Talk:Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia

page move

Page moved. It was agreed in a long debate on the naming conventions for royalty months ago not to use personal names or surnames in article titles, but to use a personal's title instead. Where a number of people share a similar title, as here, the details are entered on the page. ÉÍREman 05:22 Apr 19, 2003 (UTC)

Just to note, this article is a bit POV on the question of Anastasia's possible survival and the identity of Anna Anderson. I personally think all of that stuff is nonsense, but there's still a fair number of people who believe it, and perhaps their case, such as it is, ought to be presented more carefully so as to avoid the possibility of a nasty edit war if one of them happens upon this page. What do other people think?

Note: I am not saying that we should say that AA was Anastasia, or that Anastasia survived, or any such thing. Rather, I'm suggesting that the story ought to be presented more evenhandedly, so as to avoid possible future problems with Anna Anderson supporters. john 21:58 30 May 2003 (UTC)

I don't believe AA was Anastasia. It's nice to believe that one of thre Tsar's daughters escaped death, but I think that they all died. Besides, it is widely thought now that the two bodies missing were Alexei and Maria, not Anastasia. Alexei and Maria's bodies were probably burnt, I'm not sure why but that's what I believe.--Camblunt100 11:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

"More evenhandedly?" It has been proven through DNA testing that Anna Anderson was not Anastasia. That sounds very NPOV to me. Arno

Yes, I know that. You know that. But there's people out there who are going to argue about it, and the language that's currently up there (e.g. "charlatan") is such as to guarantee to make such people angry, and needlessly, since we could say the same thing more delicately. Here, let me try to NPOV it a bit. john 06:40 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

WRONG. There are serious questions requarding the 1994 DNA tests.

I disagree. DNA does not lie. Anna Anderson was probably not Anastasia. SDuchess 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Correct. DNA dosen't lie. But if it wasn't her DNA, then it would of course give false results. In fact, Anderson's body was cremated when she died.

Please sign your comments. So far, Anderson's reamining supporters have been able to produce no evidence to support claims of a DNA switch. In the absence of evidence, I think the way the issue is covered on this page is fair. Anna Anderson is discussed at much greater length on her own page. Until there is some firm evidence linking the 2 women, these discussions belong on that page. Indisciplined 16:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree. Anastasia would not have been famous if it were not for Anna Anderson. It was always quite obvious that the Royal family had something to hide. I reccomend for your further reading, "Anastasia: The Riddle of Anna Anderson" by Peter Kurth.

Olga, Tatiana, and Marie are famous. Obviously Anastasia is more famous because of Anna Anderson, but she'd still pretty famous. What royal family is it that is supposed to have had something to hide, btw? Anastasia's own family was dead. Grand Duke Cyril had nothing to fear from the survival of Anastasia, any more than the survival of Xenia and Olga Alexandrovna impaired his own rise to the pretendership. I don't see what reason Grand Duchess Olga would have to not recognize her niece, nor Princess Iris, who were the only actual close relatives of Anastasia to meet Anna Anderson. Other members of "royal families" actually supported her. What exactly are you contending here? john k 21:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Before you say no one had something to hide, you should note how Olga contradicted herself her entire life. Come on, she writes to Shura saying, "If it is she send me a wire and I will come." She arrives and says, "My heart tells me it is she." Then she sends her letters and gifts, but then later she says, "We always knew she had perished. And I knew at first sight she could not be my niece." Yeah, that makes sense, NOT. And btw, Cyril had every reason to fear the daughter of the Tsar. Not only was she just that, the DAUGHTER OF THE TSAR, he had betrayed them during the Revolution. Please read Peter Kurth's research on the subject and you will understand.

The DNA came from hair on Anna Anderson's comb, not her cremated body.CHSGHSF 22:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Peter Kurth is a desperate consipracy theorist trying to make money and a faker. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darth Anzeruthi (talk • contribs) 04:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate film

We now label the 1997 musical animated film Anastasia as "historically inaccurate". Does a singing/talking/dancing bat make the film less historically inaccurate than any film that features a surviving Anastasia? Ok, maybe a little... but not much. -- Someone else 04:52, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The film also features Rasputin leading the Russian Revolution, doesn't it? john 06:09, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I wish I could say, I just couldn't get past the bat. I was hoping someone might be inspired to compare reality with the animatronic Anastasia. Maybe I can scout up enough for a start on the flick.... :) -- Someone else

It shows Rasputin conjuring up the madness in the commoners after getting insulted by Nicholas, IIRC. The identifier of Anastasia, instead of an aunt, was a grandmother (paternal or maternal?) who visits Paris often and eventually lives there. --Menchi 06:23, Jul 30, 2003 (UTC)

Nicholas's mother, the Dowager Empress Marie, was also the identifier in the Bergman film, although I think they (correctly) depict her as living in Denmark, where she originally came from. Alexandra's parents had died before her marriage. As far as an aunt "identifying" Anastasia, from what I recall Grand Duchess Olga, the aunt in question, was pretty wishy-washy about the whole thing, and ultimately said that AA was not Anastasia. Of Anastasia's other aunts, Victoria Milford Haven and Grand Duchess Xenia never met Anna Anderson. I don't remember about Alexandra's sister Irene - I seem to recall that she met Anna Anderson, didn't identify her as Anastasia, but admitted that she looked rather like her. I don't think that Anastasia's uncle, the Grand Duke of Hesse, ever actually met her, although he was the one who hired the private investigator who first argued that she was Franziska Schanzkowska. john 22:37, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

And the fact that she is a young girl (5 or 6?) in the movie during the Russian Revolution whereas in real life, she was almost sixteen.

I've made a bit of a start at Anastasia (1997 movie), though it urgently needs assistance. -- Someone else 09:35, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps 'historically inaccurate' should be replaced by 'fantastical'. It features magic, the selling of one's soul, talking animals and gremlins. After a certain point, minor inaccuracies in the family tree are kind of trivial, no? - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 22:46, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

Well, yes. Its depictions of Rasputin, having Anastasia alive in the first place, it is very historically inaccurate! Arno 07:07, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I removed the "historically inaccurate" reference and changed it to read "fictionalized." The film makes no pretense of being historically accurate or non-fictional, and the "historically inacurate" label is inherently disrespectful to the creators of that film (who actually did an extensive amount of research on the Grand Duchess Anastasia; a number of authentic period newspaper articles are reproduced as props in the film). A disclaimer, different from the usual "this film is fictional" bit, appears at the end of the credits:

"While some of the characters and events depicted in this film were inspired by well-known historical figures and events, the portrayal of such characters and the depiction of such events are fictional. All other characters and incidents protrayed and names used were created for the purpose of fictitious dramatization and any similarity to the names, characters, and history of actual persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental and unintentional."

--b. Touch 08:51, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Groan! So by its own admission (and yours) the film is historically inaccurate. This whole argument has thus been pedantric at best. Arno 05:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

There is absolutely NO proof that Anastasia was ever killed. That's a fact.

Please sign your comments. I think it's fair to say that the makers of this film never actually intended it to be historically accurate. It's a kid's cartoon. Disney Pochahontas doesn't claim to be historically accurate either. 'Fantasy' seems like a pretty good term to me. Indisciplined 16:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no proof that your mother has been killed but that may change soon.

Unfair Links?

Legend of Anastasia Should NOT be linked. As the language on this site is profrane. And the historical content on the site is slim to none.

Considering the fact that there has been no completely conclusive evidence to prove it either way, I don;t think it is fair to have the link for the Polish woman (sorry, can't remember her name!) going straight to Anna Anderson.

I also don't think it's fair to have a definite date for the death of Anastasia - after all, we really don't know, and i wasn;t under the impression that an encyclopaedia gave uncertain information as fact.

-What people don't know is that the Polish girl did not even understand Russian like Anna Anderson and spoke perfect German, unlike Anna Anderson.

Please sign your comments. Indisciplined 16:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

DNA tests

Doubt on the continued validity of the 1994 DNA tests on the Romanov bones and Anna Anderson/ Anastasia.

"Ten years later, Greg King (author of The Last Empress: The Life and Times of Alexandra Feodorovna, Tsarina of Russia and co-author with Penny Wilson of The Fate of the Romanovs) adds for the record:

One needn’t believe in conspiracies or ascribe incompetence to those who conducted the testing to have doubts about their continued validity. Two distinct methods of DNA testing were used to show support for the hypotheses that Anastasia Manahan or Anna Anderson 1) Could not have been a child of Nicholas and Alexandra; 2) Did not match the mtDNA Hessian profile derived by Gill and used to match four of the female Ekaterinburg remains to the profile derived from HRH The Duke of Edinburgh; and 3) Matched the mtDNA profile of Karl Maucher, lending support to the hypothesis that she was Schanzkowska.

Both nuclear and mitochondrial (mtDNA) testing was done. Nuclear testing is preferred as it renders better results and is considered more accurate, while mtDNA is less discriminating. Nuclear DNA tests showed that AA could not possibly have been a daughter of N and A, yet changes in the science make the 1994 verdict obsolete. Gill used a 6-point Short Tandem Repeat (STR) analysis of the nuclear DNA to arrive at these results. Within four years of these tests, 10 point STR testing was being done, and when results of 10 point STR testing were compared with 6 point STR tests, the 6 point analysis was shown conclusively to give both false positive and negative results-in other words, conclusions based on 6 point STR tests were proved faulty. In 1999, the testing had gone from the 6 point STR tests of 1993-94 and the 10 point STR tests of 1998 to 12 point STR tests, the accuracy of which further undermined 6 point STR test results. Gill admitted this in a statement released in 2000, adding that FSS had changed from the old 6 point STR method to the 10 point STR method in 1999. In 2000, the STR tests were up to a 14 point system; in 2001, it was 16 points, and by 2002, the industry standard worldwide in STR testing was 20 point STR tests. Scientific studies have repeatedly shown that 6 point STR tests are unreliable and result in false matches and exclusions. The 6 point STR nuclear DNA tests that showed Anastasia Manahan could not have been a daughter of N and A, therefore, are now meaningless.

The mtDNA match to the Maucher profile is also now known to be less reliable than everyone believed. In 1994, mtDNA matches were believed to prove identity, and to be unique to related individuals. Last year, an extensive UK study showed that out of a random 100 persons, four completely unrelated subjects shared exactly the same mtDNA profiles; extrapolate that here, on a board with 400 members: of the 400 of us posting here, 40 of us-unrelated to each other-would have identical mtDNA profiles, thus "proving" that we're related. The odds of a random mtDNA match between the Manahan sample and the Maucher profile are indeed considerable given the size of the world’s population and the numbers involved. I suspect, based on the continuing evolution of the science, that future studies will show mtDNA profiles to be even more common than this.

My reservations about regarding the 1994 DNA tests as absolutely conclusive in the matter of Anastasia Manahan, therefore, rest on the advances of science. Two of the three planks in the DNA case against her have now been shown to be either unreliable or less than compelling in a mere ten years. Her exclusion from the Hessian mtDNA profile remains, and while the methods used to obtain the exclusion remain in practice, given the above changes I hesitate to presume that they, too, won’t be challenged as the science evolves; already in the last 2 years there have been two substantial challenges to the DNA testing done on the Ekaterinburg remains, and I suppose there will be more in the future that may or may not be valid. This makes it theoretically possible -- given the facts above about the first two DNA planks in the case -- that ultimately in another generation none of the DNA identifications/exclusions in the Anderson case will matter-and the case will fall back to where it always rested before the DNA -- to examination of physical traits, memories, recognitions, etc.

It seems to me, whether one wishes to believe in Anna Anderson or not (and I don't wish either way, incidentally), it’s best to keep an open mind and at least examine the facts as known now in the DNA case against Anastasia Manahan -- as three separate issues -- rather than repeatedly refer to ten year old tests that, taken as a whole, have lost two-thirds of their validity.

