Netflix made a (mostly true) documentary “Inventing Anna” about someone who moved to New York with the fake identity of a German heiress (whose father occasionally cuts her off). She had a bunch of hotels and some tech investors fooled. I feel like she should have gone into the matchermaker racket instead.
A bit of a tangent, but i found the series to be insufferably bad. The story interested me, but the scenario was pretty bad (easily predictable, weird logical jumps being presented as genius ideas) and the acting was pretty meh bar the lead actress (i found her very annoying which seems to be the idea).
I felt that conclusion was unwarranted. So she was a 'fake' heiress. Aren't they all? Just jumped-up rich claiming some sort of divine right? Why wasn't she as good as any of them?
Because of dogma, chiefly. People of the time figured she wasn't 'real' in the sense she didn't follow some imaginary ideas of being deserving or whatever. But only after they initially believed her, which means she was socially as adept at the role as any of them.
> I felt that conclusion was unwarranted. So she was a 'fake' heiress. Aren't they all? Just jumped-up rich claiming some sort of divine right? Why wasn't she as good as any of them?
In many European countries there's still the concept of nobility[1] with titles, lineage, inheritance and all. It isn't some abstract thing that people choose to believe in or not.
The comment is about a young woman living in NYC who faked being one of these nobles, and used it to defraud people. She went to jail for it[2]. I have no idea what your comment is about or how it ties to any of this.
You're missing the point. There is an existing social structure of people who do care about these titles and the titles are often attached to assets or positions of power.
To your original point -- she went to jail for committing fraud, as in theft via lying. She did not go to jail for being judged "unworthy" by some dogmatic social circle.
I disagree. She went to jail because she claimed to be a magical being, and others thought they knew she wasn't. Consider: would an actual peer have gone to jail? No? Then she went to jail for 'not being a magical person'.
I honestly can't tell if your series of replies have been GPT-3 generated.
She went to jail because she failed to pay for the goods and services she used. They extended her credit because of the false pretenses, but she went to jail for grand larceny.
Yes, an actual noble would go to jail for a similar crime.
No an 'actual noble' (whatever the heck that is) might not have even been prosecuted.
But how many famous people have avoided jail for similar issues? If you're famous enough it doesn't even go to trial.
That's my point. She didn't pass some popularity contest because {reasons} and got prosecuted. Which may likely not have happened to a duchess or whatnot.
She was not what she claimed to be, if you're surprised that lying to people isn't OK then I've got really terrible news for you. Anna created numerous fake documents purporting to show she actually had lots of money in foreign banks (she did not) and there was a family trust that could access the money on her behalf (no such thing existed) and so she'd tell people it's OK, my trust will pay you back - knowing she's just taking services she hasn't paid for and has no intent to ever pay for.
In most jurisdictions Fraud requires two things: Dishonesty and intention thereby to gain or that another loses. For most people it's thus really easy to avoid committing fraud - be honest. If you don't like honesty you need to ensure you never have intention for you to gain or another to lose, which is going to be a really steep climb in many circumstances given we live under capitalism.
No person claiming magical special humanhood is 'what she claimed to be'. That's my point. Say you're a Dutchess if you like; your claim is exactly as valid as anyone else's; which is to say, nonsense.
I applaud her for capitalizing on the public gullibility to believe in devine humans with special rights.
The intriguing part is that if she had secured her final loan she could've covered her immediate debts and may bave had a successful business. In which case most of her malfeasance might've slid under the radar. More than one success has been built on some dicey loans and sketchy figures.
It was actuay quite common in the colonial period for quasi pirate types to overstate their experience, earn the remit of a monarch and secure loans for mercenaries in a bid to take some land from a competing European power and possibly enter the low nobility. There were numerous fraudsters among these. Several are well known for their eventual demise but I imagine more than a few managed to succeed and used their wealth and position to patch over the crumbly parts in their past.
Actually, every single line ever to claim 'nobility' started that way. All have crumbly pasts, meaning of course that they are perfectly normal humans like the rest of us. All are fraudsters.
your comment is akin to using a stolen credit card to eat at fancy restaurants, buy expensive clothing, and stay in hotel suites, and then congratulating the thief for "capitalizing on the public gullibility to believe in" a small plastic rectangle.
