Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


DNA identifies bones of last tsar's missing children

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 01 May 2008
SCIENTISTS have confirmed that the remains of two bodies dug up in Russia last year belong to two children of Tsar Nicholas II, who was assassinated along with his family in 1918, bringing to a close one of the most intriguing chapters in 20th-century Russian history.
Until last year, the bodies of Crown Prince Alexei, the tsarevich, and Grand Duchess Maria were the only two remaining members of the Russian royal family still to be discovered.

"We received full confirmation that (the remains] do belong to the t
sar's children," Eduard Rossel, the governor of the Sverdlovsk region, said at a press briefing on Wednesday.

"We have now found the whole family," he said, adding that the forensic tests on their DNA were carried out in the United States.

The bodies of Alexei, who was 13 at the time of his death, and his sister Maria, 19, were recovered at a site near Yekaterinburg, the regional capital of Sverdlovsk, last summer.

Regional officials said at the time that the remains consisted of 44 fragments, lending credibility to the theory that they were the two missing Romanov children, murdered by the Bolsheviks along with the rest of their family in 1918.

Archaeologists also found seven teeth, three bullets and a fragment of clothing.

The Bolsheviks seized power in 1917 during the Russian Revolution and imprisoned the Imperial Family.

The following July, Bolshevik guards shot Tsar Nicholas, Empress Alexandra Fedorovna and their five children in Yekaterinburg on Lenin's orders.

For decades, the remains of the Romanovs were undiscovered. It was not until 1991 that a mass grave was uncovered near Yekaterinburg, containing nine bodies, five of which were believed to be the remains of the Romanov family. The other four were said to be servants and the family doctor.

DNA testing later confirmed that the remains were those of the Romanovs, although some scientists have questioned the conclusions.

The bodies of the tsar, the tsarina and three of their children – Anastasia, Olga and Tatiana – were given a state burial in the imperial crypt of the Saints Peter and Paul Cathedral in 1998.

But the absence of two of the family members led to speculation that they may have survived the executions.

One of the most intriguing mysteries surrounding the Romanov family was the fate of Anastasia, the tsar's youngest daughter. Rumours that she might have escaped in 1918 were further fuelled by eyewitness reports that secret police had made house and train searches for an Anastasia Romanov after the murders.

Decades later, the rumour gained currency after reports that two sets of remains were missing from the first mass grave.

Several people have come forward claiming to be Anastasia, including the late Anna Anderson, who asserted until her death in 1984 that she was the daughter of the last tsar. Subsequent DNA testing on Ms Anderson's tissue proved her claims to be false.

But experts warned that it was premature to accept the scientists' results as definitive. The US and Russian researchers have yet to make their final report, while parallel studies are being carried out in Innsbruck, Austria, and in a military institute in the US.

"There has been a lot of difficulty with these bones," said Peter Sarandaniki, the president and founder of Search, a US-based foundation dedicated to investigating the fates of the Romanov children. "Some of them were burnt… and work is still being done."

"We can't confirm (these results] until all the independent labs have completed testing," Mr Sarandaniki said.

The final results are expected to be made public late this month or early June.

"If positive, we will have determined that we have the remains of the royal family… and hopefully close a very sad chapter in Russian history," said Mr Sarandaniki.

The Russian Orthodox Church, which played down its role in the 1998 state burials, has refrained from recognising the findings as long as scientists are divided on the issue.

The discoveries last summer refuelled the debate among scientists and the Church over whether the bones found earlier are the genuine remains of the Romanov family. The Church has been cautious in accepting the latest findings, the preliminary conclusions of which were first made public in January. "I hope the Church will participate in the process (of confirming the identities] and give them the honourable burial they deserve," Mr Sarandaniki added.

A representative for Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna, the self-declared heir to Russia's throne, said she would not make a judgment on the authenticity of the new remains until the Church made its position clear.

Orthodox clerics in Yekaterinburg said they were not ready to make a decision on the remains. "The position of the head of… Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna is that the last word must be with the head of the Russian Orthodox Church," said Alexander Zakatov, the head of the chancellery of Russia's self-styled Imperial House.

He added: "It is essential to be very careful so that the results are understandable to the whole of society."

CROWN PRINCE DOOMED BY GENETIC CONDITION

THE Tsarevich – the heir apparent – of Russia, Alexei Nikolaevich Romanov, was one of the more tragic figures of Russian history.

The youngest child and only son of Tsar Nicholas II, Alexei suffered from haemophilia, the genetic condition that impairs the body's ability to control blood clotting.

The disorder was widespread among European royalty descended from Queen Victoria – Alexei's great-grandmother.

In desperation to treat his illness, his mother turned to the religious mystic Grigori Rasputin, a move which some historians contend helped bring about the end of the Russian royal house.

In 1905, Alexei sustained a bruise after falling off a horse and suffered internal bleeding for days. Rasputin was summoned to help.

His prayers and advice seemed to work and Rasputin became a powerful influence over the Romanovs, to the extent that he regulated access to the Tsar himself.

Rasputin's influence over the royal family was used against him and the Romanovs by politicians and journalists who wanted to weaken the dynasty.





The full article contains 1014 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 30 April 2008 10:37 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

JSP,

O'Connor 01/05/2008 01:04:53
Interesting that Prince Phillip's DNA was used to identify the remains as the nearest living male relative. George V stopped any rescue attempts for his cousin Nicholas and his family, but after they died he organised the rescue of the Duke of Edinburgh's family from Greece in the 1920's. A dreadful fate for the Russian royal family, but they were only a few of the millions who died in the years 1914-20.
2

Dáithí,

San Jose 01/05/2008 04:44:20
JSP

>"A dreadful fate for the Russian royal family, but they were only a few of the millions who died in the years 1914-20."

And nobody on this forum has bothered to explain why it happened.

Smart lads, those Germans though - introduce Marxism into a country and stand-by while they collapse. A bit later than the Germans expected, but overall an effective strategy.
3

JSP,

O'Connor 01/05/2008 06:11:45
Daithi, I agree with your comment on the Germans - historians have likened the train carrying Lenin from Germany to Russia as a plague bacillus! Most historians think Lenin ordered the massacre of the Tsar's family so there would be no figurehead for opposition to the Bolsheviks. It came at a time when the Bolsheviks were struggling - the Whites were supported by British invasion forces in the north and Crimea and no one had any real control over Russia. There are a number of legends about attempts to save the family and, as mentioned, survivors of the massacre. Wishful thinking on the part of the Romanov supporters. A bit irrelevant now both regimes have been consigned to the dustbin of history!
4

Pilrig.,

Livingston 01/05/2008 06:26:29
Nicholas II - another power-crazed maniac who was prepared to sanction the killing of innocent civilians to get his way. Russia has a habit of producing these fiends every generation or so.
5

Hashimoto,

edinburgh 01/05/2008 06:41:00
Maybe,No.4 - but Stalin and that snivelling psychopath Lenin made Nicholas look like a beginner. 60 million - probaly more - murdered by the Soviet experiment.
6

James Donald,

Newbridge 01/05/2008 09:56:15
#4 Pilrig.,Livingston - Tsar Nicholas II had many failings but being a "power-crazed maniac" was not one of them.
As to being "prepared to sanction the killing of innocent civilians to get his way", perhaps you are confusing him with Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Dzerzhinsky, Zinoviev or other Bolshevik killers, of which there was no shortage.
7

wayne bijlyeerheid,

01/05/2008 10:28:47
#6
He sowed, he reaped.
Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Dzerzhinsky, Zinoviev learned their methods from his regime.
8

AJ Fife,

01/05/2008 10:29:16
A timely reminder for the parasites at Buck hoose!

Cut oot the Chinook joyrides and all the other liberties taken and you may yet be spared!
9

James Donald,

Newbridge 01/05/2008 13:07:24
#7 wayne bijlyeerheid - That would very much be the minority view. The Cheka killed more people in its first year of existence than the Okhrana ever did. Bolshevik butchers had nothing to learn when it came to killing.
10

eilidhcatriona,

An Aberdonian in London 01/05/2008 13:12:54
Nicholas II was a poor leader, but he was ill-prepared for the role of leading such a vast empire. He loved his people but made poor judgements and had bad advice. He cannot be lumped together with the Bolsheviks.
11

Pilrig.,

Livingston 01/05/2008 17:26:02
5 - a long line of psychos whatever their label. Puir Russia !
12

Pilrig.,

Livingston 01/05/2008 17:34:22
6 - so the events of Bloody Sunday in Jan 1905 didn't happen ? In the words of Ramsay MacDonald, no Bolshevik he, Nicholas was a "blood-stained creature, and common murderer".
Sic semper tyrannis. That applies to Nicholas II, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Pol Pot, Putin, and the rest of the wasters of life and limb, ad nauseum.
13

Steve Evans,

Malta 01/05/2008 20:07:16
George Vth and Queen Mary had alot to answer for, the entire families deaths a disgraceful saga in British History. One option was that they were to be evacuated to Malta and join the Tsar's mother here, but the fact that Alexandria was German prevented this with opinion running high in the Great War. Although a very weak Tsar, the photographs that remain show a devoted family life, that turned to tragedy. The British Royal family the time certainly had blood on their hands and I think the events haunted them for the rest of their lives. Very sad.
14

James Donald,

Newbridge 01/05/2008 22:34:21
#12 Pilrig.,Livingston - Tsar Nicholas was not directly responsible for Bloody Sunday as he was not even in the Winter Palace at the time. Certainly he did not sanction this and, the witterings of senile Ramsay MacDonald aside, was pretty far from being a "power-crazed maniac". He was a rather weak and simple-minded man thrust into a role for which he was totally unsuitable.
15

Porry,

Nowgorod 01/05/2008 22:45:59
It seems to be unknown to #2 in San José that Marxism was not introduced into Russia by Germans, but Marx who had to leave Germany, France and Belgium and finally found asylum in England, had his Communist followers everywhere in Europe. And, JSP, Lenin did not live in Germany but in Switzerland, and was granted passage through the Reich by the German government in order to undermine the stability of an enemy country, Russia.
16

Paula,

01/05/2008 22:51:02
The Royal Museum in Edinburgh had a fantastic exhibition a couple of years ago. Looking at the toys and belongings of the children was eerie, especially when their fate was constantly on the mind.

And who can talk over which side was worse or not. History is littered with what ifs and who did what to whom and how many.
17

M-60 Tank Driver ,

Fresno 02/05/2008 02:25:14
Lenin DID make peace as soon as possible with Germany, and at a heavy cost in lost land and indemnity payments (the initial armistice signed at Brest-Litovsk on 12/15/17; and the final peace, The Brest-Litovsk Treaty signed on 3/3/18). But Lenin felt he had to in order to have any chance of consolidating his power. He certainly didn't want to repeat the mistake of the democratic socialists of Alexander Kerensky, who'd taken over in April, 1917 from the Tsar. Kerensky kept Russia in the unpopular war, and probably sealed the fate of his government in doing so. Lenin was shrewd enough to use that mistake to seize power for himself in October, 1917, and shrewd enough to know that his own Bolshevik regime could go the same way if he didn't sue for peace immediately and set about consolidating power.

The Germans were able to transfer several whole field armies to the Western front for Germany's great March, 1918 offensive. So, of course, Lenin did no favors to the U.S. (or France or Britian) by making a separate peace with Germany. He was just a murderous piece of garbage trying to save his own skin. Fortunately, the American Expeditionary Force was reaching high enough troop levels to at least somewhat offset this windfall for the German armies in the West, and their offensive ground to a halt.

Of course we have the advantage of hindsight, but considering how history unfolded with the genocidal regime of the USSR (and every genocidal offshoot of it, especially Red China), the U.S. should have intervened with the entire A.E.F. after the November, 1918 armistice into Russia and put every Bolshevik to the sword. Perhaps if Charles Evans Hughes had been elected in 1916 instead of that arch Boshevik-appeaser Woodrow Wilson, we might have. (Of course, if Hughes had been elected in 1916, it's almost assured we never would have gotten involved in that terrible, wasteful war at all! And the tradition against foreign entanglements started by George Washington
18

Steve Evans,

Malta 03/05/2008 11:01:36
16. Having been unable to make that exhibition, I did however manage to buy the exhibition catalogue, a very impressive publication it is too.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.