Talk:Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia/Archive 1

page move

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A piece of Anderson's intestine (I think it was intestine) was kept in a hospital where she had surgery and they did blood tests from it. --Sammysk (talk) 22:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Just in case anyone missed it, they discovered the bodies of Anastasia and Alexei last May.RussianHistoryFanatic8694 (talk) 21:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurate film

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is absolutely NO proof that Anastasia was ever killed. That's a fact. ~In the movie,, wasnt it Rasputin who apparently stole Anastasia? No where in the article,, does it say something about Anastasia going missing. Does it? And in the movie Rasputin seems to be a corps. It has no historical accuracy,, especially with the boy who is trying to find the real Anastasia (Dimitri?)

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

One trivial point for me is the article's mention to the film- it's hardly AA's fictional escape when she actually claimed to be Anastasia, according to the film (no matter the historical inaccuracy here) the girl was picked out by two con-men and had to be persuaded to their way of thinking. Such hype shouldn't be created for (in my opinion, I realise there are others) such a fraud. As for the inaccuracy we have to remember that this is a film aimed at children, not adults who are more in touch with the facts, kids would be bored and terrified by a film of politics and violent assassinations just for the sake of complete accuracy. Personally, when I watched the film as a child I thought it rocked, what more do you need then a pretty girl on a mission with a talking bat? 88.106.252.236 (talk) 01:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfair Links?

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

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

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

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

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

DNA tests

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What language did Anna Anderson speak

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

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

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

from: Anya

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

From: Hugh B.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rumored to be living?

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

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

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

Name meaning

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

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

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

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

It means, "She who is reborn", "She will rise again", or "Resurrection". Kinda creepy given the legend. Whatever it means it is a very beautiful, as are all names of the Grand Duchesses. In case anyone else wants to know I have the other names' meanings. (the rest of the childrens' names) Olga: Holy Tatiana: Fairy Queen Marie: Bitter Alexis: Defender —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.35.72 (talk) 03:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Alleged Samples

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is but one example of many.

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

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

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

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

Sources / Tone

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

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

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

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

IMPORTANT QUESTION - please respond

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

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

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

Thank you

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not that the fact has any relavence to the historical accuracy of the movie, but the dress Anastasia wore in the end was a replica of the dress worn in a picture circa 1908 of Anastasia as seen in "Nicholas and Alexandra" by Robert K. Massie, published 1967 by Dell Publishing.75.165.255.110 (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)J.O 03/04/08

Death

I could be wrong but before I edited the page I wanted to see if anyone else agreed. According to this article the family was told they were going to be killed. Weren't they told they were taking a picture and the snapped the photo and then opened fire? From what I and most people agree was that they took the picture and then killed them. Rammstein1 06:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Again, according to "Nicholas and Alexandra" by Massie, the family was told they were being moved to a different location. And the speculation that the bullets "ricocheted" is unfounded. First, if you've never fired a gun, then don't spread rumors that jewels will save you; if you have fired a gun, you know the ridiculousness of the urban legend (and urban legends, by the way, have no place on wiki.) Do your research before you post, please. Anastasia was shot like the other members of her family. First hand accounts in "Nicholas and Alexandra" say she fainted and was not caught in the initial round, but was shot in the second. It was the maid that was stabbed to death, and the rumors about jewels come from the Imperial Jewels being in a box sewn into the pillow the maid was holding. They did not protect her. Lastly, please check your spelling before posting. It's not hard to copy and paste from a word program, and poor spelling, especially of simple words, in detrimental to the academic nature of the site.75.165.255.110 (talk)J.O 07 March 2008

Sorry but there's really no need to be that harsh on here to someone, especially if they're young. It's a discussion page about Anastasia, not about someone's grammatical errors, and as for it having an academic nature I can only agree up to such a point- when anyone can edit these pages and write whatever they like it often defeats the point (such as my school's which was defaced for months before anything was done). As for the jewels in the corsets, there could still be the slight chance- who's to say what quantity of jewels the girls possessed to hide and how much boning the corsets contained? And guns were powerful at that time but you have to consider that they have become more so since then. 88.106.222.194 (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello! Why in the article you are referring to a book, Radzinsky? And talk about what that Massie? There is a wonderful book "Murder of the Imperial Family," written by the investigator Sokolov, shortly before his death. This is the most authoritative source. And more often than other authors take the material is out of it. I advise you to read. It is very well described by the last day of the Tsar. We present the testimony of witnesses, described in detail items found after the shooting, data examination of blood from the walls of the room. You can still see the book by Pierre Zhilyara. No or anything new is not there. All written material on the investigation of Sokolov. There is "Murder of the royal family and members of the Romanovs in the Urals" M. Dieterichs. This is a officer, in charge of the investigation. It differs from the book Sokolova only the presence of their own reasoning (Sokolov's just the facts). Sorry for terrible English:) Google Translator ...SergeyA. (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

