Anna Anderson's claim to be Grand Duchess Anastasia

[Anna was Franziska]

Again, some of the new issues:

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

Some things I wanted to bring to attention:

Of all of my close relatives, I would want to see the Grand Duchess Xenia first.

I liked this aunt a lot, and I am sure that she will recognize me better then the other aunts, although I do not understand why other persons who have known me well beforehand do not recognize me now.

My aunt Xenia Alexandrovna often called me "Astouchka", and when I have recalled this name to her, she will no longer have doubt of my identity.

This is very telling for two reasons, Xenia was not the aunt AN was close to, but Olga, and it was later proven that the nickname was completely false and no one had ever called Anastasia by that name.

the one who called herself Grand Duchess Anastasia Nicolaievna declared that in fact, being in Romania, she had, due to the advice of her companion, tried all means to alter her facial features. She received, from an intermediary, this person who died in Romania, a device (apparatus), that she used on her face and succeeded a little in changing the form of her nose and mouth.

Well isn't this interesting! I laughed out loud when I first read this part. It must mean that deep down she and her supporters knew she didn't resemble AN very much and tried to make excuses. It was a silly excuse, which is probably why we never hear more of it, only claims of her being 'identical', of pictures where she's biting her lips or hiding the lower part of her face with props such as her hand or a boa. Also there has been the excuse that her face changed after it was healed from being bayonetted/rifle butted, which is also ridiculous because it would have been a scarred version of AA"s face not a different face altogether. But the fact that they tried to make excuses for her 'changed' appearance proves they recognized the differences early on and tried to compensate for them.

Here is Von Kliest's very words on how she became "Anastasia" instead of 'Tatiana"
I asked the Unknown one if she would consent to say her name to me. I wanted to write on a slip of paper two names, whereby she would cross out the one that would be false, after which I would destroy the paper. The unknown one accepted my suggestion. I wrote on the paper the names of Anastasia and of Tatiana in Russian and then I passed her the paper. Having read it, she crossed out the name of Tatiana, and returned me the paper that was immediately destroyed, as planned. Some moments later, the unknown one asked me not to change anything in our rapport, because of this declaration, and not to observe etiquette.

From Clara P's letter, a wild story of how she came to be in the canal- it wasn't a suicide attempt! She was followed by (unknown enemies) from Romania and when they found her, they drugged her, changed her clothes and threw her in the canal!
The young lady does not want one to say that she is the Grand Duchess, or Mrs Tschaiikovsi, for when those who followed her discovered the hideout of her family to Bucharest, she had to flee again. She tried to loose their track leaving first to Paris where she knows a Baron Taube. From Paris, she came to Berlin. She was scarcely there for eight days when someone recognized her. One evening, in an automobile, she was drugged to sleep, they removed her clothes for her and put on others, and she was thrown, still totally drugged, in a lake by the zoo. When she was drug out, it was believed that she had tried to commit suicide, and was driven to the Elisabeth hospital. As she is not known in Warsaw under the name Tschaiikovski, she was transferred to the Dalldorf asylum. It is absurd to believe that this lady, who fled Bucharest in the middle of so many difficulties to save her life, wanted to commit suicide here, in Berlin. Only a madman would concede that. This lady has a firm will to live,

Also note that Clara's telling of the story puts her first in Paris before coming to Berlin, a new twist to the story. In both the accounts of Clara and Von Kliest, she allegedly gave birth along the way on the trip, Clara giving a name (Alexis) and Von Kliest a date (Dec. 5, 1918) Later supporters were to deny this as 'Von Kliest's lies' but you see the name did not come from him but Clara.

In conclusion, what's obviously going on here is either that she herself has told so many different versions of the story she is mixed up, or that she has so many others helping her invent it they cannot keep their tales straight. It's all obviously ficticious, and as any policeman or detective will tell you, the first sign of a liar is constantly changing the story.

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

Oh Chat how many times have we been through this? If you use testimony from one side you have to accept it from another too but you call everyone else 'liars' so it all becomes silly.