King continues, on a “Romanov” chat-line (“The Alexander Palace Discussion Board” – http://hydrogen.pallasweb.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi):

The DNA does not prove anything in this case. It [did not] confirm the identities of Nicholas and Alexandra and the three children, but merely showed that Hessian and Romanov DNA was present in those remains. Thus saying that `DNA proves this is Nicholas, Alexandra, etc.,' isn't really correct -- what it shows is support for the hypothesis that the remains were theirs, and were related to their families. It does not show or confirm actual identity. … Where DNA is concerned, it is important to stress not only that in this case it did not identify anyone, but also that the very tests conducted in 1992-94 are now so out of date they are no longer used. For example -- using a 6 point STR DNA test, Anna Anderson was shown not to have been a child of Nicholas and Alexandra. By 1999, 10 point STR testing had shown that 6 point tests were not only inaccurate but also gave false positive and negative results; they were replaced with 12, then 16, and now 20 point STR tests. So the 6 point STR test which shows Anna Anderson wasn't a Romanov cannot be considered valid any longer, and is, indeed, subject to proved false results. The same can be said of mtDNA testing as well -- methodology has vastly changed, and we now know that the same mtDNA patterns are shared by perhaps 18-20% of the population -- it is not the discriminating factor it was described as seven or eight years ago. It is so inaccurate and so common that it is no longer used in court cases for identity and paternity tests -- they use nuclear DNA rather than mtDNA, which is subject to too many variables.

Nothing bothered me more for so many years as the resemblance between AA and FS, though obviously as Peter says they wouldn't have introduced a candidate who bore no resemblance to AA in an attempt to say that it was she. Since we have only the one doctored photo, though, I'm far more interested in things which don't get mentioned or explored-and ultimately that's what makes the case convincing to me. Not only issues like shoe size but that we have pretty complete month by month documentation now for FS's movements between 1912-1920, including her medical reports, which incidentally make it quite clear there were no scars involved in the munitions accident. These reports indicate that FS was never pregnant during this period, which is a crucial fact-up to a few weeks before AA appeared, FS is well accounted for, and just wasn't pregnant, whereas medical examinations of AA showed that she had given birth at some point (and I've confirmed this with the last doctor who actually examined her on the issue in the 1950s). So how does one reconcile two complete discrepancies-if FS wasn't pregnant, she could not be AA, who gave birth-no two ways about it. Then there are other issues, like AA's blood-in 1951 I think Professor Stefan Sandkueler (I'm probably spelling that wrongly but it's off the top of my head) took blood samples of AA. These samples when tested in 1993-4 did NOT match either the Schanzkowski DNA OR the putative AA Charlottesville tissue DNA profile-and yet these samples are the ONE thing we're certain about-contrary to what Massie wrote in his book they were carefully preserved as the professor told me himself, and not contaminated, and rendered workable and accurate results-and they remained in his possession alone, under lock and key, not subject to interference or contamination by others or by other agents like injection of preservatives as was the tissue in VA. The Grand Duchesss Has 3 Children, and 4 Grand children.

There are a number of these kinds of things which are quite important and which to me help prove that AA could not have been FS. They certainly don't prove she was Anastasia, but taken with the doubts about the mtDNA matches with Maucher, it leaves the DNA evidence-the supposed and presumed "end of the story" verdict-in the dust-and takes things back to square one-determination based on other factors. It amazes me that when the DNA results came out, almost every person came off with the same line-"she must have been a great actress"-and made absolutely no attempt to address the outstanding questions of people recognizing her, physical similarities, memories, human experience, etc.-all of it was simply swept aside without any mention to embrace the DNA as the final solution. No one yet has made any systematic attempt to address the outstanding contradictions in AA's case-how did a Polish peasant manage to fool numerous royals-who, given the class distinctions of the period-would certainly have immediately spotted someone who wasn't "one of them." The Duke of Leuchtenberg commented that it was clear, whoever she was, that she was a member of the highest social circles-how does this fit in with FS? It doesn't, yet no one has attempted to explain it. It's all of these things which convince me that she was Anastasia."

Please sign your comments. All of this belongs on the Anna Anderson page. Indisciplined 16:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

What language did Anna Anderson speak

I believe that I am right in thinking that the language used in the Russian Court was English, yet have read somewhere that Anna (or Anastasia) did not speak English, after all her husband Jack was an American so would have thought they communicated in that language. Also if A.A. was not Anastasia she certainly had plenty of info on the Romanovs, for example she knew that the grand Duke of Hesse had visited Russia during the first war; how many people would have known this, Russia & Germany were fighting each other. Although of course the Grand Duke was the brother of the Tsarina, but this visit would have been strictly private,known only to a few. It is perfectly possible that one of the girls could have escaped, they were wearing jewels sewn into corsets & it is often stated that the guards had been drinking. Whether Anna was the real thing will probably never be known as she was cremated and so it is not possible to do a DNA test; personally I hope that she was not Anastasia for her own sake, it would have been terrible for her not to have been believed all those years. Perhaps we could find out more about the Polish girl that might be of help. My best wishes, Susan

This stuff might better go on the Anna Anderson page. The Russian court spoke various languages - English, French, Russian, German - so far as I know. Alexandra's first language was probably English, though. I recall that Alexandra was displeased that her children's Scottish tutor was teaching them to speak English with a Scottish accent. Anna Anderson, I think, definitely spoke English by her later years. I'm not sure if she spoke it in the 20s. As far as the Grand Duke of Hesse story, I've heard various contradictory debunkings - the strongest being that there's no evidence that the Grand Duke even made such a trip, but I'm not sure if that's true. I think it's fairly unlikely that one of the girls escaped. And there was DNA from Anna Anderson, which didn't match what it should have if she was Anastasia. The test was done in 1991, I think. See the Anna Anderson page for details on that. john 03:59, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Susan, AA's body was cremated but a sample of her hair and some intestsine tissue were still recovered and given DNA (not D & A) tests. These proved that Anna was not Anastasia. See the Anna Anderson article. Also, all of the bodies of Anastasia's family were found in a pit in an abandoned cart track - see the Nicholas II article. well, almost all - one of the daughtres and Alexis'es body were burnt and buried elsewhere. There were no escapes with jewel-encrusted dresses, I'm afraid.Arno 07:12, 17 Mar 2004 Anastasia is a very interesting person and so is her life. If only we knew the 100% truth about her and her family. But only Anastasia can tell us the 100% truth. I believe that she did escape the killing of her family. The only thing we really have is pictures and myths. I own the movie and must say a lot of it is exagerated. The whole time frame is off to. The very beggining of the movie took place in 1916 and anastasia would be older than six. The bat and magic is the biggest through off. Talking bats! Ha! Magic little green creatures in a can? NOT! Did Demetory even exsist? A lot of questions and no answers. DNA tests are usually true. So we know Anna Anderson isn't Anastasia. So no one really knows the truth. Like I said I bealive she survived but others might not.

from: Anya

I believe AA was Anastasia and I'd like to express my thanks to those who kept the articles about her NPOV. As for the animated movie, I'm not sure why it has to be mentioned here at all, it's simply stupid. Alensha 16:54, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

From: Hugh B.

