Talk:Anna Anderson/Archive 3

/Archive 1 /Archive 2

Moved from article

Most of this seems to be discussion of the article, which belongs here, not in the article itself – Gurch 02:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

At around the time when Anna was suffering from yet another severe illness, Anderson's supporters were also responsible for her childhood "memory" of Alexandra's brother, Ernst Ludwig, Grand Duke of Hesse and by Rhine, visiting Russia in 1916 during the First World War, which would have amounted to treason. Undoubtedly fiction (REFERENCES, PLEASE!)

If you were serious in writing about this, or researching it, you would know that more than 40 witnesses testified at the German "Anastasia" trials (between 1938 and 1967), affirming that this trip did indeed take place, and that "our circles knew about it even at the time," in the words of the German Crown Princess, Cecile, the daughter-in-law of the Kaiser. The Kaiser's own daughter said the same thing, along with numerous witnesses who were THERE and actually saw the Grand Duke at Tsarskoe Selo "in the midst of hostilities." I have never thought (or asserted) that AA's knowledge of this "secret" trip meant anything other than that she had heard about it -- but I do know that the Grand Duke of Hesse freaked out totally (as they say) when she made her declarations. All the rest follows from this.

Aggiebean interjects: I have recently discovered a book published by Steeler in Germany in 1922, written by B. Himmelstjerna, "Im Angesicht der Revolution", made the accusation that Ernst had made the trip to Russia. Anderson did not 'spill the beans', obviously, she or her supporters saw this book and got the idea there. Aggiebean out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aggiebean (talk • contribs) 03:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Ernst Ludwig hired a private investigator to investigate her claims.

Really? Then you DO know what happened! Because at the time of the "unmasking" of AA as Franziska S. (1927) Darmstadt flatly denied that the Grand Duke had had anything to do with it. It was supposedly "spontaneous," although everyone really familiar with the story knows that the S. identification was ordered straight from Darmstadt.

It was seriously implied that she was in fact a missing Polish factory worker, Franziska Schanzkowska (in Polish transcription: Franciszka Szanckowska), who got her injuries from dropping a grenade in munitions factory where she worked.

In Polish transcription it is actually "von Czenstkowski" -- the "von" having been bestowed on hundreds of families in that region of modern Poland (Pomerania), along with small parcels of farmland, who had lent their support in the 17th century to Prince Eugene of Savoy in his battle against the Turks. Entirely honorific -- no titles attached.

According to the testimony of everyone who knew her (including the medical team at the factory, all her family and even the "star witnesses" in the S. identification, the daughters of FS's Berlin landlady, Frau Wingender), FS was NOT wounded in the factory explosion -- not at all, not anywhere on her body. But the "opposition" (as we learned to call them fondly) had to invent some story in order to account for the fact that AA's body was "covered with scars," already at the time of her appearance in 1920 (when FS, supposedly, had just disappeared.) I repeat: FS was not wounded in the factory explosion.

To see if this story was true, the Danish Ambassador Zahle and Anderson supporter Harriet von Rathlef set up a meeting between Anderson and Franziska Schankowska's brother Felix.

Zahle had nothing to do with it. The meeting was arranged by the Duke of Leuchtenberg (with whom AA was then living in Bavaria) and various of his attorneys.

When Felix saw her from a distance, he declared, "That is my sister Franziska."

This is in great dispute -- protocols from the time have him saying only that the resemblance was "strong," but only head-on, not when the face was turned to the side, and also that the voice entirely different.

At the end of the day, when asked to sign an affadavit, he had, without explanation, changed his mind. "I will not sign it. That is definitely not my sister."

He most certainly did give an "explanation" -- he declared that he could not sign a false affidavit that might land him in jail. He repeated several times, and emphatically, that he did not believe Franziska was still living, because they had been very close; she had always written to him regularly, and she would not have stopped doing that unless she were dead or "walled up in some fortress." He repeated this when he met her again 11 years later, in 1938, when all of the S. siblings were confronted with AA in Hannover, as her case was being made ready to be brought to court. [All protocols from the Hamburg court trials, "Bf AB" of the numbered case; copies both in the Darmstadt archives, the archives of AA's attorneys, and the Hoover Institution (Serge Botkin archive) at Stanford University.]

Protocols from Dalldorf allege that she spoke Russian with the nurses. Nurse Erna Buchholz alleged that she "spoke Russian like a native." Later, she refused to speak Russian, and although she claims to have clearly understood it, she would only respond in German.

She did not "claim" to understand it -- everyone who *knew* her claimed it, starting with the tsar's sister, Grand Duchess Olga, and moving on to every other Russian who ever met her. Olga said, "Curiously, she seems to understand Russian, but speaks only German." Others in the Romanov family testified that she would "suddenly," spontaneously, "burst into Russian" when she felt she was not being "tested." The first Romanov I ever met (in 1971, a female cousin of Anastasia's, exactly the same in age -- well, only 3 days' difference -- who did NOT believe that AA was Anastasia, nevertheless told me immediately: "Whoever she is, she is no Polish peasant. She is a lady of good society, and it is not true that she cannot speak Russian."

I offer these little objections because I get tired of seeing the same old discredited information turn up wherever anyone wants to put them. I was a friend of AA (not just her biographer), and I know that most of what is said about her publically is completely false. I do not claim -- or assert -- that she was the "real Anastasia" (I would have no way of knowing that outside my subjective experience, which convinces me that she was) -- but really -- I'm so tired of these old tales being recycled as if they were holy writ. pk

Hair matches Romanovs?

This is not true. If it was then we'd all have heard about it, and it would deserve more than just a throwaway line. In fact the hair matched the other samples, proving that she was Franziska - as had been known all along. Why does this article persist in trying to cast doubt on this? TharkunColl 12:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It has not been "known all along." I dont think that the entire German legal system would have been occupied with it for 50 years if had been "known all along." I'd think that even one of you people could realize this rationally. pk

missed vandalism?

Hi. What's with this edit? I just came across this article, by clicking on links, and started reading. However, that edit has ALL CAPS text, pov, unsourced material, and actually removed sourced material. I usually remove this type of vandalism, but I wanted to check first. Should it be removed? That user currently has no messages. Should he/she be warned, if indeed it is vandalism? Thanks. -- AstroHurricane001^(T+C+U) 22:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Astro Hurricane, this is vandalism. It is EXTREME POV, and an avoidance of historical facts and testimony. It needs to be corrected, and thoroughly cleaned of the misleading "biographic" details added by the person claiming to be both "friend" and official "biographer" (see above.--Caspere 22:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, Caspere -- as one of the primary witnesses to AA's life, someone who is repeatedly cited in this utterly "POV"-directed account of her claim, I have just summitted this -- I very much doubt you will ever see it. -- Peter Kurth Just received this:

"Your edit to Anna Anderson

"Hi. Please do not add your personal — and unsourced — rants to an article. Such rants require to be written in a neutral point of view, and require sources, and must be somebody else's already published pov. If you feel that such a rant belongs in the article, please disscuss it on its talkpage, or dissucssion, page. Such addition is considered a violation of wikipedia's policies, including NPOV, verifiability, etc. It should also not be in ALL CAPS. This is not the way to edit an article. If you want to see the rantinfo in the article, please disscuss on its talkpage, and the community might decide to add it, but only if they find a reliable source, or you do, via Internet or books, or other media. Please read WP:ATT and all its associated pages for guidelines. If you want to experiment, please use the SANDBOX. Thank you. -- AstroHurricane001(T+C+U) 22:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC"

I scarcely know where to begin. I, personally, am (mis)quoted and "sourced" throughout the entirety your "Anna Anderson" exercise ("Supporters attempt to cling to hope," and so on). Works of mine (three that I can see) are "sourced," without anyone paying the slightest attention to what they say -- material that is amply documented in the original, you know, SOURCES. I am not "ranting" and I object to the term, especially as, in this particular case, your "volunteers" pay no attention whatsoever to the evidence as it is officially and legally recorded. You repeat every discredited story, every false rumor, and every dumb idea anyone ever had about Mrs. Anderson, but *I* am "ranting." Well ... I should know better than to try to correct anything on Wikipedia, which everyone knows is just a place to begin, in the hope that a couple of links might lead to something real.

Any way to get THIS "rant" published? I very much doubt it. pk

Peter, this article is full of false information and repeats the same crap that people have been saying about Anna Anderson for years. Why they can't just stick to the facts when it comes to her god only knows. It's almost like they are afraid of her. I'm sick of these people with an agenda ruling this article.

This article is completely one-sided

It's fine the article acknowledges AA as an imposter

It is NOT "fine." Because even if you want to believe that was not Anastasia, and even if you want to believe that she was really a "Polish" factory worker who could have pulled all this off, you are doing a great injustice to the person concerned. No one who knew her, on either side of the quarrel, ever doubted that she was sincere in her own belief. So "imposter" is not the word. Anastasia's body was missing from that mass grave in Russia (NOT "Siberia," Russia) -- nobody (except those who do) knows what happened to her. I mean, it's no wonder even under-educated teachers steer their students away from this site! pk

, but that's no reason to ignore historical facts, nor is it any reason to say as a fact that Anastasia is dead. The term should be "presumably executed". There have been many who claimed to see AN after the murder night and her body has still not been located after nearly a century. That is not a proven death no matter how you look at it and it's very sad that Wikipedia has endorsed the agenda of those who don't care about presenting both sides of the matter.

It's not fair to state only what the executioner's say but not the man who saw Anastasia in the house across from the Ipatiev House wounded but alive. Besides, Anastasia's death isn't even relevant to the issue of Anna Anderson. Obviously whoever wrote this article has doubts about AA not being AN or otherwise they wouldn't need to try so hard to prove Anastasia died and could simply deal with the DNA tests. Wikipedia is losing its credibility more and more every day anyway because of people with an agenda who ruin all of the articles. My own teacher has said not to trust wikipedia as a reliable source because anyone can edit it. What a complete piece of shit this site is.

There's no better support for my theory than the fact that the links at the bottom of the page don't even have correct information. It's all nothing but an agenda to keep the truth from unsuspecting readers. I just hope they are wise enough to pick up a book and find out the truth for themselves because you won't find any of the crap in this article in any book, and if you do, it atleast presents the other side of the arguement.

While Anna Anderson was not actually the daughter of the Tsar there are some important aspects of the mystery and debate over her identity that are omitted from this article. I agree this article takes too much of a concrete stance on the fact that Anna Anderson and Franziska Schanzkowska are the same person - this may have been referenced somewhere else in the discussion page, but I think a vital point to include is that Franziska Schanzkowska was documented as being three inches taller than Anna Anderson, this seems like an essential piece of information and is documented in Frances Welch's Anderson biography entitled A Romanov Fantasy. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.237.37 (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Enough is Enough

This constant reverting is getting silly, people. Couldn't the two of you just take a deep breath and start rationally discussing your differences with this article? LordCo 09:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Who are you, LordCo? Identify yourself. Do it openly and bravely and under your own name. pk

The current version is biased and ignores the viewpoint that she wasn't AN. Everything I try to post to balance the article is deleted again and again. I guess you want everyone to be misinformed and misled into believing she might be AN. You even call her "Anastasia" in the article.

John Godl's article

I have to wonder if I'm reading an article about Anna Anderson or am I simply reading John Godl's dumbass article which was "blessed" by "Saint Anastasia". lol.

If the Botkins have any surviving relatives, I would hope they would sue Wikipedia for these horrible unproven accusations against their ancestors.

Hey ... John Godl is not a dumbass. He has studied the case thoroughly and he has formed his own conclusions. We each have that right. The trouble with this ridiculous "Wikipedia" thing is that any idiot has the right to cause trouble ... but that certainly is not charactistic of John Godl. pk

Why is it that AA supporters always want to sue anyone who questions the Botkins, yet you all make false accusations against anyone on the other side, including the DNA labs? Maybe Martha Jefferson Hosp. should sue you!

I don't want anyone suing anyone -- we had quite enough of that when AA was still living and during the tremendous comedy over who got control of the MJH tissue sample (I was not involved in that). The Botkins are perfectly capable of defending themselves. And the day MJH sues any of us is the day I fly to the moon without a rocket -- down there, they wish they'd never heard of any of this. pk

Edit War

The edit warring accomplishes nothing, and wastes much. These discussion pages are here for the express purpose of discussing (hence the name (no, it's not irony)) the page material. Other pages have had this problem, and edit privileges have been completely revoked for all users (except admins). Obviously, that's a breakdown of the system, and it's the fault of parties who refuse to use established channels (See Kurdish people).

Yeah ... let's see some of them! First time in THIS quarrel that my support for AA was linked with the Kurds!

"The camel is a cheerful bird. "I cannot say the same about the Kurd!" (Hilaire Belloc)

Wikipedia does not need any "improving." It is a dump site, the way all discussion boards used to be ... so we'll just dump. I don't really see what difference it makes. If they "block" this discussion, then you know already who's in charge.

What's the point? The liars have won in having this page blocked. How sad that the religious beliefs of people should get to run this article instead of historical accuracy. Wikipedia should be ashamed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.136.71.163 (talk • contribs)

Name-calling would belong to {{Category:AccomplishingNothing}}. A crucial part of all scholarly goings-on is compromise, and this discussion page is for that. You're welcome to discuss your feelings about the article, to help improve it. --Milton 04:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You know, all this is unbelievably interesting, and I'm the first to admit it. But "Milton" -- whoever you are -- the "crucial point of all scholarly discussions" is NOT "compromise." Where on earth did you get this idea?! (From some school teacher, I suppose, whose only job it was to make sure you didn't break the windows and could "pass tests," which is the ONLY thing school teachers are required to do anymore). The crucial point of ALL scholarly discussion is not "compromise" -- it is ASSERTION -- it is argument, it is quarrel. This is why people used to be burnt at the stake for it. I know this goes entirely against the grain of "modern" thinking (where everyone is supposed to "get along" and "play nice" lest they lose their juice-break) -- but so it is. The very ESSENCE of scholarly debate is disagreement. pk

Mr. Kurth, as I mentioned below, I have enormous respect for you and the work you have done. I also recognize that this article is far from perfect, largely because it is written by multiple editors with differing agendas, with varying degrees of expertise. However, this site is what it is and, unfortunately, a compromise is required here to leave the article in some kind of permanent state.

Even if it's a false state? pk

The edit war has been ongoing and the article has been reverted multiple times in a single day before the current version. I attempted to rewrite the article to provide more balance. You're the expert. If there is information here that you know to be false, you should certainly remove it. If you wish to add information, you should, citing your own published material or other published references. Original research isn't allowed under the rules set up by Wikipedia. I'd agree with your definition of scholarship, by the way, but I'm not sure it has a place here. This isn't a history journal or a soapbox or, at least, it shouldn't be.

Then for heaven's sake what is it? A repository of ill-informed opinion and false information? I realize that Wikipedia isn't "scholarly" (despite all the insistence on references -- because you can "reference" anything, even if it's balderdash). But I guessed you've helped me understand a little better than I did that all references must be PUBLISHED references. So, you (and all) may assume that any assertion I make in regard to this still extraordinarily controversial story comes from one of the three published works listed as links under my name -- if it is otherwise, I will say so -- though I have posted nothing here that anyone who has an interest in it can't go see for themselves in any number of libraries here and in Europe. I am not citing "private" information -- all of this is on public record. pk

What is it? It's an online encyclopedia edited by multiple users who have an interest in a particular subject. At its best, it should serve as a general source of information about a topic. The references provided should then guide people to investigate the topic further, using more reputable sources of information. It's not a source that I would expect to see schools or universities accepting as an acceptable source for an academic paper or accepting as accurate without further investigation. It's not a source I would use when writing a newspaper article, though I do check it to get basic information about a subject that points me towards where I need to go to get better information. If you edit the article, you need to list exactly where you're getting the information -- author, book title, page number, publication information. Do that if you're quoting something you have published or something Massie published or something van Rathlef published. There's a specific template that is used for citations for books, magazine articles, televison programs and Web sites. You can't just add information and assume it's understood that you're quoting yourself. Otherwise, how is anybody else going to come along and see where you got the information or edit it in the future? If you don't do that, you're contributing to the general mess and lowering the quality of the article, such as it is. Also, don't just drop commentary into the article itself as though it is a message board. Write it like you would any other article. Again, I respect your work and greatly enjoyed the books by you that I have read. If there are things in here that are wrong, please do remove them. --Bookworm857158367 02:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

What I'd like to see this article do is give the known facts about Anna Anderson

Well, you're already in trouble, as people do not agree on what these "known facts" are -- in this case, at least, every argument has a counter-argument, every detail has an opposing detail. pk

Agreed. It's a losing proposition when there are endless edits and reverts of this article. I'd say the known facts are that she called herself Anastasia, that there was a great deal of controversy over her, and that she was known as Anna Anderson, and died on a specific date.--Bookworm857158367 02:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

and the opinions that her supporters and her opponents held of her, along with the DNA evidence. Prince Christopher is going to be in here and you may not agree with him

It's not that I don't "agree" with him -- it's that I know (as a scholar) that he did not write his book himself, that it was ghosted for him, and that in person he held quite a different opinion of the AA case than he was permitted to publish. Am I NOT supposed to say this? Am I supposed to pretend it isn't so? Then cite ME -- *I* am the source -- *I* am the witness -- *I* am the reference. pk

Did you happen to write this in any of your published books or articles? Has someone else written that Prince Christopher's book was ghostwritten? You can quote that opinion if it is published somewhere -- maybe even if you put it up on one of your Web sites. Otherwise, no. --Bookworm857158367 02:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Peter Kurth = ChatNoir - Finneganw 17:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

, but your own point of view should also be represented. I'm sure you can do a lot to make this a high quality article. --Bookworm857158367 19:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to -- I really would. People who have actually read my work, and certainly people who know me, know that, as far anything I've *published* goes, I have not concealed my personal opinion that AA was authentic, but also never PRESSED other people to agree with me. Now, it is a matter only of historical curiosity -- it has no deeper implication. I do find it amazing (and I confess I am not generally a Wikipedia editor or writer) that anyone can post anything they like, whether true or false -- and all they need to do is cite a source, however dubious. I guess I really don't understand what Wikipedia is supposed to be. pk

I started editing this a year or so ago because I was really annoyed by the quality of the Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia article and thought that someone who knew something about the topic should improve its quality. You turned me into an Anastasia buff 20 years ago. Actually, I hope you will also take a look at the other Romanov articles and fix anything there that is wrong. I spent hundreds of hours working on all of them over the last year, but I am not an expert. Just keep in mind that Wikipedia is what it is. It's meant to be a general resource. It's also required that all the information included has to be cited, even if you're the author of the work. --Bookworm857158367 02:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

But that's what you don't understand. A compromise is NOT going to be reached. The people who are currently ruling this article do not want to discuss. They want to force their agenda on people and nothing is stopping them. They are not willing to discuss, which is why this discussion page has barely been visited.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Questforanastasia (talk • contribs)

Ah, but I do understand. And that is why nothing can be done on the page until an agreement is reached. The "current rulers" can't edit the page at all. They're forced, now, to use the discussion page, if they want any progress made on it.

So what do we do to make corrections in the main body of the article, which is filled with misinformation, no matter which side of the controversy you happen to fall on -- are we supposed to just ignore it? And know that thousands of people are reading inaccurate information on this subject? Or do all corrections and objections need to be left to the "Discuss" section (which I expect most people who run across a Wiki article don't bother to read)? I mean -- what is the point of all this? pk

Also, please remember to sign your posts with four tildes, like so: ~~~~ --Milton 17:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, OK, I'll try to do that in the future -- I didn't know. pk

But why would they want to discuss when the version that they want is currently posted on Wikipedia? That's why none of them are complaining. They got what they wanted. I just think it's unfair that there's evidence for and against Anastasia's death in 1918 yet only the evidence for it is presented in this article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.136.71.163 (talk • contribs)

:Please sign comments. Second, indicate here what changes you would like to make to the article and if they are not vandalism and they provide encyclopedic balance to the article not heavy, unsubstantiated POV

You again seem not to understand the true meaning of "unsubstantiated." It seems you only require a published reference of some kind, and you can find published references to the fact that the Duchess of Windsor was really a man -- would that count? Satisfy the rules? Just cite some scurrilous book or article and say, "Well, you see, it's SOURCED!" Even though everyone knows it's a lie -- ??? pk

, an administrator can add your section to the article.Markisgreen 12:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, it's completely one-sided with an agenda to prove Anastasia died in 1918 despite reports to the contrary. But in writing an article which goes to such lengths to prove Anastasia's death, it is just doing the opposite of what the writers hope. It is just going to make people ask questions. "If she really died in 1918, why is this entire article which is written about a pretender trying so hard to prove the death of someone the article is supposedly not even about?"—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.136.71.163 (talk • contribs)

PLEASE SIGN YOUR POSTS. If you have a problem with the article, list it here. I'm inviting you to list right here every proposed change, addition, and deletion, and why you want it done. I'll look into getting it worked into the article, if you will show a desire to improve it. --Milton 00:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

This is how I think the article should look like: /proposedarticle ChatNoir

That extremely long comment (that I have moved to a subpage to keep it from spamming this talk page) doesn't really help. If you could list complaints you have with the current article, provide sources and citations, and so on, that'll help. Just typing out a replacement article fails to show what your complaints are. --Milton 04:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Why Milton? You are NOT GOING TO LISTEN TO US. But just so I could say I tried, let me just add since this article is basically one long rant on how Anastasia died in 1918, then you could also add those who said they saw her alive.

"Viennese tailor Heinrich Kleinbetzl testified that he saw a wounded Anastasia immediately following the murders at Yekaterinburg on July 17, 1918. The girl was being treated by his landlady, Anna Baoudin, in a building directly opposite from the Ipatiev House.

"The lower part of her body was covered with blood, her eyes were shut and she was pale as a sheet," he testified. "We washed her chin, Frau Annouchka and me, then she groaned. The bones must have been broken ... Then she opened her eyes for a minute." Kleinbetzl testified that the wounded girl remained in his landlady's home for three days. During those days, Red Guards came to the house but knew his landlady too well to actually search the house. "They went like this: 'Anastasia's disappeared but she's not here, that's for sure,'" he testified. Finally a Red Guard, the same man who had brought her came to take her away. Kleinbetzl knew no more about her fate.[55]

Kleinbetzl had delivered clothing to the Ipatiev House and seen the grand duchesses walking in the home's enclosed courtyard but had never spoken to any of them. He testified that the wounded girl was "one of the women" he had seen walking in the courtyard, not that he personally recognized her as Anastasia.[55]"

But why did I bother? I can already hear your response. "This isn't a credible witness". And I will say "why?" and you will think of some crappy answer which dosen't explain anything. But the tailer was able to produce papers proving he indeed did live in the house across from the Ipatiev House and that he did indeed often enter the Ipatiev House and so he would know what Anastasia looked like but nobody wants to believe these reports because it goes against Anastasia being martyred and everyone wants to believe she is a Saint so who cares if she survived the massacre, right?

And please, what is this doing in the article. The personal opinions of Abramov about pretenders has no place in an Anna Anderson article.

"Anna Anderson - A Russian Viewpoint Two men responsible for the initial discovery of the Romanov remains, Geli Ryabov and Alexander Advonin have no doubt that all of Nicholas II and Alexandra's family perished in the Ipatiev House in Ekaterinburg. Commenting on the possibility that Anastasia may have survived in the guise of Anderson, Ryabov declared, "We have no instances of the Communists ever, anywhere, having mercy on anyone. If people understood that, it would not occur to them that Communists could let a member of the Emperor's family survive. It's simply impossible." [66] Advodin went further, "All the people taken into Ipatiev's House were shot. I think Anna Anderson could be Anastasia, but only if Anastasia had not gone into that house. We know that everyone who went into that house was killed, including Anastasia." [67] He went on to state "There are many Anastasia's and Alexeis out here, now and in the past. Now, I think, two Alexeis are alive. But if Alexei survived, there should be just one. But there are two of them and many more. There were more Anastasias. Anastasias children live here now, says one. She died in the fifties and was buried in Omsk. She was Anastasia Spiridovna. Anna Anderson was another pretender from the United States. Who is the real Anastasia? If Anastasia survived, there should be just one pretender, same with Alexei, So more than one means we here in Russia consider them all false." [68]

No, my answer is "I have no opinion on this article whatsoever, I'm just trying to help Wikipedia, but if you're going to be rude and ill-tempered, I'll have nothing else to do with it, or you." --Milton 19:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Just what I thought. You don't want to change it because it dosen't fit the story YOU want to portray. Thanks for proving my point.

Please feel free to look through the article's history, and you will see that I have made absolutely no edits to the page, nor have I edited anything remotedly related to it. The inherent fallacy with your previous statement is assuming that I have a story I want to portray. The truth is that I know absolutely nothing about the topic, and therefore cannot have an opinion. Please refrain from attacking other editors with libelous remarks, and instead do something to improve the article. --Milton 04:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to suck up my pride and apologize to you here. It seems you don't have an agenda, but I'm someone very familiar with this story and the people who are involved and you've got to understand, there are many people on both sides who want a certain story portrayed to fit their liking. Some like the romantic idea of a "lost princess". Others like the idea of "Saint Anastasia" who was martyred with the rest of her family. In the process, we've gotten further away from the truth because almost every researcher has an agenda and witheld evidence from the very first days of investigating, for example, Investigator Sokolov from way back in 1918. It's just frustrating to see these agenda taking their place on what is SUPPOSED to be an encyclopedia article. And if you look below ChatNoir has pointed out some of the intentional myths made by people who want a certain story portrayed that are repeated today, and in fact are repeated in this very article!!! And if you check alot of these "sources" cited in this article, they don't say anything of the kind.

I accept. It's easy for editors to get worked up over something they care about (I've done it before). I don't know what the best way to work around this is, but you might want to talk to some administrators if it gets to be a problem, and any edit warring starts again. --Milton 20:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Milton, I rest my case now. The vandals are back.I added a source noting the witnesses who saw Anastasia alive and now my whole addition is gone but the whole murder witnesses are still cited. It's not fair that an encyclopedia article should be written with an agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Questforanastasia (talk • contribs)

Anderson supporters keep deleting anything that goes against their view!

I, an "Anderson supporter" (you might even say -- I believe in fact that it IS said somewhere here -- that I am THE Anderson supporter -- have never deleted a word anyone has written here. I have done nothing but try to correct what I know is false information. pk

When I write, I leave their parts in, but add a more balanced view of the evidence, and next time I look it's back to calling her 'Anastasia' again! If I were wikipedia, I'd close the whole subject down. it draws too many obsessive nuts.

Takes one to know one, if you'll forgive the expression. pk

ChatNoir's proposition

is how an article should look. It's not, ya know, completely POV.

OK. The current version is not bad. Just a few things: Anastasia was PRESUMED dead. Her body was never found, and there were witnesses to her PRESUMED survival, Heini Kleibenzetl being one of them. (6 hours of badgering by the Hamburg Court could not poke a single hole in his testimony.) (Peter Kurth) The other witness was Franz Svoboda who claimed he rescued her together with 2 other men and got her across the street to the Popov house where Kleibenzetl later found her.

"Star shaped scar behind her head" Where, on the headboard?? She had a trough-like indentation behind one of her ears, as from a grazing bullet. She also had damages to her skull which showed up on her X-rays, and some doctors believed they caused her partial amnesia. (Peter Kurth.)

There were scars all over her body, not just on her head -- but "an der Brust" (that would be roughly the breastbone), on her jaw, behind her ear, on her legs, and through her foot. Whoever she was, she had obviously been savagely attacked by someone ... there is no evidence (none) that such a thing had ever happened to FS. Indeed, *all* the witnesses to FS's life insisted that no such scars existed on her body. pk

"she had walked to Berlin". Walked? From Romania?

They had to cross the borders on foot -- no papers. That's all this means. They went by train, and would stop at the last point before the passes were demanded -- so they walked across the borders, then picked up the train again. pk

She took the train together with Serge Tschaikovsky (his real name was most likely Nicolas Mishkevich) and walked with him across the borders since they had no papers. (Harriet Rathlef-Keilmann)

"information that she had obtained from an undisclosed source"

Who? Frau von Rathlef? AA was the one and only "source" for this. pk

Honestly, such things do not belong in ANY encyclopedia. NOBODY knows if she obtained the information elsewhere. NOBODY knows the source. Please strike this nonsense.

Speechless -- which "nonsense" are you speaking of? pk

"Gleb Botkin met Anderson in 1928".

Wrong, he met her in April 1927. pk

"Take her with him to New York".

Gleb did NOT take her with him to New York, he went back to USA and worked tirelessly to find someone who could finance her trip over there; help came finally from Princess Xenia of Russia, Mrs. W. B. Leeds, a cousin of Anastasia's. pk

"Franziska got her injuries from dropping a grenade".

We've been through this -- see above. FS was not wounded in the factory explosion. This is on record and we still have the records. pk

aggiebean interjects, where are these records? Merely saying someone saw them isn't good enough. Produce them, prove them, publish them, or stop using them as a source. I question their existence.signed aggiebean —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.23.30 (talk) 21:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

"She spoke Russian with her lawyer's assistant". That should be her lawyer's associate.

Not sure here -- she didn't have an actual lawyer of her own until 1928-29. He was American and wouldn't have known Russian from Swahili. He *references* her speaking Russian to other people in the 1930s to other Russians (see Kurth, passim -- and by the way blush a little). pk

Please make the necessary corrections, too many lies have been told in this story already.

Aber natuerlich! pk

The article's unlocked. Feel free to make the changes you want, but remember that if you want to prevent your changes from being removed, you should provide reputable citations. Thanks --Milton 04:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I ask you again, Milton -- "reputable" means what? pk

Don't you worry. I am watching this site lite a cat! ChatNoir

Thanks! It will be a diffucult task. I once took it up for myself and found myself changing something someone destroyed every 3 seconds.

How're things going with this article? Just glancing at the edit history, it doesn't seem to have any edit warring occuring. Are both sides more satisfied with the way the article is now progressing - or at least, equally dissatisfied :)?

I am, Milton -- more satisfied than not -- but still wondering how changes of simple fact and detail can be made on the main article. pk

--Milton 19:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC) I am quite happy with the way things are. I am sure the opposition is very unhappy, but that cannot be helped. Facts are facts, and even a putative DNA cannot indentify anybody. That's what makes it such a mystery. But why drive yourself crazy about it? Just follow the clues and see where they take you. ChatNoir

Well good. Just remember to add sources for stuff, and you can't go wrong. If they give you any more trouble, just let me know. I'm not an admin or anything, but I'll see what I can do to help everything work out. --Milton 05:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I also agree the article looks good. It shows no support while not going into wild specualtion by those who don't like her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.136.71.163 (talk • contribs)

Well, the article has been botched again, and I have been blocked from editing. So sad that this thing is being watched by people who obviously know nothing at all about Anna Anderson. Well, it has taught me that Wikipedia cannot at all be trusted. ChatNoir —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.25.66.87 (talk)

You were blocked for violating WP:3RR. And you are absolutely right, I neither know nor care about Anna Anderson. I do, however, care about Wikipedia policy being followed. Wikipedia is not an anarchy. You do not get to keep pushing your POV while at the same time censoring anything you find inconvenient. I happen to think that the proposed article you wrote above is well thought out and appears fairly NPOV. However, you don't get to decide "We've talked long enough, we are going to do it my way now no matter what anyone thinks."

I think it's time for the lot of you to settle in and come to the conclusion that this isn't going to be solved by trying to out-edit each other. Instead I suggest you start talking about how to create a balanced, NPOV article that everyone can agree on. Trusilver 16:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Vain hope, Sir! There is nothing about this case that "everyone can [or would] agree on." pk

This is not about POV, this is about the truth. I created an article that was fairly free of hearsay and lies, and it has been vandalized again by the same person who obviously thinks that Goodl's article on the web is the gospel. And if you so much agree that my article was NPOV, why are you allowing this vandalism to occur while blocking me from editing? ChatNoir —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.25.66.87 (talk)

Well, there's plenty of time to get it worked out, the article is blocked until further notice. And I don't care about other vandalism, yours was the one that I happened to see while patrolling recent changes. I'm going to suggest you start considering a criticism or alternate theories section to be added to the article so that you can incorporate everyone's sourced material and maintain the article's coherence.

Honestly, at this point I'm really suggesting arbitration for this article. When nothing else is working, it's time for a neutral third party. Trusilver 17:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It is VERY clear that you do not care about other vandalism. And don't tell me to start considering a criticism, I have already pointed out the lies and mistakes in this article if you care to read my comments above. I think what we REALLY need, is an editor who KNOWS about the Anna Anderson story. ChatNoir

I've already read the full discussion as well as both archives. I suggest you read WP:OWN and consider it. This is not YOUR article, you do not get to proclaim yourself the only knowledgeable person on the matter. You can either accept that there are others that wish to contribute and their views do not exactly match your own, or we can go through this all over again when the lock is lifted. I'd prefer that you can all come to an agreement before then, but whether or not you do... well, that's up to you. Trusilver 20:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Their VIEWS?? When did downright LYING become views? ChatNoir

I haven't been a regular contributor to this article, but as someone who has read most of the English material available on this subject, the current version is inappropriately biased. A proper article will neither assert that Anna Anderson was a liar or was not, that Anastasia definitely died or survived, or that the missing bodies belong to Maria and Alexei when that fact is in disagreement. Russian scientists said Maria was the girl missing, but Americans said with good reason that it was Anastasia. The only way to write this article is to present the facts neutrally, giving both arguments without asserting that one or the other side was correct. As currently written, the article is atrociously biased. I will attempt to fix these problems whenever the editor gets around to unblocking it. --Bookworm857158367 20:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Bookworm, I've read your work before and I like it. I hope you can do something here, you definitely have your work cut out for you. I wish you the best of luck. If you ever need any help, don't hesitate to send me a message. Trusilver 04:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

As a frequent, unregistered, contributor to wikipedia, I 'll have to side with bookworms tempered response here. I have read the article and the archives and his proposition is the most sensible. And let me add here that I am under the impression that forensic and DNA evidence that Alexei and Anastasia weren't in the mass grave along with the rest of their family have been conclusive. I would also like to point out as much of the article is lifted by some article going by the name Anastasia: The Unmasking Of Anna Anderson (at http://www.serfes.org/royal/annaanderson.htm) written by some John Godl and compiled (for whatever that means...) by some greek orthodox Archimandrite Nektarios Serfes who is a russian oligarchy sympathiser, or zealot better, and even has the audacity to sign this article as such: Holy Royal Martyrs Tsar Nicholas & Family Pray Unto God For Us! Glory Be To God For All Things!

One can easily tell there are huge vested interests for the holy (sic) royal martyrs who by most accounts had managed to bring a whole nation to the brink of martyrdom and starvation, before some lunatic would proclaim them both holy and martyrs praying unto god (somehow the deaseced have this capacity too...) for the res of humanity. 84.254.51.245 23:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

As odd as this may sound, ChatNoir's statement that this is "about the truth" is not actually the basis on which Wikipedia articles are created. It's about presenting all reasonably established and published opinions fairly and without bias.

Right. "Without bias." So that the main article gives AA's birthdate as being the same as F. Schanzkowska's (and even then it gets the date wrong) -- since the DNA tests, none of this has been taken to law, and under law, still, the person known as "Anna Anderson" was born in 1901. pk

It's for readers to judge what's the truth or not, not for us to present one or another version as the only true one, particularly in a case as full of enigmas as this lady's is. -- JackofOz 00:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you JackofOz. The thing that has been established is that Anna Anderson was no relation of the Russian Imperial family. Countless DNA tests have established this. She was an imposter like many others. Photographs show quite clearly that there was no comparison between Grand Duchess Anastasia and Anna Anderson. Any article that claims that she was Grand Duchess Anastasia is not at all accurate. I believe she certainly was an enigma, even to herself. Finneganw 02:50, 6 July 2007

The thing is that we are never going to know for sure, the real story has been lost to time. Therefore, the only thing that we can do is to make sure that the article is balanced and written from a neutral point of view. Since the truth can't be known, we just lay out all the angles and allow the reader to determine what the truth is. JackofOz is correct, when you strip things down, Wikipedia is never about the truth...there are many things in the project that are untrue. Wikipedia is about knowledge, and knowledge does not always equal "truth" or "fact". Trusilver 04:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Trusilver I think the solution is to either have two separate pages - 1. the case for Anna Anderson as Grand Duchess Anastasia and 2. the case against Anna Anderson as Grand Duchess Anastasia

I think that is a MARVELOUS idea! pk

OR

one page with the two separate sides presents separately

I think it will be impossible to satisfy either side otherwise as much as it should be possible. What do you think Trusilver and JackofOz? This would be neutral as both sides would be presented, separately. Finneganw 14:14, 6 July 2007

I agree with Finneganw, the page is one sided in its current form. there are also many possibilities that havent been mentioned within the article. i think that a seperation of pages might be the best route. if it continues as one page, who is to say that the edit war would actually cease. Onopearls 16:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I see you point for having two articles, but I also think that doing it that way you will see a never-ending battle to keep people from trying to merge them back together. While it's a sensible fix, it would cause less long-term headaches to hash out a way to keep it under a single article and put a 'criticism' section in. Trusilver 08:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Trusilver. Have been really trying to think of other solutions. It is a very tough call and I tend to think one article will be constantly in a state of edit war and while this should not happen, it sadly does. The pro Anna Anderson camp basically only use Peter Kurth as their reference. This becomes almost an advertisement for his book when you examine their references. There is a greater range of references amongst those who find her claim fraudulent. That is why I suggested two pages as there seems little will to compromise and to compromise means that both sides of the case need to be presented. Photographic evidence should also be presented, but of course then there are copyright restrictions due to ownership of photos. In an attempt to look at the situation objectively, the problem is when Anna Anderson claims to be somebody else. It would be easy to have an article on Anna Anderson if it were only on Anna Anderson. The moment it moves to the claim that she was somebody else then the problems occur. Her claim to be somebody else was never legally proven or disproven. The courts simply made no ruling in her favour. She walked away from the case without any benefit. Repeated independent and highly credible fully verifiable DNA evidence has suggested, almost without any room for doubt, that her claim was inaccurate. Of course Peter Kurth makes a case in his book, published before extensive DNA testing, that she was. Apart from Blair Lovell, who is now largely discounted, very few others do. It is a huge headache area. For the article to succeed both sides need to be presented or perhaps sadly the other solution is that the article is recommended for deletion by wikipedia completely OR a very simple statement is made such as "Anna Anderson claimed to be Grand Duchess Anastasia" and you leave it at that and lock the page. The word "claim" does not mean she was. Of course the other point is the article is listed in the wikipedia category "Imposters". If she were who she claimed to be, perhaps she should not be in this category and the article should be moved elsewhere. It is a bit like walking through a minefield I'm afraid. Finneganw 14:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think two articles would be at all appropriate. This is an article about one woman, Anna Anderson/Anastasia Tschaikovsky/Franziska Schanzkowska, etc. Why is it so impossible to simply state the facts of her life? She appeared in 1920, was taken to a mental hospital in Berlin and it was eventually claimed first that she was Grand Duchess Tatiana and then Grand Duchess Anastasia. Some people found resemblances, others did not. Court trials were held. After her death, DNA testing was done on her hair and a piece of her intestine and it was found not to match the remains found at Ekaterinburg or Prince Philip, but was consistent with the mitrochondrial DNA of Franziska Schanzkowska's great-nephew. Peter Kurth and some of her other supporters still question whether she was, in fact, the Polish factory worker and here's why. Where she lived, what she did, and whom she knew for the next 63 years of her life after falling into that canal is simply not in dispute. If there is to be a separate article, it should be entitled something like People who have claimed to be Grand Duchess Anastasia or Royal impostors or something similar. The article about Anna Anderson isn't an appropriate place to get into all that. --Bookworm857158367 15:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little more inclined to agree with Bookworm. It's not so much that I have an issue with splitting the articles, I just know that to do so will cause trouble down the road. Perhaps we could add a subheading to the article entitled "The Peter Kurth Hypothesis" or something? Trusilver 17:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Trusiliver and Bookworm - I think this is the very best way to go. A simple statement of facts about the life of Anna Anderson and then a completely separate section on the same page on the Peter Kurth "hypothesis" would be the very best way to go. I also believe that there should be a separate wikipedia page on "People who claimed to be Grand Duchess Anastasia after 17 July 1918". There all the claimants and not just Anna Anderson could be listed as there are a great many. The existing "Grand Duchess Anastasia" wikipedia page should refer those interested in claimants to a new page "People who claimed to be Grand Duchess Anastasia after 17 July 1918 "and to the "Anna Anderson" wikipedia page rather than including any information on that page that takes away from the well established facts on the life of Grand Duchess Anastasia 1901-1918. Well done to Bookworm ....... Finneganw 09:40, 8 July 2007

This article should be about Anna Anderson's life, period.

OK -- if so, then, it should be about her actual life, as lived and recorded -- not this junky business about her being "an imposter" and so forth. I'm ready -- I'll wait to hear. pk

The article should read something like this: We don't know when she was born. The known facts about her start when she was pulled out of a canal in Berlin in 1920. Claims were made that she was Anastasia. Some believed her, others didn't. There were trials. They didn't find in her favor. Books were written about her, movies were made based on her story. She lived here, here, and here. She married Jack Manahan. She died in 1983. After she died, DNA testing was done on her hair and intestines. They indicate she probably wasn't Anastasia, but her mitochondrial DNA does match the great-nephew of Franziska Schanzkowska. Despite the DNA evidence, Peter Kurth and others are skeptical that she could have been the Polish factory worker because, they claim, of her mannerisms, physical appearance and the number of people who recognized her as a lady of breeding and certain contradictions with her characteristics and Franziska Schanzkowska's. I would title the final section something like "Aftermath" or "Controversy continues." Every SENTENCE of this article needs to be backed up with a solid, published reference, complete with page numbers and publication information. Then it needs to be watched like a hawk to keep people from adding more garbage that is nothing more than opinion or abuse or diatribes. Right now it is a complete embarrassment. The second article we should create should be called "Romanov claimants." It should include a brief synopsis of the subject and information about the most prominent people who have made claims. Some of them also have separate articles. --Bookworm857158367 23:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

But its going to be hard getting anywhere if people like our co-wikipedian for this article only, Finneganw, keeps unashamedly repeating and perpetuating falsehoods. Enough already, we know it's your agenda, but even an outsider to this case such as myself who's read around in the past few days about this subject finds it intolerable to hear such blatant lies that there have been "countless dna tests" or that there is no facial similarity at all when noted forensic scientist Dr. Peter Vanezis (who was also on consoltation by the Russian Government on the Romanov Graves) of the university of Glasgow (see his home page) not only noted striking a resemblance but analyzin ears and other facial characterists point to point, concluded that it's the very same person. It's been a few days only reading about this case and I already start feeling chatnoir's revolsion for the zealots who come here with no other purpose than to perpetuete their lying an propagandizing. I am sure there's much at stake for you, but you won't have it your way in wikipedia. Of course finnegaw also suggests if he can't get his way that "the other solution is that the article is recommended for deletion by wikipedia completely". Ok, let's abolish every mention of her! Excellent.

I second bookworms plan, which is very well balanced and precise. That is THE only way to go. 84.254.52.80 04:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed here as well, sounds like the best possible plan. Trusilver 04:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I like Bookworm's approach, too. No case for splitting it up, but a good case for stating (a) all the facts as we know them, and (b) various theories that have been proposed; and clearly differentiating between thge facts and the theories. That's the Wikipedia way. -- JackofOz 06:04, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I also think Bookworm's approach is the right one. john k 16:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I've started attempting to rewrite this article. I think a large portion of it probably belongs in the new article I plan to start called "Romanov claimants." References and page numbers also need to be fixed. I have several of the books that are cited but will have to get them out of storage. The article needs to be fixed for style as well. I'll do more a bit later. --Bookworm857158367 21:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Addition

I deleted Peter Kurth's opinion on the matter because it is his opinion, but I did add this and the source for it is "Tsar: The Lost World of Nicholas and Alexandra" by Kurth, Radzinsky, Christopher."

Would the thing you deleted of Peter Kurth's be the same Peter Kurth whom you then go on to cite? Seems so. pk

The vast majority of "Tsar: The Lost World of Nicholas and Alexandra" by Kurth, Radzinsky, Christopher is in fact by Peter Kurth and remains his opinion.

You're quite wrong here, although I understand why you wouldn't know that. The vast majority of "Tsar" (and its continued vast popularity) has to do with the photographs -- the text was just filler.

"Tsar" was a commissioned book -- not my own idea -- all the chapter outlines were laid out for me precisely and I was obliged to follow them to the letter, and to get it done within 3 months. They made me repeat, for instance, the preposterous story of Rasputin's murder, as recounted by Prince Yussupov (it has always amazed me that people are willing to believe that UTTERLY fictional account, at the same time inisting that "no one could have escaped Ekaterinburg alive!") -- and I did this, as I was paid to do it, and on a very short deadline, but my price for repeating that pack of lies was that they give me 3 pages or so to recount, as briefly and objectively as I could, the role of "Anna Anderson" in the "Aftermath." They didn't want it, but I insisted: "If you're going to make me repeat Yussupov's fantasies about Rasputin, then you're also going to put up with a little bit about AA." And they couldn't argue with that, otherwise I'd have quit the job and they'd have been stuck ... pk

Only the small introduction is by Radzinsky and Christopher's only contribution are wonderful photographs

His "only" contribution? They are the MAIN contribution.

, but no text, so the book is basically by Peter Kurth whose name is given the greatest prominence on the front cover.

Wasn't my idea ... I didn't even see what they'd put on the cover until the book came out.

Finneganw 15:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Finnegan? What is that -- Irish? pk

"Fueling the flames were the results of tests done by Dr. Peter Vanesis, who was conducting a study for a British documentary film based on photographs of the face and ears of Grand Duchess Anastasia and Anna Anderson. He delivered his report with "100% certainty" that Anna Anderson was Anastasia.[36]"

Are there any objections? I don't think there should be as it is documented and Vanesis is a reliable forensic expert.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.136.71.163 (talk • contribs)

aggiebean interjects, I object, because this is not the truth. The facial experiment on the show, which was NOVA by the way, were done by Geoffrey Oxlee and he determined AA and FS to be one in the same. The ears were done by a team including the other person mentioned, however, no one ever said anything about '100% certainty', or any certainty, so that would be inaccurate. If you want the source see the NOVA special on Anastasia or perhaps find a transcript.signed aggiebean —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.23.30 (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The eyes have never matched

According to whom? Not anyone who knew Anastasia -- the eyes were the one thing they all agreed were the same. pk

and these do not change unless cataracts form or the eyes are removed and replaced by artificial ones.

If you look at pictures, you can see that all of Anderson's features, especially the lips, right down to the hair part

the "hair part" of the lips? What ARE you talking about? pk

, are identical to Franziska's in the only known picture.

Which means they are "identical" to nothing -- the supposed (and only) photograph of FS has never been authenticated, and the original has long vanished. Odd that you should mention the mouth, as the S. family insisted that that was something they saw in pictures of AA that did NOT correspond to their missing sister and daughter (source: Hamburg protocols). They also said that FS never wore her hair up in a "bun" like that, but always in a braid running down her back. This picture, for whom no one can vouch, could have been taken of anyone at any time. pk

Most pictures that claim to portray a resemblance between AA and AN show AA biting her lips to make them look smaller.

Yes, I remember this very well -- how her every movement and facial expression was designed to trick people -- NOT!!! pk

I am disappointed there is not one reference in the sources to Robert K. Massie's "Romanovs the Final Chapter." I know he is hated by AA supporters

Oh no he is not. I have the greatest respect for Bob Massie; we have been friends, and I have never attacked him, as he also has never attacked me. You are talking about something you know nothing of. pk

, but he offers a view you'll never get from them and he needs to be added.

Yes, he should be added. pk

I also think that the birthdate as 'unknown according to her supporters' is wrong since her supporters believe she had Anastasia's birthday

And her opponents believe otherwise ... your point is? ... pk

Wikipedia

I don't even care about this article anymore. Its crap, has an agenda, is completely one sided, and Wikipedia is kissing their asses and picking favorites. Everytime I add something with a source, it's erased and then Wikipedia locks it so I can't add it again. This whole website is shit. In fact, any website that allows people to edit the articles themselves is absolutely ridiculous.

I agree whoever wrote this article is twisting and distorting the sources used to suit their own purpose it is also full of mistakes

Theosophica (talk) 06:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Question for people who wrote this article

Why do you write about the "pulses being checked" but yet you don't mention that in this same book cited as a reference it also states that Anastasia and Marie woke up AFTER the pulses were checked and screamed. This is intentionally misleading and unacceptable, as is this entire, one-sided, fact-free article. -Caleb G.

I've just re-read this article and it is still dreadful. I could spend all day listing its inaccuracies but I don't have the time and there is obviously no point since none of those previously advised have been altered. I do, however, have one question - why is such prominence given to Dmitri Leuchtenberg's letter to Vorres? The Leuchtenberg family was split on this issue and if you are going to mention his opinion, you should also mention the opinions of other members of his family. Dmitri's letter is full of factual errors, but then so is the whole article. I appreciate you don't want this to be POV (which it is, by the way) but you can't even get the date of birth correct. Liz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferrymansdaughter (talk • contribs) 13:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

So dig out your books and make the corrections yourself, citing your sources. I know the article is horribly written with a lot of inaccuracies, but sadly, this is what happens when you have an article written by a number of people who hold violently opposing opinions. I believe the additions you object to were made by Finnegan, so you might want to take it up with him. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Article in need of some serious format editing - so why is it locked?

I see that the article is locked. That is a shame. It needs a serious going over for grammer, wikilinking to other names (such as Felix Yussupov), making subheadings and correcting references. What's the deal here? Anyone care to enlighten us? As is, the article is rather hard to follow. Some judicious editing by an experienced editor without a dog on whatever fight is going on would be helpful. Might I suggest that you break out the complete Anastasia survived theory from Ana Anderson's article and go into all the various ins and outs there? It might give everyone a chance to document their side of it without freezing the Ana Anderson article. LiPollis 12:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was locked because people on both sides of the dispute over Anna Anderson's real identity can't seem to integrate both sides of the story into the article. Therefore, the page has been locked until an agreement can be reached. Trusilver 15:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

No agreement can be reached -- there are people who know the case (and the person) first-hand, and people (most) who know it only second- or third-hand. It was one of the (few) glories of her life that she didn't give a damn what "outsiders" thought of her or her claim. pk

But of course it was the "Anastasia died in 1918 and there can be no other opinion" version which it got locked on.

Actually, I took OUT the paragraph about the murder of the Romanovs and added the phrase "by most accounts" when referring to her death with her family. I also removed some of the more inflammatory statements about Anderson, the Botkins, etc.,

Well, good for you, and I'm glad you did. Because it was slanderous in the extreme. pk

while still leaving in enough to make it evident that the Romanov family members and cousins and courtiers failed to recognize her and viewed her as an impostor

Which ones? Not Grand Duke Andrew, not Princess Xenia, not Shura Tegleva (Mme. Gilliard, ANR's nurse from babyhood), not Lili Dehn (one of the empress's closest friends, who was with them at Tsarskoe Selo at the time of the revolution), not ... not ... not even the tsar's sister, Grand Duchess Olga, who believed in AA absolutely but was "bullied" out of it by powers greater than she ... [Source: Kurth and innumerable others].

, while others found that Anderson did resemble Anastasia.

"Others" in fact INSISTED she was Anastasia, including, for instance, Capt. Felix Dassel, who had lain as a wounded officer in the hospital at TS under the patronage of the two youngest grand duchesses, Marie and Anastasia -- thus he had seen her at a much later date than most of the extended family did. (Oddly enough, the little "orderly" there, running around with food and bedpans and such, was Serge Esenin, who later became "the Poet of the Revolution," after marrying Isadora Duncan and then hanging himself in 1925) {Sources: Kurth and Kurth and Duncan and many others]. During his hearing at Hamburg (April 1958) Dassel's testimony was read back to him, as is normal there, and the judges had said, quoting him, "I believe she is the Grand Duchess Anastasia," wherepon he leaped to his feet and shouted back: "I did not say `I believe.' I AFFIRM it. I AFFIRM that she is Anastasia Nicolaievna." pk

I'm not done editing this article by any means, but I made the edits that seemed most urgent. What needs to be done is adding citations with page numbers and cleaning up the grammar, sentence structure, etc. There are still some major problems with the writing style. --Bookworm857158367 12:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding -- "grammar" and "writing style"? When did this become important here? pk

Congratulations to Bookworm on Anna Anderson Article

Bookworm - You have done a really great deal of excellent work on the article. I have already reverted it once to where you left it after it was vandalised by User:209.136.71.163 who reverted it back to the unsatisfactory situation. It should be very clear to anybody that you have tried extremely hard to sort everything out. I congratulate you. This discussion page shows there was consensus for you to carry out the work. I believe the article may need to be locked if those who cannot accept verified material keep on vandalising it. Perhaps senior administrators will have to be notified. Let me know if I can help as I have basically all the books in the reference list. I think the comments from Schweitzer come from a video program which contained an interview with his wife and Peter Kurth after the DNA evidence was revealed.

And Nancy Wynkoop -- daughter of Princess Xenia. Please, don't forget Nancy's contribution to these silly, half-baked documentaries. "Well," she said, "how do you tell a judge that she scratched her ear exactly like Aunt Tillie? And how do you tell them that her voice was the same as all of the cousins? There are so many `positives,' but if you refuse to see the positives, you will conclude she was a fake. She was not." pk

Somewhere I have it although it will require an extensive search. Finneganw 10.26, 10 July 2007

I should think it wouldn't take TOO much of a search, Mr. Finnegan, as the whole thing is available online. pk

I think semi-protected status might be warranted to keep unregistered editors from editing. I started working on the article, but it's still going to need a lot of work to get it up to standard.

"Standard" what? The usual BS? -- pk

I'm going on vacation for a few days at the end of the week and won't be able to work extensively on it then. More work needs to be done to present both sides and to make sure the citations are correct. I don't have the info with Schweitzer's comments, but they may have been in Massie's book Romanovs: The Final Chapter. I'd suggest using one of the Feature Articles as a pattern when citing references and page numbers. It should include the author's name, then the full title of the book, year of publication, publishing company, ISBN number, page numbers and similar but slightly different formats for magazine articles or television programs. One of the things I noticed with the last anonymous editor's edits was misspelled titles and grammatical errors (errors in sentence structure.) --Bookworm857158367 12:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I Agree. User 209.136.71.163's edits are somewhat unproductive. i commend Bookworm857158367 on his efforts to repair the page. it looks fantastic. Best wishes, Onopearls 15:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Bookworm - I tend to think the 35,202 bytes version is the best. To remove further information makes the article very POV and extremely unbalanced. The reader of the article should be allowed to make their own decision, but sadly cannot if it is reduced further. It just becomes an advertisement for Peter Kurth's book otherwise.

I really don't know how to respond to this. I think you are presumptuous and I *know* you are wrong, as my "Anasasia" is long out of print in the United States (if not in translation in other countries), and so there can be no "advertisement" for it. I don't know who you are, but I doubt I have ever heard anything so offensive online (and that's saying something). pk

I have noticed the photos reappearing and other bizarre occurrences. The article semi-protected was not the same one viewed earlier. I would suggest it is better to concentrate on finding sources than reducing the article. Finneganw 17:47, 10 July 2007

The edit war here is continuing. Two users are making edits and reverting other people's edits. I'm not sure how the heck to resolve this without asking for the page to be locked again. --Bookworm857158367 04:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Bookworm, maybe if the article didn't have so much POV in it, like "The picture of Franziska shows a smart and intellegent girl who was not like a peasent at all." It dosen't even mention that the picture was doctered. And it's stupid to quote Prince George ALL THROUGHOUT THE ARTICLE when he wasn't even an authority on this case. In fact, he gets quoted more than people like Olga Alexandrovna and Shura Gilliard and Lili Dehn, who actually knew the young Anastasia well. Prince George did not and this article makes it look like he was AN's best friend.

The additions you have made were all "point of view" and are decidedly not helpful.

I'm going to say it again: what the hell do you mean by "point of view"? Let's say I was sitting in the Presidential box at Ford's Theater in Washington in April 1865, and I happened to be the one who noticed JW Booth coming in (which no one did, by the way) -- and let's say that later I was interviewed under some modern technique of interrogation, and I might say, "Well, it was Booth, and there was no reason to expect that he shouldn't be there -- this was his own turf. We couldn't have known that he might pull out a pistol and shoot the President in the back of the head." Is this -- would it not be -- "POV"? This "POV" crap seems to me to be a great excuse for not getting the facts right. I have no idea how you people might decide what is "POV" and what is not. I only know that your article about "Anna Anderson" is filled with lies and worse -- "unsubstantiated" material. pk

"Reportedly" is grammatically correct; not "reportably."

Depends on what you mean. Both words are real words, with their own meaning. You plainly know nothing about writing -- words are chosen for their precision. pk

It is the prevailing opinion among most historians that she was probably Franziska Schanzkowska.

Who are these "most historians" -- I would like to know. It was never the case that "most historians" took AA seriously at all, but it is also the case that "most historians" never bothered to look into it. I know perfectly well that "History" (based on DNA tests) will conclude that she was FS. But this is no different from what "most historians" had already decided -- not just that AA was a fake, but that none of it matters in relation to the greater history of Russia (with which I agree entirely -- it does NOT matter).

The other side's opinion is already well-represented. The description of Schanzkowska's photo is also from one of the many Anastasia books.

?????????

I have seen it. The photos that you keep inserting are not attractive the way you have them laid out. A photo of a person turned to the left should usually be placed on the right; a photo of a person turned to the right should be placed on the left. This way they are "looking into" the page instead of out of it. Newspapers follow the same layout. A photo of Anastasia as a child is also not an appropriate photo to include. If you must, use the most recent photo of her as a teenager so that comparisons might be made between Anna Anderson and the teenage Anastasia. I don't think the photo is necessary. Sign your statements, please. --Bookworm857158367 11:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Again -- what ARE you talking about?  ??????? The resemblance between AA and GDA was never questioned by anybody.

Bookworm please note that Prince Christopher of Greece knew Grand Duchess Anastasia extremely well indeed.

Please note that he did not. In the very early years of Nicholas and Alexandra's marriage (the VERY early years, 1894 to perhaps 1901) N & A were extremely close (family-wise) to Christo's sister, Marie ("Greek Minny"), who was the tsar's favorite cousin, Christo's sister, and who married another of his favored cousins, Grand Duke George Mikhailovitch (Greek/Russian-Russian/Greek -- they were all of the same family). Christo never saw the tsar's daughters after 1914 AT THE LATEST (and I doubt even that late). Then, when his niece, Princess Xenia (daughter of the aforementioned "Greek Minnie") took "Anna Anderson" to live with her, everyone said, "But how could SHE know!? She was only a child at the time!" But she did it *with* Christo, and when C. went back to the aunts and uncles in Europe and said that indeed she WAS Anastasia, they all pooh-poohed and ha-ha'ed him and bullied him right out of it. It's not like he was an "important" prince or anything. And he didn't write his memoirs himself, so stop quoting them. He knew that Xenia was right -- and afterward, having married the first Mrs. Nancy Leeds, whose personal fortune rescued the Greek throne, he went on to marry Francoise d'Orleans ("Fatty of France," as she was called in the family) -- and died as he had lived, quite comfortably.

Drop the Christo business, will you, whoever you are? pk

His father was King George I of Greece, younger brother of Dowager Empress Maria Feodorovna and he was a very regular visitor to his first cousin Tsar Nicholas II and Empress Alexandra Feodorovna and their children.

No, he was not. There were no "very regular" visits to any of them from any of the cousins. AF made sure of this.

But since you mention it -- Why would the testimony of Prince Christopher be regarded as more valuable (that is, more accurate) than that of his direct nieces, Nina and Xenia of Russia? Who really were childhood playmates of the tsar's daughters until Alexandra put a stop to it, and who really did know AA (intimately) later? Why the one instead of the others? Why? pk

He knew Anastasia extremely well

He did not. This was an enormous royal bunch of a family, and there were little girls running around everywhere. Another of Christo's nieces (Olga of Greece/Yugoslavia) insisted to me that she had known Anastasia "very well," but it turns out that they had met each other maybe 4 times? Of course I didn't argue with her -- I would guess that 4 times was a lot in those circumstances. What matters is that the family was the family, and if you're going to cite Christo as some kind of expert, you can add the rest too, and take it for granted that any one of these people would have known the difference between a Polish working girl and a member of their own clan. Christo's niece, Princess Xenia (Mrs. Leeds) was the granddaughter of the King of Greece. She was the grand-niece of the Queen of England (Alexandra) and the god-daughter of both Alexandra and her sister, the Russian empress Maria Feodorvna. As an adult, her "best friend" was the Princess Royal (Princess Mary, Mrs. Lascelles). She was so fully connected and related to ALL the European royal families that it defies belief to think she couldn't have told the difference -- especially after six months of living together -- between, as she said, "a member of my own family and an unfortunate Polish peasant woman who, so it was said, had been taught these things." This kind of "fraud" does not happen in reality -- it does not exist. [Sources: me and common sense.] pk

and also all the Romanov palaces. That is why he is a very reliable source.

He was an UTTERLY unreliable source -- meaning, first, that he was a "princeling," and, second, that he managed to help his (mainly exiled) family only through his advantageous marriages (first and above all to Nancy Leeds Sr.) He was queer as a goose, if I can put it that way, and his only dynastic role was to bring in money. I'm sorry if this offends people, including his son, Prince Michael, but such it was [sources: everyone who knew him].

Those who claim he did not know are simple completely uninformed and do not like the accuracy of his information.

God knows which of the anti-AA demons wrote this load of crap, but I can only echo it (in all its wonderful "grammer"): "Simple completely uninformed." pk

The Romanov family after the revolution had lost not only most of their substantial pre-revolution wealth

Which in the circumstances of the revolution no longer belonged to them -- pk

, they had also lost most of their family.

No -- "only" 17 out of 44 living in 1928 -- most of them got away. pk

It is completely impossible for them not to have accepted Anastasia back into their family if Anna Anderson had been the real person she claimed to be.

How do you figure, when she swore that she would have them all "hanged"? pk

She sadly wasn't and they all knew it.

No, they didn't. Don't BS yourself. pk

They were so poor that they had to rely on their English and Danish relations.

Which is no doubt how the tsar's sister Xenia, when she died in 1960, left over a hundred thousand pounds behind her -- these were REAL pounds, remember, a sum that would amount now to well into the millions ... I'm afraid you (whoever you are) have fallen for every stupid legend these people made sure to foist on us. pk

The DNA evidence also decades later confirmed the reality. Primary source information from such a source is reliable and verifiable. To deny it makes the article look like rather unfortunate. Everything was done by those who supported Anderson to prove she was who she claimed to be and it was not proved. I have no agenda at all. I just believe accurate historical facts need to be reported.

No, you do not. You believe that everything that speaks against "Anna Anderson" is a "fact." That is ALL you believe. pk

Prince Christopher of Greece was a highly credible witness to Anderson

They never met. How "credible" could he be? pk

when she stayed with the Leeds family at their home. He was the stepfather of Leeds and a relation of the wife.

"A" relation! This is how much you care about "fact." pk

He knew only too well why she was asked to leave the Leeds home.

Oh? And why was that? Princess Xenia (Mrs. Leeds) did everything in her power to persuade AA to keep staying with them and to ignore the advice of "outsiders." And why do you suppose she did this? Because she wanted a nutcase on her hands? No. It was because she knew it would be the wrong thing for AA to leave and fall into the hands of American scagillionaires who had no greater interest than making money off it. Which is exactly what happened. Xenia was in despair over the whole thing. Look it up (it would require, of course, that you abandon your prejudices, which my sense tells me you will never do). pk

I very much doubt the real Anastasia would have openly insulted her Aunt Xenia.

I don't believe that even the supposedly FALSE Anastasia ever insulted Aunt Xenia. Botkin did that, and with no help, support or consultation with AA. It was his right to do so, as his own father had sacrificed his life (and his children) for the sake of the tsar's family. Gleb had every right to say whatever he wanted to a nothing like GD Xenia, whose life has not one single accomplishment attached to it. pk

I'm not sure about you, but I have never forgotten any member of my family, no longer how long I have been away from them. People don't.

Oh yes, they do -- if it suits their purposes. pk

Stick to Peter Kurth's hypothesis as that is the best solution. Finneganw 13.07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Again -- ?????? What is my "hypothesis"? I know that AA was genuine, and so does everyone in the family. pk

I'm aware of Prince Christopher's back story.

I doubt it -- pk

I think you're responding to Quest for Anastasia's unsigned comment above. I couldn't revert his additions outright without violating the three revert rule. --Bookworm857158367 12:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This sort of sounds like the CIA -- what "three revert rule"? pk

Prince Christophur never met Anna Anderson nor should he be quoted 55 times in just one article. You continually erase verified evidence in order to support your agenda and add POV such as "The picture of Franziska shows an intellegent girl." This dosen't belong in this article and it can't be otherwise. And better yet since you're talking about Princess Xenia, you might as well add that she never wavered in her belief that Anna was Anastasia. I'm amazed at how people will only present one side of a story to present what they want.

I am back from vacation, and I have read the “new” article on Anna Anderson as edited by Bookworm. Why am I not impressed?

"The young woman was covered, according to her doctors at the asylum, with half a dozen bullet wounds and lacerations, including a star shaped scar behind her head (the doctors originally believed this led to her original loss of memory.[10]"

There was no reference in the original medical reports specifically to "bullet wounds." It was only noted that her body was "covered with scars." pk

The woman was covered with multiple scars and lacerations, including a trough-like indentation behind her ear, as from a grazing bullet. (Peter Kurth)

"Journalist Harriet von Rathlef

HvR was not a journalist, but a sculptor and painter, who ended up writing about it only because she could think of no other recourse -- pk

suggested that Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna appeared conflicted about Anderson's identity, as were Imperial tutor Pierre Gilliard and Gilliard's wife, Alexandra Tegleva, who had been Anastasia's nanny.[15] However, according to Dr. Sergei Rudnev (the doctor treating Anderson), Gilliard never referred to the young woman as “Her Imperial Highness” as Rathlef had claimed

Where do you get this? Rudnev INSISTED that the Gilliards, as also old Volkov, referred to her as "imperial highness." pk

and said that the woman in the hospital was not the Grand Duchess. The fact she couldn't speak or read Russian, English or French at the time like all the tsar's daughters

She couldn't read anything at the time, in any language. Still, within weeks of the Gilliard/Olga visits, she began to speak and write in English. pk

, was sufficient proof for Gilliard that Anderson was an impostor.

Speak to us not of Gilliard -- a liar and self-promoter from the day he first arrived in Russia, as tutor to the children of the Duke of Leuchtenberg and his wife, Anastasia (one of the "Black Sisters" of Montenegro). The man never made a move that wasn't meant to advance his own reputation. pk

Both Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna and Gilliard later declared they had known that she was a fraud. Gilliard denounced Anderson as being "a cunning psychopath". [16]"

I suppose there can be -- in fact I'm sure there are -- such things as "cunning psychopaths." We would now call them "sociopaths." But I never saw anything in AA that was "cunning" in any way. pk

Harriet Rathlef-Keilmann was NOT a journalist, but an artist.

THANK YOU!!! pk

According to her, Gilliard, in his native French, referred to the unknown woman as Her Imperial Highness. She even wrote it ad verbatum in French to emphasise this. And why do you not require a source from Dr. Rudnev’s allegation? “The fact that she could not speak Russian” came back to haunt Gilliard in the Hamburg trial where he had to admit that the unknown woman had spoken in Russian to his wife, Alexandra Tegleva.

Olga stated to Herluf Zahle that she believed the unknown woman to be her niece Anastasia. It took three months and intervention from Gilliard to make Olga make an official denial of her first impression. (Peter Kurth)

"Grand Duchess Olga did feel sorry for Anderson. She sent her presents consisting of a small photo album and a knitted shawl."

She gave Anderson the personal photo album that had belonged to Grand Duchess Marie. Certainly not something one gives to a stranger. She also gave her a heavy silk shawl and a knittet sweater.

"Prince Christopher of Greece commented on the visit of his first cousin, Grand Duchess Olga to Anna Anderson,"Even when the Grand Duchess Olga, the favourite aunt of the Czar's children, was brought to see her, she gave no sign of recognition and could not remember the pet name by which she was always known in the family."

A total lie -- it was precisely AA who recalled the Kosenname "Schwibzik," and the opposition spent a LONG time in court trying to prove that she must have learned this from one of the Russians who surrounded her after her release from Dalldorf in 1922. But they couldn't prove it, and they finally dropped it. pk

Why on earth are you using quotes from Prince Christopher in this article, it is nothing but hearsay. He was also the one who told Gleb Botkin that “Of course, Olga knows better than anyone that she (AA) is Anastasia.” (Gleb Botkin.)

"Other people who knew the young Anastasia quite well, like the Grand Duchess’s childhood nurse Alexandra (Shura) Tegleva failed to identify Anderson as Anastasia.

Not true. At all. pk

Tegleva accompanied her husband, Gilliard, to meet with Anderson in 1925 and confirmed that Anderson's foot disorder, hallux valgus (bunions), was similar

No, "identical" -- pk

to that of the real Grand Duchess. "This is somewhat like Anastasia's body," she declared"

Shura asked to see AA’s feet, and said: ”Her feet are very like those of the Grand Duchess. The conformation of the base of the Grand Duchess’s right foot was not so good as that of the left, and the same applies in this case.” (Rathlef-Keilmann)

“The next day, the Gilliards went away. Mrs. Gilliard was very agitated, and could hardly tear herself away from the invalid. “I used to love her so much, so much…. Why do I love this girl here so much? If you knew how I felt! Can you tell me why I love your patient so much?” The Gilliards said to Mr. Zahle and his wife before their departure: “We are going away without being able to say that she is not the Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna”. (Rathlef-Keilmann)

"She was unable to recognise people whom the Grand Duchess Anastasia had known intimately, ..."

Really? How come she recognized Aunt Irene, Pierre Gilliard, Aunt Olga, Shura, The Botkins....the list goes on and on.

aggiebean interjects, Aunt Irene said AA did NOT recognize her, she originally thought Shura was Olga A., Olga A. said she had been told she was coming and asked, in German "is this the aunt?" and the list goes on. signed aggiebean —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.23.30 (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

And who, at the end, knew them "intimately" at all? AF had closed all doors. pk

"Dozens of people who had known the Grand Duchess Anastasia were brought to see the girl in the hope that they might be able to identify her, but none of them could come to any definite conclusion. ..."

Also not true -- some of the people who had been "closest" to the imperial family in that "courtier" sort of way were the first to see her after she left Dalldorf. They all said, "If she would only speak Russian, I would recognize her at once"(Z. Tolstaya, Capt. Papa-Federov of the "Standardt," Sablin of the same ...) -- pk

May we please know the names of these "dozens" of people? Honestly, this article is getting worse by the line.

Yes, may we please? Who were these "hordes" of Russian emigres who supposedly saw her? It's the Yul Brynner factor and nothing else. pk

"Gleb Botkin met Anna Anderson in 1928"

Wrong. He met her in May of 1927

"He then he decided to take her with him to New York where he provided articles on Anderson to newspapers"

Wrong again. He worked tirelessly to find someone who had the means to bring her to USA.

"In an effort to attract attention to Anderson, Botkin made repeated attacks on the sisters of Nicholas II and the Romanov family in general."

Repeated? He attacked them after the infamous Copenhagen Statement (made in Hesse.) This was necesseary so that AA would not be deported by the American authorities. The silence from the family was sufficient to show the immigration office that there was definitely some doubt about her being an impostor. (Gleb Botkin)

"The Tsar’s former mistress who married Grand Duke Andrei after the revolution, Mathilde Kschessinska met Anna Anderson towards the end of her life out of curiosity. [30]"

…..and said: I am still certain it is she. When she looked at me, you understand, with those eyes…. that was it, it was the Emperor. (Peter Kurth)

"Franziska Schanzkowska, who had been injured from dropping a grenade in munitions factory where she worked"

According to medical reports and her family, Franziska was never wounded in the munitions factory and had no scars on her body. (Rathlef-Keilmann)

"There are some who claim she overcame her fear of speaking Russian in the late 1930's, and spoke it "fluently" with Professor Rudnev and her lawyer's assistant As early as 1928, twenty-four hours after the Dowager Empress's death a statement signed by twelve Romanovs and three of Empress Alexandra Feodorovna's family was relased making their views abundantly clear, It was their, "unanimous conviction that the person currently living in the United States is not the daughter of the Tsar." The signatories were: Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna, Grand Duchess Xenia Alexandrovna and her six sons and her daughter, Princess Irina, Grand Duke Dmitri Pavlovich, Grand Duchess Marie Pavlovna, the Grand Duke of Hesse and his sisters Princess Irene of Prussia and Victoria, Dowager Marchioness of Milford-Haven. [38]"

…refusing to speak Russian anymore, a language she had recently been using again fluently with Professor Rudnev and with Albert Coyle, an American colleague of Fallow’s. (Peter Kurth, with referral to Fallow’s entries of 1938-39.) Of the twelve Romanovs and three of Empress Alexandra’s family, Olga was the ONLY one who had ever seen Anna Anderson!

"The only surviving photograph of Schanzkowska was taken when she was sixteen.

No -- supposedly in 1916, when she would have been 20. pk

Some have described the teenager depicted there as an "attractive, bright eyed, intelligent young woman." Her childhood friends remembered her as pretentious, putting on airs and graces.

No they didn't. Only one emerged 50 years later to say that this was so, and she was left "unbeeidigt" by the court (that is, unsworn to her testimony). A perfect joke -- there is no reliable evidence at all that FS "put on airs and graces."

One historian speculated that Schanzkowska must have taught herself etiquette and deportment, like socially ambitious girls of her class and generation"

Jeezum Crow! as we say up here. And how and where would she have done that -- it would have to have been in Berlin, and the case became so famous you'd think that one of these "etiquette and deportment" teachers might have come forward and said, "Yes, I taught her how to curtsey!" As it was, people thought that the way AA held out her hand in greeting people was "affected" (I mean people who know nothing about how it is properly done), because "her fingers curled down, as if she were expecting the hand to be kissed" -- which of course she would be, and she also knew that actually "kissing" the hand was improper -- a mere brush of the lips, even if it was simply gestural, without the lips actually touching the hand -- she knew all this, and she knew it from the start -- I doubt any "etiquette" teacher in Berlin could have taught her that (and WHEN would she have had the time or money to go for classes, grubbing in the dirt to make sure the asparagus harvest came out right? It's all rubbish -- when Princess Xenia saw her for the first time, hiding among dozens of strangers and well-wishers at Miss Jennings' place on Park Avenue, it was the way AA held out her hand that so impressed her: "It was so natural, so unforced, in no way a theatrical gesture.") pk

The photo of Franzisca has never been authenticated. It has also been retouched heavily: First for its appearance in Die Nachtausgabe, then again for Gilliard’s book “La Fausse Anastasie”. Her sister Gertrude remembered her as “just one of the girls”. What one “historian” speculated has no place in Wikipedia.

Do your homework!! ChatNoir

If there are things that you find wrong or incomplete, then edit the article, but CITE your source, including author, title, page number, publication date, etc., and explain why you're making the relevant changes on the talk page. Don't remove the information you disagree with, but go ahead and add whatever it is you think will add to your side. If dates are wrong and you can prove it and cite your source, go ahead and change them. I don't want to start another edit war over this page. It'll help if you discuss it first. I have the Peter Kurth book, have read it numerous times in the past 20 years, and I've read his web page. I know what he thinks. On the other hand, this article cannot be only based on Peter Kurth's book. --Bookworm857158367 22:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Why not? All my sources are listed (over a hundred pages of back notes, with specific source references. Do you know of a better source? Tell me if you do. pk

Sorry, Bookworm, I have edited this article before, just to see it vandalized again and again. That's why I am doing this on the discussion site where it seems to stay untouched. And my information is not based on Peter Kurth's book, but on Harriet Rathlef-Keilmann's and Gleb Botkin's books, plus Peter Kurth's among others. And I am not trying to "add to my side", I am just trying to get the truth out. But, as I have said earlier, Wikipedia is apparently not interested in the truth. And I am not going to drive myself crazy by seeing my editing erased again and again. What I ask of all of you is: DO YOUR HOMEWORK!! And most of you have not. ChatNoir

So, what is happening here? Is anyone going to correct Bookworm's mistakes, or is the article going to sit there and make Wikipedia into a joke for all to see? Just wondering. ChatNoir

Chat Noir- you keep putting down everyone else's quotes by calling them 'hearsay' but do you see what you're doing? You're only contradicting them with MORE hearsay from people you'd rather believe, like Botkin and Rathlef!