No, I don't call everyone liars, only the ones that have been caught in the act. As for von Kleist, AA was the one who called him a liar.

Just because a person says something doesn't make it true. And she did lie if she pretended to be someone other than her true self FS.

No, it doesn't necessesarily make it true. But your rebuttals are usually: I don't believe it. And that is not enough for me to change my opinion.

May we PLEASE stick to this topic of items posted new in this thread and not rehash the entire mess we've done a 100 times before? This is becoming redundant or the 150th time and running everyone else off because they don't want to see it again.

You mean: Don't try to pick apart my reasonings for believing in AA as FS?

[Anna was Franziska]

As for von Kleist, AA was the one who called him a liar.

AA has no room to call anyone that name.

But your rebuttals are usually: I don't believe it.

And what do you do but come in calling everyone involved a liar or asking for 'proof' meaning, guess what, YOU DON'T BELIEVE IT.

What you missed here is that much of what is in contention here came from Clara, not the 'baron.' It looks like perhaps AA and Clara made up the original version in the asylum and the story changed when she went to Von Kliest's. Rathlef, a writer, perfected the final version you see today, however, the old original versions need to be considered to see just how much her story changed over time, proving even more how false it all was!

Clara said AA was drugged and thrown in the canal. Clara said she was in Paris first. Why did AA later decide to drop these parts of the story? There is also a lot of conflicting info on her 'rescuers' and the baby. The story appeared to be in much confusion and disarray until Rathlef used her common sense and professional writing skills to come up with a final draft. However it belonged in the fiction section of the libarary, not history!

I am so frustrated, and aching to discuss this with anyone who will look at it realistically and objectively!

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

AA has no room to call anyone that name.

And why not? We already have opposing testimony to his date for the birth of AA's son.

And what do you do but come in calling everyone involved a liar or asking for 'proof' meaning, guess what, YOU DON'T BELIEVE IT.

No, I do not call everyone involved a liar, only the ones who obviously were liars.

What you missed here is that much of what is in contention here came from Clara, not the 'baron.' It looks like perhaps AA and Clara made up the original version in the asylum and the story changed when she went to Von Kliest's.

And sadly, we do not have Clara's original letter to back anything of this up. It was burned with Gilliard's papers, remember?

Rathlef, a writer, perfected the final version you see today, however, the old original versions need to be considered to see just how much her story changed over time, proving even more how false it all was!

Rathlef only wrote down what AA told her. As to the rescue story, she uses the letter from Inspector Grünberg to back it up. She also has a lot of signed statements from witnesses, doctors and others. And she did not have to burn any of it.

Clara said AA was drugged and thrown in the canal. Clara said she was in Paris first. Why did AA later decide to drop these parts of the story?

Where is the proof that she wote this at all? There was a reason for Gilliard's burning of evidence.

There is also a lot of conflicting info on her 'rescuers' and the baby. The story appeared to be in much confusion and disarray until Rathlef used her common sense and professional writing skills to come up with a final draft. However it belonged in the fiction section of the libarary, not history!

The witness Sarscha Gregorian gave the date of 12/5/1918 as the day AA crossed the Dniestr. AA herself said that the baby was born in autumn of 1919, but she herself could not remember the exact date.

I am so frustrated, and aching to discuss this with anyone who will look at it realistically and objectively!

Anybody out there?

[ChatNoir]

A little note about Harriet von Rathlef-Keilmann's manuscript:

For a whole year I nursed the invalid day and night. During this period I noted down all her utterances in the hope that the material thus compiled would induce those most closely concerned to interest themselves in the fate of the unknown woman and to acknowledge her.
In the autumn of 1926, I sent all my material to Copenhagen through the Danish Embassy, accompanied by a letter addressed to the Grand Duchess Olga, in which I requested her to read my manuscript, and to try to persuade the Dowager-Empress Maria Feodorovna to read it also. After a brief interval my manuscript was returned, and I learned from Mr. Zahle, the Danish Ambassador, that the Grand Duchess Olga had read only the chapter dealing with her own visit to the invalid, of which she found the account quite correct. As her knowledge of German was slight, she had not read the rest. It was not stated whether the Dowager-Empress had read it or not, and it was not until later that I learned that it had never been brought to her notice at all.