GA nomination

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

anastasias b roher was a bleeder — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.8.109 (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

What is the deal?

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

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

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

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

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

Please rewrite sentence

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

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

Rasputin

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

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

The Bulgarian Version

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

DNA Tests -- Which is correct?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks.

Kendra71 23:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This is signed aggiebean

I have removed this misleading and incorrect paragraph:

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

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

Joke needs to be corrected -she was not a goose

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

Fair use rationale for Image:Cap020.JPG

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

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

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

BetacommandBot 07:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

patron saint?

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

In 2000, Anastasia and her family were canonised as passion bearers by the Russian Orthodox Church. They weren't saint, sorry :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.172.208.97 (talk) 22:19, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Distantly related through the Hohenzollerns; but I named my daughter Anastasia Sophia Maria in memory of Anastasia Nikoleyavich. Mine was born in Tyumen, however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.230.60.100 (talk) 10:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Patronym

Anastasia's patronym is spelled "Nicolaievna," and I have corrected the misspelling throughout the text, but I don't know how to edit the title bar and article heading without access to the HTML file. Someone please enlighten me, or change it themselves. (I do realize that translations from a non-English alphabet are not exact, but a leading authority on the royal family, Robert K. Massie, spells it "Nicolaievna," which is also more in keeping with the meaning of the name, that is, daughter of Nicholas, with a "c," and I think the article should reflect this. Massie, Robert K."Nicholas and Alexandra." 1967, Dell Publishing: New York.75.165.255.110 (talk)J.O 04 March 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 21:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Translations of the patronym vary from author to author. Nikolaevna is as correct as Nicolaievna/Nicholaievna/Nikolayevna ad infinitum. The current version is the one that was chosen by consensus and it needs to be left as it is. I have reverted it back to the last version. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 05:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

These are actually under discussion. See WT:NC(NT). Charles 05:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the discussion and don't see any consensus. I have multiple books on the Romanovs and the patronym is spelled differently in just about all of them. If we were to use the most current Russian translation of the first names, the articles should refer to Tsar Nikolai Aleksandrovich and Tsarina Aleksandra; Grand Duchesses Olga, Tatyana, Mariya and Anastasiya Nikolayevna. Massie used what was current in the 1960s and used Marie Nicholaievna instead of Maria/Mariya, which was actually what the Romanov family used as the standard version of the name Mariya in foreign correspondence. Anastasia would have referred to herself as "Anastasie" rather than "Anastasia," as did the courtiers who wrote about her in English following the war. I favor using the current version because it seems to be the most widely known. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I never claimed there was consensus but there is an effort to regularize the patronymics for members of the Russian Imperial Family. Charles 19:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the best solution for ALL patronymics would be to transliterate them letter for letter, so Anastasia's (along with OTM's) patronymic would read 'Nikolaevna'. Any 'i' in there is just wrong with regards to the pronunciation and the way of Russian patronymics. --SaraFL (talk) 21:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Regarding the comment "Peter Kurth who claims to be Anna Anderson’s "biographer" defends his opinions about why he thinks "Anna Anderson" was Anastasia. "

What a snidey comment.

There is no CLAIMS TO BE about it. Peter Kurth has written the only serious biography about Anna Anderson. Therefore he IS her biographer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferrymansdaughter (talk • contribs) 08:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Reworked article to reflect 2008 DNA testing

I modified the section of the article describing false claimants to Anastasia's identity. The recent DNA testing changes the type of information which is needed to maintain NPOV. So, details which support Anna Anderson's claims (such as matching her ears with photographs of Anastasia) are apparently only a coincidence. I moved that example to the existing article for Anna Anderson, along with additional testimony regarding her claim, since those details are now less important to Anastasia's actual life.

