Anna Anderson's claim to be Grand Duchess Anastasia

[ferrymansdaughter]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

Originally Posted by AGRBear
The AEG doctor's report tells us that FS did not receive any serious wounds.

Where is this report, bear? Can you show us proof? A link? An article? The only 'source' of this alleged report is ONE person's post on another message board. The report was not and has not been seen anywhere, and until it does, how do we even know it exists.

Well we take it on trust. We’ve have been told it exists by a respected author who actually went to the places involved and did research, I am happy to accept this. You are sceptical and say you want further proof, that’s up to you. (personally I can’t wait for the day it is published!).

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

We have a report, recorded in BG's papers and Massie's book (as well as a website about history, and other books I cannot find to verify right now) that FS was indeed injured by pieces of the grenade when it exploded at the factory.

.

As we know, Massie got his info from Von Berenberg-Gossler. Where did the website (which one?) and other books get their info from? Probably Von Berenberg-Gossler again, but where did he get it from? Almost certainly from the Knopf stuff – everything seems to point back to him and he was hardly a disinterested party was he? If it was from other sources – witness testimony of people who were in the factory when the explosion occurred, staff at the hospital (to which as Chat points out, she wasn’t even sent to until at least a month after the explosion) or if any such evidence had actually been found by Knopf then it would have been produced by now..

[Anna was Franziska]

Ferrymansdaughter, it's strange you would be so critical and doubtful of a piece of information that has been used and documented over many decades yet accept another's alleged existence sight unseen when no one can even produce a quote from it much less hard evidence. We have some very basic realities to go on- AA was FS, FS had scars. AA was not AN therefore she did not get the scars from "Ekaterinburg". AA was 99.9% FS therefore it's 'eminently likely' that she received those scars at the grenade factory. Still trying to prove AA to be AN simply isn't a valid position, regardless of these issues, due to the DNA testing.

[Anna was Franziska]

[quote=ferrymansdaughter;798000]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

I find this interesting? Wasn't it a legal requirement? In the UK you've had a legal requirement to register your child's birth since about 1850 with the penalty of a fine if you didn't.

Or does it depend on the state?

I really don't know. I believe it was 1913 when the US started requiring birth certificates, but I don't know the laws regarding them. All I know is that my aunt, unlike all of her siblings, didn't have one, and the court clerk accepted my great aunt's memory of Mae's birth as proof to give her one so she could file for Social Security. She's never had any trouble since then. (she was 61 then, she's now 83) If there was a law, it was too late to arrest her parents since they'd both been dead for years.

[ferrymansdaughter]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

Ferrymansdaughter, it's strange you would be so critical and doubtful of a piece of information that has been used and documented over many decades yet accept another's alleged existence sight unseen when no one can even produce a quote from it much less hard evidence. We have some very basic realities to go on- AA was FS, FS had scars. AA was not AN therefore she did not get the scars from "Ekaterinburg". AA was 99.9% FS therefore it's 'eminently likely' that she received those scars at the grenade factory. Still trying to prove AA to be AN simply isn't a valid position, regardless of these issues, due to the DNA testing.

The information you refer to has no proof to back it up and I think the original source (ie Knopf) is highly suspect. As for the medical report, I see no reason to doubt its existence. The person who claims to have seen it has no reason to lie and their reputation would be ruined if they did. There MUST have been somekind of accident report and you can bet that if it said FS had injuries, Knopf would have published it PDQ.

Incidentally, in a police protocol dated April 1927 describing the first interview of Doris Wingender, Doris is quoted as saying that the explosion at AEG wasn't really that bad at all and that FS only had a breakdown because she had seen someone killed. Obviously it was fairly bad if someone was killed, but even Doris is saying here that FS wasn't injured, but suffered shock.