[Menarue]

AnnawasF. Just a question. This is translated from the French. The unknown one is "inconnu" ? Just out of curiosity. Is that what they called the woman in all the writings? That shows really how they thought of her and is interesting. In fact all those writings you have posted are very interesting indeed.

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by Menarue

AnnawasF. Just a question. This is translated from the French. The unknown one is "inconnu" ? Just out of curiosity. Is that what they called the woman in all the writings? That shows really how they thought of her and is interesting. In fact all those writings you have posted are very interesting indeed.

I don't know for sure, I'll ask the man who did the translating. I do know that in the asylum and in Berlin she was called "Fraulein Unbekannt" again 'unknown' if that means anything.

One thing I am very curious about is who were the mysterious people who kept following her around supposed to be, and why was this dramatic storyline omitted from the final version of the escape story? If they were so horrible that she had to flee Romania to Paris, and then Berlin, where they found her anyway, drugged her and threw her in the canal!? It's never mentioned who they were and why they were after her. While googling I found a French site that called them 'relatives', so was she claiming Romanovs were chasing her? Wouldn't the Bolsheviks have been a lot more believable? She never specified who it was and what they wanted, other than, presumably, her to be dead. This version contradicts directly with the one where she left her child and came immediately and tearfully to Berlin in search of "Aunt Irene."

It's my guess that Rathlef, a professional writer, is the one who perfected the final version that became the one everyone knows today, though it was not the original. The first version sounds like something she and Clara made up in the asylum, it was changed a little at the Von Kliest's and again by Rathlef, perhaps trying to make it sound more acceptable to the general public in her newspaper stories about Anderson's plight.

The "Paris" storyline was also left out. This, of course, makes no logical sense at all, since if she were the real AN, she would have stayed in Paris, where she would have known many people. Gilliard presumed that Anderson and Clara had added the Paris episode to fit in with the story from the Berlin Illustrater, the magazine that began the idea for the claim. "Lebt eine Zarentochter?" ("Is One of the Tsar's Daughters Alive?") the cover story from that issue, told a tale that Anastasia had gone to Paris. Therefore, they had to include a stop in Paris into their invented tale.

[AGRBear]

[QUOTE=Anna was Franziska;796165]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

To put it kindly, this just plain isn't so. It's a reality that FS remained a factor all along and ended up being her true identity. Look at Berenberg Gossler, he was using FS years after Doris 'ran out the door.' You've tried that dog too many times, he won't fetch.



That may be what you see, but that's not who you're looking at.




If she was lying, or mixed up, what does that mean? Nothing! It didn't happen, and if her shaky word is all we have that's not much! Come on and get real, as much attention as she got after her claim started with Clara do you really believe if she was AN she just sat there in an asylum all that time knowing who she was and allowing herself to be treated like a crazy peasant? Please, think through this.



Yes they did. His name was Drescher. I have names and dates.

The Berlin police department eventually admitted they had decided to go along with Darmstadt's identification, and Heinz Drescher of Berlin Police Headquarters said that he had signed certain documents saying that identity has been established. "According to the material we have from the Haus-und-Vermoegensverwalten of the former Grand Duke of Hesse, and from various notices in the press, the alleged Grand Duchess Anastasia of Russia, is, in reality, Franziska Schanzkowska, born on 16.12.96 in Borowihlas, and this is supposedly proved definitively."
...[in part]..

No, the Berlin police department didn't admit they believed AA was FS. The police department continued to believe FS was murdered by Grossmann. There was one lone policeman whom people claim signed some document but the document either vanished like so many things have or never exsisted. And this was when, the 1940s? If you have a copy of this document, I and others would like to see it. As for the newspapers, which you've claimed earlier that the Romanov's attorney was bias and claimed she was GD Anastasia, I guess this wasn't entirely true, because you've just given us an example that some claimed she was FS. This shoots down what the Romanov's lawyer's claimed.

