Remains found in Russia may be those of Czar's children

[snopes]

Scientists in a Russian provincial capital say they may have unearthed the remains of two of Czar Nicholas II's children, hoping to solve one of the enduring mysteries surrounding the start of the Bolshevik Revolution.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/08/24/asia/czar.php

[Zorro]

Could they tell, from analyzing the bones, if the boy had hemophillia? If so, that could go a long way to authenticating these bones.

[KingDavid8]

Okay, I'm confused. I thought that Anastasia's body still hadn't been found, but they're saying in the article that the girl they just found (if these are indeed the Czar's kids) was probably Maria. Between the three found in 1991 and these two, this makes all five kids. So do they think that Anastasia was among those found in 1991? Or am I missing something?

David

[ganzfeld]

Originally Posted by KingDavid8

Okay, I'm confused. I thought that Anastasia's body still hadn't been found, but they're saying in the article that the girl they just found (if these are indeed the Czar's kids) was probably Maria. Between the three found in 1991 and these two, this makes all five kids. So do they think that Anastasia was among those found in 1991? Or am I missing something?

Two were supposedly missing from the 1991 find but there's no consensus on which they are. These two skeletons are supposed (by some) to be the missing ones so, if they are (and if the analysis of the 1991 site is correct), Anastasia is in one of the two. (Which means I have to stop claiming to be her. Oh, darn.)

[Zorro]

Originally Posted by ganzfeld

(Which means I have to stop claiming to be her. Oh, darn.)

I am Anastasia!

The show on National Geographic I saw about this said that Anastasia's bones HAD been identified. It was Maria and the boy that were missing. After Anna Anderson died, they did DNA on her samples from an operation and on the skeleton that appeared to be Anastasia.

The ones from Anna Anderson matched a missing Polish factory worker.

The ones from the skeleton were a match for Anastasia and the age and size matched as well.

Maria is the female -- by dint of age and size -- missing.

At least according to that show.

Lady Moon

[ganzfeld]

Originally Posted by Lady Moon

The show on National Geographic I saw about this said that Anastasia's bones HAD been identified.

You mean in the 1991 site, right? In any case, if these latest finds are confirmed by DNA, then she's almost certainly in one or the other group. If confirmed, the remaining mysteries seem to be how the whole story of Anastasia's survival started and why these two were removed to a different location. At least, I can't understand it. Maybe historians do. The explanation that it would throw the Whites off by making them think they had the wrong place seems to be very far fetched to me. But then again, the whole narrative of the murder and burials is full of incredibly bumbling plans, and mostly a lack of any real plans at all, so it may just be one of many of foolish and meaningless decisions. (ETA - I should mention that the principle narrator of the story of murder and burial, Yurovsky, said that the two removed were Alexei, who was Anastasia's younger brother, and Demidova, who was a servant -- not Anastasia. But, again, his story isn't exactly easy to follow.)

Yup, that's the site I mean exactly.

And I can't understand it, either. I agree completely that the whole thing seems to be one bungle after another.

Lady Moon

[Zorro]

Well, that's exactly what I think it was- a bungle. I mean, the Whites were closing in on Ekaterinburg, and the Bolsheviks knew they had no place to really evacuate the family to, and that it really wouldn't be a good idea for the Whites to have a live Tsar and family for the Whites to rally around, and they decided to execute the family. They were freaked out by the fact that bullets seemed to not penetrate the Grand Duchesses' clothing (because of the amount of jewels sewn in their corsets), and the executioners panicked as the dawn was approaching and they had to get rid of the bodies.

Zor "history geek" ro

It is an established fact that the boy had hemophilia. Why would they need to determine what is already known??

A DNA test of the bones is the key as to whether or not the bones are that of the son.

There certainly were enough Romanovs - including his grandmother - who fled to Britain and survived for DNA comparison.

[Eddylizard]

Originally Posted by Adina

It is an established fact that the boy had hemophilia. Why would they need to determine what is already known??

A DNA test of the bones is the key as to whether or not the bones are that of the son.

There certainly were enough Romanovs - including his grandmother - who fled to Britain and survived for DNA comparison.

As I understand it, testing for for a full DNA profile on such an old and degraded sample is a very complex affair. Much more so than testing a fresh sample. It's even more difficult if you are trying to compare sibling or grandparent/grandchild DNA - fresh or otherwise. The further away you move in relationship terms, the less reliable the results become.

Now I don't know if there even is a test for haemophilia that can be conducted on old bones, but if there is, and it is easier and quicker, then why not use it first - if it comes back negative, then it's just some peasant boy buried in the woods, so no need to do the lengthy difficult expensive test.

If it is positive, investigate further with the DNA profile.

[ganzfeld]

Originally Posted by Adina

It is an established fact that the boy had hemophilia. Why would they need to determine what is already known??

Well, in the first place, he may need treatment for his condition.

[Zorro]

Originally Posted by Eddylizard

Now I don't know if there even is a test for haemophilia that can be conducted on old bones, but if there is, and it is easier and quicker, then why not use it first - if it comes back negative, then it's just some peasant boy buried in the woods, so no need to do the lengthy difficult expensive test.

If it is positive, investigate further with the DNA profile.

This was why I asked. We know Alexei had hemophillia, so if these bones turn out to not have belonged to someone who had hemophillia, they're not Alexei's.

[PrincessLeia]

Well there seem to be some people out there who aren't convinced that Alexei had haemophilia. About ten years ago, the Vancouver Sun or Province newspaper printed a story about a local guy (from New Westminster or Burnaby I think) who had been claiming to be Alexei but didn't have haemophilia. Instead, he had a condition with similar symptoms. The article argued that because the Tsar's family had been killed so long ago, it is possible that Alexei didn't have haemophilia but had some other disease that was not known at the time.
Thinking about this, it doesn't make a lot of sense. There was a history of haemophilia in the Royal families of Europe, so I would assume that is what Alexei had as well.

[Zorro]

Originally Posted by PrincessLeia

There was a history of haemophilia in the Royal families of Europe, so I would assume that is what Alexei had as well.

In descendents of Queen Victoria, who managed to marry off her nine children into several royal families in other European countries; Empress Alexandra was one of Victoria's granddaughters. Hemophilia didn't present in Victoria's mother's family, so the theory is that she carried a mutant gene, which she passed on to her children. (Another theory I've read is that Queen Victoria's mother had an affair and Victoria was not her father's child, and that's where the gene came from, but...*dons tinfoil hat* )

[HelloLlama]

It is not a fact, but an assumption, that Aleksei and other royals had hemophilia. Of course, it's a pretty good assumption given their symptoms, but there were no tests for it back then, so it's possible that they had another genetically transmitted disease with similar symptoms.

Proving that these skeletal fragments came from someone without hemophilia (if that is even possible) would not prove that the bones belonged to someone other that Aleksei. It might cast doubt on it, but it wouldn't prove it definitively.

Believe it or not, there are still a number of people out there, including the Russian Orthodox Church, who refuse to acknowledge that the grave dug up in 1991 was really Nicholas II and his family. I am still not sure why. Yeah, it could have been just a bunch of Russian peasants, but how many Russian villagers at that time had platinum dental work?

As for which Grand Duchess was missing from this grave along with Aleksei, scientists are still arguing over that one. The American team believed Anastasia was missing. I agree with the Russians and the majority of experts that the missing daughter was Maria.

Don't even get me started on the looney tunes who still think that Anna Anderson was Anastasia, despite DNA evidence that not only proved she was not a Romanov, but actually identified her as a Polish factory worker that went missing at the same time Anderson came on the scene. To her defenders, all of this is just some giant conspiracy.

Originally Posted by Eddylizard

As I understand it, testing for for a full DNA profile on such an old and degraded sample is a very complex affair. Much more so than testing a fresh sample. It's even more difficult if you are trying to compare sibling or grandparent/grandchild DNA - fresh or otherwise. The further away you move in relationship terms, the less reliable the results become. .

I think that you are correct in stating that it is difficult to get DNA from old and degraded bones. But there are other ways to get DNA. Queen Hatchesput has just been identified by comparing a really poor specimen of her skeleton. They compared the DNA from an unnamed female skeleton (just found together with another woman) with the DNA of a tooth that had been put in a canopic jar at her death. They used mitochondrial DNA. The results were positive. And she lived when ...in 1500 bce??

[Eddylizard]

Originally Posted by Adina

I think that you are correct in stating that it is difficult to get DNA from old and degraded bones. But there are other ways to get DNA. Queen Hatchesput has just been identified by comparing a really poor specimen of her skeleton. They compared the DNA from an unnamed female skeleton (just found together with another woman) with the DNA of a tooth that had been put in a canopic jar at her death. They used mitochondrial DNA. The results were positive. And she lived when ...in 1500 bce??

Well then we are in agreement surely? I didn't say it was impossible - just that it was a more difficult test, and if it could be negated by a simpler quicker test, then that would be a good first step.

For reasons I don't want to go into, I know that a paternal DNA test (father-daughter) is regarded as 99 point something % reliable. Sibling or half-sibling comparison tests are regarded as about 86% reliable.

[QUOTE=Eddylizard;313911]Well then we are in agreement surely? I didn't say it was impossible - just that it was a more difficult test, and if it could be negated by a simpler quicker test, then that would be a good first step.



Yes, we agree.
I logged ono a hemophilia website and there are other diseases which are similar. Unfortunately they were not named. The testing procedures for hemophilia are very sophisticated and certainly unavailable in early to mid 1900s. Ditto the treatment for the disease. But with all the intermarriages, it is more than a given that Alexei had hemophilia. Hemophilia ran through the Spanish royal family also. As did insanity.