So did medievel christian warlords/conquerors not have harems

[2x3x29x41]

Originally Posted by Dd714

Mistress is one thing, harem is another. A harem kept by a European king would be a public declaration of impiety, simply not acceptable during those times even for a king and, as stated, you didn't want to get on the pope's bad side during those times. The political ramification would be game changing.
Mistress or two? Pope would be cool with that.

Or... many more.

Henry I of England had 24 known bastards by at least five different mistresses (probably many more - the maternity of most of his bastard daughters is unknown because they weren't very historically relevant, and so went unrecorded).

And Henry I produced but two legitimate children, only one of them male - and thus a viable heir, 12th-century England not being yet ready for a sovereign Queen - who died in the sinking of the White Ship, precipitating a succession crisis resulting in The Anarchy.

[kovert]

Originally Posted by 2x3x29x41

Or... many more.

Henry I of England had 24 known bastards by at least five different mistresses (probably many more - the maternity of most of his bastard daughters is unknown because they weren't very historically relevant, and so went unrecorded).

And Henry I produced but two legitimate children, only one of them male - and thus a viable heir, 12th-century England not being yet ready for a sovereign Queen - who died in the sinking of the White Ship, precipitating a succession crisis resulting in The Anarchy.

I think that is probably why they had the distinction between legitimate & illegitimate heirs.