AGRBear

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

And why not? We already have opposing testimony to his date for the birth of AA's son

More like conflicting reports. But considering he was fake anyway, there is no right date.

... AA herself said that the baby was born in autumn of 1919, but she herself could not remember the exact date.

No wonder since it didn't happen.

And sadly, we do not have Clara's original letter to back anything of this up. It was burned with Gilliard's papers, remember?

It's published in the book. Maybe Berenberg-Gossler had a copy in his memoirs.

Rathlef only wrote down what AA told her. As to the rescue story, she uses the letter from Inspector Grünberg to back it up.

Then explain why it changed so many times?

The witness Sarscha Gregorian gave the date of 12/5/1918 as the day AA crossed the Dniestr.

Chat- psst- the trip NEVER HAPPENED.

[ChatNoir]

Invented tale, indeed. From Peter Kurth's book:

But Constantine Savitch - who also disappeared at the end of the twenties - was not content to let the matter rest. In 1929 he, "the Representative of the Head of the House of Romanov," teamed up with Pierre Gilliard, "the Representative of the Grand Duke of Hesse," as coauthor of The False Anastasia, the vicious, vituperative book that was meant to put and end to Anastasia's "career" and simultaneously to annihilate Harriet von Rahtlef, the woman Gilliard now described as Anastasia's "impresario."
What a lot of work must have gone into The False Anastasia! What misplaced concern over a "poor, highly strung invalid" with an idee fixe. But Gilliard and Savitch had only been carrying out the wishes of their masters, two of the most unlikely collaborators in the annals of royalty. Ernest Louis of Hesse and Kyril of Russia had both been married to the same woman - Grand Duchess Victoria Feodorovna, who had left the one to marry the other - and were, understandably, not on speaking terms Anastasia, who succeeded in uniting them against all odds, eventually declared both of these princes to be "creatures."

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by AGRBear

No, the Berlin police department didn't admit they believed AA was FS. The police department continued to believe FS was murdered by Grossmann. There was one lone policeman whom people claim signed some document but the document either vanished like so many things have or never exsisted. And this was when, the 1940s? If you have a copy of this document, I and others would like to see it.

No it was, as dated, 1927. I got it from, of all people, Chat. He sent it to me in a PM on AP last year. Ask him to verify it. I also saw the same thing and the name of the man who signed it posted on the KW forum by Kurth (or Chat,I forgot) with added negative remarks about the man.

There is really nothing strange about it at all. Berlin was, due to underfunding and political turmoil in March 1920, without the time, resources or interest to investigate one more missing person case among a pile of other problems let the case fall thru the cracks in the crucial early days of the investigation, but Ernie's detective, with all the time and resources he needed toward just that one case, was able to easily uncover who AA really was. Also don't forget this has been backed up by DNA testing.

As for the newspapers, which you've claimed earlier that the Romanov's attorney was bias and claimed she was GD Anastasia, I guess this wasn't entirely true, because you've just given us an example that some claimed she was FS. This shoots down what the Romanov's lawyer's claimed.

AGRBear

No, the newspapers in the 1920's were trying to expose her, the stories Berenberg-Gossler told of taking AA's side were 1955-1967. All different people and circumstances by then.

[Anna was Franziska]

I don't know what this man may or may not have contributed to the book since I haven't read it all, however, all I have posted here are signed statements by Von Kliest, Clara P, Sophie B. and Irene H. and are not free prose or commentary by the authors.

[ChatNoir]

From Harriet Rathlef-Keilmann's book:

In the winter of 1925-26, a Russian emigrant, the former public prosecutor Savich, applied to Professor Rudnev, and offered him his services in clearing up the question of the patient's identity, since he, as a jurist, would be better able to arrange the material. He informed Professor Rudnev that he was convinced that the patient was the Grand Duchess, and that he wished to do all he could to help her.

Fortunately, I gave Mr. Savich only a portion of my notes, which he promised to return to me in three days.

