DNA testing ends mystery surrounding ...

DNA testing ends mystery surrounding Czar Nicholas II children

There are 69 comments on the www.latimes.com story from Mar 10, 2009, titled DNA testing ends mystery surrounding Czar Nicholas II children. In it, www.latimes.com reports that:

The most enduring and romantic legend of the Russian Revolution -- that two children of Czar Nicholas II and his wife, Alexandra, survived the slaughter that killed the rest of their family -- may finally be put to rest.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.latimes.com.

First Prev
of 4
Next Last

“What is life?”

Since: Feb 09

Backwoods

#1 Mar 10, 2009
RIP
White Russian Cossack

Bradford, PA

#2 Mar 10, 2009
My semen was found with the remains. Oops
Nicus

Braila, Romania

#3 Mar 11, 2009
Hey check this out...

I just found this site that shows you a
way of getting 1000's of new followers
on twitter, I just started using it
myself and its starting to work
already.

http://tweetergetter.com/Nicus77

Thought it might interest you.
Lukashenko is Dr Phil

Nokia, Finland

#4 Mar 11, 2009
Papa Sasquatch wrote:
RIP
No RIP for people who started the Russification of Finland. Not saying Lenin was better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Civil_Wa...

So what were the russians doing in Finland on 1918? ;) thanks germans for helping us to defeat these monkeys from the Golden Horde. ;)
Leadfoot

Duluth, MN

#5 Mar 11, 2009
Its too, I always romanticized the notion that it was possible to be royalty from Russian orphans/Czar children. Oh well, I guess I'll just have to deal with it like when every kid finds out there's no Santa Claus.
Constantpaulross

Netherlands

#6 May 14, 2009
It is known in "our" familie Ross that King William III of Holland had an affair with Johanna Martina van Leeuwen * Sambeek 1818. From this relationship a child was born at Haarlem, Holland
named; Johanna Regina van Soest which was recognized by birth and accepted as his child.
Agardus Marinus was Opperwachtmeester and Johanna Martina van Leeuwen was working in a prison in Den Bosch. Johanna Martina van Leeuwen had Swiss
ancestors with the surname Schirmer.
Could there be a drop of Romanov blood found by the decendents via DNA ?
With regards,
Constant Paul Ross

“UG X”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#7 May 14, 2009
Papa Sasquatch wrote:
RIP
"Burn in hell", to all bloodthirsty russian tzars...

“Hope for Best- Expect Worst”

Since: Jan 07

Somewhere in Colorado

#8 May 14, 2009
White Russian Cossack wrote:
My semen was found with the remains. Oops
This is not White Russian Cossack but a cowardly imposter...who remains hidden behind a stolen moniker...

“Hope for Best- Expect Worst”

Since: Jan 07

Somewhere in Colorado

#9 May 14, 2009
Rest in peace all Russian Czars....and at last the mystery of Czar Nikolaus Romanov is at rest as well...

“UG X”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#10 May 15, 2009
Nicholas Romanov was an ignorant, incompetent and insensitive leader. His character was the decisive factor in bringing on the revolution.
Russia before 1917 was the largest country under one empire.
Russia at this time was under tsarist rule by Nicholas II of the Romanov empire. Nicholas II was brought up by his father Alexander III who didn't believe that his son could take an intelligent interest in anything and therefore did not educate him in the business of state .
WHo can fordet the "Bloody Sunday"?
The protest was a large crowd bearing icons and pictures of the tsar marched towards the winter palace in St Petersberg . This crowd went with the hopes of presenting the tsar with a petion wich attacked the explotation of the people by capitalist factory owners and demanded a series of measures designed to improve the workers position and reverse some of the wrongs under which they had suffered . The tone of the petion seemed to be one of loyalty to the tsar, applealing to him to sort out their difficulties. This protest showed the unshaken confidence in the Tsar as a source of charge and initiative.

Although this confidence did not last long as the response to this protest was for the troops to open fire on the crowds .
Innocent people and children were shut to death, dead bodies were left uncollected for the rest of the day. Orders of TZAR NICOLAS!
Bloody Sunday stimulated the widespread unrest that had now erupted in towns and the countryside. In townships workers carried out demonstrations and strikes and some of these were of a violent nature. Workers organisations began to sprout up spontaneously, trade unions also began forming .

Tzarina Alexandra were phychopatic creature who believed in Rasputin....Rasputin's name soon became a by-word for intrigue and sinister influences in high places.
She could care a less about the poor people of the country . Her obsession with Rasputin made her insane and hysterical.She was sacking ministers and advisors on Rasputin's behalf. With Nicholas away from St Petersburg rumours of scandals within the royal family were running through the public arena.
Payback for "Bloody Sunday" was just!

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#11 May 15, 2009
ana 8 wrote:
Nicholas Romanov was an ignorant, incompetent and insensitive leader. His character was the decisive factor in bringing on the revolution.
Russia before 1917 was the largest country under one empire.
Russia at this time was under tsarist rule by Nicholas II of the Romanov empire. Nicholas II was brought up by his father Alexander III who didn't believe that his son could take an intelligent interest in anything and therefore did not educate him in the business of state .
WHo can fordet the "Bloody Sunday"?
The protest was a large crowd bearing icons and pictures of the tsar marched towards the winter palace in St Petersberg . This crowd went with the hopes of presenting the tsar with a petion wich attacked the explotation of the people by capitalist factory owners and demanded a series of measures designed to improve the workers position and reverse some of the wrongs under which they had suffered . The tone of the petion seemed to be one of loyalty to the tsar, applealing to him to sort out their difficulties. This protest showed the unshaken confidence in the Tsar as a source of charge and initiative.
Although this confidence did not last long as the response to this protest was for the troops to open fire on the crowds .
Innocent people and children were shut to death, dead bodies were left uncollected for the rest of the day. Orders of TZAR NICOLAS!
Bloody Sunday stimulated the widespread unrest that had now erupted in towns and the countryside. In townships workers carried out demonstrations and strikes and some of these were of a violent nature. Workers organisations began to sprout up spontaneously, trade unions also began forming .
Tzarina Alexandra were phychopatic creature who believed in Rasputin....Rasputin's name soon became a by-word for intrigue and sinister influences in high places.
She could care a less about the poor people of the country . Her obsession with Rasputin made her insane and hysterical.She was sacking ministers and advisors on Rasputin's behalf. With Nicholas away from St Petersburg rumours of scandals within the royal family were running through the public arena.
Payback for "Bloody Sunday" was just!
I'm afraid you are wrong in some aspects, Tsar Nicolai II didn't order to shoot the demonstration, because he wasn't in St. Petersburg at that moment. Of course, I doesn't mean that he wasn't responsible for it. He dismissed the officials who ordered it, but he didn't start a trial against them.
As for the petition, even though it was loyal to Tsar, some of its points were unacceptable.
However I agree with the main point that Nicolai's policy lead to the reevolution. In 1917 he was betrayed by almost all people, even generals.

“UG X”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#12 May 15, 2009
Tzar Nicolai was not in St.Petersburg, but he was informed about the demonstration. He stood still looking in the window while the officer was wating for his Majesty orders. Tzar Nicolay was silent.....That meant one and one thing only :" Do as you wish..." And that was the order....Tzar Nicolai the coward is responsible for Bloody Sunday. Now Russian Orthodox church pains him as a saint. HAHAHAHA! How typical of Russian Church canonizing its murderers and tyrans. Wait a few years and Russian Orthodox Church will have a new baked saint St. JOseph Stalin......HAHAHAHAHA!
Jazz singer

UK

#13 May 15, 2009
ana 8 wrote:
Nicholas Romanov was an ignorant, incompetent and insensitive leader. His character was the decisive factor in bringing on the revolution.
Russia before 1917 was the largest country under one empire.
Russia at this time was under tsarist rule by Nicholas II of the Romanov empire. Nicholas II was brought up by his father Alexander III who didn't believe that his son could take an intelligent interest in anything and therefore did not educate him in the business of state .
WHo can fordet the "Bloody Sunday"?
The protest was a large crowd bearing icons and pictures of the tsar marched towards the winter palace in St Petersberg . This crowd went with the hopes of presenting the tsar with a petion wich attacked the explotation of the people by capitalist factory owners and demanded a series of measures designed to improve the workers position and reverse some of the wrongs under which they had suffered . The tone of the petion seemed to be one of loyalty to the tsar, applealing to him to sort out their difficulties. This protest showed the unshaken confidence in the Tsar as a source of charge and initiative.
Although this confidence did not last long as the response to this protest was for the troops to open fire on the crowds .
Innocent people and children were shut to death, dead bodies were left uncollected for the rest of the day. Orders of TZAR NICOLAS!
Bloody Sunday stimulated the widespread unrest that had now erupted in towns and the countryside. In townships workers carried out demonstrations and strikes and some of these were of a violent nature. Workers organisations began to sprout up spontaneously, trade unions also began forming .
Tzarina Alexandra were phychopatic creature who believed in Rasputin....Rasputin's name soon became a by-word for intrigue and sinister influences in high places.
She could care a less about the poor people of the country . Her obsession with Rasputin made her insane and hysterical.She was sacking ministers and advisors on Rasputin's behalf. With Nicholas away from St Petersburg rumours of scandals within the royal family were running through the public arena.
Payback for "Bloody Sunday" was just!
By Jove, you would have been such a good bolshevik henchman!!

Trotsky would have been very proud of you, Comrade Ana8 !!!

“UG X”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#14 May 15, 2009
Jazz singer wrote:
<quoted text>
By Jove, you would have been such a good bolshevik henchman!!
Trotsky would have been very proud of you, Comrade Ana8 !!!
Jazz singer wrote: <quoted text> I admire him in the open !!! Ha, ha,ha... Obviously he didn't killed enough Ukrainians....
Oh, no you got all the medals, so carry on the legacy. HAHAHAHA!

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#15 May 16, 2009
ana 8 wrote:
Tzar Nicolai was not in St.Petersburg, but he was informed about the demonstration. He stood still looking in the window while the officer was wating for his Majesty orders. Tzar Nicolay was silent.....That meant one and one thing only :" Do as you wish..." And that was the order....Tzar Nicolai the coward is responsible for Bloody Sunday. Now Russian Orthodox church pains him as a saint. HAHAHAHA! How typical of Russian Church canonizing its murderers and tyrans. Wait a few years and Russian Orthodox Church will have a new baked saint St. JOseph Stalin......HAHAHAHAHA!
In my opinion, Tsar Nicolai II was unable to rule, he wasn't a villian. He was a victim of the regime, the monarchy, he had to rule the country even though he disliked it and couldn't do it. So what makes you throw mud on him so fiercely?
Jazz singer

United States

#16 May 16, 2009
_Alexander_ wrote:
<quoted text>
In my opinion, Tsar Nicolai II was unable to rule, he wasn't a villian. He was a victim of the regime, the monarchy, he had to rule the country even though he disliked it and couldn't do it. So what makes you throw mud on him so fiercely?
The fact is that Tsar Nicolai was the last among monarchs to cling the idea of autocracy; long after revolutions in Europe had brought some forms of democracy in Britain, France, Germany, Austria, Scandinavia, etc...
His obstination in refusing people's representation at a time when Russia was experiencing economical and social problems made him the scapegoat for those, and in the end provoked his downfall.
It's only after a revolution attempt in 1905 that Tsar Nicolai accepted the idea of a Duma, with limited power, but he quickly reversed to autocratic rule, instead of making politicians take decisions and responsability for Russia's woes.
It became obvious to the most moderates, that Tsarism was the main obstacle to progress in Russia, and it had to be removed.
The war he entered against advices, and that provoked even more hardship for the people was the catalist for the revolution.

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#17 May 16, 2009
Jazz singer wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact is that Tsar Nicolai was the last among monarchs to cling the idea of autocracy; long after revolutions in Europe had brought some forms of democracy in Britain, France, Germany, Austria, Scandinavia, etc...
His obstination in refusing people's representation at a time when Russia was experiencing economical and social problems made him the scapegoat for those, and in the end provoked his downfall.
It's only after a revolution attempt in 1905 that Tsar Nicolai accepted the idea of a Duma, with limited power, but he quickly reversed to autocratic rule, instead of making politicians take decisions and responsability for Russia's woes.
It became obvious to the most moderates, that Tsarism was the main obstacle to progress in Russia, and it had to be removed.
The war he entered against advices, and that provoked even more hardship for the people was the catalist for the revolution.
There is a lot in what you say. As you have already metioned, Nicolai II opposed people representation, but what made him do so? I think that the cause was in his father Alexander III, who organised his bringing up, education. Alexander III was a keen suppoerted of an absolute power of monarch and he made his son believe that unlimited monarchy was the best for Russia. But on the other hand Nicolai was unable to rule the country.
And you are right that tsarsism was 'an obstacle to a progress in Russia', the ruling classes opposed the agricultural reform and other reform, Russian Empire was involved in the war. As Lenin said that "the imperialistic war was the best gift to world revolution".

“Hope for Best- Expect Worst”

Since: Jan 07

Somewhere in Colorado

#18 May 16, 2009
Jazz singer wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact is that Tsar Nicolai was the last among monarchs to cling the idea of autocracy; long after revolutions in Europe had brought some forms of democracy in Britain, France, Germany, Austria, Scandinavia, etc...
His obstination in refusing people's representation at a time when Russia was experiencing economical and social problems made him the scapegoat for those, and in the end provoked his downfall.
It's only after a revolution attempt in 1905 that Tsar Nicolai accepted the idea of a Duma, with limited power, but he quickly reversed to autocratic rule, instead of making politicians take decisions and responsability for Russia's woes.
It became obvious to the most moderates, that Tsarism was the main obstacle to progress in Russia, and it had to be removed.
The war he entered against advices, and that provoked even more hardship for the people was the catalist for the revolution.
He was also controlled by the Tsarina Alexandra and she was controlled by Rasputin...
Jazz singer

UK

#19 May 16, 2009
_Alexander_ wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a lot in what you say. As you have already metioned, Nicolai II opposed people representation, but what made him do so? I think that the cause was in his father Alexander III, who organised his bringing up, education. Alexander III was a keen suppoerted of an absolute power of monarch and he made his son believe that unlimited monarchy was the best for Russia. But on the other hand Nicolai was unable to rule the country.
And you are right that tsarsism was 'an obstacle to a progress in Russia', the ruling classes opposed the agricultural reform and other reform, Russian Empire was involved in the war. As Lenin said that "the imperialistic war was the best gift to world revolution".
I read many books about Tsar Nicolai, and what comes out is how bad a 'manager' he was!!

He was absolutely unable to delegate any power, and wanted to control everything. He insisted to deal personally with almost all affairs of state, and spent all his time going through papers, reports, accounts, petitions, letters, legislations, etc... which should have been given to ministers and imperial staff to resolve, with him just overseeing.

Nicolai was against the idea of a council of ministers meeting and working together, and insisted in receiving his ministers one by one, and alone.

That way, he received no opposition to his ideas, never asked for advice, never received criticism, etc... The absolute paranoid leader!

Nicolai also cut itself from court life and spent his free time only with his family. He had very little interaction with the Russian court, the nobility, etc... where he could have gathered support, whilst he was very remote from ordinary people.

He was a weak leader, obviously, but also the one who sealed the fate of Tsarism in Russia when he plunged it in an absolutely unecessary conflict, against the advice of his ministers, the Russian army command, and even his cousin the German Kaiser!! Russia could and should have stay away from the Balkan problem, but Nicolai insisted in Russia interfering in that region. He never even measured the consequences for his people.

Since: Jun 08

New Wilmington, PA

#20 May 16, 2009
So, Nicholas II was the quintessential Russian leader. No different from Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev or Putin in the modus operandi. Destuctive to the core and instumental in bringing about the state's demise.
What else is new?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Volgogradskaya Oblast', Russia Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News The View that Putin's Advisor Has on Obama's Uk... (Nov '14) 8 hr -TheExam- 2,181
News Russia's Military Preparations Raise Concerns i... May 31 Zeppelin 2
News Russian Wheat Farmers Pray for Rain Amid Low Cr... May '15 Stephany McDowell 1
News Communists want Stalin's name back on Russian map Feb '15 fall on your sword 6
News a Russian citizen faces execution in Pakistan (Dec '14) Dec '14 MOMIN ANSARI 3
News Russia Admits It Owns Intercepted Aircraft In N... (Dec '14) Dec '14 Putlerovski 1
News Russia to build railway line bypassing Ukraine (Nov '14) Nov '14 Zeppelin 5
More from around the web