Anna Anderson's claim to be Grand Duchess Anastasia

[ferrymansdaughter]

Originally Posted by OlgaNikolaievna

? I agree with Elspeth what anomalies? .

See my recent post.

[ferrymansdaughter]

Originally Posted by Warren

Let's get this back in context. The subject is schoolbooks. It's quite a leap to claim that written language in a schoolbook is proof-positive of the ability to speak that language.

This started because certain people were saying originally that GDA knew no German at all. We are not saying her German was perfect or her most used language, etc. but that since she was better at her German lessons than at her Russian ones, therefore she must have had a reasonable knowledge of it.

Those of us who have studied a language know that the writing/reading part comes more easily than the speaking at first and that the best way to learn a language is to live in that country. However, if someone studied a language several times a week over a year or two, they would also be able to speak it to a reasonable degree as each lesson would include an oral part. I am considered at an Intermediate level after studying German for only one hour a week for almost a year. I can hold conversations in the present and past tense but don't yet know the future, conditional, etc. Therefore, having several lessons per week, GDA had enough knowledge of the language that - if she was thrown into an all-German environment - she would have been able to understand and be understood to a reasonable degree.

Incidentally, should this actually belong on the languages thread?

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Menarue

No, I don´t trust you on that Chat. I write and do translations of quite a few languages but get a bit tongue tied speaking some of them. My Spanish becomes Portuguese, my Portuguese becomes Italian but writing it? No problem.

I also translate from Norwegian to English and vice versa, and of course, these are so different that mixing them up, is out of the question. But I cannot for the life of me write Swedish, it's too close to Norwegian, and I get totally mixed up.
Now, back to AA's German: If she learned German in school, she would be able to speak it. Not necessarily well, as the case was. She spoke "a hopelessly muddled German with no regard for grammar." As for Gilliard, he complained about AN's grammar, too. And remember, Franziska was a native German from Hygendorf and, according to her family, spoke good German.

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Warren

Let's get this back in context. The subject is schoolbooks. It's quite a leap to claim that written language in a schoolbook is proof-positive of the ability to speak that language.

Again, as somebody who had to learn three foreign languages at school: Writing everything down made you think, and it made you master that language. French we only had orally, and I have never been any good at it.

[Warren]

Your own language skills have no relevance. The subject is your statement that a written language in a school book is evidence or proof that the child can therefore speak the language. It's not proof at all, merely an assertion on your part. That's the only point I am making. Sometimes you [and others] should avoid overstating your case.

[OlgaNikolaievna]

What the entire point (not boat) of this is to make a case as to why Anastasia, who had grown up speaking all Russian and English and knowing French but very tiny bit of German and not using it would, as Fraulein Unknown, suddenly abandon knowing the other three for the one that she hardly knew. That's what does not make any sense. I see that Ms. Anderson's supporters want to make a case that it does but I fail to see it does. Even if Anastasia were Anderson and her story of escape were true, the time she was found was only a year and a half after the murders, most of the time she would have spent in the cart traveling Russia or in Rumania. She had only recently come to Germany so she would not have knowledge of German and forget the rest that fast. If she were upset over the tragedy and forgetting things learned it seems to me the first thing to be forgotten would be the language you knew least not the three you knew best. This is why it looks like the person who was called Fraulein Unknown was a person already very familiar with using German as Franziska would have been having lived and worked in Berlin for 6 years as well as knowing it home along with Kashubian Polish.

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Warren

Your own language skills have no relevance.

Yes, they do!

The subject is your statement that a written language in a school book is evidence or proof that the child can therefore speak the language. It's not proof at all, merely an assertion on your part. That's the only point I am making. Sometimes you [and others] should avoid overstating your case.

We are not talking "a book" here, but several of them. "Here, however, in black and white, were the lessons to prove that the Grand Duchess had studied German "in a serious manner," that her German lessons, in fact, bore fewer errors then her Russian lessons did."

[ChatNoir]

What, then, would be the explanation for Franziska all of a sudden speaking a very poor German with a heavy Russian accent?

[COUNTESS]

Perhaps, to fool people. There are those who can speak with accents not their own, very well. Meryl Streep has done it many times. But, others, other than actors can, too.

[OlgaNikolaievna]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

What, then, would be the explanation for Franziska all of a sudden speaking a very poor German with a heavy Russian accent?

I don't believe she did. I think it was rather fluent German in a Polish accent. You can't go by a few comments of hearsay, we've seen many times that they aren't always right. I do not believe Anderson's German was bad. It was the language she wanted to speak despite all the others being spoken to her. If she knew another language better she would have spoken it. I would also like more information to prove just how extensive Anastasia's German work was. This may be overstated to say the least. The reason she made less mistakes is because she was not good at handwriting cyrillic alphabet this does not mean she knew German better than Russian. There is way too much speculation and reading between the lines going on here. We have no proof. I stand by my previous post that Anderson sounded just like what she was, a girl of Kashub family who had lived and worked in Berlin for six years.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by ferrymansdaughter

I am referring to DNA generally; we all have heard of anomalous cases, which is why I do not take it as stand alone evidence but, as I have said to AnnawasFranciszka, as part of the whole package. I am not a believer in the DNA was switched theory.

