Remains of the Romanovs?
Aug. 24th, 2007 03:29 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
olde_fashionedI hardly ever post news articles on my blog, but this is something that I've always been interested in ever since I got into Russian history (because of The Russians book series) and so this story just completely fascinates me. If what this article suggests is true, then the whole conspiracy theory about Anastasia surviving the massacre has been debunked. Romantic, to be sure, but was it really probable?
Look at this picture. Why would anyone want to murder helpless innocents? I can't understand it. The Czar, maybe. But the women? The sickly boy? Humans are monsters.
Anastasia is the girl with her arm wrapped protectively around her brother, Alexei, keeping him close. Were they buried together in death, as well?
-----------------
Probe reopened into death of last Russian czar
Remains of heir to throne possibly found; Bolsheviks executed family in '18
MOSCOW - Prosecutors said Friday they have reopened an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the deaths of the last Russian czar and his family nearly 90 years ago after an archaeologist said the remains of Nicholas II’s son and heir to the throne may have finally been found.
The announcement of the reopened investigation, while a routine matter, signaled that the government may be taking seriously the claims that were announced Thursday by Yekaterinburg researcher Sergei Pogorelov.
In comments broadcast on NTV, Pogorelov said bones found in a burned area of ground near Yekaterinburg belong to a boy and a young woman roughly the ages of Nicholas’ 13-year-old hemophiliac son, Alexei, and a daughter whose remains also never have been found.
Yekaterinburg is the Urals Mountain city where Nicholas, his wife, Alexandra, and their five children were held prisoner and then shot in 1918.
Missing chapter
If confirmed, the find would fill in a missing chapter in the story of the doomed Romanovs, whose reign was ended by the violent 1917 Bolshevik Revolution that ushered in more than 70 years of Communist rule.
The find comes almost a decade after remains identified as those of Nicholas and Alexandra and three of their daughters were reburied in a ceremony in the imperial-era capital of St. Petersburg. The ceremony, however, was shadowed by statements of doubt — including from within the Russian Orthodox Church — about their authenticity.
On Friday, a church official voiced what appeared to skepticism about the latest find.
“I would like to hope that the examination will be more thorough and detailed than the examination of the so-called ‘Yekaterinburg remains,’ which the church did not acknowledge as the remains of members of czar’s family,” Bishop Mark of Yegoryevsk, deputy head of the Moscow Patriarchate’s External Church Relations department, was quoted by the Interfax news agency as saying.
The spot where the remains were found appears to correspond to a site in a written description by Yakov Yurovsky, the leader of the family’s killers, according to Pogorelov, an archaeologist at a regional center for the preservation of historical and cultural monuments in Yekaterinburg.
“An anthropologist has determined that the bones belong to two young individuals — a young male he found was aged roughly 10-13 and a young woman about 18-23,” he told NTV television by telephone.
Read the rest of the article here
Look at this picture. Why would anyone want to murder helpless innocents? I can't understand it. The Czar, maybe. But the women? The sickly boy? Humans are monsters.
Anastasia is the girl with her arm wrapped protectively around her brother, Alexei, keeping him close. Were they buried together in death, as well?
-----------------
Probe reopened into death of last Russian czar
Remains of heir to throne possibly found; Bolsheviks executed family in '18
MOSCOW - Prosecutors said Friday they have reopened an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the deaths of the last Russian czar and his family nearly 90 years ago after an archaeologist said the remains of Nicholas II’s son and heir to the throne may have finally been found.
The announcement of the reopened investigation, while a routine matter, signaled that the government may be taking seriously the claims that were announced Thursday by Yekaterinburg researcher Sergei Pogorelov.
In comments broadcast on NTV, Pogorelov said bones found in a burned area of ground near Yekaterinburg belong to a boy and a young woman roughly the ages of Nicholas’ 13-year-old hemophiliac son, Alexei, and a daughter whose remains also never have been found.
Yekaterinburg is the Urals Mountain city where Nicholas, his wife, Alexandra, and their five children were held prisoner and then shot in 1918.
Missing chapter
If confirmed, the find would fill in a missing chapter in the story of the doomed Romanovs, whose reign was ended by the violent 1917 Bolshevik Revolution that ushered in more than 70 years of Communist rule.
The find comes almost a decade after remains identified as those of Nicholas and Alexandra and three of their daughters were reburied in a ceremony in the imperial-era capital of St. Petersburg. The ceremony, however, was shadowed by statements of doubt — including from within the Russian Orthodox Church — about their authenticity.
On Friday, a church official voiced what appeared to skepticism about the latest find.
“I would like to hope that the examination will be more thorough and detailed than the examination of the so-called ‘Yekaterinburg remains,’ which the church did not acknowledge as the remains of members of czar’s family,” Bishop Mark of Yegoryevsk, deputy head of the Moscow Patriarchate’s External Church Relations department, was quoted by the Interfax news agency as saying.
The spot where the remains were found appears to correspond to a site in a written description by Yakov Yurovsky, the leader of the family’s killers, according to Pogorelov, an archaeologist at a regional center for the preservation of historical and cultural monuments in Yekaterinburg.
“An anthropologist has determined that the bones belong to two young individuals — a young male he found was aged roughly 10-13 and a young woman about 18-23,” he told NTV television by telephone.
Read the rest of the article here
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-08-28 10:21 am (UTC)Killing the whole family was their way to get revenge and to prevent the royality from returning to power.It also showed how ruthless the Bolsheviks were.
I remember reading someone saying that revolutions end up having new rulers who are more brutal than the one's they replaced.It wasn't until after the Tsar was gone and the bolsheviks were in power that people realized that his rule and the earlier ones weren't as bad as they thought.
There was a movie called Anastasia(1956) with Ingrid Bergman that was based on the story of Anna Anderson, who claimed to be the Grand Duchess Anastasia.
Thanks for the link to N@S's last chapter.It seemed like the story should have went on for a proper ending.The movie ending was better and romantic-riding off on the train after expressing their love to each other.
no subject
Date: 2007-08-28 08:17 pm (UTC)I suppose you're right. Ruthless and bloodthirsty. Instead of fighting the Germans, what do they do? Declare peace with Germany and then come home and murder women and children. Greeeaaaaaaat...
That's an interesting observation about revolutions, and it certainly is true, except in America's case. ;-) But I've also heard that the American Revolution wasn't technically a proper "revolution" in the sense that it was more of a revolt, or fight for freedom, as upposed to social upheaval.
I've seen the Ingrid Bergman film, as well as the cartoon version. I believe after Anna Anderson's death they DNA tested her liver or something, and she wasn't a match.
My pleasure! Anything to encourage another N&S fan, lol!! While I enjoy the book's ending, it felt a little like some loose ends weren't tied up, such as Mrs. Thornton for example. I liked the psuedo-reconciliation between her and Margaret in the movie, because I really really like Mrs. Thornton, and her relationship with her son especially.
The train ending was also in keeping with a theme consistant throughout the whole film -- it begins with Margaret travelling north against her will, sad, miserable, and lonely. There multiple "train shots" scattered throughout, but the ending was a lovely contrast to the beginning, IMVHO!