I have long been fascinated by the story of Anastasia and had come to my own conclusions long before I went to university in London in 1960. The last book that I had read before leaving the Caribbean was one on the life of Anastasia. I was struck, in particular, by one of the stories recounted in that book. It seems that during an illness of the Tsar, his doctor had paid him a call. On leaving the Tsar he walked across a certain courtyard and during his walk to his carriage (I presume) he became the target of small missile from the palace. He could not understan it and was relieved, it seemed, to have to go around a building that shielded him from the missiles. He was not hurt by any of them (I do not remember exactly what they were).

Many years later he was called upon to visit the woman who had been calling herself Anastasia. This woman reminded him of that incident which he confirmed. He became convinced that she was genuine since only the princesses and he would have known about that incident. But there is other -- perhaps, to some, less convincing evidence -- that she was who she said she was. Among them: her familiarity with the ritual of the High Mass of the Russian Orthodox Church. This is something that only those who had grown up in that faith would have been able to navigate with the confidence shown by "Anna Anderson." Further it was reported by many who attended a High Mass at Easter, which AA had also attended, that her bearing as she walked up the aisle to her seat was totally in keeping with Russian royal etiquette. It was seen not only in her bearing but also in the way she greeted worshippers as she walked up the aisle. The graciousness of her bearing, all agreed, could not have been learned. It had to have been inculcultated from childhood. But what was truly astonishing was the ease with which she navigated the very elaborate ritual of a Russian Orthodox Easter Mass.

These may appear to be small things on which to hang the authencity of this lady. But the one that has never been explained or denied, as far as I know, is the story told by the doctor. Only he and the princesses could have known about it. Seems fairly convincing to me.

The author with whom I discussed all this (after he had recovered from his shock of meeting someone from the Caribbean who knew as much as I did about this issue!) was himself, I do believe, a "natural" member of one of the royal families of Europe. I won't go into detail here but I have good reason to think so -- especially when he let slip a remark which, taken out of context, would have seemed innocent enough. When I challenged him he turned pale and virtually ordered me not to repeat to anyone what he had told me. He also had an incredibly intimate knwledge of the intricasies of a number of European royal families.

It seems, too, from other things that I have heard, that a senior member of the British royal family (now dead) hplayed a strong role in denying AA's claim to be Anastasia. And for the most sordid of reasons. It seems that word had got out that the Tsar had deposited in a bank IN England one million roubles for each of his children as an insurance policy. Somehow distant mambers of the family thought that the money had been deposited in the Bank OF England -- the British reserve bank. It was in the hope of getting some of what would by then (post World War 2) be a small fortune that many European royals decided that it would best serve their interests to deny claims by anyone to have been a direct descendant of the Tsar.

Finally, one would have to be 100 percent sure that the material submitted to prove or disprove AA's story could easily have been "manipulated" by representatives of those who stood to benefit from the Tsar's "insurance policy" for his children!!!!

Please sign your comments. Indisciplined 16:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

There was no Tsarist insurance policy. this is a complete myth. Certainly by the time the DNA tests were done, there was nobody with any particular financial interest in the issue. And the DNA tests proved that Anna Anderson was not Anastasia, in any event. The eyewitness testimony was contradictory at best - for every Doctor Botkin, you can find another acquaintance who said that Anna Anderson was not Anastasia. Given that DNA tests pretty much prove that these people were right, and Doctor Botkin, et al, were wrong, this stuff, while interesting, is not really relevant to the question of whether AA was Anastasia. I'm getting rather sick of rehashing this. john k 06:34, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

-Actually, Dr. Botkin was murdered along with the Imperial family. Also, I don't believe it has been 100% proven that the samples tested were from Anderson, as there was no judicial review.

Hugh, I'm so glad to see that there are people who believe what AA said. Sometimes I feel as if I'm the only one who still believes. John, about the DNA analysis there are some details on the Peter Kurth website, he explains the whole thing better than I could, it's worth a reading. Alensha 20:23, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Kurth is grasping at straws. The best he can do is say that it's not absolutely certain that AA was Schanzkowska. He can't even really argue anymore, except by insinuation, that she was Anastasia - even if the bones are not the Romanovs, Anna Anderson's mtDNA didn't match the Duke of Edinburgh's, so she wasn't Anastasia. It's as simple as that. john k 23:25, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

To turn this all back to the encyclopedia, do you Anna Anderson believers have any problems with the article as currently composed, or are you just discussing stuff? john k 23:26, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No problem with the article, I think its writers handled the subject very well. In fact, among all the touchy subjects of Wiki, this one is one of the best written ones. (If you mean that we should shut up 'cause it's not a forum then you are right. :) Alensha 14:06, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I meant the Anna Anderson page, sorry, I thought this is the talk page of that article. btw this one is written well too. - Alensha 16:53, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks about the Anna Anderson - I mostly wrote it. I just went through it and removed some additions of yours, BTW. Karl Maucher, the grandnephew of Schanzkowska whose DNA apparently matched Anna Anderson's, was not descended from FS's brother. He was her sister's daughter's son, and so would share FS's mtDNA. I believe the argument that Mr. Kurth and other former AA supporters make is that the sister here involved may not have had the same mother as FS, but I don't think this has been convincingly demonstrated. I removed a few other points that seemed a bit POV. john k 17:21, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Kurth said they were only half-sisters. Don't know whether it is true, though. Anyway, I checked the AA page, I think the AA supporters will find it acceptable, it's quite NPOV. Alensha 21:21, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, Kurth has said that, but I'm not sure it's been conclusively established (at any rate, this isn't what the article said - it said the DNA was taken from a descendant of a brother of Schanzkowska). I'm glad you approve the article, though. john k 22:37, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Anastasia was though named after a friend of her mother by the name Anastasia Byurova.

I removed this; She wasn't named after "Anastasia Byrurova" because there was no such person. The person this is referring to was Anna Vyrubova, but she didn't meet Alexandra until AFTER Anastasia was born. Morhange 01:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the movies sole purpose was to get a new generation into the mystery of Anastasia and her family. The movie is a childrens cartoon, and it would have been inappropriete to dipict the brutal murder of her family in the movie. I know I watched the movie when I was about 9 or 10 and I am now really interested in Anastasia. Ive personally looked at articles and found out the facts, but the movie really turned me on to it.

Rumored to be living?

Why is this in Category:Dead people rumoured to be living? I am unaware of any rumors that state that a 105-year-old Anastasia is running around out there today, in 2006. -- MisterHand 20:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

She had been rumoured to be living, so I think it is justifiable. Charles 20:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed it. I took that category to mean dead people who are rumored to be living as of now. Morhange 10:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Name meaning

This probably doesn't belong in the article at all, but I found it very interesting in the light of all the conspiracy theories around her having survived that shooting: Her name can mean either "flower" or "resurrection".

Probably this is only interesting to me, but hey ;P

--Bringa 21:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

-I agree. It's very interesting also because when she was born, Alexandra was told that because she came out as a girl when she was supposed to be a boy it meant that she would have a great destiny. And here we are debating her possible survival years after she is no longer here.

It means, "She who is reborn", "She will rise again", or "Resurrection". Kinda creepy given the legend.

Alleged Samples

What we do know is that the chain of custody for the samples tested would not have stood up in any court. The only thing which suggest the intestinal tissue was from Anderson is that the number on the box correlates to the her history number. However, we don't know how the procedure was carried out in 1979. We don't have hard proof this was her tissue. Second of all, we don't have a chain of custody for the hair samples at all. All we have is some woman who claimed to have found them in John Manahan's old bookstore inside of a book with a letter that read, 'Anastasia's hair'. Inside this letter the hair was allegedly found. No STRs were derived from this hair, so we don't have any PROOF that these hairs were from the same person as the intestine or Anna Anderson.

If AA was not Anastasia, there is too much which cannot be explained. How did she manage to know about the play in Tobolsk where Anastasia dressed as a man and her skirt flew up if it wasn't even confirmed until much later by Sydney Gibbes. How did she know of the incident which occured between Empress Alexandra, Anja, Lili Dehn, where the little Anastasia was there if she was not Anastasia (Lili Dehn herself pointed this out). How did she know the exact place Alexandra wrote her initials in her room at Peterhof? How did she know Alexandra had the swastika on her car when it could only be confirmed with a magnifying glass?

These are just some examples of MANY. There are too many coincidences between AN and AA to be overlooked.

The Franziska Schanzkowska story rings very false from beginning to end. How did this investigator attempt to discover AA's identity in a matter of weeks while the Berlin police couldn't even do it after a serious effort of seven years?! Why did Getrude Schanzkowska add belts and buttons to those photographs in court? Why did Pierre Gilliard touch up Franziska's photographs in his book to look like AA? What are the chances AA would he gotten a scar on her foot in the triangular shape of a bayonet from an explosion in a grenade factory? Very low.

The results of the DNA tests can be explained in a few ways. Either the DNA was not her's, was tampered with, was simply misidentified, or we were all fed a lie by the scientists (which I consider very unlikely). The chain of custody would never stand up in court. This is a fact, which is probably why it was never submitted for judicial reviewing.

If AA was not AN, then why are so many documents being hidden from us? It makes no sense. The Danish Royal family still holds Ambassador Zahle's papers, and Grand Duke Andrew's papers are being kept from us as well. The writing is on the wall however. The results of the DNA tests are not what would have been given if DNA had been extracted directly from the body of Anna Anderson Manahan if her body was still in existance. I promise you that.

It is absolutely out of the question that Anna Anderson was anyone other than who she claimed to be. She was recognized by those who had been closest the the young Grand Duchess Anastasia (Lili Dehn and Alexandra Tegleva, Anastasia's nanny). No imposter would have known of such private details of the Imperial where only few were present, such as the incident in which only Alexandra, Lili Dehn, Anja, and the young Anastasia were present. The ears and the handwriting were absolutely identical. In 1957, Lili von Dehn who was one of Empress Alexandra's best friend and had been especially close to Anastasia came to meet Anna Anderson in the Black Forest where she was living. What she found was the young girl she had once known, now old and shriveled up. Her statement reads as follows:

'...I had a real shock when I first saw her, a poor, pale and wrinkled little face! The first impression was of a terrible sadness, but the moment I heard her voice... it was so familar to me, so real- the voice of the Grand Duchess Anastasia... No one can imitate the voice and the way of talking of a person he has never seen before... We spoke of Anja [Anna Vyrbouva], and she knew many details concerning her and her friendship with the Empress. She spoke of an occasion when the empress was very displeased, even angry with Anja. That was only known to the Empress, Anja, myself, and the little grand duchess who was present, but too young to understand the meaning and only remembered the fact. We spoke of the officers we mutually knew, and she never made a mistake... She did not like or want to speak Russian, but the few words which escaped her were absolutely correct; the family names, real Russian ones, were pronounced in exactly the right way. Her hands reminded me very much of the hands of her mother... What can I say after having known her? I certainly cannot be mistaken in her identity.'

This is but one example of many.

'Nearly fifty years ago, Anna Anderson told a story about a sketch she and her sister had put on to amuse their parents during their confinement in Tobolsk. She played a male part, she 'recalled', and and had to borrow a man's dressing-gown. At a pivotal moment in the play, a freak draught made the dressing gown billow up around their thighs, revealing that she was wearing the tsar's long-johns- against the bitter cold of the Siberian winter. The family, said Anna Anderson, had hooted with laughter. The only witnesses from the imperial household who would have been present at that scene, and who are known to have survived, were the two family tutors-both foreigners. One was the English tutor, Sydney Gibbes, and his memoirs were published for the first time in 1975. They include this account of an incident during amatuer theatricals in Tobolsk. "The cast," Gibbes wrote, "had its happiest night with an Edwardian farce by Henry Grattan, called 'Packing Up', ... Anastasia took the male part... at the end of the farce the 'Husband' had to turn his back, open his Dressing-gown as if to take it off- Anastasia used an old one of mine... but a draught got under the gown and whisked its tail up to the middle of her back, showing her sturdy legs and bottom encased Emperor Jaguer's underwear...' So far as exhaustive research can establish, only Anna Anderson had ever before told this vivid ancedote, in private and three decades before the Gibbes memoirs appeared. If Anderson was a phoney, as the seemingly damning DNA evidence now tells us, how did she know the story? That was one of the myriad puzzles that believers in Anna Anderson had to confront when the scientists delivered their verdict. Ian Lilburn, a research historian and the only observer to attend every session of the "Anastasia" appeal process in the German courts, had a calmer response than some. "I think," he said, knowing he sounded like a Luddite and Romanov flat-earther, " there is something we don't know about the DNA."

Olga Alexandrovna and Pierre Gilliard are the real reason people doubted the identity of Anna Anderson as Grand Duchess Anastasia. How anyone can trust them after they have been discredited by their own statements I do not know. Olga later said she had always known Anastasia was dead. If that is true why did she write Anna Anderson five loving and passionate letters which promised 'I will never abandon you'. Pierre Gilliard is a proven liar. He constantly touched up photos in his books and even said that Grand Duchess Anastasia had never learned German, despite the fact that it was he who had scheduled her lessons. The Franziska Schanzkowska story is obviously a lie from beginning to end. As if one detective in a matter of weeks would uncover Anna Anderson's identity when the Berlin police had failed to do so for seven years. This myth should have ended when Doris Wingender touched up a photo of Anna Anderson in court, adding to it buttons and belts in order to make her appear to be Schanzkowska.

It is inconcievable that a fraud would have been recognized by those closest to Anastasia and known the most intimate and secret details of Imperial Family life if she were not genuine. There is absolutely no hard proof that the samples tested for DNA were indeed from Anna Anderson. The chain of custody for the samples would NEVER have been acceptable in ANY court of law.

Again. Please sign your comments. Indisciplined 16:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Will Maples

Hi. I just wanted to note Dr. William Maples was not a DNA expert, but a foresnic anthropologist.

Sources / Tone

This article requires sources. As it stands the article is not compliant with the content policies of Wikipedia, in particular WP:V and WP:NOR.

In addition, many passages read very much like an essay, rather than an encyclopedic article.. e.g.

Did they run the risk of having the Imperial Family liberated by the Whites, thus providing these loyalists with a 'rallying cry' that might renew their vigor to reinstate autocracy to Russia? Or did they do away with the Imperial Family in order to preserve their new and fragile hold on Russia?

Hope that involved editors can work on these aspects. Happy editing. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

IMPORTANT QUESTION - please respond

In the 1956 film Anastasia and the 1997 animated remake voiced by Meg Ryan, a certain dress is shown. In the last scene of the 1997 animated film, Anastasia is at a ball in Paris wearing a dress and crown that are very historically striking. On the film's IMDb profile, it reveals extensive research was done on small details such as the dress within the 1997 film; the profile also says that the dress in the film was actually a copy of a dress the real Grand Duchess Anastasia wore. But... on Olga Alexandrovna Romanov's (Anastasia's aunt) article, in the main photo, she is wearing a dress of almost exact similarity. Can anyone shed some light on the issue?

Visit this Wikipedia article to see Olga wearing the dress that Anastasia supposedly wore... Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna of Russia.

Also: the imperial diamond crown Olga is wearing in the photo is the exact same as the crown animated-Anastasia wore in the film.

Thank you

You didn't ask a single question. Charles 04:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

First paragraph, last sentence: "Can anyone shed some light on the issue?". But im guessing you cant... AJ24 22:47, July 11, 2006 (UTC)

If I read your post correctly, you're suggesting that if the dress in the cartoon is based on a real dress that Anastasia wore, and that dress closely resembles a dress that Anastasia's aunt wore, then perhaps the aunt had Anastasia's dress--possibly evidence of Anastasia's survival?

If that is your suggestion, I would say that it's much more likely that the animators based their dress (and crown) on Anastasia's aunt's dress and crown. See Occam's razor. Nareek 18:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

AJ24 does not seem to have made any implication that this was evidence of Anastasia's survival. As to the issue, I agree that the most plausible explanation is that the design of the dress was based on Olga's dress, and not on one belonging to Anastasia. john k 23:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The urgency of the question suggested that there would be some important significance to the answer. As I said, I wasn't positive that I was interpreting the question correctly. Nareek 02:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the question, my error and I apologize. Charles 23:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The Royal family are not a bunch of liars!

anastasia is not a liare and hir family are not liars because anastasia family dide

Looking better than ever

This article is looking better than EVER right now. I've never seen it with so many sources and having them all at the bottom like that looks great. There's also plenty of info here without having too many. It also dosen't try to persuade either way whether Anastasia died or not in 1918. Congrats! -C.G.

Death

I could be wrong but before I edited the page I wanted to see if anyone else agreed. According to this article the family was told they were going to be killed. Werent they told they were taking a picture and the snapped the photo and then opened fire? From what I and most people agree was that they took the picture and then killed them. Rammstein1 06:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

That's speculation in Radzinsky's book "The Last Tsar." It's not fact. I wouldn't add it.--Bookworm857158367 07:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

They may have indeed told the family that they were going to take their pictures, but I seriously doubt they went as far as to TAKE the picture. All reports say that Yurovsky walked in and stated "In view of the fact that your relatives have continued their attacks on Soviet Russia, the Ural Soviet Executive Commitee has ordered that you be shot," or something to that extent. Not that it's a fact, but it is what happened in almost every account. -C.G.

 It does state at www.romanov-memorial.com/inside.htm that they were told to get into thre lines.

the were then told they were to stay stil as the men came in and shot them they did not all die emidialty. Anistasia was belived to have survived then they guess she was stabbed to death with a bayonet. She survied the shotting only because she had secretly sown the jewls into her clothes and the buletts ricoched of them -marissa(age 12)

GA nomination

This is definitly GA quality, but there are some minor formatting issues which need adressing.

Two extremely similar versions of this line appear twice in as many paragraphs: "Anastasia and her family doted on Tsarevich Alexei, or "Baby," who suffered frequent attacks of haemophilia and nearly died several times" and "Anastasia, like all her family, doted on the long-awaited heir Tsarevich Alexei, or "Baby," who suffered frequent attacks of haemophilia and nearly died several times." That should be tweaked.

The third paragraph in the Rasputin section doesn't make a lot of sense. It seems that it's saying Rasputin is said to have molested the Grand Duchesses, but it's being overly tactful to the point of making it confusing.

"I am so afr(aid) that S.I. can speak ... about our friend something bad," Anastasia's twelve-year-old sister Tatiana wrote to their mother on March 8, 1910, after begging Alexandra to forgive her for doing something she didn't like. "I hope our nurse will be nice to our friend now."

The first bold part is syntactically confusing.. what is S.I.? The second bold part is that overly tactfulness again. Are we talking about paedophelia or not? Finally, the "I hope our nurse..." seems awkward. It has no direct connection to the paragraph so that we can understand why it's there.

Finally, World War I and Revolution mentions the captivity, and Captivity and Execution explains more about the revolution than the Revolution section does. Some text probably ought to be moved from the latter to the former and some from the former to latter.

Besides that, it's a GA without problem. On hold for now; adress these problems and I'll pass it. Thanatosimii 20:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

WRT the Anna Anderson parts of the article, I wonder about the statement that

The final decision of the court was that while it could not prove that Anderson was in fact Anastasia, it could also not prove that she wasn't.

I'd like to see some evidence that this makes sense as a court verdict. The basic point was that Anderson lost her case. The German court found that she had not proven herself to be Anastasia, and thus that she was not entitled to a part in whatever inheritance was at stake (I believe the issue was an inheritance). Did the court actually explicitly say that "nobody had proved that she wasn't Anastasia"? Or is this just pro-AA spin? In a situation like this, it would seem to me that it would be likely that the court simply wouldn't be interested in a positive disproof. The burden was on Anderson to demonstrate that she was Anastasia. She didn't. Anything else would seem to be beyond the competence of the court. Can anyone provide more details about the court case? The Anna Anderson article is mostly a mess, and doesn't provide any help on the subject. john k 00:55, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I actually had no problems with that. As I understand it, since the other side was that AA was a polish factory worker or somthing, a verdict which says neither point can be proven is quite reasonable. It'd probably be a good idea, come to think of it, to overtly say that she lost the case because she had the burden of proof, however besides that it seems fine the way it is right now. Thanatosimii 02:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

But this isn't how law works, generally (although perhaps I'm engrained in common law systems, and in civil law countries it's different). All the other side (whoever they were - this never seems to be elaborated upon in accounts I've read) would have to do is demonstrate that she could meet the burden of proof to show she was Anastasia, and thus that she didn't get a share of the inheritance. There need be no effort to prove she was Schanzkowska, although such a proof would be one way to show that she wasn't Anastasia. What I'm concerned about is what the court's ruling actually was. Did the court just rule against Anderson, saying that she hadn't proved her case, but not saying anything about the other side, and Anna Anderson supporters have twisted this to mean that they ruled that "neither side had proved their case"? Or did they actually find this? My basic concern is that the current wording is hidden AA-proponent spin. I want to know what the actual facts were before this article gets promoted. john k 06:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

That's actually exactly the wording that the judge used in his ruling, however. He couldn't prove she was Anastasia, but he also couldn't prove she was not. That's not the same thing as her losing the case. I'm not inclined to change the wording in that graph. In the 1970s, another test was done comparing Anna Anderson's ears to Anastasia's and they matched. That's covered, or should be, in the Anna Anderson article. That test on the ears would have met the standard of identity that was used prior to DNA testing. She also had a number of physical marks identical to Anastasia's and witnesses who had known Anastasia who testified that Anna Anderson was the grand duchess. That's why the judge ruled as he did. I also disagree regarding the graph with Grand Duchess Tatiana. It's a direct quote from a letter that the girl wrote to her mother about her governess Sofia Ivanovna, who is mentioned in the prior graph along with her concern that Rasputin was visiting the girls in the nursery when they had their nightgowns on. We can add (Sofia Ivanovna) after the initials S.I. to further clarify. I included the quote from one of the grand duchesses as an indication that the child herself was also aware that something was going on with the governess talking about Rasputin and she was afraid she had made her mother angry. I would say that there was definitely a concern that Rasputin had molested the grand duchesses given his reputation. However, none of the direct sources I found said so outright. Tatiana did not write "I'm sorry I told Sofia Ivanovna that Grigori has been touching me," and Xenia did not write "That lecherous Rasputin has been molesting my nieces." There's no evidence Rasputin did anything but visit the girls while they were wearing nightgowns. I used as many direct, contemporary sources as I could to describe what happened and let people make up their own minds about the facts, which is what I think this article should do.--Bookworm857158367 07:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that you're letting what they wrote be the article, and that's not always clear. This page is quite quote-heavy. That's not always a problem, but in this case, it doesn't make any sense. A good artical isn't a string of quotes with interspersed commentary, it's a string of commentary punctuated with quotations. You need to explain patently what is going on or at least what might be going on and what might not be going on if there's uncertanty. If you don't say somthing to the effect "text text text text and this means overt explanation of possibilities in good modern English" it won't be clear. Thanatosimii 14:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if that's what the judge actually ruled, that's one thing, but I think we should make clear that she also lost the case (because surely she did, didn't she? If she couldn't prove she was Anastasia, she can't have gotten a part of the inheritance, which is what the case was about. Right?) john k 20:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. However, don't get too distracted here. I have three objections to GA-ing this article, and they do need to be adressed and dealt with. Thanatosimii 03:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The suggests of Rasputin molesting the grand duchesses should probably be removed unless a source making this claim can be found. All that I've read would suggest that there's no way that Rasputin would have had private access to the Grand Duchesses that would have allowed such a thing to happen. The whole business smacks of OR. john k 06:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The article as currently written does NOT suggest that Rasputin molested the grand duchesses. It indicates that he visited the nurseries when they were in their night clothes and hugged and patted them, which prompted a scandal in the family after the governess complained. At that time, an unrelated man visiting teenage girls in their nightgowns would have had a scandalous effect on their reputations, even if it was completely innocent. That's extremely well documented and listed in every source on the Romanovs. I will go back and rewrite certain passages later, when I have more time, but I'm not inclined to remove that section. It's part of the larger story about the effect Rasputin had on the reputation of the Romanovs and it helped lead to the Russian Revolution.--Bookworm857158367 15:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I have rewritten some of the paragraphs in question and changed the line regarding the verdict in the Anna Anderson trial. The Riddle of Anna Anderson indicates that the judge ruled she hadn't proved her case.--Bookworm857158367 16:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, be inclined as you may, but the current line, "after begging Alexandra to forgive her for doing something she didn't like," is so vague as to be euphamistic, and will lead to more confusion. Forgive her for doing what? For being visited? For doing somthing else? Be overt; nuance does not go over well in an encyclopedia. Thanatosimii 18:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't have a problem removing that sentence; it might be confusing. There's no reference in the letter to exactly what Tatiana was apologizing for. It wasn't really necessary to include it. I believe I've addressed whatever your concerns were otherwise.--Bookworm857158367 01:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, my concerns are adressed. A good article indeed. Thanatosimii 01:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

What is the deal?

As with the articles on her siblings, this article looks horrible. We need to pull together and do something, because the photos are all over the place. It really looks bad.

--Mrlopez2681 04:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, and I've removed most of the photos. Rearrange them if you think they can be arranged better. --Bookworm857158367 07:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree Many people do believe that AA was Anastasia and you are hurting their feelings by saying they are wrong.

I think this article looks very good with all of the pictures.

Please rewrite sentence

I have removed the following sentence from the lead "Prince Philip of Great Britain, a first cousin once removed of the Grand Duchess, cooperated in this DNA testing."

Could the author please make it clearer what he means and then reinserts it back. Also I don't think the lead section should have this level of detail, detail that is not even directly linked to the Grand Duchess. 61.68.183.41 12:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Rasputin

I removed the longish section about Rasputin, as it really was not necessary. That belongs in the Rasputin article.

I have restored that section, as I believe it is necessary to the article. --Bookworm857158367 12:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The Bulgarian Version

I corrected grammar and spelling errors in this section, but didn't change the content. However, I'm unclear as to what "the story" refers to - Zamiatkin? Paustovsky's book? A Bulgarian legend? A quick sentence by someone more knowledgable than me about Anastasia and the story of Nora and George would be helpful in giving this part context. Clockster 13:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

DNA Tests -- Which is correct?

Anderson died in 1984 and her body was cremated. DNA tests conducted in 1994 on a tissue sample from Anderson located in a hospital and the blood of a close Romanov relative...

Anderson's body was cremated upon her death in 1984. Despite support for her claim from several people who knew Anastasia, DNA testing in 1994 on pieces of Anderson's tissue and hair showed no relation to DNA of the Grand Duchess.[1]

--74.12.188.140 12:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Both are correct. What exactly is your question here? DNA tests were conducted on a piece of tissue from Anderson that was left in the hospital freezer from a surgery performed on her a few years before her death. The DNA tests didn't match the profile from the Romanov bones, but did match the mitrochondrial DNA of Franziska Schanzkowska's great-nephew Karl Mauser. A separate test was performed independently on hair said to belong to Anderson. That test failed to match the profile of the Romanov bones, but also matched Karl Mauser. The DNA profile from the Romanov bones were compared against those from samples given by Prince Philip, the great-nephew of Tsarina Alexandra. All of this information can be found in Massey's Romanovs: The Final Chapter. I believe it is referenced. --Bookworm857158367 03:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the hair was never officially compared to Karl Maucher, only to the published DNA profile of Nicholas and Alexandra in Nature Genetics.

One says it was done on a tissue, the others says a tissue and hair. Since I don't happen to have a copy of "Massey's Romanovs: The Final Chapter" just sitting here, on hand, (>.>) I figured I would ask here, since it is this article I was unsure about, not the book.--74.12.188.140 12:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me sirs, but I'm confused about your article. You see, I had a dream about the Romanov assination, and now I'm determined to solve the mystery of Anastasia Romanov. Can you please put in more information about her childhood or possible whereabouts if you can? Thank you. Signed with my pen name, Anastasia

It is cited on this page that in 1995, new comparisons were made between AA's and Anastasia's face and ears and that it was determined they were the same person. Where is the reference for this statement or where can I find this information. I have found no mention of this newer comparison online.

Thanks.

Kendra71 23:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This is signed aggiebean

I have removed this misleading and incorrect paragraph:

New forensic comparisons in 1994 with Grand Duchess Anastasia and Anna Anderson's face and ears following routine procedures of legal identification concluded that Anna Anderson was the Grand Duchess. The tests were commissioned for a British television documentary.[59]

It is an absolute FALSEHOOD that any 1994-5 tests claimed they were the same person! If you referring to the tests done on the "NOVA" special, renouned British facial expert Geoffrey Oxlee in fact found Anderson and Schanzkowska to be one in the same. I have the photographs and the video! They also did an ear exam and said the ears of AA and AN were similar, BUT nobody ever declared 'AA and AN were the same person' this is incorrect! signed aggiebean signed aggiebean

Joke needs to be corrected -she was not a goose

The articles has been edited to say she is a goose and nneds correction —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.134.79 (talk) 13:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cap020.JPG

Image:Cap020.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

patron saint?

was she a patron sain t of anything? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.147.212 (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)