[ferrymansdaughter]

[quote=Anna was Franziska;798073]

Originally Posted by ferrymansdaughter

I really don't know. I believe it was 1913 when the US started requiring birth certificates, but I don't know the laws regarding them. All I know is that my aunt, unlike all of her siblings, didn't have one, and the court clerk accepted my great aunt's memory of Mae's birth as proof to give her one so she could file for Social Security. She's never had any trouble since then. (she was 61 then, she's now 83) If there was a law, it was too late to arrest her parents since they'd both been dead for years.

1913? Gosh that's late (but then you are a much younger country ....)

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by ferrymansdaughter

The information you refer to has no proof to back it up and I think the original source (ie Knopf) is highly suspect. As for the medical report, I see no reason to doubt its existence. The person who claims to have seen it has no reason to lie and their reputation would be ruined if they did. There MUST have been somekind of accident report and you can bet that if it said FS had injuries, Knopf would have published it PDQ.

Why is it suspect? Why don't you accept that Knopf was right, because he did turn out to be after all. I will not get into reasons I doubt the existence of the other report, only that it's never been produced or even quoted. The main thing is, AA had scars, she didn't get them in Ekaterinburg, but most likely from the grenade factory since she was FS and FS was near an explosion.

Incidentally, in a police protocol dated April 1927 describing the first interview of Doris Wingender, Doris is quoted as saying that the explosion at AEG wasn't really that bad at all and that FS only had a breakdown because she had seen someone killed.

Obviously it was fairly bad if someone was killed, but even Doris is saying here that FS wasn't injured, but suffered shock.

You know I am never ceased to be amazed at how quickly people like Doris and Gilliard you and Chat always call 'liars' suddenly become a reliable source if they say something you like instead of something you don't She wouldn't have to have been grievously injured internally to get the scars. My brother in law was in Viet Nam, and got a lot of schrapnel in his legs and partial hearing loss just being in the same area as some fellow Marines who were killed by a thrown grenade (sadly, the men killed were leaving to go home as their tour of duty was over) That would account for the strangely shaped scars.

If you want a wild guess theory, how about that FS got the scars escaping from Grossmann after he tried to cut her up and eat her?

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

If you want a wild guess theory, how about that FS got the scars escaping from Grossmann after he tried to cut her up and eat her?

Remember, AA had fractures to the upper and lower jaws, damage to the skull and signs of inner bleeding. She had a scar from a triangular bayonet through her foot, a scar that went right through her upper lip plus "other scars and mutilations." She also had a trough-like indentation behind her ear, as from a grazing bullet. Try to explain that kind of wounds from shrapnel. Also, according to her brother Felix, she did not go into the hospital until "later".

[Anna was Franziska]

Oh that's right, she did have those more severe injuries. I was just guessing about the schrapnel, it must have been worse. The grenade is still the most likely suspect, regardless of various he said and she said comments. I would really like to get ahold of Knopf's, and BG's, papers because the answers surely lie there. The only thing we can totally rule out is her being AN and getting them in Ekaterinburg.

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

Oh that's right, she did have those more severe injuries. I was just guessing about the schrapnel, it must have been worse. The grenade is still the most likely suspect, regardless of various he said and she said comments. I would really like to get ahold of Knopf's, and BG's, papers because the answers surely lie there. The only thing we can totally rule out is her being AN and getting them in Ekaterinburg.

The "he said she said" happen to be medical reports and X-rays. Sorry. As for Knopf's papers, they probably went the same way as the clothes FS allegedly swapped with Doris Wingender. Nobody ever saw them again. And quite frankly, I doubt even Knopf saw them himself.

[Anna was Franziska]

Sounds like Doris was as inept as the LAPD in the OJ case. But AA was still FS and OJ is still guilty.

If we're going to go way out on limbs and guess things, I have a theory, too. Maybe the reason Doris disappeared is because AA found her again and bribed her to shut up and she'd pay her off when she won her case. You never know.

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

Sounds like Doris was as inept as the LAPD in the OJ case. But AA was still FS and OJ is still guilty.

If we're going to go way out on limbs and guess things, I have a theory, too. Maybe the reason Doris disappeared is because AA found her again and bribed her to shut up and she'd pay her off when she won her case. You never know.

