Anna Anderson's claim to be Grand Duchess Anastasia

[ChatNoir]

You cannot prove this, it's only your excuse. The story was false, and that's why she couldn't get the dates straight. You have to resort to accusing the newspaper of falsifying, and telling it as if it were a fact!

Yes, I can prove it. You still do not seem to comprehend that Malinovsky could not have heard any story from AA in the fall of 1922 since they parted ways in May when AA went to Baron von Kleist to live. So it had to happen in fall of 1921, the only fall they spent together. And I did not accuse the newspaper, I said "willfully or not".

Even if he was there, he never saw a shot AN in a bed across the street, since gthat never happened.

And what do you know about that? Were you there? And to be correct, he said "one of the women from the Ipatiev house", not Anastasia.

AA was dead on the truck with the rest of them. It's also interesting that AA supporters even bother to condone his story, since it doesn't even fit in with her 'escape' story! But of course, it's been changed so many times, and it's fake anyway, so it hardly matters.

How does it not fit in with her escape story? According to Kleibenzetl, the same soldier came back after three days, put AA in his cart and took her away.

Because of the dna, we know she had to have been told things.

And I am still waiting to hear who told her.

We can even see in books things she copied.

Yes, if she could read English, Russian and French. Very few German books out there. And if you remember correctly, Tatiana Botkin wrote in her book that Maria and Anastasia visited their hospital every day. Still, AA contradicted her and said: No, not every day. And she was correct.

There is absolutely no evidence at all against the DNA other than your rabid desire for AA to be AN.

I have no rabid desire for AA to be anyone, I just find the story extremely intriguing. But I see no need for dedicated websites and MySpace sites to spread the gospel like some others we know.

We have NO evidence, proof, suspects, or even any direct allegations of misconduct or wrongdoing. Everything was on the level, yet you continue to say it wasn't. You can't do that without even an alternative theory! Remember, it's not just for the intestines, but the hair, and the bone fragments found last year. Do you really believe there is some mysterious rich perosn out there paying EVERYONE off and what would the purpose be? And who are they? You have NOTHING!

I am having lots of fun. And while you're at it, could you please give us a link to the lab results of the bones found last year so that we all can see them. Thank you.

 

[ChatNoir]

Chat, I am not playing pictures with you. No need to drag out your old blurry, shadowy, obviously posed and lip biting picture of FS/AA trying to imitate AN's expression.We have been through all this before, and there's no need to clog the thread again. If anyone wants to see my comparisons they can look on my site. Here's my link:

Of course you are not playing pictures with me, she looks too much like AN for you.

The biggest giveaway is AA/FS's huge, wide, thick, shapeless lips, very different from AN' small, thin, shapely ones. Also note AN's long, curved chin as opposed to AA's short, flat one. No wonder she ran around most of the time with a hanky covering her lower face!

The mouth did change, at least in the earlier photos. The chin looks exactly the same to me. And apparently also to every professor who compared photos. The reason for the hankie was her missing teeth, remember?

 

[Anna was Franziska]

Yes, I can prove it. You still do not seem to comprehend that Malinovsky could not have heard any story from AA in the fall of 1922 since they parted ways in May when AA went to Baron von Kleist to live. So it had to happen in fall of 1921, the only fall they spent together. And I did not accuse the newspaper, I said "willfully or not".

No, we've been through this before, too. You seem to forget that, one, people often forget and mix up dates even in their own lives. She could have not seen it until after AA became "AN" in early 1922. Or, more likely, the entire story never happened, and she got her dates wrong because there was nothing actual to go by!

And what do you know about that? Were you there? And to be correct, he said "one of the women from the Ipatiev house", not Anastasia.

He also claimed they could see over the barricade, but pictures prove this was impossible. The story is fiction and I'll waste no more time on it.

How does it not fit in with her escape story? According to Kleibenzetl, the same soldier came back after three days, put AA in his cart and took her away.

When did 'three days later' come into it? I thought they fled right away for their lives? Or did that change somewhere between Paris and the myterious bogeymen who changed her clothes and drugged her and threw her into the canal, and one of her other versions?

And I am still waiting to hear who told her.

As I've said a million times, NO ONE leaves a paper trail of fraud. You'll never put a page number to it. However, since we do have the DNA to prove she wasn't AN we know sh learned her stuff elsewhere. And I am still waiting for the proof of how the intestines, hair AND bone fragments were ALL switched. Until you can do this, your silly little he said she said stories are meaningless.

< ed Warren: removed personal comments >

could you please give us a link to the lab results of the bones found last year so that we all can see them. Thank you.

Watch the National Geographic special.

Of course you are not playing pictures with me, she looks too much like AN for you.

Umm...no. Please see my comparisons for what I really think. I am surprised she hasn't been compared to FS more often, the likeness is amazing.

 

[ChatNoir]

If anyone is interested in some wild excuses why the DNA didn't match, read pages 322-323 of Frances Welch's "A Romanov Fantasy"


A Romanov Fantasy: Life at the Court ... - Google Book Search

also note on page 318 it tells how Kurth fully supported the hair samples of AA until they proved not to match the royal family.

And if you and Miss Welch want to get your story straight, go back to post #309, April 12, 2008, and read Mr. Kurth's own words.

 

[ChatNoir]

No, we've been through this before, too. You seem to forget that, one, people often forget and mix up dates even in their own lives. She could have not seen it until after AA became "AN" in early 1922. Or, more likely, the entire story never happened, and she got her dates wrong because there was nothing actual to go by!

Yes, we have been through this before, and probably will go again as long as you do not seem to understand that AA left Dalldorf in May 1922 and it would have been totally useless for Malinovsky to even try telling the world that she spoke to AA in fall of 1922. Her hiring date is on the books of Dalldorf, and it was not too long after that AA confessed to her whom she was. Like it or not.

He also claimed they could see over the barricade, but pictures prove this was impossible. The story is fiction and I'll waste no more time on it.

Kleibenzetl claimed no such thing. He delivered uniforms to the soldiers and was admitted to the Ipatiev house.

When did 'three days later' come into it? I thought they fled right away for their lives? Or did that change somewhere between Paris and the myterious bogeymen who changed her clothes and drugged her and threw her into the canal, and one of her other versions?

I think you have a lot of reading to do. Start with Peter Kurth, it is all in there. (The Paris stuff is pure Gilliard fiction.)

As I've said a million times, NO ONE leaves a paper trail of fraud. You'll never put a page number to it. However, since we do have the DNA to prove she wasn't AN we know sh learned her stuff elsewhere. And I am still waiting for the proof of how the intestines, hair AND bone fragments were ALL switched. Until you can do this, your silly little he said she said stories are meaningless.

You first.

< ed Warren: response to deleted comments >

Watch the National Geographic special.

No, I want reports from the labs!

Umm...no. Please see my comparisons for what I really think. I am surprised she hasn't been compared to FS more often, the likeness is amazing.

And according to Felix, AA looked nothing like his sister on the photos except for one.

 

[Menarue]

Which one was that Chat?

 

[ChatNoir]

Which one was that Chat?

I think it was the one that Mr. Oxley used for his computerized "identification".

 

[Anna was Franziska]

Yes, we have been through this before, and probably will go again as long as you do not seem to understand that AA left Dalldorf in May 1922 and it would have been totally useless for Malinovsky to even try telling the world that she spoke to AA in fall of 1922. Her hiring date is on the books of Dalldorf, and it was not too long after that AA confessed to her whom she was. Like it or not.

Like it or not, chat, this story NEVER HAPPENED and that's why she couldn't get the date right.

Kleibenzetl claimed no such thing. He delivered uniforms to the soldiers and was admitted to the Ipatiev house.

Chat, this story also NEVER HAPPENED.

I think you have a lot of reading to do. Start with Peter Kurth, it is all in there. (The Paris stuff is pure Gilliard fiction.)

Though the Paris story also never happened, she did say it. It was the one she cooked up in the nut house with Clara P. She was so looney she didn't realize how crazy it sounded until Von Kliest changed it and Rathlef perfected the final version. You calling Gilliard a liar doesn't make it disappear, AA did it.

You first.

but you see Chat, we win- we have the dna. If you can't disprove it, nothing else matters- especially not who said what decades ago. Got it?

< ed Warren: continuing personal comments >

No, I want reports from the labs!

They will publish it when ready. They want to be above reproach, though nothing will EVER EVER satisfy you, and you know it. So why bother?

And according to Felix, AA looked nothing like his sister on the photos except for one.

Ho hum. And of course he denied her for her and his own good. I'm not even going to bother rehashing this mess again, either.

 

[Anna was Franziska]

And if you and Miss Welch want to get your story straight, go back to post #309, April 12, 2008, and read Mr. Kurth's own words.

You mean this?

>Peter Kurth would be another world-renowned expert on genetics like Shay McNeal, would he?<

No, he wouldn't. I am not a scientist, nor was I in any way connected with the DNA tests of 1994 apart from carrying a single lock of AA's hair to England -- NOT the sample from the bookstore in Chapel Hill, but one "in private hands," so to speak, and automatically worthless as evidence since it had been handled by so many people (as is also true of the hair from C.H.). The sample I carried was intended for Dr. Gill, but was not delivered directly to him, but rather to a reporter for the BBC who acted as intermediary, just as the testing of the blood of Carl Maucher was arranged, not by scientists, but by commercial television producers in Britain, who, since we so loosely toss around the word "agenda" here, plainly had one of their own. The sample I carried was never seen again or otherwise accounted for; none of the hair samples, to my knowledge, were restored to their owners -- which in itself, under law, would ensure that the test results were thrown out of court if anyone had ever dared to bring them there -- but of course they never did and never will.

While we're on the topic of "world-renowned experts," let me just say that, in regard to "Anna Anderson," her life and personality, I AM an expert, whereas most of the people posting here are not. I appreciate anyone's doubts and even negative conclusions about her identity with Anastasia, but I do not cede authority to those who never knew her, or anyone around her, and who thus feel free to perpetuate the most egregious (and insulting, and long disproved) remarks and notions about "what she was like," "what her motives were," and so on ... I have never in my life, over a long career in writing and journalism in no way limited to this one topic, heard so much pure bull**** streaming from so many half-baked heads as I have in this case -- a case that continues to aggravate and enrage the doubters and bring out the worst sort of prejudice in them all. You can quote me. pk

My goodness, that last paragraph, how pretentious and utterly rude!


As for the first part, I understand he denied it later, but from all accounts I've seen, he had no problem with its authenticity until it failed the test.

 

[ChatNoir]

Like it or not, chat, this story NEVER HAPPENED and that's why she couldn't get the date right.

Let me quote the whole letter to Mr. Pastenaci again, I think there are something you still don't understand here:

Mr. Kurt Pastenaci
Berlin, S.W.48
Friedrichstrasse 218 II

Dear Mr. Pastenaci,
In reply to your letter of 26th September of this year, I have to inform you that I took the post as sister in the asylum at Dalldorf on 21st July, 1921, and made the acquaintance of Mrs. Chaikovski on the very first day of my appointment. The date of commencement of my appointment may be seen on my testimonial. The service book of House 4 of the Dalldorf Asylum - naturally assuming that it was kept regularly by the sister-in-charge - must contain the entry that I was appointed from 21st July, 1921, to "B, upstairs," of the section for docile patients. From the records relating to Mrs. Chaikovski, it must ve verifiable that, in the summer of 1921, she was in "B, upstairs."
I am prepared at any time to depose on oath in Court that Mrs. Chaikovski said to me, in 1921, when I was on night duty, a few months after I entered the service of the institution, that she was the Grand Duchess Anastasia.
This statement surprised me greatly, because, since 1920, a whole staff of police officers had been trying in vain to identify her. She had been photographed and filmed, addressed in every language, measurements had been taken of her head, the width of her face, her hands and feet; but no success had attended the efforts of the identification deparement. During her stay at Dalldorf, Mrs. Chaikovski's demeanour was not that of a working woman, but that of a lady belonging to the highest social circles.
As the manuscript sent to the Nachtausgabe was not restored to me, for the credit of that journal I can only surmise, either that, by an oversight, I wrote 1922 instead of 1921, or that the mistake was due to a printer's error in the Nachtausgabe.
However, since the records of the institution prove that Miss Peuthert did not become a patient until 1922, it is incomprehensible to me how the Nachtausgabe could entirely ignore my testimony, and represent Miss Peuthert as the person who suggested to the Unknown that she was the Grand Duchess Anastasia. Even the ex-Imperial tutor, Mr. Gilliard, represents Miss Peuthert, a former patient of the Dalldorf Institute, as the originator of the Anastasia legend, and speaks of a terrible danger which he believes his alleged discovery happily averted.
To conclude, the Nachtausgabe will never make anybody believe that the pictures it published of the working woman Frantsiska Shantskovski represent Mrs. Chaikovski in any phase of her life. Or are we to believe that the Nachtausgabe is better informed than the officials of the identification department of the Berlin police.
Naturally, I authorize you to publish my reply.
Mrs. Dr. Chemnitz, nee Malnovski.

So as we can see, Gilliard and die Nachausgabe were clearly in cahoots, both being paid from Darmstadt.

Chat, this story also NEVER HAPPENED.

I think it did. Heinrich Kleibenzetl's story was solid. And so was his alibi.

Though the Paris story also never happened, she did say it. It was the one she cooked up in the nut house with Clara P. She was so looney she didn't realize how crazy it sounded until Von Kliest changed it and Rathlef perfected the final version. You calling Gilliard a liar doesn't make it disappear, AA did it.

Can you back up what you are saying? Of course not, Gilliard burned all his papers.

but you see Chat, we win- we have the dna. If you can't disprove it, nothing else matters- especially not who said what decades ago. Got it?

Then prove to me that the samples were genuine.

I am not even going to go there, because you know I think you *do* have a website.

Then, by all means, provide a link to it!

They will publish it when ready. They want to be above reproach, though nothing will EVER EVER satisfy you, and you know it. So why bother?

It has been 14 months so far, how much more time do they need?

Ho hum. And of course he denied her for her and his own good. I'm not even going to bother rehashing this mess again, either.

No, you should not bother with more allegations.

 

[ChatNoir]

You mean this?



My goodness, that last paragraph, how pretentious and utterly rude!

And how very, very true........

As for the first part, I understand he denied it later, but from all accounts I've seen, he had no problem with its authenticity until it failed the test.

And now you have it from the horse's mouth, but you still prefer to believe those who support your own story.

 

[Anna was Franziska]

And how very, very true........

Of course you'd say that. It remains pretentious, rude, and unacceptable in civilized discussion.

Then prove to me that the samples were genuine.

There is nothing to suggest they are, other than you, and a few others (such as bear) who can also not give us even a small lead as to why they aren't. Since there has been no issue with their authenticity, the burden of proof is on YOU to prove that they were tainted. If you cannot do that, you have NOTHING. NO case. NONE of your decades old this person said this or that matters. It's worthless.

 

[ChatNoir]

Of course you'd say that. It remains pretentious, rude, and unacceptable in civilized discussion.

Funny you should bring up civilized discussion......

There is nothing to suggest they are, other than you, and a few others (such as bear) who can also not give us even a small lead as to why they aren't. Since there has been no issue with their authenticity, the burden of proof is on YOU to prove that they were tainted. If you cannot do that, you have NOTHING. NO case. NONE of your decades old this person said this or that matters. It's worthless.

Sorry, there is no burden on me to prove anything. I am simply repeating the story as witnessed and told from those who were there and trying to correct all the "mistakes" you inject in order to change it.

 

[Anna was Franziska]

Answer this: why does everyone else in the civilized world, scientists, historians, news agencies, regular people, etc., accept the DNA, and only a handful of zealots don't? Do you even realize just what you are suggesting, a major conspiracy involving many scientists, labs, hospitals, governments, and others? Consider again just how outrageous it all is, and how impossible!

 

[ChatNoir]

Answer this: why does everyone else in the civilized world, scientists, historians, news agencies, regular people, etc., accept the DNA, and only a handful of zealots don't? Do you even realize just what you are suggesting, a major conspiracy involving many scientists, labs, governments, and others? Consider again just how outrageous it all is!

I refuse to speculate on this. I am more interested in the story itself. At the end, it doesn't really matter much who AA was or was not. What is immensely interesting, is to follow the story from the beginning and see how she was recognized by friends and family, how she scared the pants off some of the family, how scientists and doctors came to the conclusion that she was Anastasia, how she presented her enormous knowledge of the IF, the history of the Romanovs and her familiarity with other royal houses. And most of all, how she still has the power to greatly upset people like you.

 

[Anna was Franziska]

I refuse to speculate on this.

Then, you have no answers, and therefore no case.

I am more interested in the story itself.

It's interesting to study the story, as long as the eventual outcome- AA being proven not to be AN- is accepted.

At the end, it doesn't really matter much who AA was or was not.

I do NOT believe you believe this. Sorry. Actions speak louder than words.

And most of all, how she still has the power to greatly upset people like you.

She doesn't upset me. She's an old, dead crazy woman. It's YOU who upsets me.

 

[ChatNoir]

Then, you have no answers, and therefore no case.

I have provided a lot of answers that indicate that AA=AN, and that seems to upset you very much.

It's interesting to study the story, as long as the eventual outcome- AA being proven not to be AN- is accepted.

Why is that so important?

I do NOT believe you believe this. Sorry. Actions speak louder than words.

As I have said earlier: What you believe or not is of no interest.

She doesn't upset me. She's an old, dead crazy woman. It's YOU who upsets me.

Dead, yes. Old, yes. Crazy, no. And why in the world would I upset you? Is it that important to you that the whole world thinks like you?

 

[ChatNoir]

And now, after these words from your sponsors, we return to Anna Anderson.

 

[Anna was Franziska]

It's no use trying to put the hysterics off on me, everyone knows you're a total fanatic, and will stop at nothing to make your case for AA. I only want reality, truth and common sense, and integrity in history and science, to prevail over your fantasy stories. Why would you even bother to keep stating all the things this and that person said decades ago, unless you believe it trumps the DNA? If you don't accept the DNA, give us good reason why, or there's nothing left to say.

 

[COUNTESS]

Different is good, but in this case, science have taken over I humble opinions.

 

[ChatNoir]

It's no use trying to put the hysterics off on me, everyone knows you're a total fanatic, and will stop at nothing to make your case for AA.

Quite frankly, not that many people know me or who I am.

I only want reality, truth and common sense, and integrity in history and science, to prevail over your fantasy stories.

No, my dear, you want only the things that go with your take on the story.

Why would you even bother to keep stating all the things this and that person said decades ago, unless you believe it trumps the DNA? If you don't accept the DNA, give us good reason why, or there's nothing left to say.

I am just here to irritate you, remember?

 

[ChatNoir]

Different is good, but in this case, science have taken over I humble opinions.

Somehow, I just don't think that the Botkin's unshakable recognition of their old friend was an opinion.

 

[Russophile]

Different is good, but in this case, science have taken over I humble opinions.

And there's still more to the story that we don't know about.
I'll sit tight and keep soaking up the information!

 

[Anna was Franziska]

No, my dear, you want only the things that go with your take on the story.

Sorry, but 'my take' happens to be proven scientific fact. This means it's no longer up to opinion, and anyone 'thinking differently' is mistaken.

 

[ChatNoir]

Sorry, but 'my take' happens to be proven scientific fact. This means it's no longer up to opinion, and anyone 'thinking differently' is mistaken.

Your take is: I DON'T BELIEVE IT or IT DIDN'T HAPPEN if it doesn't correspond with your way of thinking. Please see previous posts.

Can we get back to Anna Anderson now?

 

[Anna was Franziska]

Your take is: I DON'T BELIEVE IT or IT DIDN'T HAPPEN if it doesn't correspond with your way of thinking. Please see previous posts.

You miss the main issue here. Because DNA proved her not to be AN, we KNOW, yes KNOW, it didn't happen, and it can't be believed. However, you give basically "I don't believe it" as an answer to the DNA. IF not, you wouldn't even consider her 'side' to be valid, because it isn't.

 

[ChatNoir]

You miss the main issue here. Because DNA proved her not to be AN, we KNOW, yes KNOW, it didn't happen, and it can't be believed. However, you give basically "I don't believe it" as an answer to the DNA. IF not, you wouldn't even consider her 'side' to be valid, because it isn't.

As I have said before: The DNA says NO! But since we cannot be 100% sure if the samples in question really did belong to AA, it leaves the door open for the mystery to continue.
And that is just that. If you do not believe it, all you have to do is to quit the board and live your life in peace while those of us who enjoy the discussion continue without dealing with all of your denials of the things that do not correspond with your beliefs.

 

[Anna was Franziska]

The intestines and the hair were both labeled with her name and there is no evidence of tampering, in fact, the hospital explained how certain it was they were hers. The hair was labeled as hers, why would it be anyone else's? Most of all, it's all voided by the finding of the last 2 bodies and their identification of them as the children of Nicholas and Alexandra. It's more than an outrageous fantasy to suggest ALL THREE (hair, intestines, and bones) were wrong. Any rational person can see and accept this. I'm sure you'd love for me to shut up and go away and allow you to spread your wild fantasies as fact to a community dedicated to history. I have a suggestion for you, perhaps you should start a fanfiction site where you can write alternate endings to the Romanov story, if it's so entertaining to you. But you'll never change the true one- they all died in 1918. This is not my 'beliefs'- this is reality.

You wanting me to go away and stop disagreeing with your fairy tale versions can go the other way, too. I find it frustrating that we cannot discuss this story in a historical sense of 'how FS did it' without 'what if she really was AN' always being brought up with the same old rhetoric, ilsts and quotes to be answered again and again. It would be very nice to have different threads discussing various aspect os the case without you always going in circles saying the same exact repetitive things until the mods merge the threads and it all becomes a dog chasing his tail again. Of course anyone would find it more peaceful and pleasant if their adversary would just shut up and let them have their way.

 

[Elspeth]

I refuse to speculate on this. I am more interested in the story itself. At the end, it doesn't really matter much who AA was or was not. What is immensely interesting, is to follow the story from the beginning and see how she was recognized by friends and family, how she scared the pants off some of the family, how scientists and doctors came to the conclusion that she was Anastasia, how she presented her enormous knowledge of the IF, the history of the Romanovs and her familiarity with other royal houses. And most of all, how she still has the power to greatly upset people like you.

Only by some, apparently.

If Princess Mary had disappeared late in World War I at a time when the royal family was alleged to have been executed and then suddenly showed up four or five years later, or if Princess Margaret had done so after World War II, I can't imagine that there'd have been any doubt in anyone's mind. The two princesses looked so similar at age 17 or 18 and in their mid-20s; it's not as though Anastasia disappeared at the age of 10 and reappeared at the age of 35, when there would have been some significant changes. Yet for every family member who claims that Anna Anderson was Anastasia, there seems to be one who's sure she isn't. I just can't imagine that much doubt surrounding Princess Margaret in 1948 or Princess Mary in 1922.

As for Peter Kurth being an expert on Anastasia and shrugging off everyone else's expertise - he's the guy who pooh-poohed the DNA evidence from Prince Philip on account of a lack of witnesses when the hair sample was collected, even though the sample in question was a blood sample, not a hair sample. In contrast, the scientists who did the DNA tests actually ARE experts.

 

[ChatNoir]

The intestines and the hair were both labeled with her name and there is no evidence of tampering, in fact, the hospital explained how certain it was they were hers. The hair was labeled as hers, why would it be anyone else's?

So labeling is now foolproof, is it?

Most of all, it's all voided by the finding of the last 2 bodies and their identification of them as the children of Nicholas and Alexandra. It's more than an outrageous fantasy to suggest ALL THREE (hair, intestines, and bones) were wrong. Any rational person can see and accept this. I'm sure you'd love for me to shut up and go away and allow you to spread your wild fantasies as fact to a community dedicated to history. I have a suggestion for you, perhaps you should start a fanfiction site where you can write alternate endings to the Romanov story, if it's so entertaining to you. But you'll never change the true one- they all died in 1918. This is not my 'beliefs'- this is reality.

Then take it to court and let's have a legal decision.

You wanting me to go away and stop disagreeing with your fairy tale versions can go the other way, too. I find it frustrating that we cannot discuss this story in a historical sense of 'how FS did it' without 'what if she really was AN' always being brought up with the same old rhetoric, ilsts and quotes to be answered again and again. It would be very nice to have different threads discussing various aspect os the case without you always going in circles saying the same exact repetitive things until the mods merge the threads and it all becomes a dog chasing his tail again. Of course anyone would find it more peaceful and pleasant if their adversary would just shut up and let them have their way.

It would be more peaceful and pleasant if you could discuss it in a grown-up manner instead of just stating that it didn't happen and I don't believe it when things don't go your way.