Romanov Pretenders and Imposters

[Vasillisos Markos]

Originally Posted by Alexey 1904

Vasillisos, sorry for the misspelling of your name. Thanks also to Russophile for explaining what they know about 'Toscany's' claims

My dear Alexey,

No need to apologize; just use VM like the others if you wish I want to thank you, Warren, and my lovely Russo for explaining Toscany to me. I was not aware of his claims. Russo was instrumental in getting me to read Michael and Natasha which I enjoyed. I know I should post this on the thread devoted to them but if anyone else read it, do you get the idea that Natasha was a little bit upset that Michael did not push more for his royal prerogatives which she could then enjoy as well?

[NotAPretender]

Originally Posted by Vasillisos Markos

Russo was instrumental in getting me to read Michael and Natasha which I enjoyed. I know I should post this on the thread devoted to them but if anyone else read it, do you get the idea that Natasha was a little bit upset that Michael did not push more for his royal prerogatives which she could then enjoy as well?

I love the book Michael and Natasha and my copy is dog-eared and ready to fall apart. I agree with this assessment. When I think of Michael and Natasha, I remember the incredible movie "The Shooting Party." The master of the house, portrayed by James Mason, writes in his diary "My wife is fond of society...." and he goes on to muse about his preferences for a quieter life. Had Michael and Natasha been married many years, I can see him writing that in his own diaries. I do believe that Natasha would have enjoyed being the power behind the throne, even without the title, and reading her letters, she certainly seems to know how to push Michael's buttons, and direct his actions.

"The Shooting Party" was filmed at Knebworth, where Michael and Natasha lived for about a year.

To the thread topic, I think it terribly unlikely that Michael & Natasha had a child in 1916 that could be a Romanov/Romanov imposter. I believe that they would have celebrated and rejoiced in another child, not hidden the child away. While their son George was legitimized after his birth, a child born in 1916 would have been their first legitimately-born child.

[Meraude]

Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi

But there are descendants of Xenia who was Nicholas' sister so why not use them? Only thing I can think of is Philip being so old has a closer blood link to a woman who died in 1918.

UPDATE
I'm re-reading Massie's "The Romanovs: The Final Chpt" and there is a long explanation about why Philip was the best candidate for the DNA test because the DNA he got from his mother would be present in his grandmother his great aunt ( Alexandra) his great grandmother (Princess Alice) and perhaps also his great great grandmother (Victoria).

When it comes to genetic genealogy, it's usually the maternal mitochondrial DNA that is checked when it comes to old material, as that's always inherited from mother to child, regardless of the sex of the child. When it comes to paternal mitochondrial DNA, it has only been found in one single case of a human male. It's more difficult to find a connections between paternal relatives if thers's only bones left, while it's easy to find the mitochondrial DNA that's present between individuals that share a common female ancestress. In this case there is a line through the maternal mitochondrial DNA from queen Victoria to her daughters, granddaughers and to her great-grandson.

[XeniaCasaraghi]

WoW, I knew they decided to go through the females, but I didn't know this is how it is almost always done. I wonder why it is virtually impossible (or so it seems) to go through the males. I guess it is a good thing Philip was still alive because from what you just said, it wouldn't have worked with his children. BTW just browsing through various facilities and I have come across that more than just Philip was tested, but also Elizabeth and some other fairly famous royals. I apologize for not knowing the exact details of these rumors.