My question is as follows:
When the Romanov dynasty ended, some people believed that an heir had survived. I cannot remember her name, but I do recall one woman claimed to be Anastasia until it was proven she was not. Why were people so willing to believe that an heir existed? And further, do historians consider the era of communism to have been better for the Russian people than the Romanov's?
My follow up would be this: Why wouldn't the leaders of the revolution sought to 'ransom' the Romanov's? Would they not have been able to get money for their safety considering they were related to much of the royalty in Europe?
There was a theory that Anastasia Romanova survived the killing of the Romanov's because there existed no body where the rest of the Royal family was buried. They, in 2007, found the remains of what is believed to be Anastasia and her sister farther away from the other burial site. Thereby dispelling any conspiracy that she survived. From what I read, not even the family dog was alive after the execution of the Romanov's in the basement of the house that they were staying at.
The further question, if Russia was better after Communism than before is too wide range of a question to be answered briefly. To put it lightly, there is still great debate among historians on the benefits of the Soviet Union. Although, I believe most would say that the Provisional Government would have possibly been a better option than either.
Lastly, the reason the Romanov's were killed was based upon fear that the Whites (the royalist/coalition army that was opposed to the Reds during the Russian Civil War), would be able to capture the Romanov's because of the shifting battle lines. Instead of risking the capture of the Romanov's, the Reds decided to execute them, for fear that if the White Army had captured the Romanov's it would provide legitimacy to the White Army's cause. Prior to that, it was my understanding that the Bolshevik's wished to keep the Romanov's alive and then deport them after the Civil War was over.
Hello. In fact there were many Romanov claimants- most of them were women pretending to be one of the Great Princesses, but there were also men trying to pass as tsarewitz.
Anna Anderson, Anastasia's impostor was the most famous one, since she managed to fool Nicolas' mother Empress Dagmar and her daughter Olga- Some of the Romanovs actually fled Russia and survived- mainly those who like Nicolas' mother and sister managed to get to Cimerea and then sail away with England's help.
Both women never believed that their beloved son and brother was killed- especially that new government never admitted that. After the revolution their wealth was gone, the family was shattered- no wonder that they cached every glimpse of hope that even one of them may have survived. Royals were interested because they felt uneasy that one of them was killed like a commoner and common folks just liked the thrill of the story.
Why didn't Nicolas and his family follow Dagmar's example when it was time? Because even the most cunning politicians of the century couldn't believe that things will go that far (and Tsar unfortunately wasn't the brightest blurb). Remember that Bolsheviks revolt was the second revolution of 1917 and nobody believed that they will manage to keep power. When everything was lost why didn't Bolsheviks ransom Nicky? There were plans and talks but they were doomed to fall. Because in 1918 communist's power was far from fixed- the Whites (tsars' supporters) weren't completely beaten. Setting him free or letting him fall into White's hands would mean his return to position of the symbol and eventually- player. Even if he was a tragedy of politician he had tradition behind himself and his mere presence could be a catalyst for new fight.
For last question- you can find die hard fans of both options and everything in between. In fact everything boils down to speculations, since both periods were well, different periods of time.