Anna Anderson's claim to be Grand Duchess Anastasia

[tsarskoe]

With regards to the court case:

"On 15 May 1961 it [The German Court] ruled that her [Anna Anderson's] claim was unfounded. It also threw out the counterclaim that Anna was in fact the missing Franziska Schanzkowska as 'irrelevant' although, in the judge's opinion, it was quite likely." The Quest for Anastasia by John Klier and Helen Mingay pg 139.


Thus well before the advent of DNA testing there appeared to be sufficient evidence to impress the judge that Anna was "quite likely" Franziska Schanzkowska.

 

[ChatNoir]

With regards to the court case:

"On 15 May 1961 it [The German Court] ruled that her [Anna Anderson's] claim was unfounded. It also threw out the counterclaim that Anna was in fact the missing Franziska Schanzkowska as 'irrelevant' although, in the judge's opinion, it was quite likely." The Quest for Anastasia by John Klier and Helen Mingay pg 139.


Thus well before the advent of DNA testing there appeared to be sufficient evidence to impress the judge that Anna was "quite likely" Franziska Schanzkowska.

We are talking "opinion" here, not ruling. Apparently there was not sufficient evidence. Read also Judge Pagendarm's remarks.

 

[tsarskoe]

With regards to which newspaper AA had access to in Dalldorf. Her supporters always state she only had the Illustrated German newspaper from 1914 which contained a story about the Romanovs which was published well before the murders. Yet in the notes of Professor Bohnhoeffer who attended AA in the mid 1920's for three weeks (and who is often quoted by AA supporters to indicate that mental health professionals did not deem her insane) wrote on March, 16,1926:

" She remembers that a nurse brought her an illustrated newspaper containing an account of the imprisonment and murder of the Tsar's family" Anastasia: The Survivor of Ekaterinburg by Harriet Rathlef von Keilmann pg 230.

Yet AA had acted very shocked when she "discovered" from Harriet and others that things had been written about the murder. She acted as if she knew nothing of the press accounts of this, yet here we have proof that in the very early period following her suicide attempt in Feb 1920 she had access to information about not only the Romanovs but their deaths.

In addition Mrs. Rathelf von Keilmann wrote: "Professor Bohnhoeffer, at whose disposal the whole history of the illness at Dalldorf was placed, writes as follows:... 'For the most part, she [AA] had lain quietly in bed, occupying herself much with the reading of newspapers and books, had followed political events with interest, and had conversed about them." pg 225-226

This shows that she was an avid reader and had access to newspapers and books. Later when AA in the mid 1920's wrote a letter in which she spelled the word "Darling" as "Dar'ling" it became apparent that she had access to one of Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden's [A lady-in-waiting to Empress Alexandra] books which had a photograph of one of the Empress's letters where she wrote the word "Darling" but in the line above she had placed a comma which AA mistook for an apostrophe. Thus not only was she literate in German she was reading books and articles about the Romanovs.

 

[ChatNoir]

With regards to which newspaper AA had access to in Dalldorf. Her supporters always state she only had the Illustrated German newspaper from 1914 which contained a story about the Romanovs which was published well before the murders. Yet in the notes of Professor Bohnhoeffer who attended AA in the mid 1920's for three weeks (and who is often quoted by AA supporters to indicate that mental health professionals did not deem her insane) wrote on March, 16,1926:

" She remembers that a nurse brought her an illustrated newspaper containing an account of the imprisonment and murder of the Tsar's family" Anastasia: The Survivor of Ekaterinburg by Harriet Rathlef von Keilmann pg 230.

Yet AA had acted very shocked when she "discovered" from Harriet and others that things had been written about the murder. She acted as if she knew nothing of the press accounts of this, yet here we have proof that in the very early period following her suicide attempt in Feb 1920 she had access to information about not only the Romanovs but their deaths.

She did not act shocked at the press accounts. She was shocked at the Sokolov investigation of which she knew nothing. She was shocked at hearing of Grand Duke Michael's death, and she still believed Ella to be alive.

In addition Mrs. Rathelf von Keilmann wrote: "Professor Bohnhoeffer, at whose disposal the whole history of the illness at Dalldorf was placed, writes as follows:... 'For the most part, she [AA] had lain quietly in bed, occupying herself much with the reading of newspapers and books, had followed political events with interest, and had conversed about them." pg 225-226

I have already posted about AA's interest in Russian political affairs. As for newspapers and books, all I know is that she was given books from the Dalldorf library by Nurse Malinovsky. Whether she read newspapers, is not known, she could not read German (fraktur).

This shows that she was an avid reader and had access to newspapers and books.

How avid she was, can probably be debated.

Later when AA in the mid 1920's wrote a letter in which she spelled the word "Darling" as "Dar'ling" it became apparent that she had access to one of Baroness Sophie Buxhoeveden's [A lady-in-waiting to Empress Alexandra] books which had a photograph of one of the Empress's letters where she wrote the word "Darling" but in the line above she had placed a comma which AA mistook for an apostrophe. Thus not only was she literate in German she was reading books and articles about the Romanovs.

Or she had access to the Tsaritsa's letters in Tsarskoe Selo. This is another of Berenberg Gossler's red herrings. Buxhoeveden's book was published in 1928 in New York and London.

 

[ChatNoir]

As for the last night in Ekaterinburg, how did she know that the Grand Duchesses wore no coats and hats on the way to the execution room? How did she know that the jackets left behind had diamonds sewn in the buttons? How did she know that the Tsarevich could not walk, but was carried by the Tsar?
Just wondering....

 

[Menarue]

I have been reading all these posts with much interest with an occasional comment. For me there is absolute no doubt that neither AA or FS (if they weren´t one or the same person) could possibly be the Grand Duchess Anastasia (or any other Grand Duchess). DNA is one reason for my thinking this way.
As neither side is going to ever give in, I have a suggestion, there is a society which at least one of the two sides of reasoning should join.
Here is the link. The Flat Earth Society -- Home

BTW Chat I don´t think that anyone knowing of the terrible disease that the poor little Alexei suffered from would not have realised that he had to be carried everywhere, not only to the execution chamber but everywhere.

 

[ferrymansdaughter]

I think you mentioned a list of things earlier, and if you go back and check my answer, you will find that all the things you said were not in Kurth's book, are indeed there.

AnnawasFranciszka, have you actually read Peter Kurth's book?

 

[ferrymansdaughter]

Of course there is a connection, Savich was the co-author of this book.

Savitch's name is not on the book. He had nothing to do with the contents...

Um, actually it is, and he did..

(from the following website) CHAPITRE : Dictionnaire des titres des Livres, Page 50, Section 55

Livre : LA FAUSSE ANASTASIE
Auteur : GILLIARD (P.) ET SAVITCH (C.)
Editeur : Payot - Parution en 1929

I don't k now what this man may or may not have contributed to the book since I haven't read it all,.

Why am I not surprised?

 

[ferrymansdaughter]

No, the newspapers in the 1920's were trying to expose her, the stories Berenberg-Gossler told of taking AA's side were 1955-1967. All different people and circumstances by then.

As I have already said, you tell us which papers and I will check out what they reported - or you can, it can all be done via the internet.

 

[ferrymansdaughter]

AnnawasF. Just a question. This is translated from the French. The unknown one is "inconnu" ? Just out of curiosity. Is that what they called the woman in all the writings? That shows really how they thought of her and is interesting. In fact all those writings you have posted are very interesting indeed.

Actually in the early days she seems to have been universally known as "The Unknown Woman of Berlin". It was used by both supporters and opponents.

 

[ferrymansdaughter]

She also (and this is in Kurth's book) mentioned being sexually active with guards, but apparently dropped that when she thought it might make her look bad to aristocrats..

you know, bear, much as been speculated on this, but I'm not getting into the alleged 'rape on the Rus' theory. There is something in Kurth's book, don't have the page, where she claims to have had relations with the guards. (it was the line 'hot like others of his class'.

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

 

[ChatNoir]

Chat I don´t think that anyone knowing of the terrible disease that the poor little Alexei suffered from would not have realised that he had to be carried everywhere, not only to the execution chamber but everywhere.

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

 

[OlgaNikolaievna]

Whether she read newspapers, is not known, she could not read German (fraktur).

Then please tell us what language she did read, or was she illiterate?

Buxhoeveden's book was published in 1928 in New York and London.

Are you sure, her second book Left Behind was published that year but I believe her earlier book on the Tsaritsa was sooner. Dehn and Vyrubova as well as Gilliard had all published books by 1923 and accounts of the last days of the family were available as early as 1920.

 

[OlgaNikolaievna]

As for the last night in Ekaterinburg, how did she know that the Grand Duchesses wore no coats and hats on the way to the execution room? How did she know that the jackets left behind had diamonds sewn in the buttons? How did she know that the Tsarevich could not walk, but was carried by the Tsar?
Just wondering....

Who would have been there to know and tell if she was right or wrong? The bolsheviks? What is the proof those details occured? A book? Couldn't she have seen that same book?

 

[OlgaNikolaievna]

We are talking "opinion" here, not ruling. Apparently there was not sufficient evidence. Read also Judge Pagendarm's remarks.

Don't you think it means quite a bit against Anderson if the judge who sat on the bench of the case and heard all the evidence on both sides himself believed her to be Franziska?

 

[ChatNoir]

Don't you think it means quite a bit against Anderson if the judge who sat on the bench of the case and heard all the evidence on both sides himself believed her to be Franziska?

And don't you think it means quite a bit for Anderson that Judge Pagendarm could just as well have ruled in her favor? As I said, we are talking opinions here, NOT ruling.

 

[ChatNoir]

Who would have been there to know and tell if she was right or wrong? The bolsheviks? What is the proof those details occured? A book? Couldn't she have seen that same book?

Years after her stories about the IF and the court, the books came out. The Sokolov investigation, for example, was published in Germany in 1932, I think. And it was possible to verify her memories. As for the diamonds in the buttons of the jacket, I did not personally find that out until I read FOTR, where a Bolshvik witness tells how Sophie Buxhoeveden informed him where the jewelry was hidden.

 

[ChatNoir]

Then please tell us what language she did read, or was she illiterate?

At Dalldorf she could read for sure. But only latin characters (and according to Schwabe, also Russian.) She could not read the German fraktur. After her brush with death at the Mommsen clinic, she had the biggest problems reading and writing, but it gradually came back as she improved physically.

Are you sure, her second book Left Behind was published that year but I believe her earlier book on the Tsaritsa was sooner. Dehn and Vyrubova as well as Gilliard had all published books by 1923 and accounts of the last days of the family were available as early as 1920.

I have the year from Peter Kurth's bibliography. And the books published by 1923, were these available in German? When were they published in Germany? To my knowledge, The last Days of the Romanovs was not published in Germany.

 

[Anna was Franziska]

As I have already said, you tell us which papers and I will check out what they reported - or you can, it can all be done via the internet.

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!

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.

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! 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. 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 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. 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) 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.

 

[Anna was Franziska]

I did not personally find that out until I read FOTR, where a Bolshvik witness tells how Sophie Buxhoeveden informed him where the jewelry was hidden.

Let's not go there. The entire story of her alleged 'betrayal' has been proven wrong and discredited. She did not tell them about any jewels, if she did, why were they still wearing them the night of the murders instead of having them confiscated? Sophie never earned her freedom for betraying the family as AA claimed, she was let go with Gibbes, Gilliard and other foreign nationals because the Bolsheviks did not want to anger any other governments. She was born and raised in Russia, but her Danish name was taken for Swedish. She tells this in her book. She had no freedom from the Bolsheviks, spending 13 months running and hiding for her life across Russia and only leaving the country when she reached Omsk and had the aid of the British military who put her on one of their trains. It's really time this woman's rep was cleared (though I know it's advantagous to the AA case that it not be, there is no truth to the rumors and I will not drag the FOTR mess over to this forum)

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

 

[Anna was Franziska]

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

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

 

[Anna was Franziska]

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

I believe she is referring to their time in captivity.

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

 

[ferrymansdaughter]

I will not drag the FOTR mess over to this forum)

quote]

Is that because you still haven't read it?

 

[Anna was Franziska]

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

 

[Anna was Franziska]

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

That's not Xenia Leeds.

 

[ferrymansdaughter]

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

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

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

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

 

[ferrymansdaughter]

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

 

[Anna was Franziska]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Anna was Franziska]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Anna was Franziska]

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

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

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