The Rembis Report and Other Fascinating Topics - Volume LIII

I have more Grandfathers than Grandmothers.

July 01, 2022

I have more Grandfathers than Grandmothers.

Ever since I picked up the torch of genealogy research from my dear departed Aunt Barbara Brown, it has proved to be a fascinating journey. One night a couple weeks ago, I was able to trace my lineage back 65 generations to the year 30.

Before I was able to connect the dots on that discovery, I had only gotten back about a thousand years. That was astonishing enough, I thought. I had no idea that ancestors in England and France would keep such good records, but apparently, they did. A while later, when I went back to the tree, I found the line extending through notable historical characters I had heard of before, like Charlemagne and his son King Louis the Pious. According to the records I am a direct descendant of these Emperors who co-ruled a region of France in the eighth and ninth centuries. I know how unbelievable that sounds. It is hard to fathom, but they kept records, and I checked everything over. The lines are solid. I am as surprised as anyone.

I must give credit where it is due, however. I have many distant cousins I have never met who had already done most of this legwork. All I really had to do was start with my immediate family and see where it went. There are blanks to fill in on other lines, plenty of dead ends and mysteries, and lines where I can't get information beyond 1898. But this particular line, because it just did not stop, has taken me as far back as I think anybody can get.

Sixty-five generations ago my ancestors were Goths. Again, I had no idea that anybody was actually keeping track of lineage back then, or that I would find any relatable connection so old. What is most astonishing to me is that the history kept is mostly of father's names, not mother's names. This is why I mention Charlemagne. As the Emperor of the Carolingian Empire, he was a big deal for his time, and his wife, King Louis' mom, was Queen Hildegard. But King Louis' wife, another grandmother of mine was not renown. In many accounts she is simply recorded as Unknown Mistress. Her daughter, Alpais De Flavigny, who is responsible for everyone leading to me, is known to us because she married a well-heeled suitor, Bego of Paris. This would not have happened without the King's blessing.

Because she was the daughter of a Mistress, she was no Princess, and held no line to the throne. Being a woman, and the daughter of a woman so unimportant to the King, as to lose her name to history, shows us how disposable women were in the year 797. Some records identify her as Theodelinde of Sens, the King's concubine. It is odd that a man with two wives and a concubine would be called "The Pious" but he was.

I will still follow Theodeline's ancestry to see how far it goes.

In the 500 years before her, most wives were accounted for. We have full names, and many of their parents. But once the French line runs into the Romanian line, the women are suddenly forgotten. My 56th generation ancestor, Hrothildis Königin Von Den Westgoten, born in 310, has no recorded name for her mother. Then, for another 27 generations before her, as the Romanians descended from the Goths and Vikings who came from the North, only the names of 3 wives of these 27 men are recorded.

I wonder why.

It could be due to an oral history where men told stories of their fathers before them, and their mothers, while they may have loved them individually, were simply not celebrated and recognized as a part of their heritage. The timeline gets murky here. It goes back steadily to the year 253 BC, when Vingehar of Thrace's mother is recorded as the mythological character Sybil, who was the daughter of Priam, High King of Troy and his wife Hecuba, Princess of Phrygia, a thousand years before.

So, stories got passed down, and while they have recorded lineages between many of these people, mythological figures and thousand-year gaps are not solid evidence of anything. One thing that is for sure is that a lot of women are missing from the record.

I ask again, why is that?

The simple answer is that women were not equal to men. Unless they were akin to a queen, an empress, a princess, or a Goddess, their names were not important enough to record. That is just the way it was.

Thank goodness we live in a time where women are valued, cherished, and considered equal.

Hey, Mike. The Supreme Court just reversed the nearly 50-year-old precedent set by Roe v. Wade and removed the right to abortion from the US Constitution.

Wait - what? Are you kidding?

Wow! You would think that after 2,000 years, women, whose names we keep track of pretty good now, would have the ability to decide whether or not they want offspring. It is absolutely ridiculous that anyone is making decisions about anybody else's body, other than a doctor with a patient in a coma with no relatives, or that of an unknown cadaver. The imposition of an ideological belief system upon society is contrary to the separation of church and state.

It is completely un-American.

The big question is WHY? What does anyone else have to gain by forcing a pregnant woman, who is not interested in reproduction, into having a child?

First of all, it is a holy war. The idea that lives are being saved is faith-based. A fetus is seen as a blessing. This is the main issue with the argument. Not everyone believes that a pregnancy is a miracle. It is the biological result of intercourse. It is the same for every mammal on earth. So, believing that the seed is a miracle that must flourish, is quite simply that - a belief.

If somebody does not believe that it is miraculous, does that make them wrong? Not at all. It is just a belief. Nobody can prove a miracle.

What if somebody believed they were impregnated by a Demon? With abortion outlawed, how would you prove that it was necessary to destroy it to keep the demon-child from setting foot on Earth? It is as fair a question as proving that every fetus is a gift from God.

The idea of Demons mating with humans has been around for centuries. Films like The Omen and The Manitou explore these themes. One of the most powerful scenes in the supernatural thriller TV Show American Gothic was when Gail considers an abortion because she discovers that the baby may be a demon. She scoffed at the thought of childbirth and called it "a tumor that my body will purge."

You never see cases brought forward citing this circumstance. I don't know if there are any at all, or if they just don't make it on the news. But it seems that if it is fair to call a lovingly procreated fetus a miracle, then one created through incest or rape should be "demonized."

Some states will still allow an abortion under these circumstances, and some will not. The state-by-state differences are all over the map. Ten countries have outlawed abortion completely. Even in cases of rape and incest, even if the birth threatens the life of the mother, pregnant women in Abkhazia, Andorra, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Honduras, Madagascar, Malta, Nicaragua, Philippines, and Vatican City are unable to have an abortion under any circumstance. Even if raped by a Demon.

Demons and Angels aside, the question remains, what does anyone have to gain from a pregnant woman?

Turns out the answer is quite a bit. Estimates put the value of one human life at $10 million. So, the second thing to look at is greed.

Economically, an aborted fetus has no financial value. The procedure is simple and generally costs less than $750. But a baby is a moneymaker.

Let's start with the pregnancy itself. Doctors' visits add up to thousands. All that baby furniture does, too. It doesn't stop there. Once the child is born it is going to need clothes and shelter and food. It all adds up. School supplies, car seats, bigger furniture, and larger clothes because shoes keep wearing out and the kid keeps growing. They go to school for years and get a car, get a job, and start producing for the economy as an adult. They rent a place, then buy a place, or more than one place, they go on vacations, they spend money on everything you spend money on, and like I said, it all adds up.

But what if that kid turns out to be a junkie or a criminal? It keeps mental health counselors and police employed. No matter what happens a living human being is a boon to the economy.

You may even consider childbirth a scam that simply leads one to keep buying gasoline, or contribute to needing gasoline, so that somebody else buys more of it. Big oil always finds a way.

Even if the woman who wanted an abortion and couldn't get one gives up the child for adoption, all the money still churns, plus the adoption fees. If that child is retarded or crippled in any way, it generates even more revenue for the healthcare and insurance industry. A sick human being is precious human being. They need more drugs and care than healthy people.

No matter how you slice it, a baby is a win-win.

But not for the mother who does not want it, especially when they have no choice.

The Supreme Court decision on Roe v. Wade took effect on January 22, 1973. By that time, my mother had five children. In June of 1970 my sister Marian was born with Downs syndrome. Abortion was illegal then. I am not sure that a test was available then, as it is now, to confirm debilitations in utero. I do recall my father telling me a story of when she was born, that it was clear to the medical staff, that she was retarded. They offered to help spirit her away to "take care of her" for my parents. We are sure that meant being institutionalized. They did not choose that route and brought Marian home. She lived to be 38 years old and died in a fire because she did not have the good sense to run away.

All her life, my parents gave her medicine. I remember her spitting it out. It must have tasted horrible. She did not attend school with me and our other siblings. She had to be watched and cared for constantly.

It is hard enough to be a mother to a healthy child, but one who is severely retarded is another story. It is by no means easy. A woman who learns that she may give birth to a child like this, with an absolute unfair advantage in life, should have the option to abort. I don't know how my mother felt about abortion back then, and I am not going to ask. I don't know if she was aware of Marian's condition when pregnant or if it was a startling discovery when she was born. But now, for any mother-to-be, these tests are available. Chromosomes can be counted with a simple blood test. Doctors can accurately diagnose Downs syndrome and heart issues in the first trimester. An ultrasound can accurately show whether or not a child has all fours limbs. Imagine being told that your child was going to be disadvantaged from day one and likely to live a short unhealthy life.

The stress that results from dealing with extraordinary circumstances can be overwhelming. Some women suffer complications that result in their own jeopardy and endanger their life during childbirth. Some die because of it. Those giving birth to a child with significant medical issues, or are simply denied an abortion, suffer depression and can feel unwarranted shame. Some will commit suicide. Given the chance, some would opt for abortion to avoid that lifetime commitment of struggle and discontent, and there is nothing wrong with that. Maybe my mother would have chosen abortion. But she had no such opportunity.

How many young women will soon be unfairly forced into a motherhood that they would not wish on another? The concept of abortion being selfish, abominable, and disgraceful is outdated and wrong. Forcing a woman who finds herself in the poor position of an unwanted pregnancy to give birth is cruel. It is slavery disguised as altruism.

I found this short essay posted online. It makes an excellent point.

Abortion is healthcare, plain and simple.

When a woman is 18, she can vote and buy a gun. When she is 21, she can buy alcohol. If she is 25, she can get a break on her car insurance. But at any age, in some places, if she is pregnant and would prefer not to be, she must travel and jump through hoops to get an abortion. That is just not right.

The solution is for women to rise up and take control of everything. Every young woman should start speaking up and shouting about what they want the same way Greta Thunberg does. They should all run for office. They should pursue careers in law and flood the courts. If they want children, they should have them. And if they need an abortion, they should be able to get one without question.

Rise up ladies! You have got my vote.