There are always cases where things go wrong, but you have to take each case on its merits. If you can't show that there were problems in this particular case, there's no reason to mistrust the results simply because other cases have had problems.

Elspeth, thank you for replying to my questions directed at AnnawasFranciszka. I have not had the time to read back through all the old ones and since I only have limited time to view this site, I had missed your post regarding the blood sample.

Incidentally, do you know if the blood sample was tested against anything else (ie a control sample) to see if it always gave negatives whatever it was compared with

According to a letter which Dr Ginther sent to someone who had been asking about his work with the blood samples, he sequenced DNA from a sample from Sofia Princess of Hanover, who was another relative of Tsarina Alexandra in the maternal line. He said that none of the various Anna Anderson samples gave sequences that matched the Princess Sofia sequence, and added the aside that this data is believable. Not sure of the context of what he means by believable, but still.

He also reported the sequencing of a sample from Margarette Ellerick by someone else and said that it didn't match the Anna Anderson sample. He then said the Margarette Ellerick sample was an exact match to the Karl Maucher sample. Since the Karl Maucher sample did match the Anna Anderson samples analysed by Gill and Stoneking, I think this is where the discrepancy lies, because at the moment you have A equals B equals C doesn't equal A. He does mention some actual data, though, so I'll pull out my copy of the Gill-Stoneking paper and see if the nucleotides match.

[ChatNoir]

I do not at all think that she knew German better than Russian. But for a Kashub girl who grew up in Germany without any extensive education to speak Russian and English, that does not seem plausible. According to her brother Felix, Franziska knew none of these languages. Affidavit (not hearsay) from Erna Bucholz: I asked her if she could speak Russian. She answered, "yes," whereupon we began to converse in Russian. Shed did not speak it faultily, Rather, she used whole, complete, connected sentences without any impediments......I absolutely got the impression that the patient was completely conversant in the Russian langue, Russian affairs and especially Russian military matters.
Dr. Theodore Eitel in 1926:
She spoke German very badly, with a typically Russian accent. Her vocabulary of German words was extremely limited.

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

Perhaps, to fool people. There are those who can speak with accents not their own, very well. Meryl Streep has done it many times. But, others, other than actors can, too.

Everything is possible. But where did she learn Russian? And how come she spoke Russian and English in her sleep and under sedation?

[OlgaNikolaievna]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

Everything is possible. But where did she learn Russian? And how come she spoke Russian and English in her sleep and under sedation?

We do not know for sure that these hearsay accounts are true. They may be inaccurate.

[COUNTESS]

You can learn languages, that has been apparent. Why one would speak one or the other under anesthestia is open for question. That she was "completely conversant especially in Russian military matters". Oh come on. She was 17 at the time they were shot. She was no great scholar and who discussed military matters with her? Perhaps, the good doctor was urged to say these things. She was a child when these things happened. Now, if she were coached by someone to learn languages and military matters and Russian affairs, so that she could appear as whomever they liked.......

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by OlgaNikolaievna

We do not know for sure that these hearsay accounts are true. They may be inaccurate.

These are not hearsay accounts. One is a written statement from Dr. Rudnev, the other is noted in the report by Dr. Schiler, who treated AA on her visit at the Kleist's.

[ChatNoir]

You can learn languages, that has been apparent. Why one would speak one or the other under anesthestia is open for question.

But it shows us that she knew these languages.

That she was "completely conversant especially in Russian military matters". Oh come on. She was 17 at the time they were shot. She was no great scholar and who discussed military matters with her?

Her parents, I believe.

Perhaps, the good doctor was urged to say these things. She was a child when these things happened.

Erna Bucholz was not a doctor, but a nurse at Dalldorf.

Now, if she were coached by someone to learn languages and military matters and Russian affairs, so that she could appear as whomever they liked.......

And who was her coach?

From Tatiana Botkin's notes:
Generally, conversation with her is difficult. She is interested only in political questions, in memories of the imperial family and in life at the remaining courts.

[OlgaNikolaievna]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

But it shows us that she knew these languages.

Yet, other people said she didn't speak or understand them at all. Who are we to believe?

Her parents, I believe.

Why of course, Nicholas consulted Anastasia on all his important military decisions, just as Jimmy Carter discussed nuclear weapons with his daughter, Amy. It didn't do either one of them any good for staying in power, did it?

And who was her coach?

From Tatiana Botkin's notes:
Generally, conversation with her is difficult. She is interested only in political questions, in memories of the imperial family and in life at the remaining courts.

Brilliant, you may have just answered your own question.