Who were people who actually KNEW the claimant, and whose testimony is what you might call "original," which is far more than I can say for most of the people who throw their weight around this so-called "encyclopedia." It is a scandal is what it is -- that someone who actually knows nothing about it, but may have read something here and there, is allowed to talk as if she really knew something the rest of us don't. It is a scandal. pk

I can't believe the bias! You say, 'no that never happened, Gleb Botkin said it was like this!' and how do you know who was right? You can't call everyone else wrong when it could be your side that's wrong! Well, in fact it was, since the DNA proved her not to be AN. aggiebean

Aggiebean -- my sister is a molecular/cellular biologist -- so is my step-daughter. If you really imagine that the science -- even the DNA science -- isn't changing constantly, all the time, then you know nothing about science at all, and I would have to agree with what follows below: You DO sound like Annie on the AP board, and your pure hatred of "Anna Anderson" exposes you at once as someone whose opinion we need to deal with only when we feel like it. pk

Aggiebean, you sound like Annie on the AP board. You probably are her. HEARSAY is what Prince Christopher provides. He was not there and has only heard everything second hand. Botkin and Rathlef were both first hand witnesses to what happened, as were many other people. But go ahead and change the article, I know you people are desperate for AA not to be Anastasia. God alone knows why you are so desperate if you REALLY believe in the DNA from the putative sample from Anna Anderson! ChatNoir

Back to the circus

I have, with a tolerant attitude, watched silently as the whole dog and pony show has gotten into full gear again. But I just got finished sending a request back in for page protection. Bookworm has done a superb job with this article, but it's all for nothing if individuals who refuse to participate in reaching a consensus are allowed to keep vandalizing the hard work that's been done. I was hoping this wasn't going to happen again and I was hoping that certain individuals would be reasonable about reaching a middle ground, but oh well. Trusilver 04:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Instead of protecting the page, Riana just blocked QuestforAnastasia, which basically serves the same purpose for a lot less trouble. Once again I'm just having an attitude of good faith and hoping that when he comes back he's willing to work toward consensus. Trusilver 06:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Long past time. The edit war on this article is getting ridiculous. He/She does have a point about the paragraph describing the photograph of Franziska Schanzkowska. I have reworded it so that it says something like "people have described the girl depicted in the photograph as bright eyed and intelligent." I don't have the European History Journal article referred to, but I have seen similar descriptions of the Schanzkowska photo, particularly from her opponents. I've also added a claim from Kurth's book saying that the photo has been retouched several times and provided a page number. This way both opinions are represented and hopefully Quest for Anastasia will leave it alone or will at least discuss any changes he wants to make on this page before he makes them, in a civilized manner. This edit war cannot continue or the page will have to be blocked from editing indefinitely. --Bookworm857158367 12:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I've also noted that User:Vidor continues to add the sentence "Seventeen-year-old Anastasia was murdered with her family ..." and to remove the phrase "by most accounts," Anastasia was murdered ... Anastasia's death on July 17, 1918 is not a confirmed historical fact. Her body is missing; there were reports she and one of her sisters survived the initial attack and sat up moaning; and there was eye witness testimony at one of the Anderson trials about Anastasia being treated for her injuries in a house directly across from the Ipatiev House. She certainly COULD have died, but there is no proof that she did. Let's avoid coming down too hard on one side or the other here. I've reinserted the phrase "by most accounts," which is accurate. "Anastasia was murdered" is not an accurate statement. --Bookworm857158367 13:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Bookworm I can see where you are coming from. It is generous of you. Most serious historians do not doubt the murder though. There is also doubt about the missing body. I think it would be better to write "most historians" rather than "by most accounts". I don't think anybody seriously thinks she really survived. The same goes for Alexis whose body is also missing. It certainly stretches the imagination to believe anybody could have survived that terrible cellar room in the Ipatiev House or exited except dead in the truck. Remember plenty of bodies are missing from the time of the holocaust. There is no doubt those victims were murdered as they have never come forward to claim otherwise. That is why I tend to think you have been generous with your wording. I won't object though as I can see where you are coming from. Finneganw 14:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a real possibility that the two missing bodies of Anastasia and Alexei were simply burned and buried elsewhere in the forest, but there have been yearly searches of that area for close to twenty years and they haven't turned up remains. It would have been impossible for them to completely destroy the remains by fire, given the materials and time they had. That is an argument that has been made by several historians. I also give some credence to the testimony of the tailor who lived in the house across the street from the Ipatiev House and testified that he saw Anastasia receiving treatment there immediately after the murder. If she survived, it doesn't mean she lived long, or that she was necessarily Anna Anderson. Maybe she was one of the crazies who keep turning up in Russia claiming to be her. We simply don't know one way or the other. --Bookworm857158367 13:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The death of Anastasia Romanov is indeed a "confirmed historical fact", confirmed by the eyewitness testimony of Yuroksky and the other executioners. However, since that is something of a side issue--the main point being that we know to a scientific certainty that Anna Anderson was not a Romanov--I won't pick a fight on that wording. Vidor 14:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The truthfulness of Yurovsky's account has been questioned, however, and there are still two missing bodies. There are also reports of Anastasia's survival. That's why the phrase "by most accounts" is most appropriate. --Bookworm857158367 14:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Bookworm I have never really seen the Ekaterinburg murders questioned by serious historians. This guy across the street is pure fiction. He is only ever mentioned by Kurth and company. I'll humour that one though. The article is pretty jolly good. I cannot see any grounds for anybody changing it as we all seem pretty tolerant of one another. That is a sign that the discussion forum does work. I do think though we will have to be vigilant against the likes of User:Questforanastasia and company. They will be back as they are delusional. You should know they have been banned from other internet sites for considerable vandalism and the usual unverifiable rants they display on a regular basis here. I think you probably realise this. I really don't want to see the page locked. Let's hope that is not necessary. Rational individuals should be able to follow sources in the ample references provided if they want further information. I know how hard you have worked on the article. Finneganw 15:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

although the article looks good in its current form, removing information that is added isnt productive. there is a better way to go about thing. just because you like a page the way it is, that doesnt give you the right to remove what another editor adds to keep the page looking the same, Finneganw. thanks, Ono 21:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. You can find some crackpot to "question" anything. Vidor 15:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

And it should be noted that it is by no means certain that the missing daughter is Anastasia. I think the best guess of the scientists is Marie. Vidor 18:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no. The Russians said the one missing is Marie; the Americans said it was Anastasia. The Russians identified Anastasia using a computer program that interposed photographs of Anastasia over the skulls found at Ekaterinburg (most of the skulls were missing large pieces of bone, which meant the Russians had to do a lot of estimating regarding length of jaw, width of cheekbones, etc.). The Americans found this method inexact. They identified Anastasia as the missing daughter based the height of the present skeletons and the likely ages of the young women based on the maturity of their backs, collar bones and pelvises. Anastasia was by far the shortest of the sisters and none of the skeletons found had immature backs, collarbones or pelvises as they would expect to find in a seventeen year old. I'd say it's far more likely that Anastasia is missing. Heinrich Kleinbuetzl, the tailor who lived across the street from the Ipatiev house and testified during the Anna Anderson trial, did live where he said he did. They found records proving it and his work delivering clothing to the Ipatiev House. It's quite possible that most people disbelieve his testimony, but he was who he said he was and did what he said he did. His testimony is on record in the Anna Anderson trial. I didn't go into this sort of detail in the Anna Anderson article because the article is about Anna Anderson rather than Anastasia, per se. However, it's why I want to leave that qualifier "by most accounts" in the paragraph about the murders. I think there is some reasonable doubt, however slight, which is why both sides need to be represented. User:Questforanastasia is complaining on his page that he wasn't allowed to quote people who did recognize Anderson as Anastasia at length. Perhaps the quotes from Lili Dehn, Grand Duchess Xenia (the second cousin) and Grand Duke Andrei should be added, with proper sourcing, to provide better balance. They're all in the Kurth book. --Bookworm857158367 23:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, anything Peter Kurth says is worthless, since he is still pimping for Anna Anderson years after the DNA tests showed her to be an impostor. And please, let's not clutter up the article with a bunch of crap from another one of Kurth's crappy books. If we must, a line or two saying that those people thought Schanzkowska was Anastasia really should be enough. Vidor 00:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Kurth belongs in the article just as Prince Christopher and some of the others do. He wrote the most comprehensive biography of Anna Anderson. I still have a lot of respect for him and for the research he did. Not including the quotes from his book would result in an unbalanced article. Lili Dehn and Grand Duke Andrei both were believers that Anderson was Anastasia. Whether they were correct or not, that's still fact and quoting them would add something to the article. I also have the book by James Lovell, Anastasia: The Lost Princess that includes some detail about Anderson's life during World War II and some of the crazier stories she told about what happened to the Imperial family. Lovell was far nuttier than Kurth and his book is badly written, but it covers territory about Anderson's life that probably deserves mention in this article. I'm on vacation for the next several days and don't have time to add all this at the moment. If someone else has the same book, maybe they would like to attempt it. --Bookworm857158367 01:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I feel that there is room for agreement here. However, the attitude of "My facts that are sourced preempt your facts that are sourced" is counterproductive to reaching consensus. The inclusion of User:Questforanastasia's contributions is not by itself disruptive of vandalism. It is only when he/she adds this material and at the same time removes other peoples that it becomes a problem. To the user in question: I certainly hope that you read this before you continue editing. You have accused both Riana and myself of attempting to censor you because we don't like your opinions. The problem with that is that aside from trying to keep the peace and letting this escalate to the point where formal mediation becomes necessary, neither of us actively are involved in the writing of this article. I honestly couldn't care less if Anastasia has been living next door to me for the last couple months after retiring from a career as a truck stop waitress in Omaha. My only interest in this is seeing that the content dispute is solved through discussion and consensus rather than user blocks and edit wars. Bookworm has been incredibly congenial about this whole mess and has tried repeatedly along with most of the others here to resolve this in a way that offers compromise. I sincerely hope that you come here to discuss your issues and feelings concerning the article before you start another edit war that's going to go nowhere. Regards. Trusilver 19:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that the rants on this page signed PK and ChatNoir come from the same person, Peter Kurth. Finneganw 08:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

And like so many other "facts" related to this case, this silly utterance from Finneganw is another lie. Peter Kurth and Chat Noir are two entirely different people. Funny that you guys who think that Anna Anderson and Franzisca Schanzkowska are the same person, cannot see the difference between Peter Kurth and myself. But, Finneganw, you are not the first one to call me Peter Kurth, the whole AP board was convinced that I was PK, so don't feel bad. Just be a little careful before you jump to conclusions again. ChatNoir —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.25.66.25 (talk) 00:26, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

ChatNoir, the real question here is when have these people ever told the truth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.136.71.163 (talk) 02:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Conflicting date of birth

This may have been addressed earlier, but going through the archives is a daunting task. We say initially, she was born "c. 22 December 1896", then give evidence that she was really Fransizka Schankowska, who was known to have been born on 26 December 1896. Any reason why the accurate date isn't in the lead sentence? -- JackofOz (talk) 03:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a compromise. Some of the Anderson supporters still contend that she was not Schanzkowska. The DNA testing did turn up an mtDNA match between Anderson and a great-nephew of Schanzkowska, but all that means is that Anderson shared a maternal ancestor with Schanzkowska at some point. It doesn't necessarily mean that she actually WAS Schanzkowska, though it's extremely likely that she was. Hence, the way it is written. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 11:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, I understand all that, and thank you. However, where does the 22 December date come from? This reads, to me at least, that we're agreeing that "Anna Anderson", whoever she really was, was born on or about 22 December, about 4 days before Schanzkowska was, and the strong implication is that that they're different people. DNA has completely ruled out any possibility she was Anastasia. The next cab off the rank is Schanzkowska, which is far more likely (and there are no other serious contenders, to my knowledge). Wikipedia is about consensus. There are three possibilities here:

• (a) there's a consensus that she was Schanzkowska - in which case we can say she was born 26 December 1896
• (b) there's a consensus that there's not enough evidence to know who she really was - in which case we can't impute any date of birth; or
• (c) there's no consensus either way.

If scenario (c) applies, I can't see how it helps to say, virtually, that she was Schanzkowska (about whom a precise date of birth is available), but almost in the same breath give a date of birth that is vague and centred around a day 4 days earlier. In other words, if she WAS Schanzkowska, then she was born on 26 December, but if she WASN'T Schanzkowska, then the question of her true identity remains open, and in the meantime we should say we simply cannot say with certainty who she was, and hence we don't know her birthdate. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said, it's a compromise. This page has been subject to endless edit warring. I am not prepared to say she definitely was Schanzkowska. The facts as known are that yes, she was probably Schanzkowska, based on the evidence, but questions remain and we don't know. That's what the article says and why it originally gave both no date of birth and Schanzkowska's. Go ahead and remove the birth date that is not definitely Schanzkowska's. We DO know when she was born. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Anderson was proven to be Schanzkowska to a 99.9% accuracy. It doesn't go any higher, since mtDNA can prove 100% who you aren't, (which is why she's 100% excluded from being Anastasia) but can't totally prove who you are. 99.9% is the highest it can go, and that's higher than some paternity tests get from nuclear DNA, yet no one ever doubts a 96.5% probability and yells switch! Anyway, I have never heard the Dec. 26 birthdate for FS- only Dec. 22 and Dec. 16. Where did the 26th come from?signed aggiebean —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aggiebean (talk • contribs) 23:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

No, all that was proven is that the sample they used and compared against relatives of Schanzkowska's is an mtDNA match. They shared a maternal-line ancestor at some point. It's suggestive, but it is not a 99.9 percent identity. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 00:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so this "26 December" is a ring-in, a typo by an editor? If it was meant to say "22 December", as per the infobox, that would make a lot more sense. Just one more thing: the supporters of the theory that she was Anastasia have had to take it on the chin and accept she couldn't possibly have been a member of the royal family. So, why are they so against the idea of her true identity being Schanzkowska, when the evidence makes this almost certain? Surely it doesn't matter to the royalists any more who Anna Anderson really was, because they now know she was an imposter. Or is that they just find it hard to let go? -- JackofOz (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

There are some questions remaining about how the woman managed to pull it off for so long, for one thing. There were aristocrats who knew Grand Duchess Anastasia who were fooled by her or at least thought she was a lady of their class. It's curious that a woman from Schanzkowska's background could have done that. There are some discrepancies in the physical description of Franziska Schanzkowska and Anna Anderson (height, shoe size, languages spoken, etc.) and the way her brother claimed the woman he saw in Berlin wasn't really his sister. There are some questiosn about the whereabouts of Franziska during the time period in question. I think some of that can probably be explained away, but I think there is some room for doubt there. It'd be interesting if she turned out to be someone with ties to the Russian court. A remote possibility, but still a possibility. The MtDNA evidence is certainly suggestive, but I don't think you can rule out the observations of people who actually knew her either. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 03:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Bookworm. Yes, a lot of unanswered questions remain. Such as how she knew things that only an intimate of the royal family would have known. She certainly wasn't Anastasia, but she might just have been a noblewoman or something like that - but if so, who? Surely all the possible candidates from this stratum of society have been checked out extremely thoroughly by now. And surely such a woman's likeness to the real Anastasia would have been noted, somewhere. Although I accept that facial changes occur with maturity, two similar but still easily distinguishable teenagers would hardly have ended up looking identical as women (although we'll never know, because Anastasia died before she became a woman, hence the discrepancy between the witnesses - some saying "yes, this is the former teenager Anastasia who has now become a woman", others saying "no, they're different people"). At the end of the day, there must come a point when even the most hardline supporter has to say "in the absence of anyone else who could possibly have been Anna Anderson, we have to accept it was almost certainly FZ". I guess such a day is some way off still. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it's likely that she was a very bright, cunning, probably highly suggestible woman who eventually came to half believe she really was Anastasia. I think she was a good actress and she was probably fed information by people in court circles that enabled her to play the part. Her family played along because they didn't feel like supporting an unstable, financially insecure relative in what must have been the height of the Depression years. But that's conjecture and there were enough people who bought into it for me to have some doubts. A servant's daughter? Someone with some other relative who had ties to the court and grew up listening to stories about the royal children? Someone who really did escape the Revolution by riding across Russia in a servant's cart? I think there's just enough doubt there for me not to be comfortable labeling her Franziska. It was an era and a location when it was not at all hard for people to disappear. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 03:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Bright, cunning, highly suggestible...maybe. But none of the doctors who examined her found any of these qualities in her. She was reticent, stubborn, impossible to hypnotize, and did nothing to convince anybody of who she said she was. In short, her behavior was directly opposite of that of an impostor. It was always her champions who fought her battles for recognition, she herself hid behind assumed names and took great care to conceal her "identity". She spoke Russian like a native according to nurse Bucholz at Dalldorf, and clearly understood it when spoken to. Still, she would loudly declare that: "I have never understood or spoken Russian!" Even when she broke out in Russian in the company of Madame Meller and Gleb Botkin, she was in tears when Madame Meller complimented her on reverting to Russian, and Gleb had to assure her that she had spoken German the whole time. Go figure. As for being fed information, I guess Zinaida Tolstoy is the villain here in some peoples' mind. But the fact remains that she told details from the last night in Ekaterinburg to the nurses at Dalldorf, at a time when the whole world was more or less in the dark about what really had happened. She even included details like "We left our coats behind, even though there were diamonds sewn into the buttons, since we were just going into another room." How did she know this? She later talked about the trip on the "Rus" where the women were not allowed to lock their doors at night. She related details from a play put on in Tobolsk by the children, years and years before such details were available in books. She mentioned the swastika on her mother's car, a detail that not even Volkov remembered, later confirmed by published pictures of the car. Some of the information could easily have been told her by others, but how could she identify people from photos? Like when Shura showed her a photo with a woman's head hidden behind a large bell and said: "Who is that?" And AA replied: "It is you!" She had allegedly snapped the photo herself. And what about Colonel Sergeyev that she immediately remembered as "the man with the pockets"? To say that her (Franziska's) family "played along" is pure speculation. Her mother told Felix that "if it turns out to be her, bring her home." When Felix looked at her photos, he said that of all the ones he saw, only one bore a resemblance to his sister. When he met her, he had not seen his sister for 7 years and thought they might be the same person. AA walked up to him and said: "And you are the man who think you can recognize me as your sister?" We all know how that meeting ended. According to Felix, her mannerisms, her gait, her voice, her face, everything was different from Franziska's. Later, on the next meeting with the Schanzkovski siblings, her "sister" Gertrude shook her and said: "You are my sister". When AA protested, Gertrude said, bewildered: "But that is not Franziska's voice." Oh, I could go on and on. But remember: Three professional photographic studies came to the conclusion that AA was identical to AN. Two professional graphologists stated that the handwriting from AA and AN was the same. Several comparisons of the two ladies' ears have concluded that the ears are identical. And both ladies suffered from Congenital Bilateral Hallux Valgus. Not your garden variety bunions, but an affliction from birth. A VERY rare condition. ChatNoir —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.173.109.250 (talk) 17:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

2 Birth dates

I don't get how her supporters could not know when and wher Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna was born.She was born on June 18,1901 in Peterhof.That date should be on top of Anna Anderson's real date and place of birth instead of unknown.I am changing that.