For stylistic reasons, I relocated the remaining material about Anna Anderson to a single segment in this section, where it was separated by discussions of other people. I think it reads better this way.

Because the DNA testing basically eliminates the possibility of her survival, I also removed phrases like "according to most accounts" when describing her date of death, since it is now more firmly established when it occurred.

StephenMacmanus (talk) 03:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Image attribution

I see that the image description of some pictures used in this article are suffixed by "Courtesy: Beinecke Library" - is this usual under wikipedia standards? It seems misplaced.

86.91.173.215 (talk) 21:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Biased Article

This article claimed that it was proven that Anastasia did not survive. I read the supposed evidence for this, all it proves is that the people that claimed to be her were in fact not her. It does not prove that she did die with the rest of her family. I think the article should be reworked to address the fact that her fate is not known for a fact and her date of death is also not known for a fact.Matt (talk) 00:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Matt, but we do now know for a fact she did die with the rest of the family. The remains have been discovered and identified just where the Bolsheviks said they'd be. Here are some of the things we now know:

1. The body of Nicholas from the 1991 grave has been proven 100% to be the Tsar, using DNA from his brother, cousin, and an old bloody shirt of his from 1891. There is no question- it was the body of Nicholas II. Nicholas II is proven via DNA testing to be the biological father of the five children, the two burned bodies found in 2007 and the three skeletons from 1991.

2. The body of Alexandra has been identified and compared to Prince Phillip, her sister's Grandson. The mtDNA is a perfect match. The body of Alexandra is the biological mother of the five children.

3. The parents, and the three girls from the first grave were all retested along with the burned remains found in 2007. It has been proven beyond all doubt that the five children are all siblings and are the bioligical children of the two parents (Nicholas and Alexandra)Since Nicholas is for sure Nicholas, and these are his five children, there is no more question that it IS the Romanov family.

This means we can now rule out the allegations that 'it was some other family.' We can also put to rest all those rumors and 'nagging doubts', or perhaps dreams, a few people had that the 1994 tests were 'outmoded' and 'no longer valid' and that if tested again the results would be different. The newest tests, using the most modern methods, confirmed Dr. Gill's 1994 findings about the Romanov bones from 1991, and even clarified them more strongly. The absolute match of the parents to the children, and the old bones to the 'missing' bodies leaves no more doubt at all that the whole family is found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aggiebean (talk • contribs) 14:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

4. There are four separate DNA profiles for four different Grand Duchesses, meaning they all are now officially accounted for and died together in 1918. It can never be known if Anastasia was the burned female body found with Alexei in 2007 or one of the three in the 1991 grave, because there is no nuclear DNA from her or Maria in their lifetimes to compare to the remains. However, ALL FOUR GIRLS are found and identified, this is certain. So yes, it is historical fact, Anastasia did not escape, and did die with her family in 1918. The article is correct, and has the facts to prove it.

In case you hadn't seen it, here is the final scientific and forensic DNA result report,(March 2009) peer reviewed, official, and explained in words and charts. This should answer all your questions.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0004838

It should also be noted that labs in Russia, Austria and at UMASS performed the same tests and got the same results.

Aggiebean (talk) 15:07, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Toche. Well said. I can't believe there are some people who still believe Anastasia has escaped.

That only means that Bolsheviks killed her. She could have died separately from her family. She could have escaped and then been tracked down. The fact that the two bodies were found separately indicates that those bodies were killed in a different way than any of the other bodies. Dylanmagruder (talk) 02:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Sympathy for the Devil

Shouldn't it mention in the Influence on Culture part something about her mention in The Rolling Stones song Sympathy for the Devil? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.184.35.196 (talk) 02:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

No. Songs, specifically that one, were deemed too trivial for mention in this article when it went through its FA review. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 12:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

why the exacution was caused

The White Army had enuogh of the family so they planned to kill them in the basement os there house.It was recalled by some scientists that they had resently been drunk, so the did not know why they were going to do what they did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.187.225.76 (talk) 02:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Anastasia Who Knew?

Who knew that a girl of such a young age could be ruined of her riched by being killed...now i understand how someone would want to be grand duchess but why try knowing the people who once surounded the Grand duchess Anastasia is in greeff i dnt feel that the precautions Mrs. Anderson took were thought out let alone knowing her DNA would not have any relative match to the family's blood line i've just seen the animated movie anastasia and i want to gain more knowledge of teh Grand Duchesses exisenst ...................

A Smart MInd... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.243.49 (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

While she obviously died, is it possible that she was not killed with her family?

1. I hope this hasn't been posted anywhere else. I looked, but I didn't see it. 2. Is it possible that Anastasia was killed separately from her family? For instance (and this has no basis in proven fact, only previously mentioned rumors) that she escaped the Bolsheviks when they killed her family and was then later killed.

Dylanmagruder (talk) 02:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I have reason to believe she wasn't killed at all. I mean she is obviously dead now because she'd be over 110 now seeing as she was born in 1901. I read the article referenced that's "supposedly" claims that all the bodies were found but I found this interested, and noticed it was not mentioned in the page here, that no proof was giving that the bodies were indeed them. Where's the place the DNA testing was done at and why weren't they released to the public so people could see them? And I noticed the articles says that Alexei and Maria when it is well known that they had no idea which of the bodies were missing, whether it be Anastasia herself or her sister Maria. That tells me it's possible that the article is lying or possibly they DNA place was payed off to say that by the remaining Romanov family to stop the rumors that their relative is still alive. I mean I understand why it puts to rest this whole she survived thing cause I'm sure they hoped so too but by now it is time to let this rumor rest as it's not possible she is alive now. But I'm sorry in my eyes there's still no proof that they found either one. So to claim so in this page is misleading but I'll let someone else decide that. I mean if you read the article all these question arise, at least for me and my roommate here. I've done research on this subject ever since I saw the 1997 animated version of Anastasia so for me I think it's best to go by possibility of she's dead but it's unknown when. JamesAlan1986 (talk-Contributes) 14:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

This is simply untrue conspiracy theory "I have secret knowledge so I'm better than you" nonsense. The scientists are saying that they can't differentiate the two girls. There is incontrovertible, absolutely rock-solid factual proof that both girls were the daughters of Nicholas and Alexandra; they just cant tell which is which. Again, there is no humanly possible way for this to be false. Please stop libelling hard-working, honest scientists. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 01:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that she actually was killed at the shooting of her family

They say that they found Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia(1901-1918)but can they actually prove it.If she survived the shooting she would be about 93 years old. So you never know. I could be related to her and not even know it,but this mystery has been driving me crazy for the past 5 years well it would be nice to find some rock hard solid evidence that she was still alive of course though that would mean following in her foot steps so who knows she may have escaped to america like some of the legends say or she could have gone any where else. But what I think the most likely probability is that someone impressanated her while she was in hiding you never know she could be walking among us and we not even know it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claramarie121 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTFORUM. This page is for discussions on article content - which must be based on recognised published sources. If you want to speculate, do it elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

i am related to aanastasia is my grand sister i would be a princess if is want for death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.160.184 (talk) 05:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

As AndyTheGrump stated above, please see WP:NOTFORUM. This page is only meant for discussions aimed at improving the article. It is not a general discussion board about the subject itself. Thank you. Shvybzik (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

re "Titles, styles, and arms" section

An IP editor added a "Titles, styles, and arms" section (here) with a bunch technical information regarding whether she is properly addressed as Your Worshipful Presence or Your Most Astounding Sublimity or whatever and so forth, but other editors reverted this. I don't have a strong opinion on this, but I think it probably ought to stay, based on the following considerations:

1. Why not? There isn't that much useful to say about this person, a cosseted teenager, beyond whatever trappings of royalty she had. This is true of many royals I suppose, at least those who reign rather than rule.
2. Most of the info is contained in {{Infobox manner of address}}, which has existed since 2005 and seems to be transcluded on a bunch of pages. If we want to delete {{Infobox manner of address}} that'd be a reasonable WP:MFD maybe, but absent that it's made to be used and should be used, I guess.
3. My extensive research which consisted of looking at one other article shows that this info is shown in other articles: Princess Alice of the United Kingdom#Titles, styles, honours and arms. So we should be consistent and either generally include it or not, and this would probably be fit subject for a more general WP:RFC.
4. People just love this stuff. Christ knows why, but they do. Our own Beloved Founder is into this House-of-Lords stuff, and God help us but plenty people are more interested in whether the Princess of Obscuro-Annoystat is styled as Her Most Delectable Dreamboat or Her Royal and Imperial Godhead rather than whether there is tsunami bearing down on them right this minute. I suppose this says something about people, but our job here is to serve rather than judge the customer. Herostratus (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

As I suggested in my edit summary when I reverted it, there seems to be no source, and it doesn't actually tell us what 'Titles, styles, and arms' are - one might expect a little clarification for our readers. And why is it necessary to know that the appropriate way to address this particular long-dead royal would be as "Your Imperial Highness" or "Ma'am"? Perhaps a general RfC might be appropriate - or at least a comment on Jimbo's talk page, as this sort of thing seems to interest him, as you note. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, but being unsourced is not necessarily grounds for immediate reversion. It is sometimes. But tagging and waiting awhile is more common. It's not like the material is contentious -- no one has suggested that it's wrong, it likely isn't wrong, and its not insulting or hurtful if it is wrong. I assume the person adding the material did so in good faith and probably either knows their stuff or has a good source (although either of these assumptions could be false). I don't see what's confusing about "Titles, styles, and arms" -- "Title" and "arms" are pretty common concepts, and "style" (in this sense) is not terribly esoteric (especially if the reader is familiar with royalty) and the meaning is discernable from the context anyway. As to "And why is it necessary...", well yes but why is it necessary to know anything about this person, who after all died as a teenager after accomplishing approximately nothing in life? And this would apply to all the various royal heirs manque, scions of ragged houses long bereft of lordship, who populate our pages. Vapid parasites they may be, but notable for all that, and again if we are going to have articles on these people, then there's little else to say about them besides the various details of their royalness, such as whose grandson they are and what their various titles (and, yes, forms of address) are. Herostratus (talk) 05:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Filipino’s grandmamma could be Russia’s Anastasia

I have read this article on our local newspaper yesterday morning. I was very stunned.

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/192351/filipinos-grandmamma-could-be-russias-anastasia

This is the link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.202.149.97 (talk) 18:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

You should read the story again - it doesn't state that there is any truth to it, only that a person is making these claims. As our article clearly shows, there is convincing scientific evidence that Anastasia was killed in 1917. A single claim to the contrary in a newspaper is of no significance to this article - if we reported every claim that has been made by supposed 'descendants', the article would be ten times as long, and of no earthly use as an entry in an encyclopaedia. If credible historians take this claim seriously, or if the story attracts significant secondary media coverage it might be worth adding a sentence or two to the 'False reports of survival and identification of Romanov remains' section, but in the latter case only to make clear that such claims of her surviving continue even after the possibility of this being true have been discounted by science. There are plenty of good historical references and sources cited in the article, and that is the quality of source we should be basing the article on - not speculative tabloid journalism. Please do not add such material again without prior talk-page discussion and consensus. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Anastasia or Maria as hemophilia carrier

It could not be conclusively proven which of the Grand Duchesses was Anastasia or Maria. The missing body was identified by the Americans as Anastasia and by the Russians as Maria, for reasons given in Massie's 1995 book The Romanovs: The Final Chapter. One of the major reasons the Americans thought it was Anastasia was height -- Maria was considerably taller -- and age -- Anastasia was two years younger and some of the bones were immature. Scientists have identified one of the girls as a carrier based on the recent DNA testing and apparently the recent scientific articles have decided to go with the Russians' identification, but that doesn't change the fact that the identification was in dispute. I have reverted the article again and added Massie as a reference. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, do you even bother to read what you write? "one of his sisters, a young woman identified by Russian scientists as Anastasia and by American scientists as Anastasia, were carriers" - nonsensical, given what you are now claiming. Secondly, you are engaging in WP:SYNTHESIS - we don't combine sources to say something that neither of them did. The DNA is identified in the 2009 source as Anastasia. As for Massie, I don't currently have access to the book - what exactly does it say regarding scientific tests identifying the remains? Does it cite the Russian scientific research stating that they were Maria? And come to that, why are you suggesting that the 2009 paper [1] was 'American'? Given the names of the authors, the institutions referenced for them, and the mobility of academics, this seems a strange characterisation - though why it would matter seems rather difficult to see. Please provide the necessary evidence, and discuss here as policy requires before adding material. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I have provided the page number. The information from the book and the various explanations given by the Russians and American scientists are detailed later in this article, as well. The American scientists identified the missing body as Anastasia; the Russians identified her as Maria. The Russians based their ID on an overlay of old photos with the bones, which may not have been accurate. The American scientists based their ID on height and the maturity of the bones. None were short enough or immature enough to be the 17 year old Anastasia. It wasn't possible to ID which girl was which.. It matters which of them was the carrier and it is not appropriate to ID her as Anastasia in the Wiki article, regardless of what the journal article says. They are accepting the Russian ID as accurate, but the fact remains that the identification made could not be conclusive because of the ages of the two girls. The change to the article must be made. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:35, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll add that I am using Russian and American scientists as shorthand for the people who did the initial IDs in the 90s. The hemophilia paper of a few years ago was written by a different group of scientists. It appears that they have accepted the official Russian ID of the remains, though Massie's book explained why it was originally in dispute. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

We don't write articles in shorthand. Do you have any more recent sources than Massie for the identification still being disputed? Meanwhile, I'll see if I can get hold of the 2009 paper to see exactly what it has to say on this. Can you let me know which scientific studies Massie is citing - maybe we need to look at them too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:29, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I read the synopsis when it came out and I don't believe there was much discussion about the girl or which of the remains was ID'd as the carrier.They say it was Anastasia, and the Russians said that was one of the three girls in the group found in the 1990s. Most scientific journal articles appear to have accepted the official Russian identifications because the family was Russian. Massie interviewed the American and Russian scientists who made the ID's in the 1990s and explained how the conclusions were reached. That is summarized elsewhere in the Anastasia article. Facts are facts and the article needs to be changed. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Not without sources it doesn't. You say you have 'read the synopsis' - do you mean the abstract to the 2009 paper here [2]? It doesn't say anything about Anastasia or Maria at all. The Science article [3] explicitly says that "the team found a mutation in F9, which would have inhibited clotting, in bones from Alexei, his sister Anastasia, and their mother Alexandra". Can you cite a source which states that Anastasia has been misidentified in the 2009 paper? If you can't, your claim appears to be WP:OR, and as such inadmissible. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Hang on a minute though - you are claiming that something Massie wrote in 1995 throws into doubt the identification of bodies discovered in 2007? [4] It appears that you have been wasting my time with nonsense. Next time, do the research first, and think about what you are writing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

That is decidedly uncivil. Once again, it was not possible to determine which girl was which. That was not changed by the discovery made in the 2000s. It simply meant the whole family had been accounted for. The I D made in the Science article is the official ID made by the Russians. It is NOT original research to say in one sentence that the Science article identified the carrier as Anastasia but, in another sentence, that there was some question about the ID based on Massie's book and account of the initial research by Russian and American research teams. The citations should make it clear where each claim is made. The change needs to be made. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Rubbish. You have provided no evidence whatsoever that the identification in the 2009 paper is wrong, and Massie's 1995 book is utterly irrelevant - it cannot say anything about bodies discovered in 2007. You have provided nothing but WP:OR so far, and unless you can cite a source which states that the identification of the bodies found 2007 is disputed, our article will not suggest otherwise. This is Wikipedia policy - it isn't up for negotiation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you know anything about this topic? Massie's account remains highly relevant. Nothing about the facts changed from 1995 to 2007. The remains couldn't be conclusively identified then or now because the ages of the two girls was so similar. I continue to insist that the information be corrected. We can take it to dispute resolution if need be and invite input from people who are familiar with the topic. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 20:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Fine - and you can explain exactly how a book published in 1995 can say anything about bodies discovered in 2007. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Read the book and then come back and talk to me. You clearly don't understand this topic.--Bookworm857158367 (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Original research: you clearly don't understand the policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Will Maples

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.201.224.42 (talk) 23:56, 13 June 2006‎ (UTC)

Looking better than ever

This article is looking better than EVER right now. I've never seen it with so many sources and having them all at the bottom like that looks great. There's also plenty of info here without having too many. It also dosen't try to persuade either way whether Anastasia died or not in 1918. Congrats! -C.G. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.136.71.13 (talk) 01:14, 11 December 2006‎ (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna of Russia/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comprehensive, well writted and well sourced (though the format of the citation needs to be standardised). I would suggest a copy edit in some areas, adding some additional images, and a peer review. A near Good article candidate. + Ceoil 20:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 20:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 19:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)