That's why she needed her coaches and svengalis and info-feeders around her, and why she didn't want to go anywhere without them.
And who were these coaches and svengalis and info-feeders?
That's why she needed her coaches and svengalis and info-feeders around her, and why she didn't want to go anywhere without them.
Yes, in Tsarskoe Selo.
You forget the real AN wouldn't have been so stupid as to mistake a comma for an apostrophe. She was copying it and had to have something to copy.
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.
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 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.On the other side, we all know that AA looked very much like AN
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)
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.
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.
You can see AA (center) looks exactly like Franziska (left- person DNA found her to be) and not like Anastasia (right)
Yes, in ONE single photo. That's why you use it again and again and do not dare use anything else.
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.
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.
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,
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.even without a shred of evidence that they may have not been telling the truth.
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!'
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.
I just prefer to believe the accounts of Prince Frederick and Prince Oscar since I have no reason whatsoever to doubt their words.
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.If you read my post about Irene's lady in waiting, you will see that it does not quite correspond with Irene's version.
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.
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.
The letter was actually not written by them, but by an official. Irene's signed statement has been burnt to a crisp.
Of course they wanted out of it completely.Plus another letter from Hemmelmark to Kleist demanding back all material relating to Princess Irene's involvement with AA.
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.(Footnote from Kurth's book):
Then how did Kurth quote part of it for a book written years later?
Of course they wanted out of it completely.
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.
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.
Remember, it was reproduced in False Anastasia.
Lori von Oertzen's testimony in Hamburg, as stated in the footnote.
I go with the testimonies, the statements and the letters, and now we have several people leading us to the same conclusion.
...how many different threads are you going to do this in?
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.
We'll never know if it's right or not, it contradicts everything said by Irene herself.
I am not matching Olga quotes again.
Then why do you ignore Irene's own testimony for gossip of others?
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.
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.
Funny, I have no problems remembering and finding what I need.
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.
I think the lack of participants mostly is due to the general public's ignorance of the facts in this case.
I may be wrong, but you seem to be on a quest here to have the world believe what you do.
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.
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.
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 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?