail with all her upper front teeth missing and her jaws broken. At the time Olga met her, she was deadly ill and on morphine several times a day. I have myself met a cancer patient and not recognized him even though less than a year had passed since the last time I saw him. Also, remember Gilliard who met Volkov again after a few months, and he did not recognize him.

Yet for every family member who claims that Anna Anderson was Anastasia, there seems to be one who's sure she isn't. I just can't imagine that much doubt surrounding Princess Margaret in 1948 or Princess Mary in 1922.

As I have already pointed out: Not many of her close family met her. Her grandmother would not receive her, Uncle Ernie refused to travel to Berlin to see her, aunt Xenia even cabled Olga and told her not to acknowledge the unknown woman in Berlin.

As for Peter Kurth being an expert on Anastasia and shrugging off everyone else's expertise - he's the guy who pooh-poohed the DNA evidence from Prince Philip on account of a lack of witnesses when the hair sample was collected, even though the sample in question was a blood sample, not a hair sample. In contrast, the scientists who did the DNA tests actually ARE experts.

This you have to discuss with Peter Kurth.

[ChatNoir]

As for AA's memories, here is one that she could not have read in any book:

From Harriet Rathlef Keilmann's book:

Early in January, 1926, Baron Osten-Sacken, to whom I have previously referred, introduced himself to us. Neither I nor the invalid woman had met him before; as, however, he had an introduction from Mr. Botkin, I permitted him to see her.
During the daytime she was feeling rather better, and was very pleased at the visit. During the conversation Baron Osten-Sacken asked permission to smoke, drew a cigarette-holder out, and lit a cigarette. I was standing at the patient's bedside, and noticed that she suddenly became much agitated. I could not understand the reason for this, and, as she apparently recovered her composure, I attached no importance to the incident. Shortly after, Baron Osten-Sacken took his leave, and I prepared the patient for sleep. When it had grown dark in the room, she called me up to her bedside, and, in extreme agitation, asked: "For God's sake, tell me where the Baron got his pipe from?"
I had not noticed the Baron's cigarette-holder in the form of a tobacco-pipe, and so could understand her agitation still less than before.
During the night, she again called me to her: "I cannot rest; you must find out first thing tomorrow morning where he obtained his pipe." I promised her that as soon as the morning came I would telephone to Baron Osten-Sacken.
She awoke early and her first words were: "Please go and telephone to him, and inquire how the pipe came into his hands...but only ask him if he does not know who I am."
About half past nine, I telephoned to Baron Osten-Sacken, and inquired whether he could explain why his cigarette-holder had caused the invalid such agitation. I told him that I had absolutely no idea of the reason for it.
Baron Osten-Sacken replied: "The cigarette-holder was a present to me in 1917 from a friend who had purchased it at Alexander's in St. Petersburg. It was the original from which Alexander had manufactured a similar one for the Tsar."
With this information I returned to the patient.
On hearing it she said: "Thank God; I was so upset that I could not sleep a wink because I thought it was Papa's pipe....If you only knew what a shock it gave me to see that pipe...

[Menarue]

All I can say Chat and in the nicest possible way is "dna". Perhaps the most interesting part of this debate is not that AA was Anastasia as dna has ruled this out, now we could all have a huge debate to discuss who we think gave AA all this information......it would be far more edifying than continuing on with a matter which has been resolved by scientists.

[OlgaNikolaievna]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

Yes, by her aunt Olga and her uncle Andrew.

Anastasia's aunt Olga did not accept Anderson but on the contrary was one of her most adamant opponents through the years. Andrew was not Anastasia's 'uncle' but a distant cousin who had little contact with the Imperial children. Andrew accepted Anderson as Anastasia before he ever met with her. Olga A. believed he had vile motives.

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by OlgaNikolaievna

Anastasia's aunt Olga did not accept Anderson but on the contrary was one of her most adamant opponents through the years.

As Olga said to Herluf Zahle: My head cannot grasp it, but my heart tells me the little one is Anastasia. To her mother's secretary she wrote after her first meeting with AA: How can I tell Mama, this will kill her. To Harriet Rathlef Keilmann she said: I am so glad I came, if I had any money I would do anything to help the little one, but I don't have any. To AA she wrote among other things: Remember, you are no longer alone, and we shall not abandon you. Longing to see you. I remember when we were together and you stuffed me full of chocolates, tea and cocoa. She even gave her as a present Grand Duchess Marie's personal photo album. So don't even try to tell anyone that she did not recognize her niece.

Andrew was not Anastasia's 'uncle' but a distant cousin who had little contact with the Imperial children. Andrew accepted Anderson as Anastasia before he ever met with her. Olga A. believed he had vile motives.

You are correct, Andrew was not Anastasia's uncle in the way that he was the brother of one of her parents, he was the first cousin of the Tsar.
"As an active aide-de-camp to the Tsar during the war, Andrew had been brought in close touch with Nicholas and Alexandra's children and had seen them at a later date than many others in the family." (Peter Kurth)
As for Olga, here is what Andrew wrote to Serge Botkin:

Rumors reaching me indicated that Grand duchess Olga Alexandrovna and the Empress Maria Feodorovna maintained a negative attitude toward the matter and that any attempt to clarify the situation would meet with disapproval in that quarter. Under these circumstances, I considered it essential to write a sincere letter to Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna, and to tell her my opinion on the subject by drawing attention to the defects of the inquiry and to the undeniable need for documentation in order to clarify the problem in one way or the other...Furthermore, I would ask the permission of the Empress...to take the investigation into my own hands and carry it through to its conclusion, and if the question were to be resolved the last responsibility would rest with the Empress to instruct us all whether or not to recognize the invalid as Grand Duchess Ansastasia Nicolaievna. I repeat that I believe nobody has the right until that moment to take sides dogmatically.

"All of us who were in Berlin in those days," Olga wrote, "could find no resemblance to Anastasia apart from the similarity of the feet." Before granting Andrew the permission to investigate the affair, however, Olga added frankly: "You think I may be wrong. Such mistakes can of course happen. One way or the other it is ghastly."

Grand Duke Andrew wrote as late as 1927 that Olga still had not satisfied herself that AA was a fraud. "I have been able to determine that Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna takes great interest in this affair," Andrew disclosed, "and that, despite the fact that she has been influenced to deal with the matter as though it were a complete fabrication, she still worries over it a good deal. Without doubt, Gilliard's theory has been imoposed upon her, and this goes against the grain.....Although the Grand Duchess has given in to this influence and sends out letters to affirm that she does not believe in the sick woman, this does not correspond at all to her true feelings and she is suffering severly in spirit as a result. (Peter Kurth)

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Menarue

All I can say Chat and in the nicest possible way is "dna". Perhaps the most interesting part of this debate is not that AA was Anastasia as dna has ruled this out, now we could all have a huge debate to discuss who we think gave AA all this information......it would be far more edifying than continuing on with a matter which has been resolved by scientists.

I think we have already had this debate, and the concensus seems to be that "someone" told her.