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.
My sincere apology. I was mistaken upon reading this thread. Late last night I was reading what I thought was the same posters and same topic about the events of certain royals. Blindly I went into this topic thinking it was the same thread because you as writers were alike to that other thread. I thought it was the same with some doubt though. My mistake. It seemed odd. Thanks for the correction. I didn't look closer.
Edit. After looking closer I'm still wondering whether Menarue posted last night or not. Maybe I'm confused some.
Edit again. I was confused about the thread I was reading. Menarue's post was on another thread. I apologize for the mix up.
 
Last edited:
Maybe it could be of interest to read a medical report on AA. This one is written by Dr. Lothar Nobel, House Doctor at the Mommsen Sanatorium, Berlin.

Mrs. Anastasia Chaikovski was in the Mommsen Sanatorium for nearly eight months, during which time I visited her daily, and I had the opportunity, unbeknown to the patient, to examine her mental condition; and I make the following report on her mentality during this period. Having regard to the object of the report, I have drafted it in terms which can be generally understood.
On entering the hospital, the patient was in a high fever. Her body was emaciated, her skin very pale, her expression sickly, and her features set. The physical state of the patient need not be considered in detail. I shall only mention the particulars obtained from the examination of the X-ray photograph.
The plate reveals shading on the left ethmoid bone; the left jaw cavity and sphenoid bone are shaded, the mastoid probably somewhat degenerated. There is a shaded place on the right auditory passage, various defects of the upper and lower jawbones, and some teeth are missing. It is doubtful whether any impression is shown on the roof of the skull.
It is not possible to obtain more accurate information from an examination of the X-ray plate, owing to the absence of check photographs.
When her temperature had fallen, it was possible to speak to Mrs. Chaikovski. The patient speaks with a typical foreign accent, which, most probably, is Russian, in well-chosen but unaffected words; she is friendly, polite, and amiable; she shows a distinct timidity and an uneasy reserve, especially as soon as she suspects any allusion in the questions of conversation to her past; she remains silent to questions of that kind and excuses her silence on the score of over-exertion and the pain in her arm. The information she gives is correct as to detail. There are no abnormalities in her movements, carriage, opinions and perceptions. Her disposition is variable, sometimes she is in a relatively good humour, and at others is melancholy. When asked for the reason, the patient says it is on account of the great pain in her arm, which does not allow her to rest and deprives her of her sleep at night.
She lies in bed with an anxious expression on her face, and declares that she desairs of any prospect of being cured, that she has lost the desire to live, and that it would be best for her to pass quietly into oblivion.
(continued)
 
It's understandable that would happen since all the threads end up alike. The same thing would happen on AP, nobody could find a particular discussion, accused the mods of deleting it, and it was because it was in another one just like it. Sigh.
 
Exactly. Thank you Anna was Franzisca, those two articles are very interesting and give a clear account of the case from people who really knew.
After the DNA results I didn´t have to be convinced but this has just been an extra confirmation, the icing on the cake.

Thank you! That's what I thought when I found it too. With all this info along with the photos and especially the DNA, I can't understand why the AA myth still goes on.
 
From her one can learn nothing of her past. On the contrary, she is at great pains to avoid all questions on this subject. Only gradually, as her health improves and the duration of her stay here lengthens, does the patient become more confidential and frank. She has never read books and papers here, and has written nothing. She has, however, followed with interest, when accounts of current events were read out to her.
To questions relating to her past she gives slow and hesitating answers, considers for a long time with a strained expression on her face, and finds difficulty in calling to mind the names of persons and places. Afther a very long time, she ceased completely to be suspicious of me, and, when occasion arose, she told me without hesitation about her early life; it is better to approach her by means of indirect questions, since, when direct questions are put to her, one always notices the anxious and searching expression on her face, and receives the reply: "I know no more, it is trying to me, I have forgotten everything, I am of no more use in the world because my memory has suffered so." Then again, she once told me, during the course of our converstaion, that it was terrible, when she had gone to such great trouble to forget all the horrible things which she had experienced, that somebody should come and revive everything, and make her so sad and despondent again. The patient, when she was feeling better, sometimes told those whom she knew well about her former life in Tsarskoe Selo, about childish pranks, about summer travels in the Crimea, about sea-voyages in the yacht Standard among the Finnish islands, the damage once suffered by the yacht, about her favourite dog, and also about the illness of her brother. Other things she spoke about were: her flight through Russia in a peasant wagon, the treatment of the injuries to ther head by means of wet applications, her stay in Rumania, the journey to Germany, her attempted suidcide through despair, the time spent by her in the various hospitals, and, finally, she reported certain facts relating to Dalldorf, which, so far as I could judge and was able to verify, were absolutely true.
(continued}
 
She told me she was photographed in Dalldorf; she told me about a patient who died of tuberculosis, with exact details regarding the dates. To her great indignation another patient had eaten the food left by the one who had died, and she had also died later. The patient, however, denied that she had read books and had asked for journals and newspapers. Her manner of speech is, of course, absolutely free of all theatrical gesture, and is natural. It also happens that she herself forgets many things she has narrated, and, on my referring to them again, she wonders where I have learnt about them. The account of her former life is patchy; but, during the time she was under my observation, it has noticeably become more coherent, which is attributable to the improvement in her general well-being and to the healing of the wounds on the left elbow. The patchiness of her memory is also due in a large measure to the will to forget the terrible happenings in her past life, of which mention has already been made.
So far as her language is concerned, I have been assured that, formerly, when in the company of her parents, her brother, and her sisters, English was almost exclusively spoken, only when the teachers and the servants were present was the Russian language used. The patient, however, did not speak Russian. When asked the reason for this, she stated that she had experienced too much distress and misfortune in Russia that the language was not pleasing to her, and she did not wish to speak it. She was determined on this and would not speak Russian. She would follow a conversation in Russian between two other persons attentively, and, at times, give answers in German, and point out Russian words which were wrongly pronounced. Reading gave her a great deal of trouble, especially the formation of letters into words. After much deliberation, she was able to write "Anastasia."
Possibly the reason for her avoidance of Russian was because she was forbidden to speak it during her flight, and also because of her fear of being discovered; the fear of being found is reflected in her whole being, in her words, and in her remarks.
(continued)
 
This, in my opinion, is the reason for her inaccessibility in the hospitals in which she had previously been and at the commencement of her stay in the Mommsen Sanatorium. It is for this reason that she has answered questions hardly at all or badly. In fear also lies the reason for her recurring melancholy moods, with their helplessness and apathy and lack of energy and even a longing for death. At such times the patient is inaccessible; she can scarcely be induced to eat, and is monosyllabic. She loses courage, has doubts about being cured, does not take the trouble to answer questions which require long consideration, but excuses herself on account of over-exertion and headache, which doubtless arises in consequence of her worry and despair and the pain in her arm. Her description of the events on her departure from the institution at Dalldorf is correct and was given promptly. As was also the account of her ailment, of the time she spent with different families and in hospitals, the names of the sisters, and particulars of the time spent in this sanatorium.
In conclusion, I would like to state that in my opionion there is no mental deficiency whatever. During this long period of observatrion, I have not noticed in the patient any sign of mental derangement nor any kind of outside influence or auto-suggestion. The memory has certainly suffered, possibly on account of the injuries to her head; the melancholy moods referred to above certainly do exist; but, in my opinion, these have no psycho-pathological significance. It can hardly be definitely decided how far the loss of memory is connected with the head injuries, since it is not possible accurately to ascertain the severity of the injuries. This form of disturbance of the memory is peculiar, and does not fall under any recognized category, particularly as it extends equally over the past as a whole. Only in relation to things which have occurred in the immediate past is her memory normal.
(continued)
 
It is difficult to decide how far the will of the patient enters into consideration. It is clear that, on some days, she is better able to remember things and answer questions put to her; this also applies to statements made of her own accord.
I will now add a few remarks concerning the identification of the patient. Of course, there can, on my part, be no question of proof. However, it appears to me impossible that her recollections depend on suggestion, and that the knowledge of many insignificant details is to be attributed to anything other than to her own experiences. Further, it is hardly probable, psychologically, that anybody, who for some purpose or other is playing the part of another, would act as the patient is doing and show so little initiative in the realisation of her plans.
(Signed) Dr. Lothar Nobel.
Berlin, end of March, 1926
 
Very nice to read. I can feel for her through your descriptions and I enjoyed every bit of it. Thank you for sharing the say of those who were close to her. It makes me want to care for those in a position of ailment. Thanks for bringing us that. Very romantic. :angel:
 
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. .


And what about any doctor telling you people don't lie when they are under the influence of morphine? Whatever she said, it was not a deliberate lie.
 
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, .


Harriet Von Rathlef was not a professional writer but in fact trained as a sculptor in Germany. She may have written some children's books but I believe she was an illustrator of books, not a writer. However, she was known primarily as a sculptor and artist. Her surviving works are on view in some art galleries.


I suggest you try the attached links for more info about Mrs Rathlef and her work.

http://www.meaus.com/harriet-siderowna-keilmann.htm
http://www.lostart.de/recherche/global.php3?lang=german&search=Rathlef-Keilmann&submit=Suche

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


quote]

if I had a pound for every time you tell this story I would be rich.
 
"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!) .
You said that in Kurth's book it said that AA had spoken of having "sexual relations" with the guards. I was asking you to show us where it said that (since it does not). That is not at all the same thing at all as AA saying she had been raped. There is a very big difference

1. To make impossible, as by action taken in advance; prevent.

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

.

I do know what preclude means, thank you.
.[/quote]
 
Of course I read it, several times, you forget I'm an ex supporter. .

they say there's nothing like a convert ....

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.

You know perfectly well why I am asking if you have read these books - and so do other people. There is a precedent for you discussing books, criticising their content (and indeed their authors) at great length and over a long period of time when you haven't in fact even read the book in question.
 
they say there's nothing like a convert ....


It's because I can see through it all now and know the answers that I try to help others.



You know perfectly well why I am asking if you have read these books - and so do other people. There is a precedent for you discussing books, criticising their content (and indeed their authors) at great length and over a long period of time when you haven't in fact even read the book in question.
Yes I knew perfectly well what you were getting at and I didn't appreciate it or find it necessary to drag into this discussion. As I said before, I am NOT bringing the FOTR mess over here, if that's what you're trying to stir up, but I tell you if it did happen, the mods who run this place would not let it go on the way it did on the other site! All the personal insults and harsh comments would be deleted and the members in trouble. (BTW, another thing that will get your post edited or deleted here is references to a fight on another forum, or 'board wars.') As I said about posting the page numbers, why do it if you don't want the person to consider the particular passage, so you evidently must not think the person has to read the entire book to be able to comment or pass view on certain singled out parts. If I read the parts being discussed and scrutinized, and others' evaluation of them, I have just as much right to comment on them as anyone else would on anything posted anywhere.
 
You said that in Kurth's book it said that AA had spoken of having "sexual relations" with the guards. I was asking you to show us where it said that (since it does not). That is not at all the same thing at all as AA saying she had been raped. There is a very big difference


Don't rape, and pregnancy, come from sexual relations? Who else could have raped her in captivity? I gave you what you asked for. (of course we all know that there is no way AA was raped by guards since she wasn't AN and wasn't in Siberia)
 
This is why, like the lady who found the dirty, skinny dog, thought it might have been hers in bad shape, but after more time and further consideration it turned out not to be the dog, and not to be AN.

if I had a pound for every time you tell this story I would be rich.

If I had a nickel for everytime AA supporters post exactly the same quotes and lists, I'd buy Microsoft.
 
Thanks for posting, Chat, I hadn't seen that before. It's easy to see why the courts were so confused and why the trial lasted for decades. However, since we now know that AA wasn't AN, what are the explanations for his comments? There is one, though we can't prove what it was, we can guess. One guess- and I do admit that's all it is- is that he was somehow involved in the charade and lying to help her. This is not out of the question, it does happen. There are doctors who have lied to help cases, for instance, in 'whiplash' suits and other 'personal injury' cases, doctors have been caught lying, falsifying records and showing X rays that belong to other people to help their clients, for a cut of the payoff if they win. Another possibility is she tricked him with what she had already learned from others.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for posting, Chat, I hadn't seen that before. It's easy to see why the courts were so confused and why the trial lasted for decades. However, since we now know that AA wasn't AN, what are the explanations for his comments? There is one, though we can't prove what it was, we can guess. One guess- and I do admit that's all it is- is that he was somehow involved in the charade and lying to help her. This is not out of the question, it does happen. There are doctors who have lied to help cases, for instance, in 'whiplash' suits and other 'personal injury' cases, doctors have been caught lying, falsifying records and showing X rays that belong to other people to help their clients, for a cut of the payoff if they win. Another possibility is she tricked him with what she had already learned from others.

Unfortunately for you and your way of thinking, this is only one of several medical reports on AA. They all come to the same conclusion: It is impossible that she could be an impostor, she had no mental deficiencies, she was a lady from the higher classes, her experiences were real and she spoke English under sedation. Dr. Eitel at the Stillachhaus goes one step further and says at the end of his somewhat longer report: "Our own observations, together with the statements of Professor Rudnev and the meeting at this place with Mrs. Melnik, all force us to the conclusion that Mrs. Chaikovski is, in fact, Her Highness the Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna."
 
Last edited:
If I had a nickel for everytime AA supporters post exactly the same quotes and lists, I'd buy Microsoft.

Yes, I agree with you there. But the problem is, that list and those quotes will never change since they are the real things. And they will not change until you find other lists and quotes to dismiss them. Just saying "I don't believe it" will not change anything.
 
Unfortunately for you and your way of thinking, this is only one of several medical reports on AA. They all come to the same conclusion: It is impossible that she could be an impostor, she had no mental deficiencies, she was a lady from the higher classes, her experiences were real and she spoke English under sedation. Dr. Eitel at the Stillachhaus goes one step further and says at the end of his somewhat longer report: "Our own observations. together with the statements of Prfessor Rudnev and the meeting at this place with Mrs. Melnik, all force us to the conclusion that Mrs. Chaikovski is, in fact, Her Highness the Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna."

Well Chat, no doubt AnnaWasFranciszka will say they were all crooks!
 
Last edited:
Don't rape, and pregnancy, come from sexual relations? Who else could have raped her in captivity? I gave you what you asked for. (of course we all know that there is no way AA was raped by guards since she wasn't AN and wasn't in Siberia)


"sexual relations" implies consent, as you well know.
 
I have no doubt that Chat (hi there!) believes implicitly that Anna Anderson was the Grand Duchess but do you Ferrymansdaughter believe that? Despite the DNA, the finding of the IF remains?
 
Yes I knew perfectly well what you were getting at and I didn't appreciate it or find it necessary to drag into this discussion. .
I'm sure you didn't,
As I said before, I am NOT bringing the FOTR mess over here, if that's what you're trying to stir up, but I tell you if it did happen, the mods who run this place would not let it go on the way it did on the other site! All the personal insults and harsh comments would be deleted and the members in trouble. (BTW, another thing that will get your post edited or deleted here is references to a fight on another forum, or 'board wars.') I have just as much right to comment on them as anyone else would on anything posted anywhere.
I am not "trying to stir up" the FOTR mess . This is not about "fights on another forum", nor am I making any personal insults, but stating facts. I am simply trying to ascertain whether or not your comments and opinions are actually based on having read the sources. I don't care that you and I have differing viewpoints on this issue nor do I care if you have actually read all the books since I certainly haven't read everything on this subject. I simply want to know what you have read since If you haven't read the whole book you could be taking the quotes completely out of context. I am quite happy to explain my position to the Moderators and I am very happy to know that they are much better at their job than on some other sites.
 
Yes, I agree with you there. But the problem is, that list and those quotes will never change since they are the real things. And they will not change until you find other lists and quotes to dismiss them. Just saying "I don't believe it" will not change anything.

But Chat, it all changed with the DNA results. Now because of those, and now the findings of the last two missing children, we know for sure there were no survivors. This means AA wasn't AN. So saying that you still want to consider the old lists and quotes as evidence alongside the DNA just isn't realistic.

Look at some of those recent stories where men have been freed from prison after many years when DNA testing proved a different person committed the crime. This has become almost common. In every one of those mens' trials that originally convicted them, there were people swearing they saw them at the crime scene, even picking them out of a lineup, a witness may say they know it was him, and this at one time convinced a jury and a judge and put him in jail. But once the DNA tests come in, they know for sure that it wasn't him who did the crime, and that all the other testimony sworn, signed, whatever, had to be wrong, or lies, or honest mistakes, because the DNA proved he wasn't really there no matter what those witnesses thought they saw. Many of these cases involve rape, and the woman who was raped was so certain she had found her attacker that she testified on the witness stand, but, it turned out she was wrong. See, the deal is, DNA OVERRULES ALL OTHER EVIDENCE! Once we have DNA results, all the other evidence no longer matters. You may not like it but that's how it works.

You may also try to claim that the DNA was switched or wrong. Funny thing is, I have never seen any of those criminals who did match who got the other man off the hook, or any of the 'baby daddies' who get stuck with 18 years of child support to a woman they can't stand ever try to doubt the DNA, and it affects their lives directly. So why is it so important to you that AA be AN that you would resort to such an extreme position?
 
I have no doubt that Chat (hi there!) believes implicitly that Anna Anderson was the Grand Duchess but do you Ferrymansdaughter believe that? Despite the DNA, the finding of the IF remains?


Menarue, I just don't know for certain but I think she probably was. I certainly don't believe she was Franciszka Schanzowska. I do have problems with the DNA and am not convinced about the veracity of the latest remains. It will be interesting to see what happens when - if - the results are eventually released but that day seems to keep getting pushed back.
 
I'm not saying they're crooks, just suggesting possibilities to explain their comments, because obviously they were mistaken. Even if you don't believe the DNA tests on AA, the final nail in the claim's coffin is that the last two bodies have been found. So no matter what anyone said or thought decades ago, it no longer matters. AN did not survive, so AA was not her.

I know that there are those who doubt the new findings and think it's all a setup by the Russian gov't, but those same people believe the DNA was switched or otherwise intentionally rigged. What are the chances by the standards of the universe that either of those is true, much less both? When the alternatives become that desperate, the time to admit she wasn't AN and move has come.
 
Last edited:
Chat, thanks for posting all of this.

"The plate reveals shading on the left ethmoid bone; the left jaw cavity and sphenoid bone are shaded, the mastoid probably somewhat degenerated. There is a shaded place on the right auditory passage, various defects of the upper and lower jawbones, and some teeth are missing. It is doubtful whether any impression is shown on the roof of the skull."

I’m really interested in the description of the head injuries. Whoever she was, she had damage to the left side of the face/head at the roof of the nose (where the nasal cavity is separated from the brain) to the jaw, the side of the head, back of the jaw/under the ear - all on the left side.

http://www.ivy-rose.co.uk/Topics/Bones_CranialandFacial.htm

I've had a little look and found the following http://www.sparknotes.com/psychology/neuro/brainanatomy/language.html

This shows that language is primarily processed in the left hemisphere of the brain

Wernicke's Area - Wernicke's area lies in the left temporal lobe, adjacent to the primary auditory area. Wernicke's area helps us understand spoken language. People with damage to this area suffer from Wernicke's aphasia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gray1197.png This shows that she could have suffered damage to the language centres of the brain. This makes perfect sense of the fact that there are so many conflicting accounts about which languages she could or could not speak.
[SIZE=+0]
[SIZE=+0]Symptoms of brain injury to temporal lobe http://www.braininjury.com/symptoms.html AA definitely seemed to exhibit some of these symptoms[/SIZE][/SIZE]


Temporal Lobes: side of head above ears

  • Difficulty in recognizing faces (Prosopagnosia).
  • Difficulty in understanding spoken words (Wernicke's Aphasia).
  • Disturbance with selective attention to what we see and hear.
  • Difficulty with identification of, and verbalization about objects.
  • Short term memory loss.
  • Interference with long term memory.
  • Increased and decreased interest in sexual behavior.
  • Inability to catagorize objects (Categorization).
  • Right lobe damage can cause persistent talking.
  • Increased aggressive behavior.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom