The orignal stage play

I apologize for going AWOL so long. I intended to give a long detailed reply, but haven't had a decent opportunity to compose my thoughts. (and not botch up details like confusing the executed Dr Botkin for his son, who championed Anna Anderson)

It's a long tale -- and I got it from one of the books I sited earlier in the thread -- but it boils down to a distrust Anna had of the British Royal family and particularly of the Mountbattens, who finally realized a long ambition to work their lineage into Windsor Castle through Prince Phillip (who married the current monarch). I can imagine why a Russian princess (or someone pretending to be one) would be bitter towards the British royals, who had led Czar Nicholas to believe he might find safe haven in England. Not only did they withdraw the offer, but also failed to mount a rescue. Nicholas, George, Wilhelm -- kinship counts for nought when you have a country to run. But Anderson's bile was also directed to more recent deceptions.

Long before DNA analysis became available, she suspected that the British royals would look for any means to discredit her. A bizarre object of paranoia when you consider that most of her opponents were cynical expatriates from Russia and old German nobility ... why the hell would she be concerned with the friggin MOUNTBATTENS?! And yet years later -- surprise -- the DNA evidence comes from that source. (Okay, I'll grant you that technically the blood sample didn't come from a Brit but rather -- I believe -- a relative elsewhere) Just to clear something, the DNA doesn't relate to the close relationship of male figures like Czar Nicholas, King George, and Kaiser Wilhelm. This is not nuclear DNA but mitochondrial, inherited only through maternal lines. Anastasia's relationship to Germans and British ran through her mother as well as her father.

To understand the following link and the revelation that Anderson sprung, let me highlight again those two questions: Why would Anna Anderson herself be wary of the British monarchy? And why years later would those very people go to the trouble of "clearing the air"?

Once she mentioned off-handedly that Czar Nicholas wasn't so naive to put all his eggs into one basket. He may have been surprised by the speed of his downfall and had not prepared to safely evacuate his family, but .... He had put aside a sizeable SIZEABLE fortune outside of Russia for his daughters' dowries. Four dowries, four. By the wealthiest man in the world, can you imagine.
"Where was this?!" queried her interviewer (and its a funny side-note that she occasionally astounded someone with a bombshell, but thought little of the revelation herself)
"Ohhh, some bank. London, I think. The bank manager was named 'Forest' or 'Trees' or something."
Turns out that back in those days a major bank was run by a guy named "Woods". Her dither-brained, distracted manner belied the accuracy of hidden details. As an impostor she should not have been privy to some of the secrets she pulled out of the air.

If her revelation was true, a lot of money was at stake. And with the demise of the Russian nobility, who do you suppose reaped the bounty?

Yes, my reservations about the DNA might lump me among a set of conspiracy nuts. It's not so much that I champion her, but I don't feel we can trust the evidence. It just seems like one more example in a long line of concerted resistance against her. All along people had strong vested interests to wish the entire family had been killed. Relatives they may have been, but to welcome Anastasia back into their midst would have picked their own pockets. I can get into specifics, but in a nutshell political power was also at stake not to mention protecting their wealth. Instead of attacking Anderson directly they sponsored people to testify against her claim. I believe that's the reason we find such sharp division in witnesses. An old tutor becomes a crusader to discredit Anna, while these old servants and childhood friends readily recognize her. Supposedly there was a paper trail that linked some of her detractors to people who would pay to keep her shut out. (I bring this up because you mentioned that were other reasons for doubt besides the DNA -- "There are other things, too, that I've read, that show extreme inconsistencies in Anna's story.")

I take it all with a grain of salt. Someone made profit from the books I read. Was it sensationalism? Concocted rubbish? (Like Von Dannikin's CHARIOT OF THE GODS about UFOs in ancient times ... later proved as a load of lies)
But I haven't found anyone to shoot down these claims. They always had an answer, usually a detailed link between a detractor and a wealthy sponsor. No one's defending her anymore now that the DNA has damned her posthumously, but I don't think it's unreasonable to fake those results if a huge fortune is at stake. And the Royal Reputation.

Meanwhile, the number of Romanovs recovered from the mass grave doesn't add up.

||||||
||||||