Identification of the remains found in 2007: Alexei and Marie (Coble, 2009)

[Ex-Princess Lisa]

Yes I can give you a source, but I do not have the website address with me to look it up and I cannot remember it.
I will give you the source in about 2 days, it was a Russian website in English.

[lexi4]

Boris,
Have you heard anything like this?

Originally Posted by Ex-Princess Lisa

The ROC have said they will reconsider whether to recognise the first set of remains, if the second set of remains do test positive for Alexis and Maria.

[BorisRom]

Originally Posted by lexi4

I hadn't heard that. Could you give us source please?

Russian Orthodox Church ready to convene if Yekaterinburg remains prove authentic

Moscow, September 28, Interfax - The Russian Orthodox Church is ready to review its position on the remains of the emperor's family if the remains found near Yekaterinburg this summer prove authentic.
"It is too early to make any conclusions. If the authenticity of the remains is proved, this would be the resolution of one of the most important problems that did not allow the Church to recognize the authenticity of the first remains," member of the Synod's Commission for Sanctification and Priest Georgy Mitrofanov told Interfax on Friday.
The priest commented on a statement by deputy head of the Sverdlovsk regional forensic bureau Vladimir Gromov that "results of the anatomic and morphological examination during which gender and age were assumed allow us to draw a preliminary conclusion that these are the remains of Prince Alexey and Grand Duchess Maria."
Results of a genetic examination should be obtained first, the priest said. "There are certain issues raised by the Church, there are a number of priests who did not recognize the remains buried in the Peter and Paul Fortress in 1998 as authentic," Mitrofanov said.
"Very serious work should be done in order to change the position. As yet, a statement by deputy head of the Sverdlovsk regional forensic bureau cannot change anything and one cannot say that something totally new has happened," the priest said.
"We will discuss the issue at the Synod level after a state commission is convened and after it completes all procedures. Church authorities will work with materials that will be given to them," the priest said.

http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=3702

Additions from the Russian version of INTERFAX-RELIGION (in my translation):
Priest George has told also:
«At the country till now there is "a sensation [a sense] of a duality". For example, at a burial place of empress Maria Fedorovna I had dual sense - in particular because ashes of empress which has been buried in a worthy place, have been brought into the country decorated with monuments of murderers of her children and grandsons... If we want to know the history, we should understand, that monuments to criminals should not stand [be] in the country. And when we have the monuments and to tsars, and to the executioners of Russia, it means, we do not distinguish a kindness (Good) and an evil in our history …
Not casually (not accidentally) a mistrust takes place in church circles: the mistrust to activity of the various state commissions, in particular, on identification of the remains of imperial family, - because people are feeling, that our state has not made a choice between 900-years orthodox Russia and 70-years godless "sovdepia" [USSR - BR]... Therefore it seems, that all these actions are caused not by aspiration to immortalize memory of last sovereigns, but by some political calculations ", - father George has told in summary.
http://www.interfax-religion.ru/?act=news&div=20559

[Avalon]

Originally Posted by lexi4

Avalon,
I hope I answered your questions in my previous posts. If not, please let me know and I will dig deeper.
Lexi

Yes, you did. Thank you very much Lexi!
I think part of the reason the Russian Orthodox Church is so cautious about the indenity of the remains, is the question of sainthood. The cermony most probably involves the relics, and it would be quite awkward if it later turned out that the relics didn't actually belong to the Imperial Family. So they are extra-cautious.

[Russophile]

Is there anything on this site about the requirements for Russian Orthodox sainthood??

[lexi4]

Originally Posted by Russophile

Is there anything on this site about the requirements for Russian Orthodox sainthood??

I haven't seen anything, but I'll see what I can find. I don't believe the Imperial Family was canonized as saints, rather passion bearers. I'll have to check to see what the difference is.
Lexi

[Russophile]

That would be good as well as interesting and informative! Thanks Lex!

[lexi4]

Originally Posted by Russophile

That would be good as well as interesting and informative! Thanks Lex!

Ok. This will show how much I know about Russian Orthodoxy.
Apparently the Imperial Family was canonized as Passion Bearers rather than marytrs. Both are considered saints. The difference is that a martyr is someone who faces death in a Christ like manner. A martyr is one who is killed for his/her faith.
Lexi

[BorisRom]

Originally Posted by lexi4

Ok. This will show how much I know about Russian Orthodoxy.
Apparently the Imperial Family was canonized as Passion Bearers rather than marytrs. Both are considered saints. The difference is that a martyr is someone who faces death in a Christ like manner. A martyr is one who is killed for his/her faith.
Lexi

Well, very well, Lexi! - I think you are right:
http://www.pravoslavie.ru/answers/050608155505 (in Russian):

According to the developed words usage (inside ROC), martyrs ("мученик - mouchenick" - in Russian) are those sacred which fearlessly and stoically have professed and testified Christian belief through sufferings and death. The word "passion bearers" ("страстотерпец - strastoterpets" - in Russian) can be applied to those who were (who demonstrated) a humility to God's will and full kindness concerning murderers who did not demand from them direct renunciation of belief in Christ.
In history of Russian Church the passion bearers were: princes Boris and Gleb (+1015), Igor Chernigovsky (+1147), Andrey Bogolyubsky (+1174), Michael Tverskoi (+1319), tsarevitch Dimitry (+1591). All of them showed the high sample of Christian morals and patience through the feat of passion bearers.
So, we can say: saint (sacred) martyr; saint (sacred) passion bearers.
I think, Alec (from C-H forum) would tell better about these definitions of ROC.

[Russophile]

Yes, but it's good to have you here as well Boris! :)

[lexi4]

Originally Posted by BorisRom

Well, very well, Lexi! - I think you are right:
http://www.pravoslavie.ru/answers/050608155505 (in Russian):

According to the developed words usage (inside ROC), martyrs ("??????? - mouchenick" - in Russian) are those sacred which fearlessly and stoically have professed and testified Christian belief through sufferings and death. The word "passion bearers" ("????????????? - strastoterpets" - in Russian) can be applied to those who were (who demonstrated) a humility to God's will and full kindness concerning murderers who did not demand from them direct renunciation of belief in Christ.
In history of Russian Church the passion bearers were: princes Boris and Gleb (+1015), Igor Chernigovsky (+1147), Andrey Bogolyubsky (+1174), Michael Tverskoi (+1319), tsarevitch Dimitry (+1591). All of them showed the high sample of Christian morals and patience through the feat of passion bearers.
So, we can say: saint (sacred) martyr; saint (sacred) passion bearers.
I think, Alec (from C-H forum) would tell better about these definitions of ROC.

Thank you Boris.

[Ex-Princess Lisa]

Originally Posted by lexi4

Thank you. I'll watch for it.
Do you speak Russian?
Lexi

I can see you have the source now regarding info on ROC.

I do not speak Russian, I've been learning it for nearly 2 years, but I have to admit I'm fairly bad still.

[lexi4]

Originally Posted by Ex-Princess Lisa

I can see you have the source now regarding info on ROC.

I do not speak Russian, I've been learning it for nearly 2 years, but I have to admit I'm fairly bad still.

Good for you! I haven't even tried...at least not yet. Do you find it difficult?
Lexi

[sirhon11234]

It appears that Russian Forencis Anthropologists believe that remains are that of Alexi and Marie, but the American anthropologists believe it to be that of Alexi and Anastasia. I agree with theerican anthropologists.

I wonder if Prince Philip will once again help in the investigation?

[Russophile]

Originally Posted by sirhon11234

It appears that Russian Forencis Anthropologists believe that remains are that of Alexi and Marie, but the American anthropologists believe it to be that of Alexi and Anastasia. I agree with theerican anthropologists.

I wonder if Prince Philip will once again help in the investigation?

The problem with that, I heard from John who's into the DNA over on another thread, is that Prince Philip is a MAN and the DNA is traceable through WOMEN.
I might be able to get him over here to post his very interesting theories. It's really not for me to put words in his mouth.
But, this isn't over. . .

[sirhon11234]

Originally Posted by Russophile

The problem with that, I heard from John who's into the DNA over on another thread, is that Prince Philip is a MAN and the DNA is traceable through WOMEN.
I might be able to get him over here to post his very interesting theories. It's really not for me to put words in his mouth.
But, this isn't over. . .

No, both Phillip and Alexandra are descendents of Queen Victoria through their mothers therefore they share the same Mitochondrial DNA. Queen Elizabeth II is a descendent of Victoria through her father, so she and Alexandra don't share the same Mitochondrial DNA.

[COUNTESS]

DNA can be traced from both men and women. Mitrochondrial "Eeve", can only be traced through women. Prince Michael was a DNA donor to establish Romanov identity.

[Russophile]

Okay, this is from John, John, if you're out there, forgive me for this:


Unlike the chromosomal form of DNA identification that everyone now
takes for granted, the Mitochondrial form of DNA testing that was used
in the Romanov case *cannot* identify specific individuals. A
mitochondrial DNA match will only demonstrate a possible maternal
family connection between two or more individuals. It is *not* proof
of identity.
The Mitochondrial DNA results are nothing more than just a single
piece of the evidence that is then to be added to all of the other
circumstantial pieces of evidence before a conclusion may be drawn
about the Ekaterinburg remains. The mitchondrial DNA both cannot and
*does not* prove the case on its own. Practically everyone who has
ever taken a position on this case, including the experts, has
continued to either forget... or ignore... this most important of all
the facts in this case.

[lexi4]

This link might help.

Forensic mitochondrial DNA analysis: A different crime-solving tool | FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin,The | Find Articles at BNET.com

Mitochondria DNA testing is genearlly used with skeletal or badly decomposed remains making it impossible to test nuclear dna. One major difference between nuclear and mitochondrial DNA is that there is only one copy of nuclear DNA in each cell, but there can be up to 1,000 copies of mitochondrial DNA.
It is accurate to say that mtDNA is only inheritied from the mother. That means each child will share her mtDNA sequence. This means that a match in the DNA sequence indicates that the deceased person is likely to be a member of that family.

[COUNTESS]

Very good explanation.