No, Doris did not disappear. She appeared in court as Frau Rittman, but refused to take the oath and finally ran away from the trial. A very credible witness.

[Anna was Franziska]

What year was she last seen?

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

You know I am never ceased to be amazed at how quickly people like Doris and Gilliard you and Chat always call 'liars' suddenly become a reliable source if they say something you like instead of something you don't

No, actually Chat and Ferrymansdaughter weren't saying that. We know from Peter Kurth that Gilliard is a known liar, but that doesn't mean that there is truth in some of his statements. Peter has cautioned us all, when looking at Gillard's contributions, to weigh them with a grain of salt.

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by Russophile

No, actually Chat and Ferrymansdaughter weren't saying that. We know from Peter Kurth that Gilliard is a known liar, but that doesn't mean that there is truth in some of his statements. Peter has cautioned us all, when looking at Gillard's contributions, to weigh them with a grain of salt.

So, in other words, if he says something against AA, he's lying, if he says something that supports her, he's telling the truth?

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

What year was she last seen?

I will assume that she was seen every day by her car selling husband and the family and friends until she passed away.

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

So, in other words, if he says something against AA, he's lying, if he says something that supports her, he's telling the truth?

I was saying that that is the way WE choose to look at it--with a grain of salt. You can choose to look at it any way you like.

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

So, in other words, if he says something against AA, he's lying, if he says something that supports her, he's telling the truth?

Let's clarify this: Gilliard said the Grand Duchesses spoke no German. We know otherwise from his own schedules and their school books. When AA described the Malachite room, he said there was no such room in the Winter Palace. When AA described the little swastika mascot on the Tsarina's car, Gilliard published a photo of same car with a big swastika drawn in on the door to show the public that nobody could miss it.
Gilliard said AA spoke no Russian when he visited her in the Mommsen Clinic. In the Hamburg court, he had to unwillingly admit that she did speak Russian to his wife. His whole description of the meeting in Berlin was rather different from that of Harriet Rathlef Keilmann, something Herluf Zahle attested to. Frau Rathlef Keilmann also sent her manuscript to Olga for verification, and Olga said it was correct.
Will this do it, or shall I find more?

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

Let's clarify this: Gilliard said the Grand Duchesses spoke no German. We know otherwise from his own schedules and their school books.

But technically, she didn't know German. As we've discussed before it's very possible for a person to have German lessons and not know it, I know several people in that category. Olga A. said 'German was never used in the family.' This means, even if it had been studied some it was not used and therefore not really known, and especially not to the extent that AN would abandon the 3 she knew better to use it only. Bux said she only knew 'a few German words.' Even I know a few German words. This is hardly speaking German. AA supporters like to exaggerate AN's knowledge of German because that was AA's language of choice, but it doesn't add up.

When AA described the Malachite room, he said there was no such room in the Winter Palace.

And others said there was such a room but she got the details very wrong. So her informant didn't have a good memory. She and Gilliard both fail this test.

When AA described the little swastika mascot on the Tsarina's car, Gilliard published a photo of same car with a big swastika drawn in on the door to show the public that nobody could miss it.

I've never seen it so I don't know, but assuming this is true, the likely explanation is that someone who knew told her about it, and Gilliard had never noticed it before. This doesn't mean he lied.

Gilliard said AA spoke no Russian when he visited her in the Mommsen Clinic. In the Hamburg court, he had to unwillingly admit that she did speak Russian to his wife. His whole description of the meeting in Berlin was rather different from that of Harriet Rathlef Keilmann, something Herluf Zahle attested to.

This all depends on who you believe. You mistrust Gilliard, I mistrust Rathlef.

Frau Rathlef Keilmann also sent her manuscript to Olga for verification, and Olga said it was correct.

Or so Rathlef claimed, I have seen no verification from Olga's side. Rathlef herself admitted Olga didn't read it all because she didn't know much German.