Only after five weeks did I get my notes back again. Every place in these notes where the evidence showed that the patient could be none other than the Grand Duchess Anastasia had been struck out. A group portrait including the Grand Duchess, which had been enclosed with the manuscript, was missing.
Shortly after this, Mr. Savich announced that he was going to deliver a public lecture on "The False Anastasia." He actually did this in Paris as well as in Berlin.
In his lectures, he made statements which were absolutely false. For example, he stated that Mrs. Chaikovski was the wife of a Lettish criminal, a member of the Moscow Cheka. At the conclusion of his performances, he gave himself the lie when he remarked incidentally: "Of course, this version does not prove anything, as I have just been informed from Riga that friends of this criminal do not know the lady."
He did not, however, consider it necessary to make any addition to the report of his lecture which appeared the next day in the Berlin papers.

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

I don't know what this man may or may not have contributed to the book since I haven't read it all, however, all I have posted here are signed statements by Von Kliest, Clara P, Sophie B. and Irene H. and are not free prose or commentary by the authors.

And the originals of these statements have all been burned. One can only wonder why!

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

More like conflicting reports. But considering he was fake anyway, there is no right date.

Who was fake?

No wonder since it didn't happen.

Remember, the medical report stated that AA had born a child. No reports has ever stated that FS had a child or a miscarriage.

It's published in the book. Maybe Berenberg-Gossler had a copy in his memoirs.

By the time Berenberg-Gossler was introduced to the case, the original was long since burned.

Then explain why it changed so many times?

The only ones who changed it, seem to have been Gilliard and Savich.

Chat- psst- the trip NEVER HAPPENED.

And how do you know that?

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

Who was fake?

AA

Remember, the medical report stated that AA had born a child. No reports has ever stated that FS had a child or a miscarriage.

So what? In those days it was such a disgrace to have an out of wedlock baby girls hid it all the time. It's not like now where they announce it proudly in the newspaper. But even today there are girls who still hide it, lie and toss their baby in the trash. FS could have had a miscarriage, abortion, stillbirth, or abandoned her baby on a doorstep or even the trash. It means nothing that there's no record of a illegitimate pregnancy in WWI era Berlin. Families were too ashamed to admit it and would lie, hide or even claim a 'bastard' to save humiliation. You forget what a shame it was in those days.

The only ones who changed it, seem to have been Gilliard and Savich.

No they didn't write those statements, I know you'd like to have people believe they did since the others are allegedly 'burned' and you know it can't be proven, but come on all those people were still alive at that time and would have said something had their statements been falsified. Mediocre try but no cigar.

And how do you know that?

Because AA was not AN! (and the Easter Bunny was your parents)

I wonder why Kurth chose to leave all of those statements out of his book? They are rather damaging to AA's case, especially Sophie's and Irene's. Rathlef eliminated the 'chased by thugs' storyline, the 'face apparatus' and other things that made the story seem even more far fetched than it turned out to be, and tried to make her seem more pathetic and sympathetic for better public acceptance. Since Kurth had Rathlef's notes, he must have decided to go along with her version because it suited the AA side better. This is really how it looks to me, Rathlef made the final version to be sold to the public and the courts, and Kurth is standing behind her in that. Perhaps someone who wasn't as much of a supporter would have included other things.

I was even more sure of this after reading this newsgroup posting from April 2000:

..
you are standing on my shoulders, and I on Dominique Aucleres',
and she by authority and intimate association with Tatiana Botkin, whose
brother was Gleb Botkin, whose daughter, Marina Botkin Schweitzer, has
given her blessing to your work.
All but Marina, Gleb, and Tatiana stand also on the shoulders one
valiant woman, Harriet von Rathlef-Keilmann, a Jew in Berlin, who helped
a suffering stranger find her feet in the world, and all by herself,
against giant and malevolent forces, kept our friend alive and in loving
company until the professionals, at her most urgent appeal, realized
that they had to step in and get rid of the stink. To Frau von Rathlef,
more even than to "Alexander Tchaikovsky," whoever he was, Anastasia
owed her life.