[Elspeth]

OK, well, this is strange. From the letter from Charles Ginther that's posted over at AGRBear's site, there's this about Margarete Ellerick's sample:

Doc. EM1: Fax letter from me to Mr. Philip Remy dated July 11, 1994. "…I am sending you the data that I have for "Willi sample-M.E" [Margarette]. Nucleotides 16024-16474 were determined. In that region, variations from the Anderson sequence [ie, the Cambridge Reference Sequence] were found at 16126 T->C, 16266 C->T, 16294 C->T, and 16304 T->C. Base 161146 could not be determined on the gels…"

So, this is saying that for Margarete Ellerick, the only differences from the reference sequence were as follows:

16126 T->C
16266 C->T
16278 C->C (this one isn't different from the reference sequence but is added for convenience)
16294 C->T
16304 T->C
16311 T->T (ditto for this one)

This pattern of differences from the reference sequence is identical to that for Karl Maucher, as confirmed by one of the authors of the Gill paper as follows:

Doc. EM2: Letter from Dr. Kevin Sullivan, Forensic Sci. Service, UK, dated July 21, 1994, to Julian Nott of Canalot Studios. Forwarded to me by Mr. Philip Remy on August 1, 1994. "ANNA ANDERSON DNA TESTING. I confirm that the mitochondrial sequence of Karl Maucher ("Schanzkowska") matches exactly that of Margarete Ellerick, which you provided in your communication of 12 July. Nucleotides 16021 to 16400 inclusive, were determined. Variations compared to the Anderson sequence were as follows: 16126 C (Anderson=T), 16266T (Anderson=C), 16294T (Anderson=C), 16304C (Anderson=T). Base 16146 is A and therefore matches the Anderson sequence at this position…"


This gives the following, which is the same as the Ellerick samples and also corresponds to the data in Table 2 of the Gill paper:

16126 T->C
16146 A->A (not sure why this is significant, but whatever)
16266 C->T
16278 C->C
16294 C->T
16304 T->C
16311 T ->T

This is indeed identical to the sequence for Margarete Ellerick as told to Charles Ginther, with the added information that for Karl Maucher, base 16146 is A, which is the same as the reference sequence.

He says the following for the Anna Anderson blood sample:

The Anna Anderson sequence was obtained for nucleotides 16252-16397, a total of 146 bases. There were variations at sites 16278 (C->T), 16294 (C->T), and 16311 (T->C) relative to the Cambridge (or comparison Anderson sequence…).

This gives the following:

16266 C->C
16278 C->T
16294 C->T
16304 T->T
16311 T->C

which differs from the Ellerick sample at positions 16266, 16278, 16304, and 16311.

They attempted to sequence samples from other sources for confirmation but got such screwy results that they said they couldn't conclude anything. This means that although they attempted to do so, they didn't have the sort of independent confirmation that blood sample came from Anna Anderson that the Gill analysis had by being able to sequence the hair as well as the intestine. It looks as though Dr Ginther isn't ruling out the at least theoretical possibility that the sample was contaminated or that although it was labelled as being from Anna Anderson, the labelling was wrong. The chain of custody may be perfect, but if the sample itself isn't perfect, you aren't any better off.

From the information in the Gill paper, the Anna Anderson intestine and hair samples gave the following results:

16126 T->C
16266 C->T
16278 C->C
16294 C->T
16304 T->C
16311 T->T

This is different from the blood sample and identical to the Ellerick and Maucher samples.

Incidentally, there is also some information about the maternal relatives of Empress Alexandra. He said he sequenced DNA from Sofia Princess of Hanover and it matched the sequence obtained for Prince Philip by the Gill team. However, according to him, the differences from the reference sequence for Sofia were 16111 (G->A), 16357 (A->G), whereas in the Gill paper for Philip it shows 16111 (C->T) and 16357 (T->C). According to the reference sequence itself

MITOMAP Human mtDNA revised Cambridge Sequence (rCRS)

16111 is C and 16357 is T so I don't know where he's getting those Gs and As for Sofia or why he's saying it matches Philip. FWIW, in double-stranded DNA you have CG pairs and AT pairs, so we're seeing the same pattern but opposite nucleotides.

They didn't sequence nucleotide 16111 for the Anna Anderson blood sample, but they found a match with the reference sequence at 16357, which would be T. This doesn't match the Prince Philip sample, which has C at that position, and it doesn't match the Sofia sample, which has G. For the hair and intestine samples, there was a match with the reference sequence at 16111, which would be C (Prince Philip has T) and also a match with the reference sequence at 16357, which would be T (Prince Philip has C). Dr Ginther claims that the two sequences (Princess Sofia and Prince Philip) do match; if that's the case, it would help knock this business of "it can't really have been from Prince Philip" on the head, because the chain of custody for the Sofia sample seems pretty good.

I hope this is accurate - I started going cross-eyed some time ago. It shows that the blood sample doesn't match the hair and intestine samples if I'm reading it right; the hair and intestine samples matched the Maucher and Ellerick samples but the blood sample didn't, and none of them matched the Prince Philip sample.

[ChatNoir]

Yet, other people said she didn't speak or understand them at all.

What "other" people? Please be specific.

Who are we to believe? Why of course, Nicholas consulted Anastasia on all his important military decisions, just as Jimmy Carter discussed nuclear weapons with his daughter, Amy. It didn't do either one of them any good for staying in power, did it?

Nothing more than it does you in trying to be sarcastic.

Brilliant, you may have just answered your own question.

Please elaborate.