[ChatNoir]

Originally Posted by Anna was Franziska

But technically, she didn't know German. As we've discussed before it's very possible for a person to have German lessons and not know it, I know several people in that category. Olga A. said 'German was never used in the family.' This means, even if it had been studied some it was not used and therefore not really known, and especially not to the extent that AN would abandon the 3 she knew better to use it only. Bux said she only knew 'a few German words.' Even I know a few German words. This is hardly speaking German. AA supporters like to exaggerate AN's knowledge of German because that was AA's language of choice, but it doesn't add up.

I myself took German for 4 years, and so did everyone else at school. We NEVER used German at home. Still, we all graduated from school having knowledge of German. Some spoke it fluently, some not. But we all spoke it. AA's German was very bad, we have several attests to that. It did, however, improve as she stayed in Germany, and she even wrote a 4 page letter once, i think in 1926. A lot of spelling mistakes, but at least she had somewhat command of the language after a while.

And others said there was such a room but she got the details very wrong. So her informant didn't have a good memory. She and Gilliard both fail this test.

Well, I think we all know about the Malachite room in the Winter Palace. And the only details she got wrong, was that she mentioned "window seats" of malachite. Of course, her impression was before the restauration, so it is difficult to say if she was wrong. She could, of course, also have referred to the Catherine Hall in the Kremlin.

I've never seen it so I don't know, but assuming this is true, the likely explanation is that someone who knew told her about it, and Gilliard had never noticed it before. This doesn't mean he lied.

And who told her about it, if I may ask? When she told Zahle about it, he asked Volkov if he remembered the mascot on the Tsarina's car, and he had no recollection of it. Not until a new book came out some time later did Zahle find a photo of the car, and by the help of a strong magnifying glass was he able to see the swastika exactly where AA said it was. Gilliard then published his photo with the swastika drawn in just to downplay the story.

This all depends on who you believe. You mistrust Gilliard, I mistrust Rathlef.

As you see, I have great reason for not trusting Gilliard. What is your reason for not trusting Harriet von Rathef Keilmann?

Or so Rathlef claimed, I have seen no verification from Olga's side. Rathlef herself admitted Olga didn't read it all because she didn't know much German.

Exactly, that should be proof enough, shouldn't it.

[Anna was Franziska]

Originally Posted by ChatNoir

AA's German was very bad, we have several attests to that.

Then why did she choose to use it over 3 languages she knew better, if she was AN? Why did she refuse to speak English, Russian or French with Olga, Bux or Yussoupov? Because she wasn't AN.

Well, I think we all know about the Malachite room in the Winter Palace. And the only details she got wrong, was that she mentioned "window seats" of malachite. Of course, her impression was before the restauration, so it is difficult to say if she was wrong. She could, of course, also have referred to the Catherine Hall in the Kremlin.

Guess the person who told her of it got it wrong. The tidbits of info in her 'memories' seem to have come from someone with an intimate yet limited knowledge of the family and their surroundings. Personally I believe she had both intentional info feeders as well as picking up stuff on her own speaking with emigres'.

And who told her about it, if I may ask? When she told Zahle about it, he asked Volkov if he remembered the mascot on the Tsarina's car, and he had no recollection of it. Not until a new book came out some time later did Zahle find a photo of the car, and by the help of a strong magnifying glass was he able to see the swastika exactly where AA said it was. Gilliard then published his photo with the swastika drawn in just to downplay the story.

Maybe it was drawn in, I don't think we'll ever know the whole truth here.

As you see, I have great reason for not trusting Gilliard. What is your reason for not trusting Harriet von Rathef Keilmann?

1. She never knew the real AN
2. She was a writer making the "Anastasia" story so famous there came to be cigarettes named after her.

So, in part I don't think she knew much and would have been able to tell the difference in a real and fake AN, and second the publicity brought by "Anastasia" IMO puts her in question. I don't know if she really believed her and was tricked by others, or if she was intentionally selling the story, I don't think we'll ever know. But at least Gilliard knew the real AN and RF.