Anna Anderson's claim to be Grand Duchess Anastasia

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

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

Well, there is always Gilliard and Savich.....

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

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.

What really surprises me, is that everybody on this board has access to much, much more literature about the IF than AA ever had. And still you don't know a fraction of what she knew. Amazing, aint it.

[ChatNoir]

[quote=Anna was Franziska;796576]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![quote]

From reliable sources I have heard that Berenberg Gossler's papers are not enough for a book.

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.

Yes, but when you read Kurth, you will see that every little detail is substantiated in one way or another. And he did not burn his papers afterwords.

I also noticed that where he did, on page 51 , quote the statement (severely edited version) by Irene declaring AA not her niece, he gave the source as, guess what? La Fausse Anastasie!

And aren't you the one who a couple a days ago complained about Kurth not including "damaging evidence?"

This means two things: he did have the book and use it but chose to leave out other bits of info that made AA look bad such as the chased by thugs to Paris storyline and the face altering apparatus.

And you know what? He left it out because there is no other claim that supports it. Absolutely none. Therefore, it seems that Gilliard and Savich made it uo.

So Chat's claims that everything in La Fausse is a lie because its authors are liars, and that the info in it no longer exists, is not true because obviously Kurth used them for the book- unless he was using only La Fausse, which Chat claims is all lies and nothing in it can be proven now that Gilliard burned his records. So again, we have convenient 'cherry picking' of evidence based on how beneficial it is to AA.

I have not claimed that "everything in the book is a lie", please read my posts carefully. What I claim, is that nothing in the book can be substantiated because the author burned his files!

[quote]I also noticed more details of the 'escape' story which directly contradict the versions originally told by Clara and Von Kliest. On page 34 she claims not to have even wanted to see the child when it was born and to have given it directly to the Tchaikovsky family./quote]

That seems to be the correct version.

The story changed to that after the death of her husband she came directly to Berlin in the company of the dead husband's brother Serge, but he disappeared (imaginary friends have a way of doing that)

He did not "disappear". She went down to his room to look for him, but he was not there. She then wandered out in the streets, and we know the rest.

So that makes the entire trip to Paris chased by bogeymen a very different story. Why did it change so drastically? Clearly, this story was false from the beginning, and kept being changed, added to and subtracted from as new ideas and new imput became available. When all she had to talk to was Clara, just as nutty as she was, the story was more wild, but talking to others made her change the details to something more sympathetic and acceptable. This makes me even more sure that there was a lot of intentional invention going on and she was well aware of what she was doing.

Invention was going on for sure. Between Clara and Kleist and Gilliard and Savich, they managed to make a great mess of this. Too bad the evidence went in the fire, or we would have been able to see who made the worst mess.

[OlgaNikolaievna]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

Well, there is always Gilliard and Savich.....

I do not understand are you saying they made up their book at it is not a source to be believed? But Kurth uses their book as a reference! Does that mean he used wrong information?

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

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

If you quote someone, you should be able to substantiate it.

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.

I don't deny it, I question it!

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!

Read on, and you will see that Irene's husband was so upset by his wife's doubts that he finally forbade any discussion of the subject in his home.

[OlgaNikolaievna]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

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

So she was Fransiska.

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.

How could Harriet not know when there were the magazines at the asylum owned and read by Anderson?

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

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!

I am SURE Sophie von Buxhoeveden NEVER mentioned a word of her betrayal to anyone!

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.

Where on earth would he find out how she looked like when her health improved, he never saw her again after the visit to the Mommsen Clinic in Berlin. Same thing with Olga. He never had a chance to see her when she was healthy and her old self. He never saw her walk, never heard her laugh, never studied her mannerisms. The only thing he saw, was an emaciated woman near death in a hospital bed.

One option is NOT that he believed in AA and was 'payed off' by Hesse. That is the AA supporter's likely story.

And where did he get the money from to travel back and forth to Hesse and Berlin? He had already confessed to Harriet Rathlef Keilmann that he was in dire financial circumstances. Do not forget that he introduced himself as the Representative of the House of Hesse.

Also don't forget Ernie was dead before the trial ever started, who paid him then?

This has NOTHING to do with the trial.

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by OlgaNikolaievna

I do not understand are you saying they made up their book at it is not a source to be believed? But Kurth uses their book as a reference! Does that mean he used wrong information?

We do not know what parts of the book are complete lies and which ones are true, all the documentation ended up on the pyre. Kurth tries in his book to give a balanced view of the case, and knowing that Irene was "against" AA, he used her statement to show Irene's attitude which he presumed to be correct. (I probably should not speak for Kurth here, this is just an assumption on my part.)

