Anna Anderson's claim to be Grand Duchess Anastasia

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

the books published by 1923, were these available in German? When were they published in Germany? To my knowledge, The last Days of the Romanovs was not published in Germany.

It doesn't matter if they were in German or not. If she were the real Anastasia she'd have been able to read them in English, French or Russian. Of course if she were AN she wouldn't need to to know what happened! It also doesn't mean she didn't have access to them, because any of her supporters, who had money and knew several languages, could have told her things from them. Rathlef herself was a likely source of researching these books for info AA could use, being a writer herself.

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

You seem to forget that between attacks he was a playful little boy. But, as AA told Mrs. Rathlef, "there were certain things he was not allowed to do. Like riding a bicycle, for example. But he had a tricycle especially built for him." And I just discovered some photos on the net, clearly showing Alexei with his tricycle.

I believe she is referring to their time in captivity.

Anyone could have shown her the picture of the tricycle, and tricycles are hardly rare or something you have to have built especially for you!

[ferrymansdaughter]

[quote=Anna was Franziska;796579]I will not drag the FOTR mess over to this forum)

quote]

Is that because you still haven't read it?

[Anna was Franziska]

One more thing on the different versions of the escape story, in yet another version she claims to have gone to Berlin 'alone' (Kurth page 34) which differs from the other version where she was with "Serge".

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

No, Gleb did not take her. She arrived in the company of Agnes Gallagher, and Gleb met them in New York.

That's not Xenia Leeds.

[ferrymansdaughter]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

As I told you, I read the same interview you did. See any names in there? I can't ask a dead man. If his papers are ever published perhaps we'll see- and see a great deal more than just that!.

But the person whose website you got it from isn't dead is he? If you are quoting him as a source, then ask him!

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

On the subject of basing information on an interview, that is exactly what Kurth did with the 'she is similar' speech attributed to Irene(page 57 and often quoted). I looked in the footnotes, and the only source was an 'interview with Prince Frederick' who as we all know was an eccentric supporter of AA. So, these quotes may well be inaccurate. !.

Who said Prince Frederick was "eccentric" ? - source please!

[ferrymansdaughter]

She didn't tell this all as a single narrative, you know. It was pieced together by various people over various times, some of it from her ramblings under morphine.

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by ferrymansdaughter

Actually as Chat has pointed out, she was referring to Tchaikowsky – and specifically after July 1918. You never do seem to have the page. Will you please provide us with the page number (and edition) showing where this is in Peter's book?

Of course I read it, several times, you forget I'm an ex supporter. I have read quite a bit on the case since 1974 when I first started getting interested in this case, but I'm sorry that my head does not keep a constant internet file of every single word ever read and what page it was on. Yes I have read the books I quote, Massie many times, Klier and Mingay only once as it was an interlibrary loan, most recently Welch's book, the only ones I haven't read are those like La Fausse Anastasie which are in a foreign language or too obscure to find, and I have relied on friends and other people's posts for certain quotes. Most of us don't have a library sitting around ready or the time to dig through a book of hundreds of pages for one quote to appease someone's haughty insinuations (as I am doing now, when I have much more important things I should be doing) If you consider a person must read an entire book to be qualified to accept or deny quotes from it, then what is the purpose of quoting page numbers? Do you expect every single person who reads your post is going to read the entire book, and if they don't does that mean what you posted won't count? So why do it? Also unlike AA supporters, I don't believe just because you can put a page number to something in Kurth's book it automatically becomes a 'fact.' Most of what is said in the AA case is just a bunch of hearsay and 'officialized' comments by various people, and we will never be able to verify which are truthful or accurate. Collecting them all in one book (ANY book) does not validate them as solid proof because they have a page number.

But, since you set such a store by page numbers from Kurth's book here is your answer:

Page 34-35- and it is vague as to if it happened at the Ipatiev house or not.

"She told me she had been raped" Gerda Von Kliest said bluntly (source 26 Aucleres) There had already been whispers of 'innocent flirtations' behind the palisades at the Ipatiev house in Ekaterinburg and how the Russian Monarchists began to pay closer attention to them (source 27: "this was no more than a rumor"- is that all it takes to get qualified as a footnoted source? Wow!)

On the subject of the child's birthdate, page 34 clearly states "Dec. 5, 1918- she gave birth to a child." The footnote for this credits Von Kliest via Fallows' papers, meaning again that there are other sources for the material in La Fausse, despite it being 'destroyed' by Gilliard.

Further down this page is the oft quoted 'the Baron lies' comment from AA, but it mentions the name, saying it was not Alexis but Alexander, no denial of the date. She then went on to say she had 'no idea' of the date and it 'didn't matter' since she'd never be able to identify him now anyway. (don't forget that it was Clara P. who gave the name as Alexis in her letter to Irene)

The source for this information, #25, is listed in the footnotes as:

Quoted in Leverkuehn/Vermehren memorandum, Oct. 31, 1938, EHF (this is Kurth's abbreviation for the Fallows papers) Much is made of the boy's ostensible birthdate at the beginning of December 1918, the implication being taht if A were the Tsar's daughter, she would have had to have conceived the child while still a prisoner with her family in Tolbolsk. On balance, there is nothing to preclude this possibility.

Since the definition of preclude is
1. To make impossible, as by action taken in advance; prevent.

does this mean that Kurth is not denying this may have happened?

Well, I could go on and on, but I really, really do have more important things to waste my time on today. It would be very interesting to dig more and more into the alleged original sources of some of these comments so highly regarded by AA supporters, and see just how shaky a lot of their ground really can be. I'll do more later.

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by ferrymansdaughter

Actually as Chat has pointed out, she was referring to Tchaikowsky – and specifically after July 1918. You never do seem to have the page. Will you please provide us with the page number (and edition) showing where this is in Peter's book?

Of course I read it, several times, you forget I'm an ex supporter. I have read quite a bit on the case since 1974 when I first started getting interested in this case, but I'm sorry that my head does not keep a constant internet file of every single word ever read and what page it was on. Yes I have read the books I quote, Massie many times, Klier and Mingay only once as it was an interlibrary loan, most recently Welch's book, the only ones I haven't read are those like La Fausse Anastasie which are in a foreign language or too obscure to find, and I have relied on friends and other people's posts for certain quotes. Most of us don't have a library sitting around ready or the time to dig through a book of hundreds of pages for one quote to appease someone's haughty insinuations (as I am doing now, when I have much more important things I should be doing) If you consider a person must read an entire book to be qualified to accept or deny quotes from it, then what is the purpose of quoting page numbers? Do you expect every single person who reads your post is going to read the entire book, and if they don't does that mean what you posted won't count? So why do it? Also unlike AA supporters, I don't believe just because you can put a page number to something in Kurth's book it automatically becomes a 'fact.' Most of what is said in the AA case is just a bunch of hearsay and 'officialized' comments by various people, and we will never be able to verify which are truthful or accurate. Collecting them all in one book (ANY book) does not validate them as solid proof because they have a page number.

But, since you set such a store by page numbers from Kurth's book here is your answer:

Page 34-35- and it is vague as to if it happened at the Ipatiev house or not.

"She told me she had been raped" Gerda Von Kliest said bluntly (source 26 Aucleres) There had already been whispers of 'innocent flirtations' behind the palisades at the Ipatiev house in Ekaterinburg and how the Russian Monarchists began to pay closer attention to them (source 27: "this was no more than a rumor"- is that all it takes to get qualified as a footnoted source? Wow!)

On the subject of the child's birthdate, page 34 clearly states "Dec. 5, 1918- she gave birth to a child." The footnote for this credits Von Kliest via Fallows' papers, meaning again that there are other sources for the material in La Fausse, despite it being 'destroyed' by Gilliard.

Further down this page is the oft quoted 'the Baron lies' comment from AA, but it mentions the name, saying it was not Alexis but Alexander, no denial of the date. She then went on to say she had 'no idea' of the date and it 'didn't matter' since she'd never be able to identify him now anyway. (don't forget that it was Clara P. who gave the name as Alexis in her letter to Irene)

The source for this information, #25, is listed in the footnotes as:

Quoted in Leverkuehn/Vermehren memorandum, Oct. 31, 1938, EHF (this is Kurth's abbreviation for the Fallows papers) Much is made of the boy's ostensible birthdate at the beginning of December 1918, the implication being taht if A were the Tsar's daughter, she would have had to have conceived the child while still a prisoner with her family in Tolbolsk. On balance, there is nothing to preclude this possibility.

Since the definition of preclude is
1. To make impossible, as by action taken in advance; prevent.

does this mean that Kurth is not denying this may have happened?

Well, I could go on and on, but I really, really do have more important things to waste my time on today. It would be very interesting to dig more and more into the alleged original sources of some of these comments so highly regarded by AA supporters, and see just how shaky a lot of their ground really can be. I'll do more later.

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by ferrymansdaughter

She didn't tell this all as a single narrative, you know. It was pieced together by various people over various times, some of it from her ramblings under morphine.

Of course, that's why it changes so much. Any cop will tell you the first sign of a liar is changing the story multiple times. The differences in these versions are like screenplays that change over time as the author decides he likes his new idea better. As she talked to more people, she got more imput and changed it as she got new advice. Look at the various descrepancies- she went to Paris chased by thugs, she went to Berlin with Serge, she went to Berlin alone, she went to Paris looking for Baron Taube, she went to Berlin looking for Irene, she gave the baby to the husband's family, she put the baby in an orphanage, it goes on and on. The whole thing is a farce and never happened!

My guess is that the first version was invented with Clara in the asylum, it advanced further at the Von Kliest's and the final version was perfected by professional writer Rathlef for her newspaper series, making sure it sounded as believable and sympathetic as possible. In between, rather or not she was on morphine, she seems to have forgotten what she said the time before and added something else that conflcts with what she'd said at other times. Again, it's all a fairy tale.

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by ferrymansdaughter

But the person whose website you got it from isn't dead is he? If you are quoting him as a source, then ask him!

Why should I have to ask him, you're the one who wants to know!

Who said Prince Frederick was "eccentric" ? - source please!

Regardless of if he is or not, the source is AN INTERVIEW- just as what I posted for you by BG is AN INTERVIEW- and you deny parts of it on those grounds. You want more proof than just one person saying something in an interview. That is what I expect of this alleged Prince Frederick quote- just because he said it in AN INTERVIEW does not prove Irene said it or endorsed his version of the retelling. Irene's original statement, the one where she denies AA, was written and signed by her and documented. How are we to know if Prince Frederick is telling the truth about Irene or not? How do we know she was 'wringing her hands' or that she said the things he attributed to her? Where did this comment come from, was he present, is it a rumor, hearsay, or assumption? SOURCE PLEASE!

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

Let's not go there. The entire story of her alleged 'betrayal' has been proven wrong and discredited.

It has? Please provide the details.

She did not tell them about any jewels, if she did, why were they still wearing them the night of the murders instead of having them confiscated?

You will find in FOTR that Yurovsky was up in arms over the jewels "that cause so many problems."

Sophie never earned her freedom for betraying the family as AA claimed, she was let go with Gibbes, Gilliard and other foreign nationals because the Bolsheviks did not want to anger any other governments. She was born and raised in Russia, but her Danish name was taken for Swedish. She tells this in her book. She had no freedom from the Bolsheviks, spending 13 months running and hiding for her life across Russia and only leaving the country when she reached Omsk and had the aid of the British military who put her on one of their trains. It's really time this woman's rep was cleared (though I know it's advantagous to the AA case that it not be, there is no truth to the rumors and I will not drag the FOTR mess over to this forum)

None of this answers the question of who was there in the 1920's to verify or deny her details?

She was let go? And still running for her life? You cannot have it both ways.
And as to verifying the details in the 1920's, our friend Gilliard was willingly at hand until January 1926, when he suddenly switched sides.

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

It doesn't matter if they were in German or not. If she were the real Anastasia she'd have been able to read them in English, French or Russian.

And if she was Franziska, German was the only possibility.

Of course if she were AN she wouldn't need to to know what happened! It also doesn't mean she didn't have access to them, because any of her supporters, who had money and knew several languages, could have told her things from them. Rathlef herself was a likely source of researching these books for info AA could use, being a writer herself.

And how would she have access to them, spending most of her time in a hospital, at times near death? As for Rathlef, she didn't even know about the rumor that one of the Grand Duchesses had survived. So much for her expertise.

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

I believe she is referring to their time in captivity. Anyone could have shown her the picture of the tricycle, and tricycles are hardly rare or something you have to have built especially for you!

No, she is referring to Tsarskoe Selo. And I doubt that "anyone" was travelling around with photos of Alexei on his tricycle in their wallet.

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

One more thing on the different versions of the escape story, in yet another version she claims to have gone to Berlin 'alone' (Kurth page 34) which differs from the other version where she was with "Serge".

Her version was garbled by telling and retelling by her "supporters" or "enemies".

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

She was let go? And still running for her life? You cannot have it both ways.

I didn't mean 'let go' I meant she was not imprisoned with the rest of the family, put out with the others with foreign names, told to leave Ekaterinburg. (and were told that staying would endanger their lives) The book "Left Behind" is on the AP I do NOT have time to dig for the page. If you read the whole book, AS I HAVE you will see just how much danger and worry they went through afraid of being caught or arrested for their connections to the Romanovs. In one part they got scared because someone told them they had 'the Petrograd look' which made them suspicious in Siberia. Again, no time to dig for page numbers, go read it, and see the TRUE story of what happened to Sophie!

And as to verifying the details in the 1920's, our friend Gilliard was willingly at hand until January 1926, when he suddenly switched sides.

There are two possibilities here- one is that he was originally going to be in on the charade and changed his mind, the other is that he thought perhaps AA was AN due to his wife's emotions and wishful thinking that the child she helped raise wasn't dead, but as time passed and he got to know AA better and her health improved and he saw she really didn't have AN's face, he changed his mind because he realized he'd been wrong. One option is NOT that he believed in AA and was 'payed off' by Hesse. That is the AA supporter's likely story. Also don't forget Ernie was dead before the trial ever started, who paid him then?

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

Her version was garbled by telling and retelling by her "supporters" or "enemies".

What 'enemies' retold the tale, back then? I know you're looking for an excuse but there really is none, the story is fake.

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

Of course I read it, several times, you forget I'm an ex supporter. I have read quite a bit on the case since 1974 when I first started getting interested in this case, but I'm sorry that my head does not keep a constant internet file of every single word ever read and what page it was on.

And still you have the audacity to suggest that AA was "fed information" or "picked it up from books." She must have had an enormous memory, that Franziska woman.

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

No, she is referring to Tsarskoe Selo. And I doubt that "anyone" was travelling around with photos of Alexei on his tricycle in their wallet.

I was talking about the quoted poster not AA.

There are other places to have it than a wallet, a book, or even just a memory of one of the people she met mentioning it. Anyway a tricycle is hardly unique to Alexei.

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

Of course, that's why it changes so much. Any cop will tell you the first sign of a liar is changing the story multiple times.

On the contrary, a cop will tell you that someone is lying if the story never changes a bit. It means that the perpetrator learned a routine and stuck to it. Like Doris Wingender with her little book where she had written down all the details.

The differences in these versions are like screenplays that change over time as the author decides he likes his new idea better. As she talked to more people, she got more imput and changed it as she got new advice. Look at the various descrepancies- she went to Paris chased by thugs, she went to Berlin with Serge, she went to Berlin alone, she went to Paris looking for Baron Taube, she went to Berlin looking for Irene, she gave the baby to the husband's family, she put the baby in an orphanage, it goes on and on. The whole thing is a farce and never happened!

The discrepencies in Gilliard's book are not even worth the paper they are (eh, were) written on.

My guess is that the first version was invented with Clara in the asylum, it advanced further at the Von Kliest's and the final version was perfected by professional writer Rathlef for her newspaper series, making sure it sounded as believable and sympathetic as possible. In between, rather or not she was on morphine, she seems to have forgotten what she said the time before and added something else that conflcts with what she'd said at other times. Again, it's all a fairy tale.

She actually did not add or subtract very much, because she was sick and unconscious most of the time, so there are not many details from Ekaterinburg to the Dniestr. And Inspector Grünberg's rendition is the same as Harriet Rathlef Keilmann's.