Talk:Anna Anderson/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Anastasia's death never been proven

And even if AA was an imposter, it dosen't mean you should make up lies in this article to prove it. You people are obsessed with the Romanovs being saints that you refuse to even consider the possibility of survival. It's really pathetic.

officially the worst article on wikipedia

just thought everyone should know. Not one amount of truth in here.

Please explain, those are heavy accusations without the support of conflicting research, or at the very least examples of your opinion.--Caspere 22:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

TOTAL LACK OF OBJECTIVITY

I don't know who wrote the article, but it's obviously somebody who feels very passionately about this issue, and on a personal level, to the point where simple reporting or summarising gives place to more or less acrimonious attacks on one of the parties involved - quite possibly even slander - with obvious lack of self-control. And such writing should have no place in Wikipedia.

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)