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by OlgaNikolaievna

So she was Fransiska.

But how could Franziska not read fraktur, being a native German?

How could Harriet not know when there were the magazines at the asylum owned and read by Anderson?

Harriet Rathlef Keilmann was introduced to AA long after the Dalldorf period. She only included quotes and reports from doctors in her book.

[OlgaNikolaievna]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

Or she had access to the Tsaritsa's letters in Tsarskoe Selo.

What is so bad for her about the Darling letter is that she used a comma from above thinking it was an apostrophe. The real Anastasia would not have made that mistake being that she was familiar with her mother's handwriting and English. It appears to me that Anna Anderson tried to be clever and it backfired on her.

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

I am SURE Sophie von Buxhoeveden NEVER mentioned a word of her betrayal to anyone!

But think, if she had gotten her 'freedom' in exchange why was she still in danger? And don't forget she was not alone on her trip, others including Gibbes and Gilliard were there and they would know.

The only thing he saw, was an emaciated woman near death in a hospital bed.

This is why, like the lady who found the dirty, skinny dog, thought it might have been hers in bad shape, but after more time and further consideration it turned out not to be the dog, and not to be AN.

This has NOTHING to do with the trial.

Then why did he continue to testify against her? He must have really not wanted an imposter to win AN's identity.

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

On the contrary, a cop will tell you that someone is lying if the story never changes a bit.

No that's not what I heard all my life, in real life and on TV shows and the news. A person telling the truth sticks to one story, a liar changes their story many times. I see all the time when a person is charged, part of why is that they lost credibility because their story kept changing.

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

What about the ones in AA's story?

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.

So, was it Rathlef or Grunberg who authored the final version of the fictional account?

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

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.

I said, I remember the details and the stories, just not always which book it was in or certainly not the page number! Really who can recite page numbers without looking things up? FS remembered the things told to her but maybe not always who told her or on what date.

[Anna was Franziska]

I can't read on I'm not at the library anymore. Are you claiming Prince Frederick quoted Irene's husband? Did Irene ever comment for herself if any of it was right? If all we have is an interview that doesn't prove she really said it.

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by OlgaNikolaievna

What is so bad for her about the Darling letter is that she used a comma from above thinking it was an apostrophe. The real Anastasia would not have made that mistake being that she was familiar with her mother's handwriting and English. It appears to me that Anna Anderson tried to be clever and it backfired on her.

And how could she have done this in the mid twenties when the book with the photo of the letter was published in 1928? And when was it published in Germany, if ever?

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

But think, if she had gotten her 'freedom' in exchange why was she still in danger? And don't forget she was not alone on her trip, others including Gibbes and Gilliard were there and they would know.

I think most people were in danger in those days, one way or the other. Didn't I read somewhere that Gilliard and Gibbs kept a certain distance from Sophie, and that she was despised by some members of the Romanov's after her return to Europe?

This is why, like the lady who found the dirty, skinny dog, thought it might have been hers in bad shape, but after more time and further consideration it turned out not to be the dog, and not to be AN.

May we PLEASE never hear that dog story again! Thank you.

Then why did he continue to testify against her? He must have really not wanted an imposter to win AN's identity.

So you expected AA's public enemy number one to go to court and deny all he wrote in his book? Honestly....

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

And how could she have done this in the mid twenties when the book with the photo of the letter was published in 1928? And when was it published in Germany, if ever?

What are you getting at, that she was AN that she wrote that way because Alexandra wrote that way? But Alexandra didn't write that way, it was a mistake! She must have seen a copy of the letter somewhere.

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

I said, I remember the details and the stories, just not always which book it was in or certainly not the page number! Really who can recite page numbers without looking things up? FS remembered the things told to her but maybe not always who told her or on what date.

Sorry, you have shown me many times that you do not remember the story correctly or that you are completely in the dark about details that are found in Kurth's book. And I don't blame you for that, I have problems myself at times when I don't have my books around. And that is why the fable of AA being fed information or having read about it all is so ridiculous. The woman had a memory like a sieve. She would tell the doctors certain details, and when later, she discovered that they knew these things, she was amazed at their knowledge, totally having forgotten what she told them.

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

What are you getting at, that she was AN that she wrote that way because Alexandra wrote that way? But Alexandra didn't write that way, it was a mistake! She must have seen a copy of the letter somewhere.

Yes, in Tsarskoe Selo.

[Anna was Franziska]

That's why she needed her coaches and svengalis and info-feeders around her, and why she didn't want to go anywhere without them.