Anna Anderson's claim to be Grand Duchess Anastasia


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I can't read on I'm not at the library anymore. Are you claiming Prince Frederick quoted Irene's husband? Did Irene ever comment for herself if any of it was right? If all we have is an interview that doesn't prove she really said it.

No, not Prince Frederick. Prince Oscar of Prussia, the Kaiser's son, reported to Lillian Zahle that the whole affair had upset Irene "so terribly" that her husband, Prince Henry, had forbidden Anastasia as a topic of conversation in the house.
 
No, not Prince Frederick. Prince Oscar of Prussia, the Kaiser's son, reported to Lillian Zahle that the whole affair had upset Irene "so terribly" that her husband, Prince Henry, had forbidden Anastasia as a topic of conversation in the house.

So we have a he said that he said that she said, or was it a he told her that he said that she said? That's a pretty weak chain of custody you got there, Chat.
 
So we have a he said that he said that she said, or was it a he told her that he said that she said? That's a pretty weak chain of custody you got there, Chat.

I agree, this is definitely what we can classify as hearsay. Another thing is the letter from an official at Hemmelmark who wrote baron von Kleist on behalf of Irene's husband, Prince Henry of Prussia:
His Royal Highness has requested me to inform you that he as well as his wife, after the latter's visit to your protegee, have come to the unshakable conviction that she is not a daughter of the Tsar, specifically not Grand Duchess Anastasia. Prince Henry considers the matter as it concerns himself and his wife as cleared up and finally settled and insists that you refrain from the further sending of letters or requests to himself or to the Princess. (Kurth)
 
On the other side, we all know that AA looked very much like AN
I don't want to start a picture posting war with Chat, but the likeness between AA and FS is much greater than that of AA and AN.

Anna Anderson: Exposed! | The Fact, Fiction and Fantasy surrounding the myth of "Anastasia"

The pics where she allegedly resembles AN are shadowy, have lighting angles, props or intentional poses that make her look more like AN, or hide the fact that she doesn't. In a clear, front face to face comparison, it's AA = FS.

L-R, Franziska Schanzkowska, Anna Anderson, Anastasia

http://www.freewebs.com/anastasiafranziska/fs-1.jpg
http://www.freewebs.com/anastasiafranziska/hellofran-2.jpg
http://www.freewebs.com/anastasiafranziska/anastasia-2.jpg

You can see AA (center) looks exactly like Franziska (left- person DNA found her to be) and not like Anastasia (right)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree, this is definitely what we can classify as hearsay. Another thing is the letter from an official at Hemmelmark who wrote baron von Kleist on behalf of Irene's husband, Prince Henry of Prussia:
His Royal Highness has requested me to inform you that he as well as his wife, after the latter's visit to your protegee, have come to the unshakable conviction that she is not a daughter of the Tsar, specifically not Grand Duchess Anastasia. Prince Henry considers the matter as it concerns himself and his wife as cleared up and finally settled and insists that you refrain from the further sending of letters or requests to himself or to the Princess. (Kurth)

That is just saying in a very kind way that they don't believe AA to be AN and don't want to be bothered about it anymore. There is no indication anyone is having second thoughts or wringing their hands, or getting so upset they don't want it mentioned in the house anymore. All that has been added, assumed and exaggerated by AA supporters and has no factual basis whatsoever.
 
I don't want to start a picture posting war with Chat, but the likeness between AA and FS is much greater than that of AA and AN.

Yes, in ONE single photo. That's why you use it again and again and do not dare use anything else.

The pics where she allegedly resembles AN are shadowy, have lighting angles, props or intentional poses that make her look more like AN, or hide the fact that she doesn't. In a clear, front face to face comparison, it's AA = FS.

I always get such a good laugh when you try your best to explain away the obvious likeness between AA and AN that is there for the whole world to see.

You can see AA (center) looks exactly like Franziska (left- person DNA found her to be) and not like Anastasia (right)

AA does not look exactly like FS, that is only wishful thinking. And you have never compared these two faces en profile. As Felix S. said: There is a resemblance from the front, but none from the side.
 
Yes, in ONE single photo. That's why you use it again and again and do not dare use anything else.

Well, if you look, I did post a link to my entire photographic comparisons page where many, many pictures are compared.

I am sorry for taking the thread off track, let's not let it turn into another typical discussion. We can take those comments back to the the other thread. Please let this one be just for people to express their views on the yes or no question.
 
Last edited:
That is just saying in a very kind way that they don't believe AA to be AN and don't want to be bothered about it anymore. There is no indication anyone is having second thoughts or wringing their hands, or getting so upset they don't want it mentioned in the house anymore. All that has been added, assumed and exaggerated by AA supporters and has no factual basis whatsoever.

On the contrary, the letter shows total unwillingness to deal with it anymore, and unwillingness to be reminded of it. And Prince Frederick being Prince Sigismund's brother-in-law, I think he very well knew what was going on at Hemmelmark.
 
On the contrary, the letter shows total unwillingness to deal with it anymore, and unwillingness to be reminded of it. And Prince Frederick being Prince Sigismund's brother-in-law, I think he very well knew what was going on at Hemmelmark.

Oh Chat, you are really reading something into it that's not there! They simply stated that after Irene's meeting with her, they were completely convinced that AA was not AN, and for Von Kliest to stop bothering them about the question since it had already been answered. If you imagine anything else, it's your own creation.
 
Last edited:
Oh Chat, you are really reading something into it that's not there! They simply stated that after Irene's meeting with her, they were completely convinced that AA was not AN, and for Von Kliest to stop bothering them about the question since it had already been answered. If you imagine anything else, it's your own creation.

Together with the statement of Prince Frederick and Prince Oscar, I think we can clearly see that the subject was not welcome at Hemmelmark.
 
Together with the statement of Prince Frederick and Prince Oscar, I think we can clearly see that the subject was not welcome at Hemmelmark.

It's not welcome because they have already stated that AA was not AN, but Von Kliest continued to bother them about it.

Look:

His Royal Highness has requested me to inform you that he as well as his wife, after the latter's visit to your protegee, have come to the unshakable conviction that she is not a daughter of the Tsar, specifically not Grand Duchess Anastasia. Prince Henry considers the matter as it concerns himself and his wife as cleared up and finally settled and insists that you refrain from the further sending of letters or requests to himself or to the Princess.

The ONLY thing this is saying is that Irene met AA, she found her not to be AN, and there was no need to continue to harass her about it. What did Von Kliest think, that if he kept bothering her she might meet AA again, and this time, better coached and prepared, she might pass the test? She said NO, that should have been the end of it, but apparently Von Kliest continued to contact them on the matter and they were tired of it!

There is nothing in this letter to indicate, as you must assume, that secretly Irene was upset, pacing the floor, wringing her hands that she had denied her poor 'niece' because of some covert conspiracy to keep her from getting any money. I'm sorry but that is ridiculous even the Days of Our Lives writers would have to reject it.
 
It's not welcome because they have already stated that AA was not AN, but Von Kliest continued to bother them about it.

Look:

His Royal Highness has requested me to inform you that he as well as his wife, after the latter's visit to your protegee, have come to the unshakable conviction that she is not a daughter of the Tsar, specifically not Grand Duchess Anastasia. Prince Henry considers the matter as it concerns himself and his wife as cleared up and finally settled and insists that you refrain from the further sending of letters or requests to himself or to the Princess.

The ONLY thing this is saying is that Irene met AA, she found her not to be AN, and there was no need to continue to harass her about it. What did Von Kliest think, that if he kept bothering her she might meet AA again, and this time, better coached and prepared, she might pass the test? She said NO, that should have been the end of it, but apparently Von Kliest continued to contact them on the matter and they were tired of it!

There is nothing in this letter to indicate, as you must assume, that secretly Irene was upset, pacing the floor, wringing her hands that she had denied her poor 'niece' because of some covert conspiracy to keep her from getting any money. I'm sorry but that is ridiculous even the Days of Our Lives writers would have to reject it.

And as usual, you refuse to believe anybody that does not share your opinion, even without a shred of evidence that they may have not been telling the truth.
 
And as usual, you refuse to believe anybody that does not share your opinion,

Chat, the only person who doesn't share my opinion whom I am not believing here is YOU. There is NOTHING in that note to indicate what you are claiming! It is very clear, tactful and to the point, and the other things you assume are putting words in their mouths. And you accuse me of 'speculating!'

even without a shred of evidence that they may have not been telling the truth.
There is not a 'shred of evidence that they may not be telling the truth!' Irene told the truth when she met AA. If you are saying they were not telling the truth in the letter, that is your own speculation.
 
Last edited:
Chat, the only person who doesn't share my opinion whom I am not believing here is YOU.

Well, pardon me for living.

There is NOTHING in that note to indicate what you are claiming! It is very clear, tactful and to the point, and the other things you assume are putting words in their mouths. And you accuse me of 'speculating!'

I just prefer to believe the accounts of Prince Frederick and Prince Oscar since I have no reason whatsoever to doubt their words.

There is not a 'shred of evidence that they may not be telling the truth!' Irene told the truth when she met AA. If you are saying they were not telling the truth in the letter, that is your own speculation.

If you read my post about Irene's lady in waiting, you will see that it does not quite correspond with Irene's version.
 
I just prefer to believe the accounts of Prince Frederick and Prince Oscar since I have no reason whatsoever to doubt their words.

Of course you'd choose to believe what is best for AA, but their comments are second and third hand, where Irene's denial is a signed statement and the letter you posted from her husband is also directly from them. So do you want their own words, or third hand gossip and assumptions?

Did you also ever consider that may be Irene was upset and didn't want it mentioned anymore but not because AA was AN and it bothered her, but because the whole thing had gotten on her nerves badly , and also that it brought back sad memories of her murdered sisters, nieces and nephew? Those are very good reasons not to want it mentioned anymore, and it does not at all mean she had any doubts about her denial of AA, that is pure speculation.

If you read my post about Irene's lady in waiting, you will see that it does not quite correspond with Irene's version.
Where is it, and what is the source? My computer is too slow to go digging though all these threads, and since they never stay on topic I don't even know which one it's in.
 
Of course you'd choose to believe what is best for AA, but their comments are second and third hand, where Irene's denial is a signed statement and the letter you posted from her husband is also directly from them. So do you want their own words, or third hand gossip and assumptions?

The letter was actually not written by them, but by an official. Irene's signed statement has been burnt to a crisp.

Did you also ever consider that may be Irene was upset and didn't want it mentioned anymore but not because AA was AN and it bothered her, but because the whole thing had gotten on her nerves badly , and also that it brought back sad memories of her murdered sisters, nieces and nephew? Those are very good reasons not to want it mentioned anymore, and it does not at all mean she had any doubts about her denial of AA, that is pure speculation.

No, it is not pure speculation, it is based on two statements and a letter. Plus another letter from Hemmelmark to Kleist demanding back all material relating to Princess Irene's involvement with AA.

Where is it, and what is the source? My computer is too slow to go digging though all these threads, and since they never stay on topic I don't even know which one it's in.

(Footnote from Kurth's book): To say that there is some question about the extent of Irene's "firm conviction" that AA was not her niece is an understatement. Lori von Oertzen, the lady-in-waiting who accompanied Irene to Funkenmühle, later testified that Irene had practically begged AA to return with her to Hemmelmark, where, presumably, she hoped to resolve ther doubts (see testimony of Eleonore von Oertzen, September 16, 1958, Hamburg.) Later on in the decade Irene was deeply anxious to know what other family members thought about AA, and before her death in 1953, according to Grand Duke Andrew of Russia. she admitted that she "might have made a mistake and that it probably [was] Anastasia. (see letter of Grand Duke Andrew to Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna, February 10, 1955, Hamburg.)
 
Your debacle has caught my eye and interest in that the parties involved persuade an accumulation of factual hearsay that has a bases in truth. The final result in so many speculations leave one both wondering and interested in actuality. I thought I read last night here a post by Menarue that either is not here or has been omitted. Maybe I'm crazy and I read the same argument between you in another topic but I think not. Your adamant rebuttals leave one inclined to find more about the intended discussion and it is another reason for visiting this forum. You impress me and it is nice to follow. Simply know that the truth is out there and I hope some resolution can be attained by camaraderie that strive to embolden and enlighten one to another so that we may live prosperously and in harmony. I find that here and I simply wanted to suggest that your portrayals are note worthy. Keep on deciphering this mystery that was at a time embedded with factual events. May the truth be told. Good day. :flowers:
 
The letter was actually not written by them, but by an official. Irene's signed statement has been burnt to a crisp.

Then how did Kurth quote part of it for a book written years later?

Plus another letter from Hemmelmark to Kleist demanding back all material relating to Princess Irene's involvement with AA.
Of course they wanted out of it completely.

(Footnote from Kurth's book):
What is the source quoted in the footnote? For the whole thing? Sounds very weird to me. Especially the part involving Andrew, who Olga said had 'vile motives', claiming an alleged dying confession of an 87 year old woman. Just give this one up, Chat, Irene didn't believe AA was AN, unless she went crazy in her old age. I know a lady that age who's convinced a man lives in her wall and tries to kill her, and tells stories of her dead brother (still alive) coming to take her places she's never been. Sounds like more rumors and guesses.
 
Last edited:
Then how did Kurth quote part of it for a book written years later?

Remember, it was reproduced in False Anastasia.

Of course they wanted out of it completely.

I think that is what I am trying to tell you.

What is the source quoted in the footnote?

Lori von Oertzen's testimony in Hamburg, as stated in the footnote.

For the whole thing? Sounds very weird to me. Especially the part involving Andrew, who Olga said had 'vile motives', claiming an alleged dying confession of an 87 year old woman.

Remember, it was Olga who gave Andrew the green light to undertake an investigation. 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. (Kurth)

In any Just give this one up, Chat, Irene didn't believe AA was AN, unless she went crazy in her old age. I know a lady that age who's convinced a man lives in her wall and tries to kill her, and tells stories of her dead brother (still alive) coming to take her places she's never been. Sounds like more rumors and guesses.

I go with the testimonies, the statements and the letters, and now we have several people leading us to the same conclusion. (And I would be grateful for no more stories about people you know.)
 
Remember, it was reproduced in False Anastasia.

But you said everything in that book was fake and couldn't be proven since he burned his stuff! I bet Irene had a copy, and the lawyers in the case.


Lori von Oertzen's testimony in Hamburg, as stated in the footnote.

We'll never know if it's right or not, it contradicts everything said by Irene herself.

I am not matching Olga quotes again.


I go with the testimonies, the statements and the letters, and now we have several people leading us to the same conclusion.

Then why do you ignore Irene's own testimony for gossip of others?
 
...how many different threads are you going to do this in?

Every single one, as long as Chat's here. I know you may think it odd I blame him when I am guilty too, but I have a streak of the Marty McFly being called chicken in me, and when challenged I can't back down. However, I honestly HATE that EVERY SINGLE AA THREAD ends up EXACTLY ALIKE not only here but on other forums. No one is ever able to find anything or remember what was in each thread because they are all the same! The poster Chat will keep dragging up the same old quotes I have answered over and over, many times in the same thread! Check the "AA's claim" thread for proof of this. I tried to separate the issues by starting new threads, hoping each one can stick only to its particular topic and leave the redundant stuff in the generic 'claim' thread, but sure enough both of them quickly degraded into yet another yes or no, he said she said display of all the same old quotes and topics. It really does get on my nerves, and noticing from small number of other participants, I can imagine most other people don't want to bother with this discussion if it stays the way it's been going.

My suggestion is if the mods could please have each thread be about a specific topic, such as this one being just the interviews, etc., and anyone- even me- going off topic be told so, and have their post moved or removed. Even if the belief in AA will never end, the same old mess surrounding it can stop.
 
Last edited:
But you said everything in that book was fake and couldn't be proven since he burned his stuff! I bet Irene had a copy, and the lawyers in the case.

No, I did not say everything in his book was fake. Please read my posts before you quote me.

We'll never know if it's right or not, it contradicts everything said by Irene herself.

That's what I am trying to tell you.

I am not matching Olga quotes again.

No need to, this one is in writing.

Then why do you ignore Irene's own testimony for gossip of others?

I do not ignore her testimony, I just question it like I do with almost everything. And we are not talking gossip here, we are talking statements, legal testimony and signed letters.
 
Every single one, as long as Chat's here. I know you may think it odd I blame him when I am guilty too, but I have a streak of the Marty McFly being called chicken in me, and when challenged I can't back down. However, I honestly HATE that EVERY SINGLE AA THREAD ends up EXACTLY ALIKE not only here but on other forums. No one is ever able to find anything or remember what was in each thread because they are all the same!

Funny, I have no problems remembering and finding what I need.

The poster Chat will keep dragging up the same old quotes I have answered over and over, many times in the same thread!

The only problem is, you have not "answered" them, just denied them because they don't seem to go with your point of view. And telling me that the Easter Bunny is my mother just because you don't agree with my view, is not the best way of debating.

Check the "AA's claim" thread for proof of this. I tried to separate the issues by starting new threads, hoping each one can stick only to its particular topic and leave the redundant stuff in the generic 'claim' thread, but sure enough both of them quickly degraded into yet another yes or no, he said she said display of all the same old quotes and topics. It really does get on my nerves, and noticing from small number of other participants, I can imagine most other people don't want to bother with this discussion if it stays the way it's been going.

I think the lack of participants mostly is due to the general public's ignorance of the facts in this case.

My suggestion is if the mods could please have each thread be about a specific topic, such as this one being just the interviews, etc., and anyone- even me- going off topic be told so, and have their post moved or removed. Even if the belief in AA will never end, the same old mess surrounding it can stop.

I may be wrong, but you seem to be on a quest here to have the world believe what you do.
 
Last edited:
I do not ignore her testimony, I just question it like I do with almost everything. And we are not talking gossip here, we are talking statements, legal testimony and signed letters.

Her statement was signed, yet you choose to believe others and their second or third hand comments about her than herself. You just don't like her statement because it's a flat denial of AA by someone who knew AN well.

Funny, I have no problems remembering and finding what I need.

Funny you don't remember posting the same stuff over and over in the same thread, and/or in the one right under it.


The only problem is, you have not "answered" them, just denied them because they don't seem to go with your point of view. And telling me that the Easter Bunny is my mother just because you don't agree with my view, is not the best way of debating.

Even when I give you quotes and documented evidence what good does it do, everyone is just a liar, or someone else is the one who's right and anyone who you don't want to hear is wrong (like poor Irene, see how you believe others over her!)


I think the lack of participants mostly is due to the general public's ignorance of the facts in this case.

I think it's because they get annoyed by the redundancy and bickering.

What 'facts' do you mean, the he said she said he thought she heard him say and told her that's suddenly a 'fact' because it's a footnote? All the time you deny the 'facts' of the DNA?



I may be wrong, but you seem to be on a quest here to have the world believe what you do.

And you aren't?
 
Last edited:
Your debacle has caught my eye and interest in that the parties involved persuade an accumulation of factual hearsay that has a bases in truth. The final result in so many speculations leave one both wondering and interested in actuality. I thought I read last night here a post by Menarue that either is not here or has been omitted. Maybe I'm crazy and I read the same argument between you in another topic but I think not. Your adamant rebuttals leave one inclined to find more about the intended discussion and it is another reason for visiting this forum. You impress me and it is nice to follow. Simply know that the truth is out there and I hope some resolution can be attained by camaraderie that strive to embolden and enlighten one to another so that we may live prosperously and in harmony. I find that here and I simply wanted to suggest that your portrayals are note worthy. Keep on deciphering this mystery that was at a time embedded with factual events. May the truth be told. Good day. :flowers:

Menarue made this post in this thread

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...-prince-michael-romanov-17667.html#post795265

but has also posted several times in the Anna Anderson's Claim to be Grand Duchess Anastasia thread.
 
Her statement was signed, yet you choose to believe others and their second or third hand comments about her than herself. You just don't like her statement because it's a flat denial of AA by someone who knew AN well.

I am only telling you about all the evidence, not just a bit of it.

Even when I give you quotes and documented evidence what good does it do, everyone is just a liar, or someone else is the one who's right and anyone who you don't want to hear is wrong (like poor Irene, see how you believe others over her!)

You really have to stop this "everyone is a liar" thing. As for "poor Irene", do you remember who her brother was?

I think it's because they get annoyed by the redundancy and bickering.

They are not alone.

What 'facts' do you mean, the he said she said he thought she heard him say and told her that's suddenly a 'fact' because it's a footnote? All the time you deny the 'facts' of the DNA?

And sometimes the foonote happens to be a legal testimony. And I do not deny the DNA, I only question the source.
Maybe if you spent less time on trying to make me look bad, we could discuss more interesting things.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom