Why did so numerous lords who were putatively devout Christians still hold concubines?, Yet the Christianity is extremely delicate to follow, therefore having concubines was not presumably the most unchristian thing they were doing. Because the politics indeed also was full of dirty tricks
Christian monarchs were to fight wars on the other Christians. occasionally without any just beget. Or clubbing with non-Christians( or indeed worse with heretic Christians) against their lines in- faith
In 1553 French together with the Banquettes have raided Corsica. And let Turks take numerous unqualified internees. Some of the unqualified women taken by Turks were forced to come concubines of Muslims and to bear them Muslim seed. Some of boys were devitalized and served in seraglios( some were indeed ravished as Ottomans were heavily into homosexual rape)
Having hundreds of concubines seems a petty sin by comparison.
On the other hand- when you’re king everyone within your realm that doesn’t challenge you openly( which is, obviously a high disloyalty) wants you to like him. Indeed the Church views your sins as commodity much more forgive able giving you run your state in the proper manner.
And all but the most chaste women generally want to sleep with you. Or at least can consider it. On the other hand ruling the state can be veritably stressful And what further relaxing than a nice company of an seductive woman?
And your woman Well it was a marriage of convenience. utmost of similar marriages were not terribly bad But veritably many of them were really good. Like Our king Augustus III of Poland and his woman Mary Josepha( They had 14 children and were both faithful to each other)
Or the unqualified monarchs of Spain Izabella of Castile and Ferdinand of Aragon generally speaking it seems that monarchs were most faithful to each other in high Middle periods.
For several reasons.
First of all- it was a time when devotion antique( “ I can rue for any of my sins simply by launching friary, I do not have to change myself ” was replaced by “ devotion Modern ”( “ As a monarch I’ve to be pious and throwing plutocrat into my sins doesn’t break all the problem) And there was a time numerous Saint lords, queens, tycoons and goddesses lived
Like Saint Louis IX of France
Or Saint Kinga Princess of Poland
BTW she forced chastity upon her hubby Boleslaw the chaste. They didn’t have coitus at all. For their continuance. And after he failed she came a nun.) Or indeed Saint Hedvig, queen regnant( not a she- king as some say) of Poland, She who converted Grand Duchy of Lithuania to Catholic Faith. BTW she converted Lithuania by marrying Grand Duke Jagiełło. when she was not aged than 13 yet their marriage was presumably a happy one until she failed in parturition aged 26)
Yet when Church lost its position due to the prison of Avignion as well as truly awful greediness of popes being Saint came less popular among monarchs.
And Reformation was actually indeed worse.
As a sovereign could have turned whole realm from unqualified to Protestant( or vice versa)- both sides were veritably forgiving about the king’s concubines. And other, more deadly sins. BTW some important European country came Protestant substantially because the pope was not so eager to give its king( a loyal unqualified ahead) an dissolution
Also, while in the Middle periods it could have been respectable for king to marry a lady in Renaissance and latterly lords were anticipated to marry daughters of other lords or at least autonomous tycoons. And not to marry a Heretic( or a Papist if they were Protestant)
Which oppressively limited their choice of possible woman .
Also Protestantism made divorce popular. It has to be noted that in Lutheranism as well as in the Anglicanism the monarch is de facto the head of the church. So he can fluently disjoin his woman . Or apportion himself from having concubines. Yet Catholics had to contend with Protestants as I wrote
Also Louis XIV in his earlier times made infidelity simply a part of royal form It should still be noted than in his after times he married the last of his suckers and was faithful to her( BTW they were doing coitus when they both were closing 70!).
nonetheless his earlier illustration didn’t serve well to other Christian monarchs.
His successor and great grandson Louis XV was an erotomaniac ( on the other hand he started took interest in the other women when his physician told him that his woman Marie can die in her coming gestation).
Yet the son of Louis, Louis Ferdinand was presumably faithful to his woman ( BTW the son of Augustus III and Maria Josepha, of whom I wrote over) She failed after she contracted tuberculosis nursing her hubby( who had failed indeed before)
Their son Louis XVI was married to a woman he actually abominated Yet he didn’t consume his marriage trying to gain an dissolution. Only after he learnt pope won’t give him similar he started to have coitus with his woman . BTW he also presumably had concubines like Madame de Polygenic
Marie Antoinette presumably did not have suckers
as living her alone indeed for a moment, was a high disloyalty, potentially punishable by death( an intriguing fact all her maids before serving her had to experienced enema. To insure they won’t leave the queen alone indeed for taking a shit). So she was faithful to her hubby. Not necessary because she wanted to, rather because she had to.
Also her supposed nut Axel Fersen had beef with François- Emmanuel Guignard, comte de Saint- Priest so allegations of him having an affair with queen are presumably fabricated by the ultimate. As well as Claude Nicolas Valdec de Lessart, the man upon whom the fictional character of Nicolas le Floch was grounded.
BTW Axel Fersen was a nut to his King Gustavus III. Yeah
