Anna Anderson's claim to be Grand Duchess Anastasia


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Chat, I could easily refute all of what you just wrote with opposing quotes, but I'm not going to play this quote matching, round in circles game with you any more. Here as over at AP, and my forum, every thread related to AA loses its particular purpose and becomes muddled with the same old rhetoric of the 'was she or wasn't she' back and forth arguments we've all seen before. Please allow this thread to remain about the interviews only. There is much information in them to discuss, free of all the same old same old. If you want to rehash please take it back to the AA's claim to be AN thread.
 
Chat, I could easily refute all of what you just wrote with opposing quotes, but I'm not going to play this quote matching, round in circles game with you any more. Here as over at AP, and my forum, every thread related to AA loses its particular purpose and becomes muddled with the same old rhetoric of the 'was she or wasn't she' back and forth arguments we've all seen before. Please allow this thread to remain about the interviews only. There is much information in them to discuss, free of all the same old same old. If you want to rehash please take it back to the AA's claim to be AN thread.

It may lose it's particular purpose for you, but not for me.
And you have not backed up Mr. Berenberg-Gosslers statements. A slew of unfounded allegations do not make any valuable contributions for me.
 
It may lose it's particular purpose for you, but not for me.
And you have not backed up Mr. Berenberg-Gosslers statements. A slew of unfounded allegations do not make any valuable contributions for me.

It's not up to me to 'back them up' if you choose not to believe them. The man worked on the AA case for 12 long years, he was very knowledgeable and had extensive resources. I don't have to make any excuses for him. Hopefully one day his entire memoirs will be published and we'll get a gold mine of AA opposition information that will explain even more how FS pulled off her charade.
 
It's not up to me to 'back them up' if you choose not to believe them.

I think that if you post them, you should be able to back them up with more proof. At least, that's how I feel about my own posts.

The man worked on the AA case for 12 long years, he was very knowledgeable and had extensive resources. I don't have to make any excuses for him. Hopefully one day his entire memoirs will be published and we'll get a gold mine of AA opposition information that will explain even more how FS pulled off her charade.

Let's not forget that he was well paid to work for the opposition. And I understand very well that his job was to discredit AA and try to make her look like an impostor. I don't blame him for that at all. But I feel that his allegations have to be challenged, like you all challenge mine. It's only fair game.
 
I did read exactly what he wrote, as you should be able to see from the fact that I copied excerpts from it in my previous post.

I know he did the same sorts of tests as Dr Gill, as you can also see from my previous post. However, he took a blood sample claimed to be from Anna Anderson, sequenced the DNA, and came up with a different result from Gill and Stoneking. His attempt to confirm his result by testing an independent sample failed. Therefore he has no way of knowing, as he said himself, whether his different result was due to contamination of the blood sample. Hence my statement about not being confident of his result.

This comment, assuming it was from him, is incorrect if he's talking about the Gill and Stoneking results as well as his own:

ASIDE: The sequence of Margarete Ellerick was clear, and also did not match any of the various "Anna Anderson sequences" that were done. This data is believable.

The sequence from Margarete Ellerick exactly matched the sequences obtained for the Anna Anderson samples by Drs Gill and Stoneking. However, if he's just talking about the different analyses he did on the blood sample and the attempted analyses of the needles and other items, it's probably true that there wasn't a match.

He said: "Assuming that the mtDNA isolated from the slide was authentic DNA from Anna Anderson, and not a contamination (an important assumption,) the data suggests that Anna Anderson is not related to the Schanzkowska family."

Please note the wording "an important assumption" and "suggests" rather than "confirms."

He goes on to talk about DNA isolated from a needle case. He said he did the isolation and that someone from Mary King's lab did the sequencing, which, incidentally, isn't the same as saying that he was working in Mary King's lab. His next comment was, "The isolation was very difficult and I would not put great faith in the results." He said, and this is significant, "The sequence obtained differed from the Cambridge sequence in the region 16252-16355 at 16266 (C->T), and 16311 (T->C). This is not identical to either of the above sequences." So his attempt at independent confirmation of the results from the slide, by sequencing an unrelated sample in a different lab, led to the result that the two samples claimed to be from Anna Anderson had different sequences. He mentioned contamination of the blood sample as a possible reason for the difference between its sequence and that of the sequence obtained by Gill and Stoneking, and he said about the needle case sample that he wouldn't put great faith in the results.

He also did as a good scientist would do in a case like this, and sent part of the blood sample to another lab for independent analysis. That lab (in Germany) isolated mtDNA samples and sent them back to him for sequencing. In his own words, "The data was not pretty: Without going into detail, the PCR samples produced 9 different sequences. None of the sequences were identical to those of Sofia of Hanover or Magarette Ellevik. The only possible conclusion is that the results from these PCR experiments are not very meaningful and did nothing to clarify the status of Anna Anderson."

He also talked about some other items from which he attempted, and failed, to get samples.


His summation was: "ASIDE: As to your question about what I think happened. Clearly the Anna Anderson slide did not contain enough high quality DNA from the original donor to produce consistent results. The sequences obtained varied from one PCR experiment to the next, and thus cannot even be attributed to Anna Anderson or any other single individual. I would presume that the slide was both contaminated and contained little, if any, of the original donor DNA. Any data from that slide is, in my opinion, not believable."

This is talking about the original slide, not the three items mentioned above, since he said he couldn't get any results from them. The samples from the slide gave different results in different analyses, and he couldn't get enough DNA from the other sources to run independent analyses so he could compare the results.


So to sum up, the only times he said that something was believable are the following.

1. I would generally believe the work of Mark Stoneking (Penn State), Mark Wilson (FBI),, Mitch Holland (US Army), Peter Gill and Kevin Sullivan (Forensic Sci. Service, UK),
(these are the authors of the Gill paper who analysed the intestine and hair samples)

2. I never sequenced Prince Philip, and that was done by Dr. Peter Gill. Instead, I sequenced Sofia, also a maternal relative of Alexandra. The sequences of Sofia and Philip matched. As will be shown below, the none of the various "Anna Anderson sequences" isolated matched Sofia’s sequence. This data is believable.

3. The sequence of Margarete Ellerick was clear, and also did not match any of the various "Anna Anderson sequences" that were done. This data is believable.

None of which had to do with the blood sample. And his opinion about the results from the blood sample were "Any data from that slide is, in my opinion, not believable."

As long as he acknowledges that his data aren't believable, I think you have your answer about why the work wasn't published. There was nothing he could say other than that he was working with a heavily contaminated sample which gave different results every time it was tested. No journal is going to touch that.
 
Last edited:
I think that if you post them, you should be able to back them up with more proof.

This is ludicrous. It's an interview with a lawyer! He's giving his own personal experiences based on his extensive research. How on earth can anyone 'back that up' with anything, not having his papers?

At least, that's how I feel about my own posts.
Really?Then give me 'more proof' that anyone actually heard AA speaking a language in her sleep, or that they were qualified to judge said languages. Give me 'proof' to back up Rathlef's assertations that AA was a 'true lady of breeding in Russian society', etc. Give me 'more proof' anyone actually said any of the things you claim they said or that it wasn't lies, made up or falsified in AA's favor. While you're at it, give me 'more proof' anything relating to the alleged cart trip to Romania ever really happened.

Most of your posts are only lists or quotes or alleged opinions attributed to this or that person, unverifiable as even being true, and impossible, yes impossible to validate now. I would like to see 'more proof' of most of what you claim as 'facts' that are really no more than recorded hearsay. Think about that before you throw stones at this lawyer.

If it all boils down to nobody is going to believe what they don't like to hear, where does this leave us? The DNA? You don't like to hear that, either. As I said before, I never expected you to believe anything anyone against AA ever said, it was posted for informational purposes for other members to consider, since it's a viewpoint not often mentioned in the AA rhetoric.
 
Where did the Margaret Ellerick sample come from? I had heard she refused to give one, and this is why Maucher was used.
 
The implication from the letter was that Dr Ginther had done the analysis of a sample from Margarete Ellerick, but there were no details about how he obtained it.
 
I just read one of your earlier posts that said she was sequenced by 'someone else' but he didn't say who.

He also reported the sequencing of a sample from Margarette Ellerick by someone else and said that it didn't match the Anna Anderson sample. He then said the Margarette Ellerick sample was an exact match to the Karl Maucher sample. Since the Karl Maucher sample did match the Anna Anderson samples analysed by Gill and Stoneking, I think this is where the discrepancy lies, because at the moment you have A equals B equals C doesn't equal A. He does mention some actual data, though, so I'll pull out my copy of the Gill-Stoneking paper and see if the nucleotides match.

So if she matches Maucher and Maucher matches AA, how can she not also match AA, and how can she not be the same as her own son? (Unless there is something wrong with the Ellerick sequence) If you find out more on where it came from please let us know.
 
This is ludicrous. It's an interview with a lawyer!

And are lawyers excempt from scrutiny?

He's giving his own personal experiences based on his extensive research. How on earth can anyone 'back that up' with anything, not having his papers?

I think if he is telling the truth, it should be fairly easy to confirm.

Really?Then give me 'more proof' that anyone actually heard AA speaking a language in her sleep, or that they were qualified to judge said languages.

The protocols at Dalldorf will tell you more. And I do think most Europeans can tell the difference between Russian, Polish, German and English.

Give me 'proof' to back up Rathlef's assertations that AA was a 'true lady of breeding in Russian society', etc.

I think I just did in my previous posts.

Give me 'more proof' anyone actually said any of the things you claim they said or that it wasn't lies, made up or falsified in AA's favor.

You are always complaining about me giving you names and references. Well, that is the proof I have. Please refute it if you are able to.

While you're at it, give me 'more proof' anything relating to the alleged cart trip to Romania ever really happened.

When I gave you the name of Sarscha Gregorian, you just answered: I don't believe it. What else can I do?

Most of your posts are only lists or quotes or alleged opinions attributed to this or that person, unverifiable as even being true, and impossible, yes impossible to validate now. I would like to see 'more proof' of most of what you claim as 'facts' that are really no more than recorded hearsay. Think about that before you throw stones at this lawyer.

First, what I have posted here, is not hearsay, but personal statements, affidavits or sworn testimony. Second, I am not throwing any stones at "this lawyer", all I want, is a confirmation of his allegations.

If it all boils down to nobody is going to believe what they don't like to hear, where does this leave us?

It leaves us with eternal uncertainty, which is why we have these discussions.

The DNA? You don't like to hear that, either. As I said before, I never expected you to believe anything anyone against AA ever said, it was posted for informational purposes for other members to consider, since it's a viewpoint not often mentioned in the AA rhetoric.

All viewpoints have to be challenged. And it seems fair game to you when you challenge mine.
 
Last edited:
I don't think there's anything wrong with the Ellerick sample because it matches both the Maucher sample and the two Anna Anderson samples reported in the Gill/Stoneking paper. The thing it doesn't match is the Anna Anderson sample from the slide, and Dr Ginther concluded that that sample was too contaminated for the results to be useful.

Looking at the letter again, it appears that Dr Ginther analysed the sample from Margarete Ellerick; I was getting confused with some of the third-person reporting.
 
Last edited:
And are lawyers exempt from scrutiny?

You are just picking on him because he worked against AA. Most people accept such interviews at face value and don't try to inflict 'he's lying' arguments into it. The man worked on the case for 12 years, he has a lot of info and experience.

I think if he is telling the truth, it should be fairly easy to confirm.
How, without his personal papers? Of course you're not going to find any backup in pro AA books now are you?

The protocols at Dalldorf will tell you more. And I do think most Europeans can tell the difference between Russian, Polish, German and English.
Have you talked to all Europeans? I seriously doubt this. It's only your speculation and assumption based on what suits you and what you choose to believe, no proof at all.

You are always complaining about me giving you names and references. Well, that is the proof I have. Please refute it if you are able to.
Most of the names you give are people we never even heard of, and even if you have a name and a date, that is no proof what they said was accurate.

When I gave you the name of Sarscha Gregorian, you just answered: I don't believe it. What else can I do?
Who is this person, what is their background, what is their connection to the case? This is just an off the cuff comment, not extensive research.

First, what I have posted here, is not hearsay, but personal statements, affidavits or sworn testimony. Second, I am not throwing any stones at "this lawyer", all I want, is a confirmation of his allegations.
You told me most of the testimony wasn't 'sworn.' Also, just because something is said in court doesn't make it true. In every court case at least half the 'testimony' turns out to be lies or errors, because the person is either guilty or they're not.

It leaves us with eternal uncertainty, which is why we have these discussions.
You do your very best to maintain this level of doubt to keep your own hope alive as well as trying to confuse others from accepting reality.(and spamming the threads with large numbers of mind twisting, unnecessary posts to push the things you don't want seen out of view)

All viewpoints have to be challenged. And it seems fair game to you when you challenge mine.
This is no little comment by one person who saw AA once and barely remembered the details. This is a lawyer who worked diligently on the details of the case for twelve years. He had extensive files. He knew things even YOU don't know. So, are you calling him a liar, saying he made everything up because he didn't like AA?

This is really, really stupid, and I'm not even going to argue with you anymore.
 
Oh, okay, thank you. Then it's not as confusing as I thought, and in the end, makes no difference at all to the results of the Gill paper.
 
Bryan Sykes in his book about DNA and genetics "The Seven Daughters of Eve" has a short section about Anna Anderson. Well worth reading if you are interested in the issue.
 
You are just picking on him because he worked against AA. Most people accept such interviews at face value and don't try to inflict 'he's lying' arguments into it. The man worked on the case for 12 years, he has a lot of info and experience.

Pardon me for not accepting his interview at face value, but I am not saying he is a liar. What I did, was to post opposing views from people who studied AA over a long time and their conclusions. If that makes BG look less credible, so be it.

How, without his personal papers? Of course you're not going to find any backup in pro AA books now are you?

If any papers pulled their journalists off the case, I think we have the right to find out which ones.

Have you talked to all Europeans? I seriously doubt this. It's only your speculation and assumption based on what suits you and what you choose to believe, no proof at all.

Most Europeans speak two or more languages and are much more proficient in this department than most Americans. As for Erna Bucholz, who testified to AA's use of Russian, she used to be a language teacher in Russia and therefore knew both Russian and German very well.

Most of the names you give are people we never even heard of, and even if you have a name and a date, that is no proof what they said was accurate.

The reason you have not heard about these people, is because you have not studied this case very well. There are lots of books out there to read if you want to learn some more.

Who is this person, what is their background, what is their connection to the case? This is just an off the cuff comment, not extensive research.

Sarsha Gregorian is a witness that Harriet von Rathlef Keilmann tracked down in Rumania. He worked at a monastery near Jassy, and helped AA and her party cross the Dniestr on December 5, 1918. In May of 1919, he was sent 5000 lei by messenger as thanks for his help. The payment seems to co-incide with Alexander Tchaikowsky's sale of AA's rope of pearls.

You told me most of the testimony wasn't 'sworn.'

I never told you any such thing.

Also, just because something is said in court doesn't make it true. In every court case at least half the 'testimony' turns out to be lies or errors, because the person is either guilty or they're not.

And it is up to you to prove it wrong.

You do your very best to maintain this level of doubt to keep your own hope alive as well as trying to confuse others from accepting reality.(and spamming the threads with large numbers of mind twisting, unnecessary posts to push the things you don't want seen out of view)

I don't think my posts are very mind twisting, they are only information from the people who were present at the time.

This is no little comment by one person who saw AA once and barely remembered the details.

What do you mean? I never saw AA.

This is a lawyer who worked diligently on the details of the case for twelve years. He had extensive files. He knew things even YOU don't know. So, are you calling him a liar, saying he made everything up because he didn't like AA?

I am simply challenging his statements like you are challenging everyone else's.

This is really, really stupid, and I'm not even going to argue with you anymore.

That's your choice.
 
Pardon me for not accepting his interview at face value, but I am not saying he is a liar. What I did, was to post opposing views from people who studied AA over a long time and their conclusions. If that makes BG look less credible, so be it.

Don't forget he did extensive work on her case for 12 years, I doubt anyone could have known more.

If any papers pulled their journalists off the case, I think we have the right to find out which ones.

You said you like comments from people who were there. He was there, he saw it happen. What good would names of 1950's German papers do, no one would be able to check it out anyway.


Most Europeans speak two or more languages and are much more proficient in this department than most Americans. As for Erna Bucholz, who testified to AA's use of Russian, she used to be a language teacher in Russia and therefore knew both Russian and German very well.

Again one example and your assumptions/speculations.

The reason you have not heard about these people, is because you have not studied this case very well. There are lots of books out there to read if you want to learn some more.

What, like the fanfiction by Botkin and Rathlef? No thanks. I want the truth, and real information, I hope to someday be able to read Berenberg-Gossler's work.

Sarsha Gregorian is a witness that Harriet von Rathlef Keilmann tracked down in Rumania. He worked at a monastery near Jassy, and helped AA and her party cross the Dniestr on December 5, 1918. In May of 1919, he was sent 5000 lei by messenger as thanks for his help. The payment seems to co-incide with Alexander Tchaikowsky's sale of AA's rope of pearls.

More fiction from Rathlef. AA was never in Rumania, therefore, this 'witness' was not telling the truth, and this is useless. THE CART STORY NEVER HAPPENED...AN was dead..FS was in Berlin working...it's f-a-k-e.



I never told you any such thing.

Yes you did, you even told me a name for it that they have in Germany for a person not taking the oath. You told me most of the people didn't swear.



And it is up to you to prove it wrong.

No, it's up to YOU to disprove reality.



I don't think my posts are very mind twisting, they are only information from the people who were present at the time.

Were Berenberg-Gossler other people I quote 'there at the present time?' Do you believe them? No you only believe ones who liked AA.


What do you mean? I never saw AA.

I'm talking about some of the no name names you quote you use as 'testimony.'



I am simply challenging his statements like you are challenging everyone else's.

You are calling him a liar. Chat I know that no one is ever going to drag you out of the realm you live in, but please don't keep trying to convince people who honestly want information and know the truth, because it won't come from you, if you continue to believe the AA myth.
 
Don't forget he did extensive work on her case for 12 years, I doubt anyone could have known more.

What about the lawyers on the other side? Edward Fallows, Kurt Vermehren, von Stachelberg etc. Were they all in the dark?

You said you like comments from people who were there. He was there, he saw it happen. What good would names of 1950's German papers do, no one would be able to check it out anyway.

Yes he was there, and he worked for the opposition. And he saw AA for a few minutes while hiding behind a stove, while her doctors studied her for months. I think I would go with the doctor's opinion any day.

Again one example and your assumptions/speculations.

You mean it is speculative to assume that a language teacher knows languages? Surely you jest.

What, like the fanfiction by Botkin and Rathlef? No thanks. I want the truth, and real information, I hope to someday be able to read Berenberg-Gossler's work.

So you automatically know whom to trust just from looking at what side they were on. Why didn't I think of that.

More fiction from Rathlef. AA was never in Rumania, therefore, this 'witness' was not telling the truth, and this is useless. THE CART STORY NEVER HAPPENED...AN was dead..FS was in Berlin working...it's f-a-k-e.

And that is only your opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yes you did, you even told me a name for it that they have in Germany for a person not taking the oath. You told me most of the people didn't swear.

I think you have me confused with Peter Kurth.

Were Berenberg-Gossler other people I quote 'there at the present time?' Do you believe them? No you only believe ones who liked AA.

As I said, you are free to prove them wrong.

You are calling him a liar.

Please point to the post where I say that Berenberg Gossler is a liar.

Chat I know that no one is ever going to drag you out of the realm you live in, but please don't keep trying to convince people who honestly want information and know the truth, because it won't come from you, if you continue to believe the AA myth.

I am not trying to convince anybody, I am just presenting support for a view that anybody is free to reject.
 
What about the lawyers on the other side? Edward Fallows, Kurt Vermehren, von Stachelberg etc. Were they all in the dark?

We all know what they did and think. I wanted to present an opposing view. It would also be interesting to read their old papers.



Yes he was there, and he worked for the opposition. And he saw AA for a few minutes while hiding behind a stove,
Most of the people you quote had very limited contact. You always use the excuse that a person never met AA, well he did. If she'd had the guts to face him, he'd have known more, but being a fraud, she was afraid of being caught. Don't you think a REAL AN would have wanted to prove herself on the witness stand in front of everyone instead of hiding and letting others plead her case? Another sign she was a fake.

while her doctors studied her for months. I think I would go with the doctor's opinion any day.
Okay, then what about Dr. Gill and Dr. Melton?


You mean it is speculative to assume that a language teacher knows languages? Surely you jest.
You really can't prove what languages any of those people knew or what AA was speaking.

So you automatically know whom to trust just from looking at what side they were on. Why didn't I think of that.
But the difference is, Chat, we know AA wasn't AN so we kNOW the story was fake! There's no more speculating!



As I said, you are free to prove them wrong.
They've been proven wrong by the DNA.



Please point to the post where I say that Berenberg Gossler is a liar.
You don't believe a word he said and bother me to 'prove' it. If you don't think he's a liar, then he's telling the truth, and we don't have an issue.



I am not trying to convince anybody, I am just presenting support for a view that anybody is free to reject.
I am going back to my statement of not arguing with you anymore over AA until you can disprove the DNA. No, it's not 'just one piece of evidence' it's the one that disproves all the rest.

Anyone want to discuss the contents of these interviews?
 
We all know what they did and think. I wanted to present an opposing view. It would also be interesting to read their old papers.

I think it is commendable that you present an opposing view, but do not expect it to go unchallenged.

Most of the people you quote had very limited contact.

The only one with limited contact, was Nina Chavchavadze. The others knew her for months and years.

You always use the excuse that a person never met AA, well he did. If she'd had the guts to face him, he'd have known more, but being a fraud, she was afraid of being caught. Don't you think a REAL AN would have wanted to prove herself on the witness stand in front of everyone instead of hiding and letting others plead her case? Another sign she was a fake.

On the contrary, it shows her as a royal, elevated over such trivial things as a lawsuit.

Okay, then what about Dr. Gill and Dr. Melton?

I don't think they ever met AA.

You really can't prove what languages any of those people knew or what AA was speaking.

Yes, as a matter of fact, I think I can.

But the difference is, Chat, we know AA wasn't AN so we kNOW the story was fake! There's no more speculating!
They've been proven wrong by the DNA.

Good, show me a copy of the ruling.

You don't believe a word he said and bother me to 'prove' it. If you don't think he's a liar, then he's telling the truth, and we don't have an issue.

He gave his impression of AA. Others gave theirs. Based upon the limited time he saw AA and the thorough examination she was given by the doctors, I trust them more.

I am going back to my statement of not arguing with you anymore over AA until you can disprove the DNA.

I am not in the business of disproving anything. I just like to present as many facets as possible of this very interesting case.
 
i <i>No one living today involved in opposing Anna Anderson is better qualified to discuss the case then Dr. Gunther Von Berenberg-Gossler, attorney appointed in 1955 to oppose Anderson's claims on behalf of the Swedish and British royal families with the financial backing of Lord Mountbatten.
I never knew the Swedish royals were involved. Which ones, and what is the connection?
Dr. Von Berenberg-Gossler comes from an aristocratic family and having moved in the highest echelons of society since childhood he was more than qualified to sniff out an impostor, and is amazed by published claims Anna Anderson was considered a lady or had a regal aura. My impression of her at the time, judging by her mannerisms, usage of language, etc, was she resembled a house maid, but not at all of royal blood, she had an unattractive peasant like face and reminded me of a charwoman (menial cleaning lady).
Very interesting to see since that has always been my impression of her. She looked and sounded a very rough woman with poor taste and low standards. Her clothes were mismatched and looked like she had dragged them from the trash. She lived with dozens of dogs and cats in a very filthy house and drove around in a ragged car full of dogs and mess. Had she not lucked into getting to play the role of "Anastasia" I could easily see her end up as a homeless woman in NYC who pushes shopping carts full of black bags, rags and things she has dug from garbage cans.
 
Last edited:
Translations of "La Fausse Anastasie" by Pierre Gilliard

Sorry to start another thread, but because all AA threads, both here and elsewhere, always end up as the same basic yes-no argument and same old statements from the same old suspects, I thought it might help to have some different topic specific threads where only the information contained in the thread was the topic to be discussed and all other things can be taken to the generic 'AA's claim' thread.

The reason I'm posting this is because there is information in it not seen or documented in other AA books. The reasons, I assume, are that it was never translated from French and some people never knew its contents, and also that a lot of it is rather damaging to AA's case which means that supporters would not want to use it any more than an opposing lawyer would present evidence incriminating their client. This was translated by an online friend and fellow ex-AA supporter, Tim Welch. (I now have his perrmission so I've added his name so he can get the credit he deserves for his hard work)
Please read on for some very interesting details you may not have known before:


Baroness Buxhoeveden's visit

The Baroness Buxhoeveden was without interruption in the service to the Russian Imperial family, as a maid of honor, from 1913 to 1918, but ever since 1904 she had long stays at the court. She therefore knew the Grand Duchesses since their childhood and had seen them daily for years. She rejoined the Imperial family in Siberia and was separated from them six weeks before the catastrophe.

Here is the narrative of her visit:

"March 12, I left for the hospital, accompanied by Mrs Tolstoii, my father the Baron Charles Buxhoeveden, the lieutenant Adriieevski and Mr. Schwabe (along with Ms. Peuthert.) Although it was very early, - it was 8 in the morning,- the director of the hospital seemed to have been warned of our visit, and a nurse took us into the women's common room where the patient was located. She was in bed close to the wall, she was turned facing against the window, in full sunlight. When she heard us enter the room, she hid herself under the cover to hide herself from our stares, and we were not able to get her to show us her face. The nurse and Mrs. Tolstoii told me that she always acted in this manner when someone wanted to she her, but the nurse added that the patient had a habit of acting in this manner with an older woman, Miss Peuthert, a former patient of the hospital and who apparently had the unknown one's confidence, and who was also present when I arrived.

The unknown one spoke German with Miss Peuthert. Although she was permitted to get up, she prefered to stay in bed as long as possible. This is how I found her. She was in a night shirt and a white morning coat, her hair was pulled away from the forehead and pulled back, and was arranged simply. After asking my companions to move away from the bed a little, I tried to attract the young woman's attention as I caressed her hair and speaking to her in English while using the types of phrases I would have used while speaking with the Grand Duchesses, but I did not refer to her by any name other than 'Darling'. She did not reply and I saw that she did not understand a word of what I had said, for when she raised the cover after a certain period of time, and I saw her face, there was nothing in her eyes which showed she had recognized me. The eyes and forehead showed some resemblance to the Grand Duchess Tatiana Nicolaievna, resemblance that disappeared, nevertheless, as soon as her face was not covered. I had to remove the cover by force, and I saw that neither the nose, the mouth, nor the chin were formed like that of the Grand Duchess. The hair was lighter in color, some of her teeth were missing-and the remaining ones were not like those of the Grand Duchess, whose teeth were arranged like those of her Majesty the Empress Alexandra Feodorovna, that is to say that the superior teeth were slightly inclined inwards. The teeth of this young woman on the contrary were all right. Her hands were also completely different, the fingers were longer and the nails narrower. I wanted to measure her height, but she refused, and I found it impossible to get an exact measurement without force. We judged roughly that in any case, she was smaller than me, while the Grand Duchess Tatiana was more than ten centimeters taller than me. I have been able to verify this, thanks to the patient's official measurement at the time of her arrival at the hospital and that corresponded exactly with the one which was taken in my presence.

I tried to awaken the memory of the young woman by all the possible means; I showed to her an 'icon', with the date of the Romanov jubilee, that the emperor had given to some persons of the suite, after that a ring that had belonged to the empress; the latter had been given given to her in the presence of the Grand Duchess Tatiana. But none of these things seemed not to evoke in her the slightest recognition. She remained completely indifferent, she whispered some incomprehensible words into Ms. Peuthert's ear. Although I noted a certain similarity in the upper part of the face with the unknown -currently Mrs. Tschaikovski- with the Grand Duchess Tatiana, I am sure that she is not her. I later learned that the she supposes that she is the Grand Duchess Anastasia, but she does not physically resemble her in the least. She has none of the special characteristics that would allow any one who knew the Grand Duchess Anastasia well to identify her.

When Ms. Peuthert saw that the unknown one remained completely mute and did not show that she recognized me, she tried to attract her attention by whispering some words into her ear in German and showing photographs of the Imperial family to her. She pointed to the Empress, while saying: 'Tell me, isn't that mamma?' (Or similar words). In the end she put into her hands a copy of a Russian New Testament with ribbons of the Russian national colors. All these attempts failed, the patient remained mute and strove to hide her face with her cover or her hands. I must point out that the Grand Duchess Anastasia hardly knew any German words and that she pronounced them with a strong Russian accent."]
 
Last edited:
May 30, 1922, the unknown one moved in to Baron Kleist's home. It was there where a lot of persons who had formerly had relations with the court came to see her; they brought her photographs and books concerning the Imperial family. Little by little the unknown one familiarized herself with the Russian language. Annie (this is what she was called by those who looked after her.) received medical care while staying with the Baron, she was suffering from tuberculosis of the bone and consumption. According to statements by Dr Graede to me who had cared for her during this time, stated that there were some lesions on the body of the patient, but they all had tuberculosis of the bone and not in any case could be caused by rifle butts or of a bayonet. Unfortunately, this doctor, who was completely objective, did not submit the patient to a gynecological examination, but she declared to him that she had a son and "that one could always recognize this child thanks to the linens he wears with Imperial crowns and a medallion." which she had left to him.

In the file of the Baron Kleist are located two important facts:


1. The 6th of August 1922, the sick one yelled out in delirium in both Polish and Russian words (1) [Mr. and Mrs. Schwabe certify also that she would sometimes use the expression "Jesus-Maria", known to be used by Polish women.]

2. The second is a letter sent to Copenhagen to the Grand Duchess Xenia, Nicholas II's sister, the unknown one signed "Astouchka". As her hand trembled, the Baron was obliged to guide it. The Grand Duchess Xenia replied that she had never given the nickname "Astouchka" to any of the Emperor's daughters.

The Baroness Kleist recalled interesting conversations that she had with the patient, and during one which she asserted that the Emperor had deposited several millions in an English bank in the name of his daughters.

Nevertheless, all the attempts by Baron Kleist to identify the unknown one remained unsuccessful. Among numerous persons who came to see her, none of them recognized her as the Tsar's daughter. Mrs. Zenaïde Tolstoii who at first had taken her for the Grand Duchess Tatiana, recounted her error in a letter she addressed to Baron Kleist on August 7, 1922.]


 
Last edited:
Here is a passage which includes Princess Irene's account of her visit with Anna.

[Visit of Princess Irene Of Prussia

In the month of August of the same year, on the request of the counselor Gaebel, the patient was transported with the police inspector Dr Grunberg, in his property of "Funkenmuhle". The Dr. Grunberg requested the Princess Irene of Prusse, sister of the empress Alexandra Feodorovna, travelled incognito to "Funkenmuhle".

Here the report of the princess Irene of Prusse:

At the end of August 1922, I made a decision, on the request of the counselor Gaebel and police inspector Dr Grunberg, to return to Berlin to establish if the enigmatic person was my niece Anastasia. Dr Grunberg took me, in the company of Miss of Oertzen, to his house in the country, close to Berlin. The unknown one lived there under the name of "Miss Anny", and, as I arrived impromptu, she was not made aware of who I was, so that our encounter took place without her being affected by my presence.

I saw right away that she could be not be any of my nieces; for, although I not seen them for nine years, the basic traits of the face could not have changed to this point, in particular the position of the eyes, the ears, etc.

At first sight, one could possibly have found a certain resemblance with the Grand duchess Tatiana.

At first I remained with the unknown one in the company of Miss of Oertzen, then alone, but I was not able to notice in her any signs which led me to believe that she recognized me. I had lived in 1912 and 1913 entire weeks with my nieces and since that time I have changed little.

At the table, we sat straight across from each one other; then, she got up and left, without saying a word, and went to her room. At this time I already had the conviction that she was not my niece, but, at the desire of the Dr Grunberg, I went up to her room, and approached her bed. I addressed her in vain with words in the language that we habitually used, recalled situations from the past, spoke the nicknames or the names of persons we knew: she did not react to anything. She still did not reply when I prayed for her to say a word or to make a sign that she had recognized me; even when -in order to not neglect anything - I said to her: "Do you not know your Aunt Irene?"

To the Grunbergs big disappointment, who were so well intentioned, I left with the firm conviction that this unknown one is not my niece; I no longer kept the least doubt in this respect.

We had lived, formerly, in such intimacy, that it would have sufficed for a small sign or an unconscious movement to awaken in me a familial feeling to convince me.

Signed: Irene, Princess Henri Of Prussia.]
 
June 20 1922, the young woman that I had taken to my house from the asylum invited me to come to her room and, in the presence of my wife, the Baroness Marie Karlovna Kleist, she asked me to protect her and to emphasize her rights. I told her that I was at her disposal, provided that she reply quite frankly to my questions, I asked for her first who she was. The response was adamant: She was the Grand Duchess Anastasia Nicolaiievna, the youngest daughter of the Emperor Nicholas II. Next, I asked for her to give her account of the slaughter of the Imperial family and how she was able to save herself. I obtained the following response:

Yes I was present at the time of the slaughter of the Imperial family, and, when the slaughter began, I hid myself behind the back of my sister Tatiana who was killed by a blow (shot). Next, I received some blows (shots) and lost consciousness. When I regained consciousness I was located with the family of a soldier who had saved me. Then with a female relative of the soldier and I left for Romania; and when this last one died (in Romania), I travelled to Germany alone; I had the intention to live hidden due to the fear of being followed and to earn my living by working. I did not have any money, but I possessed some jewels; I sold them, and with this money I arrived here.

All these trials deeply shook me, so that, for a moment, I lose all hope to see the arrival of better days. ALthough knowing Russian, I avoid speaking it, for this language evokes in me extremely painful memories, the Russians treated us so poorly, me and my parents (family).

The Grand Duchess Anastasia Nicolaiievna consented to confirming all that she had said to me in the presence of General Schulmann. She equally agreed to invite, for recognition and identification, Prince Dolgorukov, who was in the service of Her Majesty the Dowager Empress Marie Feodorvna, whose arrival in Berlin was expected soon.

July 1922, the young person that I took from the Dalldorf asylum at my place confirmed adamantly, for the second time to me, Arthur Gustavovitch Kleist, that she was the Grand Duchess Anastasia Nicolaievna. She added:

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 the reason I will write to Xenia Alexandrovna a letter that I will pray you send to her.

After that, 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.
(Signed) Baron Klesit

August 4 1922, Zenaiide Sergueiievna Tolstoii communicated, to me, Arthur Gustavovitch, Baron Kleist, that which follows: August 2 years ago, the one that calls herself the Grand Duchess Anastasia Nicolaiievna communicated to me that she was saved hands of the bolsheviks by the Russian soldier Alexander Tschaiikovski. It was with the family of the latter, consisting of his mother Marie, his sister Veronica, twenty-eight years old, and of his brother Serge (younger than his sister), and herself, Anastasia Nicolaiievna, arrived to Bucharest (Romania), where she remained until 1920.

She bore Tschaiikovski's child, a boy that must now be almost three years old. The child has black hair like his father, as are were his eyes. The Tschaiikosvki family lived in a street situated close to a train station: It was, probably, the street "Swienti Voevosi", she does not remember the house number. In 1920, Tschaiikovsi was attacked in a Bucharest street; he died from his injuries. Then Anastasia Nicolaiievna, without warning anyone, flees Bucharest and arrived in Berlin. Here she takes a room in a small boarding house, close to the train station, in Friedrichstrasse. Anastasia Nicolaiievna does not remember the name of the boarding house. Next, Anastasia Nicolaiievna declared that her child remained with the Tschaiikovski family, and she prayed to have him returned to her as fast as possible.

(Signed) Baron Kleist]

June 7, 1922, I, Arthur Gustavovitch Kleist, was present for the questioning of the unknown one which took place at the Dalldorf asylum. She declared the following:

'I arrived in Berlin in the middle of the month of February 1920, I do not remember the exact date. I arrived here alone, coming from Russia and having gone through Romania. Immediately in Berlin, I changed clothing, in order not to be recognized. for it seemed to me that I was followed. I no longer know what with that which I changed clothing. I was free for less than a week, for I was first placed in the Elizabeth Hospital, where I spent six weeks, then I was transferred to the Dalldorf asylum.'

After that, the unknown one was overcome by strong emotion, and, when I ask her how she came from Russia she does not give any response and only declared that her companion died in Romania. Being in an extreme agitation the unknown asked me if it was possible to recognize her and if her relatives in Paris had been informed about her stay with me. After giving her a negative response I told her it was preferable not to advise her relatives in Paris because in my opnion it would be more convenient to inform her relatives in Denmark. For the moment the unknown one then abstained from giving any information to me.

That same evening, at supper, 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.

Continuing my questioning, I wanted to know with whom she had come from Romania with and how she had made Marie Peuthert's acquaintance. Replying to the first question, the Unknown one declared that she had arrived in Berlin alone and and that her companion died in Romania. She refused to say more about it (she remained stubbornly silent). Replying to the second question, she explained that she had made Marie Peuthert's acquaintance at the Dalldorf hospital, that she had not known her beforehand and that in any case she had not come with her to Berlin.]
 
August 10, 1922, I Arthur Gustavovitch Kleist, questioned the Unknown one who I had taken from the Dalldorf asylum to my house and who called herself the Grand Duchess Anastasia. She confirmed, in general, the declaration of Zenaiide Sergueiievna Tolstoii, and adds the following:

I arrived in Bucharest at the end of 1918. I got married to Alexander Tschaikovski, January 18, 1919, according to the Catholic rite, in a Catholic church situated not far from the place and house where I lived in Bucharest. I do not remember the name of the church or the name of the priest who married us.

Before my marriage, I converted to Catholicism, but now I want to again return to the Orthodox church. December 5, 1918, I had a son who was baptized according to the Catholic rite by the same priest who married us.

My name was listed as Anna Romanska (sic); on the marriage certificate which was in possession of my husband. My son was baptized in January 1919; I do not remember the date. He was given the name Alexis.

In August 1919, my husband, Alexander Tschaiikovski was injured on a street in Bucharest having been shot, and died three days later. He was buried in a Catholic cemetery in Bucharest. (Signed) Baron Kleist ]
 
Here is a passage about a letter Clara Peuthert had written to Princess Irene with regards to Anna. I had never read elsewhere that Clara claimed Anna told her that after being rescued in Ekaterinburg she travelled to Romania then to Paris and then to Berlin. One naturally asks why she would say she went to Paris (which one would have to go through Germany (or Italy) to get to Paris from Romania? Pierre Gilliard believed that Anna had gotten the idea from an Illustrated Berlin newspaper which claimed that Anastasia had escaped and was said to be in Paris. Thus if we believe what Clara wrote to Princess Irene Anna apparently adopted this story only to discard it (like much of these early stories) later.

(Clara was the asylum patient who first identified AA as 'Tatiana' from a picture in a magazine)

[It is necessary to grant special interest to the declarations that the patient gave to Ms. Peuthert and that she recorded in a letter that is addressed to Princess of Prussia, August 23, 1922. (Princess Irene of Prussia, sister of the Empress of Russia)

I wrote in February to the Grand Duke Hesse-Darmstadt that there resides in Dalldorf asylum a young lady who says she is the Grand Duchess Anastasia Nicolaiievna Romanov.

As I often saw this young lady in photographs during her in her youth, and during a stay which I did in Russia, I promised to get her out of this place where she is living (utterly) abandoned.

She related to me, that at the time of the assassination of the Imperial family, she received injuries to her hand and behind her ear, then was knocked to the floor, upon which she fainted. A mere soldier, named Tschaiikovski, took her and hid her. HIs mother and his sister cared for her. But when it was noticed that a corpse was missing a search was undertaken to find the soldier; the family who was taking care of Anastasia was in danger and fled to Bucharest. As this young lady was alone in the world and the name Romanov could endanger her, Anastasia, then seventeen years old, married the soldier whose family formerly belonged to Polish nobility. Anastasia gave birth to a son that carried the name of Alexis. They lived in Bucharest for a certain period of time, I think about two years, then the family's hideout was discovered; Anastasia's husband was injured by a bullet which struck his lungs; he was brought back seriously injured to the house, where he died, due to the continuous blood loss he suffered.

As a living relative of Anastasia on her mother's side, as sister of the Tsarina, you will understand and forgive that Anastasia, abandoned by all, was not able to have a marriage of her own blood. This is the biggest concern of the unfortunate one to know how you will accept this thing, especially her Grand Mother. This onoe seems besides to be her enemy and wants to take advantage of the assassination of the emperor to govern. This is the reason why Anastasia does not want to emphasize her rights as the Grand Duchess although she is. It is necessary to act with a lot of prudence. I pray you come see this lady. I photographed her last week; though they cannot be very useful, since the young lady is at the moment very sick. She was transported from the Dalldorf asylum to the house of Baron Kleist, who mixed this matter with his own goals and interests and wants to be her only advisor. This is the reason why the lady left this family under a ruse in order to quietly reflect on what she should do.

When Your Highness was this be visiting at Potsdam, the baron did not allow that the young lady to speak to you. I insistently ask that you come to see her at once; only you can prove the truth. Currently, this lady is with a good family, but it is not necessary that the Baron know it. I will reveal you then where she is located.

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, (as shown by the fact that) she has already spent three years without her son.

I ask therefore that you take this matter seriously and to examine (to see) if all of this is true. The current situation cannot go on much longer, since more than six months have passed without anyone being concerned for this lady.

She lives like a poor creature! With the highest consideration, (Signed) Marie-Clara Peuthert
]
 
Last edited:
...[in part]....Very interesting to see since that has always been my impression of her. She looked and sounded a very rough woman with poor taste and low standards. Her clothes were mismatched and looked like she had dragged them from the trash. She lived with dozens of dogs and cats in a very filthy house and drove around in a ragged car full of dogs and mess. Had she not lucked into getting to play the role of "Anastasia" I could easily see her end up as a homeless woman in NYC who pushes shopping carts full of black bags, rags and things she has dug from garbage cans.

Bag ladies come from all kinds of background and have a huge range of intelligence. Each have their own story. Too many became hooked on booze and/ or drugs. You don't have to be a person from the slums to have fallen into the life of pushing shopping carts full of garabe bags, rags and things.
Some have mental problems and no place else to go because we don't take care of these people who can't help they were born the way they were.

I have to run. Power is going off. Construction woes here.

Will finish thoughts later.

AGRBear
 
Thanks for posting this.

I am expecting shortly to get a copy of an English translation done in the 1930s for the trials so will be able to post more from this.
 
[quote=Anna was Franziska;794356] Anyone want to discuss the contents of these interviews?......[/quote]

Absolutely.

These interviews, from the late 90's, are very interesting and reveal info not usually seen or known about the AA case. I was very excited to find this new information and now want to share it with all of you to offer another perspective. .......

I have seen some of this before and actually I thought you had posted it elsewhere some time ago (I may be wrong, perhaps it was someone else who did so).

This is von Berenberg-Gossler's opinion and therefore subjective. As has been pointed out, he was being well paid to oppose her and I don't suppose he would have taken the case if he had not thought from the outset that she was an imposter.


(Incidentally, can you tell us what the actual source for these interviews is? When was von Berenberg-Gossler interviewed, and by whom? "Remembering Anna Anderson part II" doesn't tell us much.)

However, there are some things given as fact, rather than opinion, which need examining.

von B-G is quoted as saying
This is why Lenin deliberately supported "Miss Unknown" as much as he could, financially and otherwise, after she was pulled from the canal in Berlin in the early 20's.......
There is no proof that she received any help from the Soviets. If she had financial help from them, how come she was always so hard up?


It's been found Lenin had a complete file on the Anastasia case in Moscow. ......

Just because Lenin had a file on her, doesn't particularly mean that much since the Soviets had files on lots of people. I expect they had files on Grand Duchesses Olga, Xenia, et al - most if not all high profile emigres. Incidentally, who found that he had this file and where was it? In his desk drawer? :flowers:In the Kremlin? In the state archives? When did the file begin? The statement above would suggest that the file began in 1920 or just after.​





 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom