Anna Anderson's claim to be Grand Duchess Anastasia

[Anna was Franziska]

My illustration was not an organized migration. The people were getting away from the horrors of WWI. There are photos which show people who were getting away from the horrors of the Bolsheviks, which look the same.

Generic people, not a missing Grand Duchess and a deserter.

And, as usual, you've added your own twist to AA's story.


AGRBear

You mean like Clara P, Von Kliest and Rathef did?

 

[tsarskoe]

With regards to AA's knowledge of the Imperial family one should also reflect on some of her more obvious mistakes which she made when recounting her "memories". Which appear to indicate that she did not have first hand knowledge of the private lives of the Romanovs but had gotten her knowledge second or third hand. Wether the information was wrong or that AA simply did not remember it accurately is up for debate.

AA incorrectly stated that Sydney Gibbes the Imperial Children's English tutor was physically deformed on one side and walked with a limp. Mr. Gibbes had no such deformity nor did he walk with a limp. The tutor lived with the family for nearly ten years and had stayed with them during the entire time in Tobolsk. There is no way that the real Anastasia would have been so wrong about someone she knew so well. Anna apparently mistook photographs which showed the tutor with his head tilted at an odd angle (which is how he always posed for photographs) as a deformity.

When "Shura" Alexandra ne Tegleva Gilliard (Anastasia's nursemaid) entered AA's room in the mid 1920's AA mistook her for GD Olga Alexandrovna. Later when Olga herself entered the room Anna asked: "Is this the Aunt?" [Vorres] Olga would later state that she discovered that AA had been told before hand of her visit by one of her caretakers who had said that AA was to expect someone from Denmark- apparently this is why AA mistook Alexandra for Olga since she knew that Anastasia's Aunt was living at the time in Copenhagen.

AA erroneously described her "Mother's" bedroom, which in fact was not Empress Alexandra's bedroom but a former Empresses bedroom. A photograph of the room had been published with the caption "The Tsarina's bedroom" and AA mistook it to mean Alexandra's bedroom. She went on to described her "Father's bedroom". In fact unlike most of the other Crown heads of Europe Nicholas and Alexandra shared the same bedroom.

Harriet von Rathlef-Keilmann also stated that Anna recalled that "Ania" Anna Vyrubova (One of Anastasia's Mother's closest of friends who the real Anastasia had seen regularly until just after the revolution) had red hair. In fact she did not.

AA's poor language skills have always been troublesome for her claim. The Grand Duchess was fluent in Russian, English and French yet AA's English (Which she did not speak regularly until the mid 1920's proved awkward and of Germanic sentence structure. There are indeed accounts of AA speaking a few Russian sentences or single words but she never spoke it for days on end. There have also been account of AA actually speaking Polish on a few occasions including during her time with Russian monarchists in the early 1920's and a later account shortly before her death in the 1980's. A language the real Grand Duchess did not know.

It has been pointed out by various authors (GIlliard, Klier, Welch etc) that Anna reacted very oddly when confronted with individuals who had known the real Anastasia. At times she would simply refuse their visit, an example of this includes at least one of Anastasia's first cousins (Son of Xenia Alexandrovna). When she did meet with them (sometimes these visits were forced or surprise visits) Anna would usually stop speaking and hide her face from her visitors, either by covering her face with a kerchief (during Sydney Gibbes visit), an bed sheet (during Baroness Buxhoeveden's visit) , or simply leave the room (during Princess Irene's visit). This way she prevented any false steps in either etiquette, speech or memories. Often AA showed no sign of recognition (As in the case of Princess Irene). When Pierre Gilliard asked AA to reminisce about her memories AA stated that she didn't know how to chit-chat and when Gilliard questioned aloud why AA's memory was so bad AA replied that she suspected that if someone had tried to kill him his memory would be poor too.

The simple fact that she even allowed a visit from Prince Felix Yussuppov-the murderer of Grigory Rasputin who was the real Anastasia's Mother's most trustest friend and advisor should sent up a few red flags that she was not authentic.

 

[ChatNoir]

With regards to AA's knowledge of the Imperial family one should also reflect on some of her more obvious mistakes which she made when recounting her "memories". Which appear to indicate that she did not have first hand knowledge of the private lives of the Romanovs but had gotten her knowledge second or third hand. Wether the information was wrong or that AA simply did not remember it accurately is up for debate.

AA incorrectly stated that Sydney Gibbes the Imperial Children's English tutor was physically deformed on one side and walked with a limp. Mr. Gibbes had no such deformity nor did he walk with a limp. The tutor lived with the family for nearly ten years and had stayed with them during the entire time in Tobolsk. There is no way that the real Anastasia would have been so wrong about someone she knew so well. Anna apparently mistook photographs which showed the tutor with his head tilted at an odd angle (which is how he always posed for photographs) as a deformity.

She did not say he limped, he "rather trailed one foot".

When "Shura" Alexandra ne Tegleva Gilliard (Anastasia's nursemaid) entered AA's room in the mid 1920's AA mistook her for GD Olga Alexandrovna. Later when Olga herself entered the room Anna asked: "Is this the Aunt?" [Vorres] Olga would later state that she discovered that AA had been told before hand of her visit by one of her caretakers who had said that AA was to expect someone from Denmark- apparently this is why AA mistook Alexandra for Olga since she knew that Anastasia's Aunt was living at the time in Copenhagen.

All this is Gilliard's lies. Both Frau Rathlef Keilmann and Herluf Zahle attests to AA recognizing Olga, Shura and Gilliard. Olga said afterwords, when getting the manuscript from Frau Rahtlef Keilmann, that "she found the account quite correct."

AA erroneously described her "Mother's" bedroom, which in fact was not Empress Alexandra's bedroom but a former Empresses bedroom. A photograph of the room had been published with the caption "The Tsarina's bedroom" and AA mistook it to mean Alexandra's bedroom. She went on to described her "Father's bedroom". In fact unlike most of the other Crown heads of Europe Nicholas and Alexandra shared the same bedroom.

May we please have the source for this?

Harriet von Rathlef-Keilmann also stated that Anna recalled that "Ania" Anna Vyrubova (One of Anastasia's Mother's closest of friends who the real Anastasia had seen regularly until just after the revolution) had red hair. In fact she did not.

Again, source, please.

AA's poor language skills have always been troublesome for her claim. The Grand Duchess was fluent in Russian, English and French yet AA's English (Which she did not speak regularly until the mid 1920's proved awkward and of Germanic sentence structure.

AN was not fluent in French according to Gilliard's first book. Inspector Grünberg's nephew remembered "die kranke Dame" as someone who "spoke more English than German in the early twenties. She would also speak it under sedation. According to Xenia Leeds, AA's English was good, but the grammar a bit rusty. (Gilliard complained bitterly about AN's grammar.)

There are indeed accounts of AA speaking a few Russian sentences or single words but she never spoke it for days on end.

See Fallow's notes about AA speaking fluent Russian with Rudnev and Albert Coyle. See also Xenia Leed's testimony about AA speaking Russian.

There have also been account of AA actually speaking Polish on a few occasions including during her time with Russian monarchists in the early 1920's and a later account shortly before her death in the 1980's. A language the real Grand Duchess did not know.

And there are also testimonies (2) from Dalldorf that AA spoke Russian like a native and that nobody ever heard a Polish word from her. The source for AA speaking Polish and Russian, came from Gerda Kleist.

It has been pointed out by various authors (GIlliard, Klier, Welch etc) that Anna reacted very oddly when confronted with individuals who had known the real Anastasia. At times she would simply refuse their visit, an example of this includes at least one of Anastasia's first cousins (Son of Xenia Alexandrovna). When she did meet with them (sometimes these visits were forced or surprise visits) Anna would usually stop speaking and hide her face from her visitors, either by covering her face with a kerchief (during Sydney Gibbes visit), an bed sheet (during Baroness Buxhoeveden's visit) , or simply leave the room (during Princess Irene's visit). This way she prevented any false steps in either etiquette, speech or memories. Often AA showed no sign of recognition (As in the case of Princess Irene). When Pierre Gilliard asked AA to reminisce about her memories AA stated that she didn't know how to chit-chat and when Gilliard questioned aloud why AA's memory was so bad AA replied that she suspected that if someone had tried to kill him his memory would be poor too.

And why did she hide from Buxhoeveden? Because of suspected betrayal, later confirmed. And why did she leave the room after recognizing aunt Irene? Because she was extremely upset that Irene came under a false name after "having let me suffer for so long." She did refuse to chit chat with Gilliard, the one she really talked to, was Shura. See my posting of Bella Cohen's interview.

The simple fact that she even allowed a visit from Prince Felix Yussuppov-the murderer of Grigory Rasputin who was the real Anastasia's Mother's most trustest friend and advisor should sent up a few red flags that she was not authentic.

She was not happy about his visit, but he came in the company of Dr. Rudnev, and she finally agreed to see him in the company of the Duke of Leuchtenberg.

 

[ChatNoir]

No, we do NOT have this. I asked you for it once before and when you couldn't produce it, you said it must have been Alexandra's diary. However, there is no such record of this alleged statement. If you want to read Alexandra's diary, it has been published. If you want to read the letters Anna V. received from the family in captivity, they are in her book.

Yes, we do. Please read FOTR and Roland Krug von Nidda.

And who would have known the difference? And if someone did know the difference, they could also have told her. If it was in a magazine, there would have been writing and captions.Even if these were 'cut off first' as some claim, they could have been seen before. Remember Chat, she WAS NOT AN. Therefore, the information came from elsewhere.

The infor did NOT come from elsewhere. The photos were all clearly marked, but the captions were cut off before AA got to see them. But she still recognized every room correctly.

Just want to make it clear that 'House of Romanov' = Maria V. and her son. The ROMANOV FAMILY ASSOCIATION, which has not denied the results, is the rest of the family, the two don't get along and don't speak for each other. I didn't want anyone to be misled into believing the whole Romanov family said this, only Maria V. and the ROC Patriarch.

Still, you seem to believe that the whole Romanov clan signed the Copenhagen Statement......

 

[Anna was Franziska]

Yes, we do. Please read FOTR and Roland Krug von Nidda.

No, we don't. I remember going through this with you before, and you finally admitted you 'couldn't find it." I also started a thread on AP to ask if such a thing existed and the result was that it didn't. As you know I am also very suspect of anything that's unique to FOTR especially as it deals with implications in the AA case. Produce this letter in AV's book or Alexandra's diary, you can't, it never existed. How about you go read AV's and Bux's books, as well as Lifelong Passion.

The info did NOT come from elsewhere.

Oh, yes it did. Because AA was FS.

The photos were all clearly marked, but the captions were cut off before AA got to see them. But she still recognized every room correctly.

As I was saying...sure she didn't see them before they were 'cut off' I bet she had time to study them.

Still, you seem to believe that the whole Romanov clan signed the Copenhagen Statement......

No there were what, 12 of them? The others probably didn't even care less. The difference between 'house of' an 'association' didn't come for many years after that.

 

[Anna was Franziska]

I have just made a very interesting discovery! While searching the letters between AV and the IF in captivity in AV's book, I happened to run across this:

[SIZE=-1] Did you know that sister Grekova is to be married soon to Baron Taube? [/SIZE]

Baron Taube is the person she was supposed to go to Paris to meet in the Clara P. version of the escape story! I wonder who told her about it? The book came out in 1923, and the story was 1922 (unless it was published earlier in Germany) Anyway I wonder who gave her that info, if it wasn't the book it had to be somebody close to the family, unless it was written in one of the magazines Clara was reading.

Anyway the letters are here, nothing about Bux betraying the family, sorry!

Memories of the Russian Court - an online book on Romanov Russia - Chapter XXII

You know, Chat, I checked the thread where I asked the question, originally you claimed it was in Alix's diary, and when the people said they couldn't find it in the diary you changed it to a letter. In fact, it didn't exist, just as the betrayal didn't exist. The only reason to keep that awful rumor against Bux's character alive is to attempt to back up AA's allegations and therefore attempt to make AA look like she must have been AN to know. No banana.

 

[Elspeth]

I'm asking how you know that the King-Ginther work wasn't published because of the prior publication of the Gill work. As opposed to not being published for some other reason.

Just bumping this question (my post 940 to AGRBear) in case it was missed in the fast-moving thread. Just to clarify, since one of the Ginther results contradicted one of the Gill results, prior publication doesn't seem to be a likely reason. Had the results been identical, it might have been a better reason for deciding not to bother to write them up for publication, although different samples were used so the results could possibly have been publishable as independent confirmation.

However, since the Ginther-King results contradicted the Gill-Stoneking results in the matter of the relationship with the Schankowska family, this would certainly be a significant discovery and ought to be publishable if they had confidence in their results.

Which is why I'm asking why you believe that these results weren't published because of the prior publication of the other results, as opposed to any other reason. I assumed Dr King had said so somewhere since you'd reported it as the reason. To me, seeing the results in the two papers and noting the contradiction, prior publication seems a pretty shaky reason, but if that's what Dr King said, then fair enough. If she didn't say so, then I'd have to say I don;t believe it's the reason. Not after reading what Dr Ginther said about their work.

 

[Michael HR]

Following Chat's discussion, if the DNA shows two more members of AF's family have been found that will tend to show that all members of the family are accounted for and that, therefore, there were sadly no survivors from the Ipatiev House.

If this is the case how does Chat explain AA if she could not have been AN?

With the results there will be two avenues open to us all.

1. DNA shows all members of family died and no survivors. AA could not be AN but could be the Polish lady (as shown by previous DNA)

2. DNA does not match and we all go back to the drawing board, God help us.

 

[ChatNoir]

I have just made a very interesting discovery! While searching the letters between AV and the IF in captivity in AV's book, I happened to run across this:

[SIZE=-1]Did you know that sister Grekova is to be married soon to Baron Taube? [/SIZE]

Baron Taube is the person she was supposed to go to Paris to meet in the Clara P. version of the escape story! I wonder who told her about it? The book came out in 1923, and the story was 1922 (unless it was published earlier in Germany) Anyway I wonder who gave her that info, if it wasn't the book it had to be somebody close to the family, unless it was written in one of the magazines Clara was reading.

As much as AA knew about the IF, it does not surprise me that she knew about Baron Taube. Maybe because of her disjointed telling of the story and her bad German, Clara put some words in her mouth... Well, due to Gilliars's bonfire, we will never know.

Anyway the letters are here, nothing about Bux betraying the family, sorry!

Page 43 of Krug von Nidda: She (Isa) had to stay behind in Tsarskoe with appendicitis. Not realising this, Mama and we children felt rather cross with her, and Mama wrote to her friend Ana Vyrubova that perhaps the Baroness had a guilty conscience. (This letter was written in the beginning of the Tobolsk period, the letters you posted seem to all be written later.)

You know, Chat, I checked the thread where I asked the question, originally you claimed it was in Alix's diary, and when the people said they couldn't find it in the diary you changed it to a letter. In fact, it didn't exist, just as the betrayal didn't exist. The only reason to keep that awful rumor against Bux's character alive is to attempt to back up AA's allegations and therefore attempt to make AA look like she must have been AN to know. No banana.

From FOTR: Perhaps in an effort to spare herself from the same fate, or to guarantee her later safety, she found Rodionov, telling him not only of the fortune in jewels concealed beneath the clothing of the three young women, but also where the items could be found: "The buttons on her coat aren't buttons," she revealed, "they're diamonds"; "the aigrette of that hat conceals a diamond from the shah of Persia"; and "that belt there - underneath it are ropes of pearls." (Bykov, October 17, 1927, in TsDOOSO, f.41, op 1, d. 149.) (Tsentr dokumentatsii obshchestvennykh organizatsii Sverdlovskoi oblasti, Ekaterinburg ( formerly Sverdlovsk Party Archives.)

 

[Anna was Franziska]

As much as AA knew about the IF, it does not surprise me that she knew about Baron Taube. Maybe because of her disjointed telling of the story and her bad German, Clara put some words in her mouth... Well, due to Gilliars's bonfire, we will never know.

Chat you keep making up excuses. AA was not AN, so we need to look for what really happened.

Page 43 of Krug von Nidda: She (Isa) had to stay behind in Tsarskoe with appendicitis. Not realising this, Mama and we children felt rather cross with her, and Mama wrote to her friend Ana Vyrubova that perhaps the Baroness had a guilty conscience. (This letter was written in the beginning of the Tobolsk period, the letters you posted seem to all be written later.)

If it was the 'early Tobolsk' period, there hadn't been any alleged 'betrayal' yet so this doesn't hold up.

From FOTR: Perhaps in an effort to spare herself from the same fate, or to guarantee her later safety, she found Rodionov, telling him not only of the fortune in jewels concealed beneath the clothing of the three young women, but also where the items could be found: "The buttons on her coat aren't buttons," she revealed, "they're diamonds"; "the aigrette of that hat conceals a diamond from the shah of Persia"; and "that belt there - underneath it are ropes of pearls." (Bykov, October 17, 1927, in TsDOOSO, f.41, op 1, d. 149.) (Tsentr dokumentatsii obshchestvennykh organizatsii Sverdlovskoi oblasti, Ekaterinburg ( formerly Sverdlovsk Party Archives.)

First, it's pointless because she did NOT guarantee herself later safety, as the true story of her life proves. She spent over a year running for her life and hiding and only getting out of Russia with the help of the British. Second, there was a long discussion on another side questioning the accuracy of some of the sources, and investigating whether or not Bux did anything. She was found innocent. Sometimes there are theories that don't pan out. Also if they knew about the jewels why did the girls still have them on in the basement room? Bux didn't betray the family.

I can get more into it but do not have time right now, troubles at home.

 

[ChatNoir]

Chat you keep making up excuses. AA was not AN, so we need to look for what really happened.

Well, keep looking, I will be here when you find it.

If it was the 'early Tobolsk' period, there hadn't been any alleged 'betrayal' yet so this doesn't hold up.

Unfortunately, the seed of suspicion was planted, no matter how unfair this was to "Isa".

First, it's pointless because she did NOT guarantee herself later safety, as the true story of her life proves. She spent over a year running for her life and hiding and only getting out of Russia with the help of the British. Second, there was a long discussion on another side questioning the accuracy of some of the sources, and investigating whether or not Bux did anything. She was found innocent. Sometimes there are theories that don't pan out. Also if they knew about the jewels why did the girls still have them on in the basement room? Bux didn't betray the family.

Well, I can only post the testimony of Rodionov, and his details correspond with what was later found.

 

[Anna was Franziska]

Unfortunately, the seed of suspicion was planted, no matter how unfair this was to "Isa".

It really is sad how a person's rep can be unfairly damaged for the agenda of AA and her supporters.

Well, I can only post the testimony of Rodionov, and his details correspond with what was later found.

Doesn't even mention her name!

 

[ChatNoir]

It really is sad how a person's rep can be unfairly damaged for the agenda of AA and her supporters.

So if she was so innocent of everything, why was she the only one who refused to testify for Sokolov?

Doesn't even mention her name!

OK, let's go a few lines further:
Buxhoeveden's revelations were accurate, indicating that while she herself had been forbidden access to the Governor's House and only had been reunited with the grand duchesses earlier that morning, someone within the intimate circle had talked. Two further members of the Romanov household also betrayed the imperial family, teling both Buxhoeveden and the Bolsheviks what they knew of the hidden jewels: Countess Hendrikova's maid Alexandrine Nikolaeva, and the maid Anna Romanova. When the prisoners arrived in Ekaterinburg, Rodionov reported this news to the Ural Regional Soviet, and all three women were questioned that same day. Like Buxhoeveden, Nikolaeva crumbled under pressure, accorging to Ural Regional Soviet member Paul Bykov, "revealing where these things could be found.

Acting out of fear, Buxhoeveden nevertheless guaranteed her own safety on reaching the Urals. Alone of the former imperial suite, she was not arrested and imprisoned but allowed first to live in a railroad coach at the station in Ekaterinburg, then to leave the Urals unharmed with the members of the household. Both Gilliard and Gibbs later openly questioned how the baroness had managed to escape the fate of Countess Hendrikova and Mademoiselle Schneider, the only other two women of the suite. "My father," said George Gibbes, "rarely spoke of her. When he did, it was in a distasteful way, indicating that she'd been responsible not only for his misery but also that of the imperial family."
FOTR page 142.

 

[Anna was Franziska]

Like Buxhoeveden, Nikolaeva crumbled under pressure, accorging to Ural Regional Soviet member Paul Bykov, "revealing where these things could be found.

That's some very heavy accusations against a lot of people. Is this allegation made anywhere else, much less proven? I am afraid one controversial source (and several of the allegations made in the book have been questioned and even found to be inaccurate, by others besides me) As I said all this was discussed on another board and found to be unfounded. From what I recall of that investigation, no names were mentioned, a "Mademoiselle X" was often used. As I have said before, getting into my reasons for questioning what you post opens a can of worms that should remain closed. In the end, if the only reason to prove she 'betrayed' them was to back up an accusation by AA, that still leaves us nowhere, since AA was FS.

Acting out of fear, Buxhoeveden nevertheless guaranteed her own safety on reaching the Urals.Alone of the former imperial suite, she was not arrested and imprisoned but allowed first to live in a railroad coach at the station in Ekaterinburg, then to leave the Urals unharmed with the members of the household.

This is what doesn't make any sense, she was not guaranteed anything! She was not permitted to go with the family, along with others, because they were considered foreign nationals and the Bolsheviks did not want to imprison them and anger other gov'ts. Yes she was born Russian but she had a DANISH name that was taken for Swedish.

Both Gilliard and Gibbs later openly questioned how the baroness had managed to escape the fate of Countess Hendrikova and Mademoiselle Schneider, the only other two women of the suite.

Did they really? Their books make no such suggestions. In all their books, they are working together trying to escape the Bolsheviks. They were always in danger as various factions took and retook the region, even the "Greens." Please read "Left Behind" for an interesting account of those tumultuous times, and if you think she wrote the whole thing to discredit AA, well that's just silly.

"My father," said George Gibbes, "rarely spoke of her. When he did, it was in a distasteful way, indicating that she'd been responsible not only for his misery but also that of the imperial family."
FOTR page 142.

Much is quoted to this adopted son who never experienced anything personally, and likely his words have been taken out of context. On the other board, it was revealed any trouble between Gibbes and Bux stemmed from some sort of personal banking situation and an unpaid loan while on the run from the Bolsheviks- nothing to do with the family. Bux was broke, especially for someone who had allegedly embezzled 200,000 rubles meant for the family (another false allegation against her)

It's also not to be ignored that Sophie Bux. spent most of the later years of her life in the service of Alexandra's sister, Victoria Milford-Haven. If she were nearly as crooked and hated as you say I doubt this would have been possible I am really tired of this dead woman's name being dragged through the mud in an attempt to justify a false statement by a false claimant.

 

[ChatNoir]

That's some very heavy accusations against a lot of people. Is this allegation made anywhere else, much less proven? I am afraid one controversial source (and several of the allegations made in the book have been questioned and even found to be inaccurate, by others besides me) As I said all this was discussed on another board and found to be unfounded. From what I recall of that investigation, no names were mentioned, a "Mademoiselle X" was often used. As I have said before, getting into my reasons for questioning what you post opens a can of worms that should remain closed. In the end, if the only reason to prove she 'betrayed' them was to back up an accusation by AA, that still leaves us nowhere, since AA was FS.

This is what doesn't make any sense, she was not guaranteed anything! She was not permitted to go with the family, along with others, because they were considered foreign nationals and the Bolsheviks did not want to imprison them and anger other gov'ts. Yes she was born Russian but she had a DANISH name that was taken for Swedish.

Did they really? Their books make no such suggestions. In all their books, they are working together trying to escape the Bolsheviks. They were always in danger as various factions took and retook the region, even the "Greens." Please read "Left Behind" for an interesting account of those tumultuous times, and if you think she wrote the whole thing to discredit AA, well that's just silly.

Much is quoted to this adopted son who never experienced anything personally, and likely his words have been taken out of context. On the other board, it was revealed any trouble between Gibbes and Bux stemmed from some sort of personal banking situation and an unpaid loan while on the run from the Bolsheviks- nothing to do with the family. Bux was broke, especially for someone who had allegedly embezzled 200,000 rubles meant for the family (another false allegation against her)

It's also not to be ignored that Sophie Bux. spent most of the later years of her life in the service of Alexandra's sister, Victoria Milford-Haven. If she were nearly as crooked and hated as you say I doubt this would have been possible I am really tired of this dead woman's name being dragged through the mud in an attempt to justify a false statement by a false claimant.

I don't think for a moment that Buxhoeveden was a crook, she was only afraid for her life, and with a very good reason.

One more tidbit from FOTR.
"I cannot understand what prompted the Bolsheviks to this decision to save our lives," Gilliard later wrote. "Why, for instance, should Countess Hendrikova be taken to prison while Baroness Buxhoeveden, also a lady -in-waiting to the Tsarina, was allowed to go free? Why they and not ourselves? Was there confusion of names or functions?"
"My father", George Gibbes recalled, "told me he never understood why Baroness Buxhoeveden had gone free, and others detained and killed."
Unknown to both of these men, and ignored by Buxhoeveden in her memoirs, was her interrogation that afternoon. A few members or the Ural Regional Soviet and Ekaterinburg Cheka entered the railroad coach where she waited alone, questioning her at length about her revelations to Rodionov aboard Rus. During the session, Buxhoeveden repeated her knowledge of the imperial family's hidden jewelry, a final betrayal that guaranteed her freedom and helped seal the fate of the prisoners. (Bykov, October 17, 1927, in TsDOOSO, f,41, op.1, d. 149)

 

[Anna was Franziska]

"My father", George Gibbes recalled, "told me he never understood why Baroness Buxhoeveden had gone free, and others detained and killed."

Oh really? Did he doubt his OWN reason for going free, because hers was the same as his- foreign last name. Gibbes himself knew better. Strange that a quote from Gilliard should be attributed to him that's not in his own book.As I said, I have been through this at length on another forum, where people used many Bolshevik writings as sources, and Bux came out innocent.

Chat, if you're going to continue to quote FOTR as your only source on this, I'm afraid I'm not going to continue the discussion, or I'll to end up saying things that might cause trouble no one wants here. I will consult my 'experts' on all this and get back to you, but not on the open forum. I can't wait until I get my copy of Ekaterinburg by Helen R. and see what it says. Let's just leave it at this, I don't believe Bux bertrayed the family, and you are certainly not going to convince me with FOTR. I will answer no further questions concerning this. Next subject please.

And regardless, AA WAS STILL NOT AN!

 

[ChatNoir]

Oh really? Did he doubt his OWN reason for going free, because hers was the same as his- foreign last name. Gibbes himself knew better. Strange that a quote from Gilliard should be attributed to him that's not in his own book.As I said, I have been through this at length on another forum, where people used many Bolshevik writings as sources, and Bux came out innocent.

Actually, Gilliard's quote is taken from his book "13 years..... "

Chat, if you're going to continue to quote FOTR as your only source on this, I'm afraid I'm not going to continue the discussion, or I'll to end up saying things that might cause trouble no one wants here. I will consult my 'experts' on all this and get back to you, but not on the open forum. I can't wait until I get my copy of Ekaterinburg by Helen R. and see what it says. Let's just leave it at this, I don't believe Bux bertrayed the family, and you are certainly not going to convince me with FOTR. I will answer no further questions concerning this. Next subject please.

I don't really think that you can say that FOTR is the source of this, see reference to TsDOOSO at the end of my posts.

And regardless, AA WAS STILL NOT AN!

That may be possible, but she certainly was not FS.

 

[COUNTESS]

Princess Eleana, Grand Duchess Ioann Konstanovich, also went free. Probably, but who knows, because her father was King of Serbia. But she was in prison several places and in Ekaterinburg, was in the cell with Countess Hendrikova and Mll. Schneider and they were removed and shot. She eventually made it to Sweden after being imprisoned for many months. She was the only member of the Imperial Family to fall into the hands of the Ural Soviets and survive. When Anna Anderson was attracting publicity in the 1950's, she felt she had to put her story on record. She said AA was not AN and she felt it was her duty to say so. She never accused Bux of anything.

 

[ChatNoir]

Princess Eleana, Grand Duchess Ioann Konstanovich, also went free. Probably, but who knows, because her father was King of Serbia. But she was in prison several places and in Ekaterinburg, was in the cell with Countess Hendrikova and Mll. Schneider and they were removed and shot. She eventually made it to Sweden after being imprisoned for many months. She was the only member of the Imperial Family to fall into the hands of the Ural Soviets and survive. When Anna Anderson was attracting publicity in the 1950's, she felt she had to put her story on record. She said AA was not AN and she felt it was her duty to say so. She never accused Bux of anything.

And when did she meet with AA?

 

[ChatNoir]

Another snippet from Harriet von Rathlef Keilmann's book:
"Dr. Osty had bought in Paris, to read on the journey, the latest number of L'Illustration, which contained an article by Mr. Gilliard. To illustrate this article, Mr. Gilliard had published reproductions of the Tsar's daughters in which they all had cropped heads (the Tsar's children had their heads croped during the measles.) One of these pictures gave a full-lenght representation of the princesses. When the conversation between Professor Osty and Mrs. Chaikovski turned on the portraits in which the princesses are all close-cropped, Dr. Osty sent his assistant out of the room to fetch the magazine. Meanwhile, he asked Mrs. Chaikovski where these portraits had been taken. He was quite convinced that he would hear the answer - in Tsarskoe Selo or in Peterhof? He was very much surprised when she answered qute spontaneously: 'In the garden.' However, when the magazine was brought in, those present saw that the portrait showing the children full-lenght had actually been taken in the garden, although no one had suspected it until the invalid's remark.
The Duke von Leuchtenberg, as he informed the editor, inquired of Mr. Gilliard, through the Grand Duke Andrew, whether, when he was in Berlin, he showed this photograph to the invalid, In March, 1928, when the Duke von Leuchtenberg was in Switzerland, he for the first time asked Mr. Gilliard this question personally. Mr. Gilliard said no, he had not shown the picture to the invalid because the Ambassador, Mr. Zahle, had not wished it.

That's my Franzisca; always one step ahead.

 

[Anna was Franziska]

I don't really think that you can say that FOTR is the source of this, see reference to TsDOOSO at the end of my posts.

Here is something another person posted on another message board:

I Think that the passage from King and Wilson 141-142 jumps to certain conclusions that I believe to be insufficiently supported by the evidence at hand. First of all, the Baroness was confined to the same cabins on the Rus as the Grand Duchesses - I doubt she would have been able to wander away from them speak to Rodionov without their knowledge - or at least suspicions- and if they were aware of her "betrayal", they would probably have told their mother, who would no doubt have been disgusted by Isa's behaviour and would not have anxiously asked Dr. Derevenko about her safety and the doctor recounts she did.

Most importantly, King and Wilson's account of the events does not match with the actions of the family's guards at the time. If Isa really did tell them exactly where the jewels were, it would have followed that they would have confiscated these jewels instead of waiting until the chaos of the murder on the night of the 17th, by which time the jewels might have been moved from their original hiding places.

Furthermore, if Isa had been so concerned with her own safety over that of the family - I doubt she would have joined them on the Rus in the first place. She would have instead pocketed Soloviev's money (if that is indeed what she did - that is also inconclusive) and deserted the cause before the journey to Ekaterinburg

This is simply my interpretation based on what evidence I have read. I believe there is a great deal about the last months of the Imperial family's lives that cannot be determined from the availible evidence and the conditions of Isa's release is one of them. I do not believe that King and Wilson's presentation of speculative conlusions in the form of facts helps our understanding of the Romanovs'situation in 1918. Speculation and theory should be clearly identified as such and not presented as the unquestionable truth.

The entire thing doesn't add up for all these reasons. The silliest thing imo is as this person said that if they knew they'd have confiscated the jewels and sold them! Much has been made of the bullets bouncing off the girls' bodices because of the jewels, why were they so surprised of they knew? They didn't know until they were undressing the bodies! It's all so self defeating!

That may be possible, but she certainly was not FS.

Why? Because she was such a 'high class lady of breeding' she ended up looking like a bum, smelling like a port a john, acting like an imbecile, living in filth and becoming the joke of the town?

 

[Anna was Franziska]

And when did she meet with AA?

She could probably tell from the pictures alone. It was because of her own experiences that Elena, who had made the trek out of Russia herself, knew AA's escape story was ridiculous and impossible.

Princess Eleana, Grand Duchess Ioann Konstanovich, also went free. Probably, but who knows, because her father was King of Serbia. But she was in prison several places and in Ekaterinburg, was in the cell with Countess Hendrikova and Mll. Schneider and they were removed and shot. She eventually made it to Sweden after being imprisoned for many months. She was the only member of the Imperial Family to fall into the hands of the Ural Soviets and survive. When Anna Anderson was attracting publicity in the 1950's, she felt she had to put her story on record. She said AA was not AN and she felt it was her duty to say so. She never accused Bux of anything.

Here's a first hand account, she was there and talked to people who had been with the family, so she would know!

How come no one wonders why those two others were taken out and shot and Eleana was not? Did she 'betray the family' too?

 

[COUNTESS]

No, she was devoted to the family. The other stuff is nonsense. Elena did not think Anderson's photos looked anything like AN. She spoke up, because she hated the charade. Now, Chat will say Elena never met AA and he is right, but AA never met AN, so they are even.

 

[ChatNoir]

Here is something another person posted on another message board:

I Think that the passage from King and Wilson 141-142 jumps to certain conclusions that I believe to be insufficiently supported by the evidence at hand. First of all, the Baroness was confined to the same cabins on the Rus as the Grand Duchesses - I doubt she would have been able to wander away from them speak to Rodionov without their knowledge - or at least suspicions- and if they were aware of her "betrayal", they would probably have told their mother, who would no doubt have been disgusted by Isa's behaviour and would not have anxiously asked Dr. Derevenko about her safety and the doctor recounts she did.

Most importantly, King and Wilson's account of the events does not match with the actions of the family's guards at the time. If Isa really did tell them exactly where the jewels were, it would have followed that they would have confiscated these jewels instead of waiting until the chaos of the murder on the night of the 17th, by which time the jewels might have been moved from their original hiding places.

Furthermore, if Isa had been so concerned with her own safety over that of the family - I doubt she would have joined them on the Rus in the first place. She would have instead pocketed Soloviev's money (if that is indeed what she did - that is also inconclusive) and deserted the cause before the journey to Ekaterinburg

This is simply my interpretation based on what evidence I have read. I believe there is a great deal about the last months of the Imperial family's lives that cannot be determined from the availible evidence and the conditions of Isa's release is one of them. I do not believe that King and Wilson's presentation of speculative conlusions in the form of facts helps our understanding of the Romanovs'situation in 1918. Speculation and theory should be clearly identified as such and not presented as the unquestionable truth.

And, as the poster says, it is simply my interpretation. Nothing more, nothing less. And King and Wilson do not speculate, they quote Bykov.

The entire thing doesn't add up for all these reasons. The silliest thing imo is as this person said that if they knew they'd have confiscated the jewels and sold them! Much has been made of the bullets bouncing off the girls' bodices because of the jewels, why were they so surprised of they knew? They didn't know until they were undressing the bodies! It's all so self defeating!

In his 1922 memoirs, Yurovsky wrote of "the damn valuables and jewels we knew they had concealed in their clothes when they arrived , which caused troubles to no end." (Yakov Yurovsky, unpublished memoirs, 1922, in Archicves of the President of the Russian Federation (APRF), f. 3, op. 58, d.280.) Do you still find it self defeating?

Why? Because she was such a 'high class lady of breeding' she ended up looking like a bum, smelling like a port a john, acting like an imbecile, living in filth and becoming the joke of the town?

Obviously, you need to catch up on your reading.

 

[ChatNoir]

No, she was devoted to the family. The other stuff is nonsense. Elena did not think Anderson's photos looked anything like AN. She spoke up, because she hated the charade. Now, Chat will say Elena never met AA and he is right, but AA never met AN, so they are even.

No, AA never met AN. That's for sure. And neither did Elena. Pity.

 

[ChatNoir]

She could probably tell from the pictures alone. It was because of her own experiences that Elena, who had made the trek out of Russia herself, knew AA's escape story was ridiculous and impossible.

What pictures?

Here's a first hand account, she was there and talked to people who had been with the family, so she would know!

Yes, she talked to people who had been with the family. But Gleb and Tatiana Botkin was WITH the family. Why don't you trust them?

How come no one wonders why those two others were taken out and shot and Eleana was not? Did she 'betray the family' too?

I think Countess just stated that her father was the king of Serbia.

 

[Anna was Franziska]

Yes, she talked to people who had been with the family. But Gleb and Tatiana Botkin was WITH the family. Why don't you trust them?

Because they were so active in her claim, and he was a writer, and it all looks so perfect that he was at least partially behind it all.

I think Countess just stated that her father was the king of Serbia.

She stated that she had been in prison with Hendrikova and Schneider before they were shot, and they never said anything about any 'betrayal.'

 

[ChatNoir]

Because they were so active in her claim, and he was a writer, and it all looks so perfect that he was at least partially behind it all.

They were active in her claim because they firmly believed her to be AN. But all this nonsense of "being behind it all" is just what it is. Pure, unadulterated nonsense. Gleb Botkin did not meet AA until May, 1927, long after the notoriety of her claim had made headlines all over.

She stated that she had been in prison with Hendrikova and Schneider before they were shot, and they never said anything about any 'betrayal.'

And who would have told them?

 

[tian]

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

There are pictures of Emperor's car with swastika hood ornament in Larisa Yermilova's book Last Tsar.

More information of imperial cars : The Imperial Garage - alt.talk.royalty | Google Groups

 

[ferrymansdaughter]

Why? Because she was such a 'high class lady of breeding' she ended up looking like a bum, smelling like a port a john, acting like an imbecile, living in filth and becoming the joke of the town?

I think this comment is completely unnecessary. We know you think she was FS, there is no need to be so nasty. She had a breakdown and therefore whoever she was deserves our sympathy. If she was FS - her fiance was killed and then according to you, she saw a man blown up in front of her, you'd be a bit nutty too. Incidentally It's not just poor people who end up as bag ladies or tramps.​