--Robors (talk) 21:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Your edit assumes that Anderson was Anastasia, or at the least that some people still believe she was. I doubt that anyone still believes that, because her DNA didn't match that of the royal family and DNA doesn't lie. As to whether she was Franziska, that's a more contentious issue. It's very likely, but some will not agree. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to assume that, but how could the peole who thought she was Anastasia not know when the real Anastasia (1901-18) was born. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robors (talk • contribs) 03:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I see what Robors is saying, and have always agreed. There are two sides to this, those who believe she was FS and those who believe she was Anastasia. Franziska's birthdate is up there, and rightfully so since that is who she was with very little doubt. However I do agree with the poster WHY would her supporters list her birthdate as 'unknown?' If they are supporters, they believe she was Anastasia, therefore they'd believe she had Anastasia's birthdate. There is no place for 'unknown' on the page, it should have FS's then say, according to her supporters, June 1901.signed aggiebean —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aggiebean (talk • contribs) 23:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

DNA Confirms 100% that all were killed

DNA confirms IDs of czar's children, ending mystery [1]

"The remains of their parents — Nicholas II and Empress Alexandra — and three siblings, including the czar's youngest daughter, Anastasia, were unearthed in 1991 and reburied in the imperial resting place in St. Petersburg.

"Rumors persisted that some of the family had survived and escaped. Claims by women to be Anastasia were particularly prominent, although there were also pretenders to Alexei's and Maria's identities.

"It was 99.9 percent clear they had all been killed; now with these shards, it's 100 percent," said Nadia Kizenko, a Russian scholar at the University at Albany, State University of New York." Ruth E (talk) 05:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

There's still a question of whether she was FRANZISKA. Whether she was Anastasia or not hasn't been in dispute for awhile. As for the recent DNA tests, I think the remains they just identified were Alexei and Anastasia, not Alexei and Maria as the Russians continue to insist. They buried a body using Anastasia's name in 1998 that was too tall and too physically mature -- mature collarbone, mature pelvic bone, teeth, etc.) -- when it was probably actually Maria. Maria was 19; the girl they identified yesterday was 16 to 18 -- Anastasia was barely 17. Not that it matters now since they have all seven of them. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

According to American scientists, Anastasia is the one missing from the grave. On my visit to St. Petersburg, the Russian guide confirmed this to my great surprise. As for the bones found last summer, there is still no confirmation on the DNA, even though Ekaterinburg has tried to convince the world that "a lab in USA has made the results public". Funny thing is, nobody can find the name of this lab anywhere. ChatNoir —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.173.109.250 (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Latest report Dec. 8, 2008

http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=5485

Expert confirms remains found near Yekaterinburg belong to Romanovs

Yekaterinburg, December 8, Interfax - The remains found outside Yekaterinburg are those of members of the Romanov imperial family, Nikolay Nevolin, chief non-staff forensic expert of the Sverdlovsk Region Health Ministry, told a news conference in Yekaterinburg.

"The outcome of today's conference is historic. The matter has been brought to a close. It has been proved using advanced research methods that the remains belong to the Romanov family," he said.

"There is no point in continuing any examinations because the available results are sufficient for 100% identification," Nevolin said.

The case of the remains of Emperor Nicholas II of Russia will tentatively be closed on January 15, 2009 after it is summarized, said Vladimir Solovyov, a senior investigator for high-profile cases at the Russian Investigative Committee.

"The case is expected to be closed because the people who committed the crime are dead. The investigation is absolutely certain that the experts are right," he said.

signed aggiebean —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aggiebean (talk • contribs) 23:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Mistake

Please, the author of this article has made a mistake. Alexandra Tegleva, the nurse of the tsar's children had never been the wife of Me Gillard. I do not want to change the article myself out of respect to its author, but do make the necessary correction.

Regards, Zoe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.143.68 (talk) 02:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You're wrong. Shura Tegleva was indeed Gilliard's wife, as has been noted in the multiple books about the Romanovs and Gilliard and cited in the article. I suggest you do some reading on the subject. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 03:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

POV

This entire article is extremely POV. While it has a lot more information than before, the information is extremely one sided. An example of this would be the Religious issue mentioned in the letter from Luetechenberg, where he argues that Anna Anderson is not Anastasia because she behaved like a Catholic. According to every biography written about Anderson, she claimed to have converted to Catholicism in 1919 when she supposedly married her rescuer.

There is also no mention of the fact that the Grand Duchess's all knew german,which was one of the languages they were tutored in - no mention that the investigator for the Danish royal family concluded she was Anastasia - no mention of the two handwriting tests which concluded she was who she said she was - no mention of the scientific evidence in her favor - no mention of the Romanovs who did in fact acknowledge her such as Princess Xenia Leeds in New York - no mention of the fact that she did in fact speak Russian when she was institutionalized at Daldorf mental institution ect . . .

Having the evidence contradicting her claims is fine, and the fact that it is actually sourced is appreciated, but it is neither helpful, nor scholarly to not include ALL the information, from both sides.

Furthermore wikipedia is not a place to make assertions such as that she was an imposter, or could not have been Anastasia, ect . . . it is a online encyclopedia that presents the facts and allows its readers to come to their own conclusions. While it is apporpriated to cite articles saying that she is now regarded by many scholars as a imposter, it is not apporpriate to make these claims, as this POV.

Also just reading through this page I noticed theres a major edit war going, while I'm one who loves a good war, there really is no need for it here. This is a simple biography and all that has to be done is include sourced facts for which there is a wealth of them, so chill. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.255.11.133 (talk) 06:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

No, the Grand Duchesses did not 'know' German. They spoke fluent Russian and English and nearly fluent French, languages Anna Anderson always had difficulty with, and they spoke little to no German, the language of choice of AA/FS her entire life. There is no proof of AA ever speaking Russian other than hearsay, mostly from supporters. She never proved it, and did not use it when meeting Russian speakers, this is a telling sign the woman did not know the language. In addition to this the claims of a few supporters of her speaking it to parakeets and butterflies in the garden wistfully directly contradict their claims she was too 'traumatized' to speak it. But of course, since AA was FS, she didn't really speak Russian, as Anastasia would have.signed aggiebean

So a couple of biologists from the states and a few russian ones...

Have declared they have oh so miracolously a century ahead discovered the remains of the last two children, of all people dead, buried, dispersed, become mud etc. they have found the bones of the two kids and the dna test conclusively proves it....someone has got to be an absolute naive moron to believe these claims but so be it. Anyway cover ups never happen right? 91.132.224.196 (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

To The Writer Of This Article

You are twisting and distorting information.Your article is full of errors and you are presenting things as settled facts that are still very much disputed

Who are you really?

Theosophica (talk) 06:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Who are YOU, really, and who are you to make these claims? Since Anastasia's claim has been officially proven false, the things you say are 'disputed' are certainly not by anyone other than extremists and conspiracy theorists. The article must tell the truth, and that is that Anna Anderson was not Anastasia.aggiebean —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aggiebean (talk • contribs) 16:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC) And as I have already stated, you are a LIAR! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.25.99.30 (talk) 16:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Lies? How do you know they are lies? I say they aren't, especially since the people against her turned out to be right. A lot of people say a lot of things. How do you know some of her supporters weren't lying? That is much more likely since it turned out she wasn't really Anastasia. No, I do not doubt the DNA at all but I also think it's very important to show that even without the DNA her story is full of holes and inaccuracies. If we don't do this, then AA supporters will continue to say everything went her way except the DNA and that is not the truthsigned aggiebean —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aggiebean (talk • contribs) 19:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

\Give it up Chat/PK we've heard all your old rhetoric a million times, and it means nothing. NOBODY CARESaggiebean aggiebean And if it means nothing, why do you get so riled up over it? And for the last time: I am not Peter Kurth. Anyone who states the opposite, is a liar! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.25.99.30 (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The 'unsigned' comment's IP matches the one you used on my forum exactly so I know it's you. Oh yes, as if you really think that Peter Kurth gives a *&^% about your silly website...... ChatNoir NOBODY cares but you so you have to keep on posting under different names or anonymously. This case is closed. signed aggiebean And YOU are nothing but a LIAR!!! I have never used another name, unlike you who changes signature frequently. And it is very, very clear to us all that you care a whole lot, the way you carry on.ChatNoir —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.25.99.30 (talk) 16:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not a liar, it is you and everyone knows it, especially the people here who have called you on it. Finneganw knows it's you, too. Yes, you do use other names, and yes, you do post anonymously. Yes, I have used different names on different boards, however, I do not lie about who I am, the things I say make it clear who I am, and if asked, I will tell you. I have nothing to hide. No one cares more than you, because you still seem to think all your old snake oil is going to change someone's mind or make them think the DNA is wrong. If you really didn't care, you'd give it up. I don't care about AA, I care about you trying to mislead people.signed aggiebean

While it is my personal belief that the poster using the name ChatNoir is PK, that is not what I meant by 'it's you.' I was saying it was you Chat who was posting Anonymously and you are. We might as well just not come back here, this story is oversigned aggiebean Yes, we all hope you will not come back here. And by publicly addressing me as Chat/PK, it is very clear that you are trying to convince the public that "your personal belief" is the truth. ChatNoir Good Lord Annie! Are you dragging out the ChatNoir=Peter Kurth thing again?? Annie, you know I harrassed you, I vilified you, but I will never, EVER lie to you (that's the Bobsey's job!). I know Chat, I know Peter. I have talked to Peter on the phone more than once. Peter and Chat are NOT the same person. --Russophile —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.224.190.242 (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You know, who cares? Stop squabbling. I suggest ChatNoir get himself or herself an actual registered account and clear up the confusion and that Annie or Aggiebean also use her registered account all the time so we aren't confronted with a long line of numbers. I think Kurth does have one and posted here as himself a year or so ago and does not appear to be the same guy as ChatNoir. The ongoing conversation is rather pointless. Anna Anderson was not Anastasia. They've identified all seven sets of remains from the Imperial family. She was probably Franziska Schanzkowska, but I don't think the DNA evidence in that case is definitive and I still have some doubts based on witness testimony about discrepancies in Franziska's appearance and behavior and Anna Anderson's. The article as it currently exists is pretty horribly POV and, unfortunately, people like Finnegan continue to remove sourced statements that contradict his point of view. The article badly needs to be edited again and examined from the point of view of neutrality. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

You know Chat is Kurth better than anyone else, Russo, of course he's your friend so you try to spare him the humiliation. It's like AA herself, after she began to say she was AA and not FS, she could never go back and admit the truth, it would be too embarrassing and too much trouble. Of course Kurth is Chat, you can see that by reading the messages they both post here and elsewhere, but especially here. Finneganw also knows it's him. But that's not the point. The main issue here is, there is no need to argue over what this or that person said decades ago, because it means nothing since AA was not AN. For this reason, though, bookworm, I don't think the article needs to be neutral on her identity. This is an educational site, and we need to educate those who come looking for answers accurately, and that is to state outright that AA was an imposter and has been proven to be so. This is the best, most accurate and honest thing to do with the article. All doubt has now been erased and we needn't tell the 'what if she was' POV just to appease a few diehard supporters who cannot let it go for emotional reasons. signed aggiebean

My problem with neutrality isn't so much about whether or not she was Anastasia. It's clear that she was not, though I think there is some question about whether she was Franziska. I do have an issue with the heaping on of innuendo and criticism about supporters, about her own character, etc. and the removal of sourced citations that are contrary to Finnegan's or someone else's preferred point of view. I also think at some point someone should go through the article and trim down the various quotations, etc., that say much the same thing. The article suffers from having too many cooks with conflicting points of view. The article needs to have more flow. Again, please sign your statements with your registered name so the bot doesn't do it for you. It makes it hard to see who's saying what. And who cares if Peter Kurth and ChatNoir are the same person or not when it comes right down to it? I think it's pretty clear that they are different people, but Kurth wrote a well-researched book with a conclusion that turned out to be wrong. It's still the best available reference to Anna Anderson and the various events in her life and he acknowledged and has acknowledged his own bias so readers can take it into account. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

There really isn't a question of whether or not she was FS. Her picture is identical to AA, the DNA matches, she vanished, AA appeared, and the detectives found her to be FS. Most of all, there are no other suspects. She was only AN or FS, and she's not AN, so what have we got? FS! It's like OJ and the 'other killer', there is no other killer. AA was FS, and even if she wasn't, who cares if she was some identical long lost cousin? She's still a fraud. On Kurth= Chat, it is very obvious that he is, but it is not the main issue here, the accuracy of the article is. IMO, it needs serious weeding down, mainly deleting the entire Heinrich Kleibetzl story and most of the 'husband and son' chapter since these are now known to be based on completely fictional events. If that version of her 'escape' story is told, we also need to include her other, wilder versions, such as her trek through Paris where she was chased by thugs, or when she claimed she used an apparatus to alter her facial features, to show how many times it changed before it was honed to a more acceptable version by the professional writer Rathlef. We also need to stress that, even besides the DNA, there is a lot of evidence against her and a lot of mile wide holes in her story. We also need to include things that show how they were NOT as 'identical' as AA supporters like to say, and tell the truth about the 'height difference' and how it was not documented but merely guessed at years later, and to show that for everything a supporter claimed, someone else contradicted, such as the language issue. In no way should the article ever, even in the slightest, leave anyone reading it to get the idea she may have been AN.signed aggiebean

Sorry, Annie/AggieBean, but I don't and will not agree with removing the Kleinbenzetl story or the escape story or the discussions about the reported differences between Anna Anderson and Franziska Schanzkowska. They're part of the story and they're a big part of why this was accepted by so many people for so many years. They're cited, besides. I agree that she was PROBABLY Franziska Schanzkowska, but it's also a fact that the only existing photograph of Franziska Schanzkowska was retouched multiple times and it's difficult to see what the woman really looked like. Anna Anderson in old age did look quite a bit like one of the pictures I saw of FS's sisters, however. Rathlef was an artist, not a professional writer. In any event, no one is interested in the squabble over who is and who is not Peter Kurth. It's pretty irrelevant at this point if he is or is not. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh Annie *Russo sighes* why don't you ask Oma? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.224.190.242 (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

One of these days I'm going to go through it with a fine tooth comb and attempt to rewrite it so it flows better. I think both sides of the story need to be represented so readers can make up their own minds! But can we please stop the endless squabble over who is and is not Peter Kurth? I doubt anyone reading this cares and it doesn't matter when it comes to editing the article. I just wish people would sign their comments and register if they plan to edit the page. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Chat, did you ever consider that if something doesn't 'jive' or that it's a 'square peg that won't fit into a round hole' it's because, IT DIDN'T REALLY HAPPEN? You're going for the other approach, that because there are 'anomalies' she must still be AN. But no, the answer is that the things said long ago were not accurate. The Kleibetzl story may be 'documented' but that does not in any way make it true. I'm not against a fleeting mention of someone alleging it happened, but the long, detailed report in this article is the same as quoting a fictional movie. As I've said for years, there is a difference between something being a 'fact' someone said something and what they said actually being a 'fact.' Since we know for sure now she wasn't AN and she didn't escape, we must use logic and common sense to figure out which things were not true. As for Rathlef, she was also a writer, she wrote fairy tales.The work of Rathlef and Botkin cannot be taken seriously because they were supporters, and trying to help her case. This is why it's so important to present things like Mountbatten and Prince Christopher to balance out all the nonsense. Again, this article is for educational purposes, and should represent the truth and reality, not odd theories or a few desperate people trying to hang onto a fantasyAggiebean (talk) 03:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Neither Mountbatten or Prince Christopher ever met Anna Anderson, however, which needs to be mentioned. They may well have interviewed people who had and formed the opinion that she was a fraud, but if someone is familiar with the process of how Christopher wrote his book, that needs to be included in this article as well so people don't come to the conclusion that he was writing it based on first-hand experience with her. The supporters were the ones who were actually familiar with Anna Anderson as a person and since the article is about "Anna Anderson" and not Anastasia, their observations are valuable. Gleb Botkin knew Anastasia AND Anna Anderson. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 10:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem I have with that rationale is that it doesn't go both ways. If I try to add something that is just a note on the situation I feel is important when considering their comments, you guys always delete it and say it's not documented, only personal viewpoint/slant, etc., so it's not right that you should add things like that if you won't let me do it. For example, I tried to add that the Ernie's trip story was not as earthshaking as AA supporters make it out to be because there were books out at the time containing the rumor before AA said it, yet it always gets taken out. Why? Do you want to mislead people into thinking AA had some 'inside information?' I also disagree that we shoud 'let everyone make up their own mind.' If you want to do that, and present both sides, make a website like mine and put the link in the external links. That is your right. However, this story should remain informational based on the fact that AA was not AN. History is not based on opinion. Aggiebean (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I had the name, author and publisher and publishing date of the book, and the word of a person who owns it and has read it. Since you like eyewitness testimony so much you should accept that!Aggiebean (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

On the FS info: I see nothing at all wrong with what we currently have:

Most historians believe that Anderson was actually Franziska Schanzkowska, a Kashubian factory worker.[5][6] A private detective investigation had identified Anderson as Schanzkowska, who was born on December 26, 1896, in Pomerania (then in Prussia but now in Poland) as early as the 1920s.[7] Anderson's mitochondrial DNA is also a match to the Schanzkowski family, which indicates that she was most likely Schanzkowska.[5][8]

This is totally accurate, and the word 'most' shows that a very few still won't accept it, if you feel they must be appeased. This does not at all change the strong likehood that she was FS, and leaves that info available for readers. I also don't think it's right to list the alleged 'differences' between AA and FS without disclaimers- again, if I add them, you'd delete them, yet you want to add them to Christopher's and Mountbatten's comments. Here are some examples of misleading things that shouldn't be in the article:

1. FS was taller than AA- there is no medical or documented proof of FS ever being measured, all we have are literally GUESSES by people who hadn't seen her for more than a decade. Can you accurately guess the height of a neighbor or coworker from that long ago? Who could? So it's not a set in stone fact and shouldn't be presented that way.

As I was saying, guesses by people over a decade later mean nothing. I've seen people guess height wrong the next day after meeting a person. Not accurate at all and should not be presented that wayAggiebean (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

2. Despite what some would say and insinuate, AA and FS were NOT 'accounted for at the same time.' She wasn't reported missing immediately, this is very common today, so imagine how it must have been back then when people were not in close contact via email and cell phones. She jumped on Feb. 20, was officially reported gone March 9, but there is no proof of FS being seen elsewhere during that time and it's wrong to leave that impression to readers.

This still does not prove that FS was seen somewhere besides the hospital between Feb. 20 and March 9. (this is, of course, because she was AA in the hospital)Aggiebean (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

3. Whether or not FS was injured in the grenade factory- those who claim to have medical records to prove this cannot produce them, and become angry when you ask for them. According to Massie, who got his info from Berenberg-Gossler's papers, she was. AA was covered with scars, and we know for sure now she didn't obtain them in Ekaterinburg, so she had to get them somewhere else. Doesn't it make sense that this grenade explosion fits the description of something that would cause such scars and mental trauma? No one stands next to a foreman 'eviscerated before her eyes' and comes away with no wounds at all.

Again, her family had denied her, they couldn't paint a trail to her door. She did suffer those wounds, and scars all over her body, from the munitions factory, but no matter where they came from, it wasn't Ekaterinburg and it's wrong to leave that possibility open to readers now that she's been proven beyond all doubt not to be genuineAggiebean (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

4. Stating as fact that "FS never had a child." There is no record of it, but that does not mean it didn't happen and she dumped it, covered it up, aborted, miscarried, etc. In those days girls were ashamed of unwed pregnancies and hid them. It's also not usual that her family and acquaintances would not be told of it, or admit it, considering what a 'disgrace' it was to the whole family back then. If you put that 'there is no record of her having given birth' you also need to note that there is also no proof of AA's alleged child, or any record of his birth or dumping at any orphanage as she claimed. But it's false to leave the impression that AA definitely had a child and FS definitely did not. Yes AA was found to have had a child in an exam, but since there is no record of the child's birth or death, all we have is her word on the story, which was of course false since she was never in Romania. We will never know what became of the baby of AA/FS.

NO ONE should be speculating, and that is what you are doing in a lot of this, and strongly leaving open ended insinuations meant to persuade a reader into believing your viewpoint. If I can't do it you can't do it. Fact: there is no record of any baby being born to AA or FS, or any proof of what happened to it. This does not prove FS was never pregnant!Aggiebean (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

5. Her family's denial should be noted along with the good reasons they had for denial, such as to help her avoid jail for fraud, mental hospital, death camp and financial retributions for her claim, but of course you'd delete that, as I mentioned before in the double standard that you'd not accept my notes like this but want to add your own such as that Mountbatten didn't meet her.

But she soon ended up shutting up, didn't she? They couldn't claim her, it was too much trouble for all of them, everything to lose and nothing to gain. I'd love to hear the whole true story from this family, I bet it's very interestingAggiebean (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

6. Gertrude not having a birth certificate- according to the research of one person. This doesn't mean she didn't, or even if she didn't it doesn't mean she wasn't a member of the family. I have elderly relatives who don't have them though their siblings do. If this is done to cast doubt on the DNA results with Maucher, it doesn't, since she did match him, and that could only happen if she were maternally related to the family.Aggiebean (talk) 16:12, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen the others, either. The fact is, you have nothing to document to say she didn't have one as a fact, because we really don't know. Maybe she lost it. Maybe it's in another town. We can't put 'maybes' in this article, mine or yours! The DNA still matches FS's familyAggiebean (talk) 17:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Chat, funny you say 'we should not cherry pick' because that is exactly what you do! You find any reason to discount a source you don't agree with and any grasping at straws reason to accept one that you want to use. You can't have it both ways. Really, this article suffers from too much useless rhetoric. Just give the basic story and if anyone wants more they can read the books on the subject. The main thing is to state that she made a claim and turned out to be an imposter. All we need are historical and scientific fact, not a lot of hearsay, nonsense and he said she said from decades ago that mean nothing now.Aggiebean (talk) 19:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Chat, she was no 'carbon copy', this is an example of you inserting your own fantasy view as fact. No need to list all those outdated 'experts' especially the discredited Nazi fool Reche. For all we know some of them may have been promised money from Grandanor. A person would have to be blind to think AA and AN had the same bone structure, it's very different. And don't forget Oxlee's 1994 tests proving she was FS. You clog everything with your same old list of rhetoric. This isn't a message board thread, it's an educational article!Aggiebean (talk) 04:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No one can know why at this point one way or the other. The mitochondrial DNA is a match to that of the Schanzkowski family. The forensic evidence -- the ears, the handwriting, etc. -- would not be given the weight of DNA in a modern court because it's probably fallible. I will not agree to removing the stories about the forensic evidence, the handwriting, the witness testimony identifying her as the Grand Duchess, etc., because it is part of the story and it explains why so many people have believed in her for decades. She was a highly convincing claimant and there are mysteries that remain. Likewise, the testimony by people who failed to recognize her, the evidence of her mental instability, the various false stories she told, the DNA evidence, etc. needs to be in there as well, along with information qualifying that Prince Christopher and Mountbatten, two of her major detractors, didn't actually KNOW the woman but were relying on second or third hand descriptions of her encounters with other people. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I still think the article needs to be weeded down, such as getting rid of the fictional Heinrich K. story, or at least the gory, obviously false details that take up too much space.If you want to include everything, how about the details of AA's other versions of her 'escape' story? Why not Sophie B's and Irene's complete comments? If you include your own disclaimers that Mountbatten and Christopher never met her just as a personal interjection, I'm going to do the same with the Ernie trip and other issues, because it's the same kind of thing. Besides did you ever think just seeing a picture could prove to them it wasn't AN?Aggiebean (talk) 04:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Find reliable, published references and add what you want, though I think a mention that "So and so also didn't believe her" and "There were other escape stories, including .... " would be sufficient. I think the article as it exists is too long and we don't need to quote absolutely everyone on both sides ad infinitum. I don't have the time or the patience to pare down all the quotes right now. Regarding the "Ernie" trip, we can report that Anderson said he visited them, according to, I think, Rathlef, and someone else denied that did. Personally, I think it's quite possible that Ernie DID make such a trip and it was known in monarchist circles. But whatever. Prince Christopher did not meet Anna Anderson and he didn't know Anastasia that well, either. I don't know if I'd be able to identify some of my cousins who I haven't seen since they were children from photos. People change dramatically in appearance from childhood to adolescence to adulthood. There were other relatives that did think she was Anastasia, so there was a resemblance in appearance and mannerisms. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 13:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I will try to do that. The article is already way too long, and it needs to be 'whittled down' to make room for more important things. For example do we really need 3 paragraphs about Heinrich K? So mention him if you must but we don't need that long drawn out story that is obviously fiction. We could mention brief synopsis of each version of her escape story. We need to mention each person who accepted or denied her and their reasons for feeling the way they did- free of added POV by any of us as to what their motives may have been. It should remain as a news article and not a website or a message board thread like it is becoming now. As for those who 'recognized' her, if you notice, almost no one ever claimed her as "Anastasia" but by some imagined resemblance to the Dowager Empress (whom the real AN looked NOTHING like) or the family in general. That is not a very strong endorsement. Remember the Mays/Twigg baby swap several years ago? Mr. Mays was certain, even after informed of the swap, that the baby he had raised was his child because she had the mannerisms and traits of his late wife's family. However, the DNA said no, she was in fact the child of the Twiggs. Aggiebean (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Chat, how do you even know that comment is true? The source is after all Gleb, her biggest supporter. Christopher denied it and his book states otherwise. I don't think that info is valid. As far as Ernie's trip, this is hotly debated and it may or may not have taken place. I don't even think it matters, the only thing that is of importance in the AA story is how did she know this, and it obviously wasn't because she was Anastasia. The fact that the rumor was out there and there were even books on the subject prove AA and/or her supporters had access to this info, so her mention of it in 1925, 3 years after the German book, was no 'bomb' as you have tried to say before. Your view, totally assumed, is that Ernie was out to destroy her because of the comment about the trip. This is silly because you said yourself Darmstadt issued the comment in public first- if he had wanted to shut her up why draw attention to it? Ever consider he wanted to stop a crazy woman from stealing his dead niece's identity and possibly money from the family??!Aggiebean (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Chat, the family's attitude to AA and her supporters was usually not to even dignify them with a response. But they did fight them in court, the AA court case. If they were going to sue it would have been over that awful letter Gleb wrote to Xenia. People were not sue happy like they are now. They were going to let the truth come out on its own. Thankfully it finally has, but sadly not in time for those who are gone. Why do you hate Prince Christopher's denial so much? HOw do you know he didn't tell the author those things? You don't.If you feel you can post garbage like the obviously fictional Heinrich K. story just because it's 'documented' then we can do the same with Prince C. I still think a lot of whittling needs to be done to this article. It's not a book, a website or a message board thread, it's an educational article (or supposed to be) Who DID write the article? I hope they come back and join the discussionsigned aggiebean

Chat, it was not I who added the Prince Christopher stuff. I did not write this article, and I have added very little to it. I just don't like it when you attack comments you don't like while using your own questionable garbage from supporters like it's true. Really, there is a lot of stuff on both sides that is second hand, distorted by this or that person, misinterpreted, misquoted, assumed, read into, etc. Most of what you post as 'proof' AA was AN is really just a lot of hearsay, guesses and half remembered stuff that is likely inaccurate. Having it written down as 'court testimony' does NOT make it any more real or valid than if it wasn't. A lot of people say a lot of things in court, many of them lies or errors. Because of all this inaccuracy in all these old quotes, it's a good thing we have the DNA to prove to us what the real answer turned out to be. But no way do any of the old comments challenge the DNA. The only reason I add other stuff besides the DNA is to show how the stuff you use is really not what it seems once you dig into it. I believe even without the DNA there is enough against her to make her look like the fake she was. We need to show this to the public. Your position is 'she was identical in every way to AN and everyone nice accepted her and those who didn't were greedy liars' and you think if you show this that others will start to wonder about the DNA being wrong. My position is, even without the DNA she was fake, and tell that side of the story and the stuff that contradicts yours. But really, seriously, this article is too long, and the crap put in to appease both sides only makes it harder for the 'layperson' (non-AA interested Joe Public) to understand and see through. We need to tell the basic story and leave out all the long winded stuff, ESPECIALLY fiction like Heinrich K.Aggiebean (talk) 15:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Chat, YOU are the one spewing the 'usual nonsense.' We need reality here, not your fantasy versionAggiebean (talk) 03:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)03:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

But there were 'people who were there on BOTH sides, saying different things. We know now which ones were wrong, thanks to the DNA testing. Aggiebean (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

So, to you, everyone but Kurth, Botkin and Rathlef are 'slanting' things? You are the one who wants the censorship, you only want the AA story told by those who supported her. This is wrong, and an injustice to fairness and reality in the article. We need not appease AA supporters past or present. Just tell the truth, and that is that AA was not ANAggiebean (talk) 00:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Aggiebean (talk) 00:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Chat, everything you do says that you think AA is AN. It's not even a question. You keep saying the story should be told 'truthfully' BUT your version of the 'truth' is not reality. You accuse others of 'hearsay' but the quotes you use are just the same thing, statements from people who may have been wrong or lying. You only want things told that back up AA's story and everything against her is a 'lie' to you. Again, this is not a message board, this is an article that needs to be factual for the purpose of the general public and students. We have to show the truth, that no matter what person X said to person y 70 years ago, it means nothing, AA is not AN and we have proofAggiebean (talk) 22:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I AM discussing the topic, which is that you want to fill the article with overly detailed crap like the Heinrich K. story that has been proven false, and only tell the side as condoned by her supporters, Kurth, Rathlef and Botkin. You attack anything against her case as 'lies' and try to use your POV vandalism to make snide remnarks within the article after other peoples' quotes- what would you do if I did that to your stuff? You'd go postal! We need to rewrite the article being more concise for the average person to understand. It gets too long and it confuses those who don't know a lot about the subject. More is and can be told in books, on websites and on message boards, but this is just an article and let's treat it that wayAggiebean (talk) 14:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Chat Noir, if you're going to add things to the article, please cite your source -- author, title, page number, publication information. I'm assuming you got the latest additions from Kurth's book. If so, cite the page numbers and so on and use formal language: "Anna Anderson, not AA." I note typos and misspellings in some of the recent additions made by you and earlier by Annie/Aggiebean, but I don't have the patience to edit the article myself. The ongoing argument is also tiresome and pointless and it is making the talk page take too long to load. Someone needs to archive it again. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 15:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Chat's continued POV vandalism, especially against the quotes of Dmitri Leuchtenberg and Prince Christopher have become redundant and annoying, on top of being undocumented and downright childish. Look, Chat, you know if I added little quips after your stuff you'd have a fit. Follow your own advice and 'do your homework!' If you want to add something, get a sourced quote, and do not insert it in the middle of the other person's quote! For example if you want to contradict what those guys said, add a paragraph afterward saying 'however, this person said this' and document it.Surely everything you'd ever want to use is in the Kurth book so this shouldn't be too hard! But stop the sneak attacks!

Bookworm, I am sorry if I have made errors, a lot of what I have added was copied/pasted from other writings and I admit not always proofread. I also agree that this talk page is ridiculous and needs to be limited to discussion of the article alone. Chat still does not realize this is not a message board. I know I am guilty as well if I answer back. Perhaps all our redundant comments can be deleted to shorted the page, and from here on out we'll all be more careful. Chat should know by much experience that such bickerings only cause everyone else to leave. I also firmly believe the entire article is a MESS and needs to be rewritten. I have 2 weeks off work and would volunteer to do this though I am sure Chat would not approve. May I give it a try, with your (bookworm's) approval?Aggiebean (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

ChatNoir, if it's from Von Rathlef's book, why don't you add the title, page number, publication info, etc., yourself since you have the book and I don't. I think the citations in this article need to be regularized and all done in one style too, but I don't really want to go through it myself. Annie/AggieBean, if you want to edit the article, go to it. The only thing I ask is that where appropriate, you include both sides. After mentioning that Prince Christopher thought she was a liar and a fraud, mention that a minority of the family accepted her as Anastasia. After the mention of Franziska Schanzkowska, mention that one of her siblings denied she was his sister and maybe then include speculation about why that might have been from an appropriate published source. Ideally, we need to include page numbers, authors, book titles, publication information line by line. I WISH I had two weeks off from work. I'm home sick today, so I'm probably crabbier than usual. Sorry if I snapped. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't care who edits this thing as long as it is accurate, well written, and includes appropriate citations letting people know where the information came from and as long as it presents both sides, since there's still disagreement over whether she was Franziska Schanzkowska and about whether her supporters were sincere, etc. If Kurth wants to edit this article, let him come and edit it and provide citations for his own work. So far he doesn't seem inclined to do so. Presumably he's working on things he actually gets paid to write. If you're editing it, cite your sources HERE. Don't tell people that you've written another article elsewhere and they should look for it on some other site. I will object if Annie/Aggie Bean doesn't balance the article appropriately or makes it too one-sided and I'll do the same if you do or if anyone else does. But you're not getting anywhere by sniping at each other. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Chat, your accusations against both me and those mentioned in the article have become delusional. Sorry. I have read many books on the subject over the last 35 years I have been interested in this subject, and have done more active research in the last 2 years than all those combined. I really feel like I can write a good article. I will leave in much of what supporters feel is important, add some things I have found, and delete much of the clutter from BOTH sides that drags it down. I will condense when possible. I am working on it now and will submit it for bookworm's approval when finished.Aggiebean (talk) 19:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Chat, all of those are supporters of AA and have been proven wrong. We do have a lot of those things in the article from the Kurth book and as you know it's mainly made up of quotes from supporters. I am not going to delete them but add other things. Mainly I'm not changing as much as I'm organizing it, it's so messy it gives me a headache. I can imagine how your average page visitor must feel to read it.Aggiebean (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Because that's all you want to use is their quotes and you deride the other guys! I'm going to leave both in. I am not going to change the basic article because I do not want to be the 'writer' as I believe this will make it more of a target for vandalism by those who hate me and that is not good for the article. Ever see 1776? "If I'm the one to do it, they'll run their quill pen through it"Aggiebean (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Chat, please do not go into all your rhetorical quotes on this talk page, it's not a message board and as bookworm said it's getting too long. Let's stick to the article! As for your accusations against my sources, you cannot prove the things the Botkins and Rathlef said are accurate either, and they cannot be verified. It all depends on whom you choose to believe. I am very tired of you implying Olga believed her and turned her back. How do you know she just didn't realize it wasn't her, honestly? Please take a look at the article as it stands now before I change things and you blame me. I'm going to leave most of the stuff there but condense and add, not rewrite it totally. I do not want to be responsible! I have said my peace on my website. I would appreciate it very much if the real writer of this article would come back and discuss this with us and help out. Aggiebean (talk) 23:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Chat! You are becoming more and more detached from reality! I'm saying DON'T GO INTO ALL THAT HERE ON THE TALK PAGE! It's not a message board and it's only making the page too long! Take a look, once again you have succeeded in running everyone else off! No one else but us is even posting here, except Bookworm who came to tell us to stop it's too long! So stop! This is not a place to rehash the entire case! I think the article is fine the way it is but it needs some organizing. It is no offense to the writer, it's the fault of all those who keep adding and editing until it's become a mess. Aggiebean (talk) 03:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

As far as 'accuracy' it can be debatable.Also some stuff, on either side, just can't be and shouldn't be unloaded here, for the sake of brevity. This is not a book or a website, it's just an article. We have to use highlights and the most important things, not quotes from a lot of also rans most people have never heard of. I am trying to, as bookworm asked, include things that tell the story and why some believed her for so long, but I see no reason to 'appease' the "AA side" because now that she's been proven not to be Anastasia it's important to tell the article from that viewpoint and position, not one from decades ago when her identity was still a 'mystery.' We need not leave anything ambiguous and we should NOT do anything to try to drop hints or encourage the reader to believe she 'still might be AN'. We just need to tell the facts as we know them now, and how things turned out. She had a long claim, but her supporters were wrong. We have to look at it from a different perspective now that she's officially declared a fake.Aggiebean (talk) 22:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Chat you are one to talk about hearsay! There is no more 'hearsay' than Harried Rathlef! NONE of her mess can be proven, and most of it is what is contradicted by other sources. Most of what you have put is only documented by "Peter Kurth" as if that's all you need, as you once said "I AM the source!" and yes this only makes me more sure you are him. I have gone to a lot of time and trouble to find sources and I don't like that you can just insert anything and say 'kurth' and that makes it acceptable. We'll see what bookworm and the mods say about that. I was just about to compliment you on your fairness before I saw that, and some of your internal vandalism deleting my references and changing the meaning of some of my paragraphs. I have noticed your little sneak attacks in the middle of someone else's quote, this is wrong too and you wouldn't accept it from me. I also saw how you tried to get rid of my Massie quote on the grenade injuries by saying 'it was thought' when the source said it DID happen! It's okay to add your denial afterward but don't change mine! BTW It was never me who included Prince C., I don't know who did, and if you'll notice I have condensed his, and Dmitri L's, for brevity. Let's not make this nasty! It is no service to the site or anyone reading it to get into a dirty edit war. I sure hope the mods come and keep watch soon. We'll both be lucky not to get booted.Please bookworm come help! Also finneganw if you're reading this HELP!Aggiebean (talk) 23:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Look here PK/Chat, YOU are the one only using sources that agree with you, in fact ALL you EVER use is "Kurth" and "Rathlef" and don't even use a page number! I have even used Kurth a few times. I have used a wide variety of sources but not you. Massie's source was Berenberg-Gossler's papers, it says so in the back of the book. The injury is stated as fact in the book, yet you change the article to 'assume.' I could say 'assume' about most of your garbage but I don't so leave mine alone! How dare you delete that and fill the article full of unverifiable he said she saids from Rathlef? Also, Faith Lavington said in her diary she was present, and you say she wasn't because of Rathlef. Just about all my stuff you refute because of Rathlef, and there is no proof of ANYTHING Rathlef ever said! It's a very weak source! The reason it contradicts everything else is because it's wrong! It's not right for the entire article to be filled with questionable contradictions only marked 'Rathlef' when you are even too lazy to look up the page number of all this crap. I don't mind leaving in some of the quotes from supporters to tell the story, but all this Rathlef stuff is really putting doubt on the integrity of the entire article. Please, bookworm and finneganw, come helpAggiebean (talk) 02:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You claim Massie's story of the wounds, which came from Dr. Berenberg-Gossler's papers and had been published in German newspapers, is not valid, yet you cling to the word of the likes of Leuchtenberg, who was contradicted by his OWN SON, and Rathlef, and we have nothing to 'fact check' her with so all of her writings remain suspect. As for the nurse again, there is no proof of when the story happened, if it ever did. She said one thing, the paper said another. Peoples' memories are very faliible, most people can't place the month and year in many things they know happened in their lives. But it's wrong to state it as a fact when it's not. If you are just going to quote people without question, then you have to allow me the same and not come in and say 'Gilliard's stuff can't be verified' well neither can Rathlef's! Really, not much can! This edit war is getting us nowhere. I would like to suggest BOTH of us stop working on this article until some impartial observer/editor comes here to pass judgement on our work.Aggiebean (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Chat, you still fail to see that you are calling the kettle black. You try to diss all my sources, while assuming yours are golden standards and they aren't! You call me 'opposed to witness testimony' while you call all my 'witnesses' liars! You are such a hypocrite. You can't leave snide little comments about mine being in doubt when yours are too, in some cases even more so! As for her scars, we know she sure didn't get them from Ekaterinburg, so why not consider the grenade story is true? Again, this CANNOT be done by the two of us. We need an impartial, sensible third party to step in and save this article, or our edit wars are going to get it locked.Aggiebean (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't you find it strange Knofp, Berenberg-Gossler, and Wingender turned out to be RIGHT?! We've been through the family stuff before. No, I don't believe they'd go out of their way to claim her after denying her for her own good. Her family had to fear her getting in trouble for a false claim and themselves getting in trouble for lying. Klier and Mingay said to this day they fear somehow being held responsible for her actions. In his last years, BG was writing a book about FS but died before he got it published. He let Massie see his manuscript and sources, that is where he got the FS info. On p. 249 Massie elaborated FS's life: in 1914 she moved to Berlin and became a waitress. She became engaged and her fiance died in the war. She was then working in the grenade factory and let one slip from her hands, blowing up the guy next to her. Sorry but no one can stand next to an exploding man and not suffer serious wounds. She suffered splinter wounds to her head and other body parts and was sent to a sanitorium, where her wounds healed but she remained shocked and with psychological problems.She was relased as 'not cured but not dangerous.'Aggiebean (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Sanatorium is for convalscents of all types, injured and ill, sanatariums are for the mentally ill. FS did turn out to be both. The grenade explosion not only damaged her health it seemed to be the beginning of a lifetime of mental issues. How sad. Look Chat there were two suspects for the identity of AA, AN and FS. She's not AN, because we have her body now. She matches FS's relatives. Why would she be anyone else? It doesn't matter what the relatives said, don't bother to make the page longer listing what i've seen you post a thousand times. OF COURSE once they've denied her they're not going to paint a trail to her door by agreeing to traits possessed by FS! I am still waiting for our third party to arrive. I showed this to some people I know personally who don't give a damn about AA and they both said you and I were both guilty of overstuffing this article with quotes by people most people never heard of and don't care about. Really, no one gives a damn about Nurse Thea, Dmitri Leuchtenberg, or Mrs. Grabisch! They said people come here looking for basic info on a person, not a book. There are books and websites on the subject. This is an article. ONe person laughed to say that many more deserving and more famous people have much shorter articles. I am long winded and you are too. We both feel too strongly about trying to prove a point to do this. We don't need to turn it into another message board battle in the middle of an article with 'take that' quote matching. You should know from the bad experiences of all the boards we've been on that our activities and way of doing things turns everyone else off and they leave! Maybe we should let someone else do this. It was better when the article was anonymously written. Please, people if you're reading step in and help.Aggiebean (talk) 00:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

First, YOUR quotes are the ones that are 'silly' such as GARBAGE, yes, worthless TRASH, by Gleb Botkin and Harriet Rathlef. Second, we don't need 'balance' since AA IS NOT AN and there need not be any fairness left to appease her 'side.' Yes tell the basic story and who believed her, but the detail we have gone into is ridiculous. Again, nobody cares about these quotes from EITHER of us. Someone NEUTRAL- certainly NOT YOU- needs to rewrite it for brevity and eliminate most or even all of the quotes. I am still awaiting a third party to intervene and stop this edit war.Aggiebean (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh believe me I'm sorry I ever started. I should have known if you knew it was me you'd do this. Before all you did was do your silly sneak attacks in the middle of Dmitri L. and Olga's quotes. I DO know how, I have given better documentation than you have, and my article as it stood is much better without your nonsense. Yes, Chat, Botkin and Rathlef's crap is GARBAGE. Yes they were 'there' but they were trying to promote her cause and their word is very suspect, especially since it contradicts with so much else. Dmitri L. and Gilliard were there but you call them 'liars'. As for 'fairness' I said I tried to appease you with quotes from supporters, but really, we should not have to be 'fair' since SHE WAS NOT AN and it's over now so we can and should fully represent that fact and not leave anything ambiguous or, as you are trying to do, make people think 'maybe' despite the DNA. Again, neither of us should write this article, waiting for someone elseAggiebean (talk) 02:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I see Chat is up to his ridiculous vandalism again. It's about time he accepted reality and stopped his insane rubbish. Keep up the good work Aggiebean. Everybody knows that Anderson was a total fraud. Anastasia died in Ekaterinburg in 1918 and her remains have been recovered as well. Anderson was an insane nobody. Those who support her still are equally crazy. Peter Kurth's rubbish book has been totally discredited. It was never well researched and it was always completely biased. Anybody with a modicum of knowledge about Russian history could see there were holes in his research large enough to drive a fully laden semi-trailer through. Whenever anybody who knew the real Anastasia comments on Anderson he sets out to destroy them. That is not the sign of an historian. His book does still though have one useful purpose. It is great as a firestarter in winter. His book is available at amazon.com cheaper than firestarters. It is total rubbish. Anastasia was a Grand Duchess who was brutally murdered with her family. It's as simple as that. Get a life Chat as nobody takes you seriously at all. Don't forget to also take your medication. Finneganw 1:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.134.181.69 (talk)

I have just removed a personal attack from this talk page and considered removing a few more but decided just to make this clear. I was hoping that all of your would have gotten sick of fighting over this subject like... two years ago? But since you haven't we are at least going to do it in a reasonably pleasant fashion - No personal attacks period. I've warned one person already, and I'm sticking around for crowd control because I know what a mess this turned into last time. If you require ideas for dispute resolution, I will be happy to advise... mostly because I don't care at all about the subject and have no opinion one way or another. If every expert on Anna Anderson, self proclaimed or otherwise, took a walk off a cliff tomorrow, I wouldn't consider the world a noticeably poorer place. But here's just one thought... Russian Wiki was able to elevate this article to FA status... has anyone considered translating the article and taking a look at how they have written it? Trusilver 17:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Trusilver for moderating and checking up on this. Yes, it does seem like the fighting should be over but it will never end because Anderson's supporters simply will not bow to reality. All the bodies are found and as of last month the official published scientific results proved all the family are accounted for as dead in 1918, yet Chat continues to tout the 'amazing' feats of AA and contend she was genuine. I don't believe that we have to appease the AA supporters anymore since the facts go against them and we should write it totally from the POV that she was an imposter and show how there were signs of this all along. The problems I have with Chat are that the does sneak attacks, as Finnegan has also noticed, vandalism, in the middle of the article, even in the middle of documented quotes I've posted from the other side. He has erased my sources, and inserted information that cannot be proven. Instead of books and pages, he will use just the name of "Rathlef", who was a supporter writing books to advance AA's cause in the 20's. Now that AA has been proven fake, it seems to me that the questionable stuff Chat quotes by supporters such as Rathlef and Botkin- who also wrote books to promote her cause- are now proven wrong and should not be used to refute stuff I have put from other sources that turned out to be right. Obviously, these supporters were the ones who were wrong (or lying) and it does no service to the article to include them. Sadly, Chat has proven over and over again he doesn't want to work rationally with anyone but to resort to the same hysterical attacks and vandalism and unvalidated postings. He will attack my source of Gilliard because he claims Gilliard burned his papers, yet he will quote a letter from Olga though those letters have long since gone missing and there's no way to prove what was in them other than a newspaper article by a supporter. Gilliard's work was published in his book. I could go on giving examples, but if you are not interested in the case you will just be bored. But please believe us, he's doing this and the article will never be honorable until he stops.

Thank you finneganw for coming back and helping. Please keep it up, we need you! I hope one day we can achieve a reality based AA article free of Chat's attacks. As far as his accusations against finneganw, they are unfounded. You cannot sue for 'libel' for the truth, and Kurth's book is indeed selling for Amazon.com for 2 cents, which is, as finneganw stated, cheaper than a firestarter.

I have just, through an online translator, read the Russian wiki AA article and I am appalled it was given an FA status. It's full of more extraneous quotes than even this one. It uses for many of its sources several questionable websites which list no documentation and are likely just someone's opinion. It even seems to give serious consideration to some wild conspiracy theories, including one about doubles being switched for the family. Of course the translation is not the greatest but it doesn't appear to be nearly as fact based and accurate as a highly rated article should be. Maybe the Russian wiki mods were going more on writing style and number of sources than content?Aggiebean (talk) 23:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Chat, I'm saying you are a hypocrite- you add into the story that stuff is burned, yet when it's something in her favor you deny it no longer exists. I DO have my facts right, in Lovell's book, page 477, he stated that Olga's letters disappeared from her barrack in the Black Forest in 1968 and the ones he used in his research were from a 1926 newpaper article by Bella Cohen (which is still not complete proof of the accuracy of what they said) Lovell also said that Kurth quoted them in 'altered form'. As I have said many times, if you want the story told correctly, leave out all the garbage that no longer matters and tell the true story, that she was not AN! YES you DO push her as genuine, why else are you doing this?! EVERYONE sees it and knows it, you aren't fooling anyone! I notice the list of quotes from Duke L. you just polluted the article with, and if you do not condense them for brevity as I have done his son's, I will add his son's back in their entirety. This article is already too long and full of garbage- AGAIN- it is NOT a book! We must limit what it put here, and remember NOBODY CARES about all these quotes! We need someone sensible to write this article. At the very least, the mods need to put a disclaimer on it saying it's in the middle of an edit war and is biased.Aggiebean (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Botkin translated them? Well, that certainly puts their contents in doubt! I'd love another translation by someone I trust like Helen. No, the notes are not 'brief enough' they are just more of what weighs this article down to extreme length- I have condensed mine, you can do the same. If I am forced to repost the long quotes there will be no more vandalism of you adding your little sneak attacks at the end of everything he said or I will report you to the modsAggiebean (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The length of the article is both our faults, as well as several others who must have worked on it in the past. I already told you I was all for condensing and doing away with the entire quotes but you will not comply. As far as 'dubious' if we want a real article free of BS and hearsay we must eliminate ALL GARBAGE from Rathlef-Keillmann and Gleb Botkin, as they were supporters writing books to promote her cause. Since it's their writings that contradict all the others, and we know the others turned out to be true, you are the one polluting the article with hearsay and nonsense.Aggiebean (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Chat I am sorry that you feel people using verified facts by people who were there but don't agree with you 'ruin the whole thing.' I know you'd like to leave it as nothing but Gleb and Harriet's word for it, but this is not reality. It needn't be so long if you'd just let us state the basic truth that she had a claim and turned out not to be AN and leave out all the quotes trying to take up for her. We have the DNA, she lost, get over it. Nothing you can repost a thousand times will ever change that. We don't need all that mess now.Aggiebean (talk) 04:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Read what I put, it's all well sourced. There is no proof of anything Botkin and Rathlef wrote and much of it could even be fiction! BTW, I am doing a lot right now but don't get your panties in a bunch, I am not deleting anything (much as I'd like to!) but moving some things around and reorganizing to make it make more sense. The 'relatives' section was out of whack. Also I found some great sources proving AA and her gang were after moneyAggiebean (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, I don't believe that, never have! For example, you use Botkin and Rathlef as sources but I think they are useless because they are wrong. How do I know they are wrong? Easy. They are the ones that contradict everyone else who turned out to be right, therefore, they were wrong. I think they are such weak sources it's actually a crime to use them in this article. We should have a higher standard- you know, 'consider the source!' I know, you call mine liars and I don't believe yours, but the difference is, mine turned out to be right!Aggiebean (talk) 21:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

They only say Zahle was the one who originally discussed it with her in 1925, but yes there is reference to him saying she had to act fast in 1928 but it said Boktin was the one who said Zahle said it. He told her if she didn't claim it it was going to Xenia. Of course she wanted it! But if a real AN had been alive she wouldn't have denied her. The 'house' story is a lie. Damn if we keep adding more crap it's going to be a book and it shouldn't be.Aggiebean (talk) 00:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

So, the house story is a lie. And what's your proof? It was actually the reason she moved out from the Leeds, she refused to accept the deal, and had to leave within 24 hours. (Another proposal came from Kyril in a letter to Felix Yussupov: it was openly suggested that she might be persuaded to renounce her claim to identity in return for a substantial settlement and a periodic allowance. (May 1933)) AA was the one who told Botkin to block the money, she would not let her "aunts" have it for denying her. AA was in America and far from Zahle at that moment. Botkin could do nothing, and sought help from Fallows. AA herself refused to have her claim submitted to the courts. It was only when she heard about a suit Grand Duchess Xenia had brought to recover some of the Tsar's land in Finland thae she agreed to go ahead with the case. And since this is getting too long, I am erasing all my earlier posts to make room for new ones. ChatNoir24 (talk) 01:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes Chat it is getting too long. I am erasing my old post too. Is there nowhere else we can discuss this stuff? (not fight) They don't offer houses to fakes. Remember Xenia had to live in Frogmore on the charity of her cousin George, and Olga was a poor dirt farmer who had to leave Denmark because the Russians got mad at her for helping Soviet soldiers defect and were going to bring her up on charges of spying. They had no money! As far as the details I have posted you need to take it up with Wm. Clarke who wrote "Lost Fortune of the Tsars." Have you read it? You can get a preview online. The thing is Chat I keep finding more new and interesting stuff and you keep holding onto the same old story by the same old sources though most of it has been disproven. I really am shocked at how literally EVERYTHING I post you contradict with Rathlef- doesn't this show you she was wrong, since the others were right and hers is opposite? ALso with her there is no secondary backup source to verify if anything she said was even true. Think about itAggiebean (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Xenia lived on "charity" and died a millionaire by our day's standards. Olga had no money, she was forever resenting Xenia's division of the money for the jewels. As for new and interesting stuff, I have already found it in Rathlef and Botkin's books. The sources for lots of details in later books. And Rathlef was not wrong, she never ever endorsed AA as the Grand Duchess, only recorded what happened the year they spent together. And her book is filled with letters from other sources, doctors' reports, the duke of Leuchtenberg's notes, Vera von Klementz's diary exerpts, notes from Faith Lavington etc etc. ChatNoir24 (talk) 01:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

See just like I said you cling to their old crap that was only written to advance her claim and you refuse everything else, even though decades of new stuff have buried it! Don't you think it's even just a little bit weird EVERYTHING they say runs exactly opposite of what others said and the others turn out to be right? Their stuff cannot be found anywhere else to be verified so how do you know for sure it's not lies or fiction? Who were those doctors and did anyone ever ask them if they said those things, if they ever even existed? How would we know? I do not respect them as valid sources because I can't accept them as any more real than Santa. You bash other people as 'liars' and say their stuff can't be proven well theirs can't either! But in the end, history, time and science have proven them wrong and those whom they contradicted right. So wake up and get a clue, they were the ones who were wrong, sorry! And of course Olga and Xenia did not like each other, they rarely spoke if ever, so how can they conspire against AA? They didn't! Like I've said for years, the entire idea that Olga would abandon a real AN for the 'family' is absurd since Olga did not even like or get along with most of them and if AA had been AN she could have endorsed her and split the profit! But she wasn't and she didn't want her taking her poor dead niece's name can't you see that?Aggiebean (talk) 02:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You are forgetting an important point: Frau Rathlef did not burn her archives! All her correspondence is kept, as are the contributions to her book from other sources. And no new evidence has changed much. Whoever Anna Anderson was, she was a carbon copy of Anastasia, according to scientists, family members and friends. Like it or not. And she had nothing in common with Franzisca Schanzkowska. As for Olga, I don't think she meant to abandon the woman she thought was her niece, her writings to AA are a testimony to that. But she was also pretty much under the control of her mother, and she trusted Gilliard who was the one to make her publish her denial of AA in the Danish press. And as we see from her own writings, she changed her story 360 degrees. Or somebody changed it for her. I don't think she was the money hungry kind, she was a compassionate human being who tried to please too many people instead of herself in my opinion. 72.25.99.30 (talk) 03:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

A short note: I have edited your remark about "supporter Harriet Rathlef" regarding the meeting of FS and AA at Seeon. This has nothing to do with Frau Rathlef, but comes from the notes of the Duke of Leuchtenberg. I have also erased your remark from Faith Lavington's diary. What Welch states, is that Faith Lavington was one of the attendants [at Seeon]. 72.25.99.30 (talk) 03:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Why are you so afraid of Faith's comment? Again, you rely on Rathlef and again all she says is the exact opposite of everything else. How can that be? It's almost like she did it on purpose. Who knows if Duke L. said that or not? Sure is funny it's the exact opposite of what his son said. And why would his son lie? He had nothing to gain or lose. He just wanted the loser/user out of his Dad's house! Looks like the younger generation was not so gullible. You also have to consider these people had pride and they'd rather continue support than admit they'd been tricked by a Polish peasant (which they were) Think about this, you take away Rathlef and Botkin and what do you have? Nothing, because nothing was really there. They just wrote those books trying to promote her and they were wrong. One of these days I'm going to make you wake up and see the lightAggiebean (talk) 03:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not afraid of Faith Lavington's comments, what I am afraid of, are people who do not do their homework and falsify quotes. As for The Duke of Leuchtenberg's notes, they are all archived, but right now I cannot remember where. His son Dmitri was hostile towards AA, and he has been caught in telling lies. Why he had to lie to embellish his story is a mystery if he really believed AA to be a Polish peasant. As for the duke himself, he flat out believed the FS story and was ready to give AA to the Bavarian Police. It was his wife that stood up for AA and chased Knopf and company out of the house. Your comments about Frau Rathlef and Gleb Botkin only proves your total ignorance in this case. It seems to me that you are so doubtful about the DNA that you have to squelch any information that indicates that AA was for real. 72.25.99.30 (talk) 04:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's one more reason to complain

Hey! This is junior high after all! It took but a mere cybermoment for my very constructive criticism to be removed like lightning! Now, to be more polite: please stop hashing this subject, for it is fruitless. Can this entry not be simplified to describe who Anna Anderson Manahan was historically? We do recall the definiens of historically, do we not?

Catch this one faster and I'll send you a Buddhist rosary as a prize!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.112.123 (talk) 00:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know, it was the moderator who deleted your comment as a personal attack.Aggiebean (talk) 04:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Personal attack. Personal attack. People who have shallow minds love mantras. Intellectually I attack often. Not personally. And I love the neat way you just did it again--use your mantra-- in order to dodge what has to be the best, most logical suggestion ever offered herein! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.112.123 (talk) 04:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Define Anna Anderson or get off the PC

In furtherance of Ms. aggiebean as she calls herself, and her arguments, may I again please beg that the awful thing Anna Anderson be re-vamped slightly? Toward the factual, the objective... it never fails.

So she was thought to be crazy, so they allegedly dug up her mtDNA magically at the old hospital (mt DNA in this case is laughable anyway). So, let us then see the page state only those historically known facts and include a mere scintilla of what others think.

By the way I, as a nodding acquaintance of Peter Kurth's, think you all should be on your knees thanking him for all his life's work on Anna Anderson Manahan. And no, Ms. Paranoia, I'm not Peter Kurth either.

He won't waste his valuable time in this morass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.112.123 (talk) 04:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course you're not Kurth. You're Michael G. If you want facts, all we have to say is, this woman claimed to be Anastasia, had a court case over it, lost, and died. Years later, DNA proved her a fraud. End of story. You are really out of line and need to stop. No matter how Chat and I feel about each other we do not stoop to such behavior.Aggiebean (talk) 04:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

And...

...I'd like to see how long it takes for all this good stuff to be deleted because I wrote "Ms. Paranoia". Does Wikipedia have any pages on humor, irony, social satire? I wonder.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.112.123 (talk) 04:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)