I am Harriet von Rathlef's director successor, in possession of her
original notes. ...By my judgment, which is impeccable on this
topic, the DNA tests are down already to 40.9 or even 6.5 or
873 or March 3 instead of June 8. It's the difference between a
Galitzin and a Golitsyn, and percentages, of course, have no relation to
life.

I'd advise the librarians and genealogists and pop-self-promoters to
come up with a new idea pretty quick. The test tube is now leaking
stink, which, to our minor irritation, and in the hands of a
professional, will be gone before you can think. We have always known
how easy it is to expose frauds and impostors. We are the experts on
that.

Henceforth, only the persons above named as heirs and successors, along
with Brien Horan, Ian Lilburn, and you through our constant charge, will
be permitted to call themselves authorities on "Anna Anderson," along
with such persons as otherwise designate. ....




Fondly,

Peter Kurth

[Russophile]

That doesn't sound like my Peter. I am going to ask him.

[Anna was Franziska]

If he chooses to post and answer I'm sure we'd all be interested in his comments.

As I've posted before, I am not accusing anyone of being a terrible person for not including things damaging to their case. No good lawyer would do that. I am only saying that is possibly why he didn't use them. It seems to me, after seeing only a one sided view of AA's story over the years that most of the people who write about it are supporters and naturally would choose their words based on what looked best for her.

[AGRBear]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

..9in part]...
One thing I am very curious about is who were the mysterious people who kept following her around supposed to be....?

The moment Capt. Schwabe believe it was possible that AA was a grand duchess he and his organization ordered immediate guards to protect AA at Dalldorf.

I guess you forgot about this AWF, because we have talked about this many times.

If you remember, the danger of her being one of the grand duchesses threaten more than one group of people. Do I need to name them?

AGRBear

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

So what? In those days it was such a disgrace to have an out of wedlock baby girls hid it all the time. It's not like now where they announce it proudly in the newspaper. But even today there are girls who still hide it, lie and toss their baby in the trash. FS could have had a miscarriage, abortion, stillbirth, or abandoned her baby on a doorstep or even the trash. It means nothing that there's no record of a illegitimate pregnancy in WWI era Berlin. Families were too ashamed to admit it and would lie, hide or even claim a 'bastard' to save humiliation. You forget what a shame it was in those days.

The main point here is, you don't have a shred of evidence to back it up.
From Gleb Botkin's book:
Some or those efforts, however, in spite of their sordidness, bordered on the comical. For instance, Detective Knopf had attempted to persuade the relatives of Francisca, that she had had a child or a miscarriage. But those relatives, who until then, had appeared willing, for a price, to testify to almost anything, emphatically refused to defame the missing Francisca's character. M. Gilliard then promptly declared that Anastasia had invented the story of having given birth to a son, and that the doctors must always have known it, for why otherwise had she been registered in the Dalldorf asylum as Miss Unknown instead of Mrs. Unknown!

No they didn't write those statements, I know you'd like to have people believe they did since the others are allegedly 'burned' and you know it can't be proven, but come on all those people were still alive at that time and would have said something had their statements been falsified. Mediocre try but no cigar.

And how do you know that they did not embellish those statements? I have given you examples of their characters already. As for von Kleist and Clara, I don't think any of them was proficient enough in French to read what they allegedly had written. I doubt any of them ever saw the book, it was not exactly a bestseller, you know.

Because AA was not AN! (and the Easter Bunny was your parents)

And you can legally prove it, I am sure.

I wonder why Kurth chose to leave all of those statements out of his book?

As far as I can see, Kurth used only verifiable sources in his book.

They are rather damaging to AA's case, especially Sophie's and Irene's.

Kurth's book include both Irene and Sophie's statements.

Since Kurth had Rathlef's notes, he must have decided to go along with her version because it suited the AA side better. This is really how it looks to me, Rathlef made the final versionm to be sold to the public and the courts, and Kurth is standing behind her in that. Perhaps someone who wasn't as much of a supporter would have included other things.

I cannot answer for Kurth, but I know that Rathlef opens her book with a copy of the letter from inspector Grünberg where he describes the flight from Russia. AA later repeated the same story to Harriet v. Rathlef.