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.