Who is the worst monarch in history? Pic related

While this is true it fucked off a lot of europe and caused a lot of internal division in England, notably Thomas Moore.

The Church held politics at bay and protected the common people. A state has no moral boundaries, but a religious institution does. Without a religious institution, what prevents a state from being totally utilitarian at the expense of the common man?

> Implying Anglican church didn't do this either

>king is the head of the church

I'll pass.

Plus he made the only real decision he could. None of the Spanish nobles would have gone for dividing the empire. The Austrians wanted Italian regions and not the Netherlands. The France wanted the Netherlands. The British and the Dutch did not want the French to get the Netherlands and every partition treaty they came up with was pretty much intolerable to the Austrians and the Spanish nobles. The French were liable to gain nothing if they didn't except everything. The Austrians just wanted Italy.

Poor Charles the Kawaii just gave his inheritance to the only people who wanted to keep the empire intact.

A religious institution is no more possessed of moral boundaries than the state; the church got up to no shortage of evil. By your logic, a state being directly entwined with the church would make it more moral, so there was no reason for them to not do that.

Also, you're not looking at this from the position of a ruler. What kind of sensible ruler wants a foreign organization holding power within his country?

>state has no moral boundaries, but a religious institution does
Diddling kids is moral now?

Exactly. Much less shit than Henry.

that's pretty much what happened in England, Scotland, Scandinavia and northern Germany m8 and countless cities and towns in the >h>r>e

Corruption is stronger than purification. If the state and church become more of a singular entity, then the state does not take on the responsibilities of the church, but the church takes on the responsibilities of the state, which nullifies its moral bounds.

>the ruler
Fuck that guy. He shouldn't overstep his responsibilities and if my king had done so I would have resisted him at every turn. It's too late for that now, I'm afraid.

The Church has a moral obligation to prevent it, and Benedict did what he could to, but the Protestants shifted the blame to him and pressured him to leave. A state has no obligation to prevent rape in its institutions. This is why the government is never blamed when these things happen, but the Church is.

>Corruption is stronger than purification. If the state and church become more of a singular entity, then the state does not take on the responsibilities of the church, but the church takes on the responsibilities of the state, which nullifies its moral bounds.

Yeah, no, you had best back that shit up. Because the way I see it, they're both highly political power structures that have plenty of interest in abusing their power.

>Fuck that guy. He shouldn't overstep his responsibilities and if my king had done so I would have resisted him at every turn. It's too late for that now, I'm afraid.

What his responsibilities are shouldn't be dictated by a foreign institution. Learn to realpolitik.

> A state has no obligation to prevent rape in its institutions.
You fucking what m8?

Pope, I'm VIII

That first argument was poor, I apologize. The church and state are both very much alike, I agree, but they counteract each other. The state's only real core responsibility which is to be expected from it is to protect civil interests. Taxation, military, and law come to mind here. The bounds of "civil interest", however, are loose, and can be applied differently by different monarchs or governments, as can be seen through recent history. This is where the Church acts against the state. The Church's core responsibility is to protect moral interests, and sets a clear barrier against certain laws or exploitations by the state or even by the people. This can be corrupted, but it is difficult to do so since that would conflict with civil interests and thus the state would usually prevent that. In an ideal world this would be a perfectly balanced ruling structure, but either conflict or too many intertwined responsibilities between the church and the state causes imbalance and can either lead to disasters such as the Inquisition or the Reign of Terror.

Note that I'm not saying that a religious institution specifically is necessary for this, but some sort of power separate from the state should be able to take on this role.

The Church is much, much harder pressed on its issues of rape than the president of any country is for rapes in public schools or by an overseas military.

> Alientates the population of Ireland
Henry VIII had the most sound Irish Policy the English government would pursue for centuries.

Yeah I kinda phrased that poorly. I meant the church division caused a lot of division and further animosity between the English and the Irish. I apologise.

>hur dur muh indepedent church

The pope recanted on annulling henry's marriage only because Charles V threatened to sack rome, again

Fernando VII de España
The last Qing Empress

A lot of loyalty for a Swiss mercenary

Eighth Henry, Best Henry. Set the wheel in motion to convert England to a Protestant state, all because he was a fat fuck who wanted a divorce.

So you got yourself excommunicated, what's the next step of your master plan

Charles VI attacked his own guards, refused to bath, and thought he was made out of glass that would shatter if he sat on a toilet or chair. He forgot who his own wife was and would just wander around his palace since he was crazy.

Charles the V is quite awful.
>Starts with the biggest and strongest regions of the time
>He blows away all his victories with dumb treaties,like the treaty of Madrid
>Let the protestants rise
>Fucks the economy of its kingdoms,to the point of no recovery
>Tried to stop Cortez's campaing god knows why
>Killed the industry in his most important kingdom
>Starts the inbreeding which would lead to retarded successors
I dont know how this retard is still glorified.

He was actually the second best Habsburg king (not even kidding),which just tells you how garbage that dinasty was for Spain.

not even fucking close you Papist cuck

>set up the Royal Navy

How about you go fuck yourself European

Por tu[spoiler]dor[/spoiler]

Henry VIII seems like the textbook definition of an alpha male

Lmao he wasn't even the worst King of England

What an awful thread

His reign was actually not bad at all.

How does he compare to the obvious choice? I wouldn't say pic related is explicitly the worst monarch in history though, his situation just happens to paint him as such.

>Fernando VII de España

Fucking this, holy god.

>1688 revolution
>revolution
ayyyyy

Louis XVI is weird because he can be painted as a good monarch as well.

>wanted to implement financial reforms that would alleviate the financial burden on the poor
>wanted to implement social reforms that would help care for the poor, reduce the abuses in prisons, guarantee medical care for people in cities, etc
>couldn't force these forms through because the Parlement of Paris (Which "spoke for the people" but not really) painted him as a tyrant for wanting to force them through
>had to make tiny reforms throughout 20 years rather than big sweeping reforms he wanted
>1789 revolution happens
>immediately agrees to all these reforms because 95% of them were stuff he had wanted to do 20 years prior but couldn't get done

He only stuck his heels in once it became clear that the new government a) wanted to introduce laws that violated his Catholic beliefs and b) didn't want the king to rule the country--they wanted him to be ornamental, while they made all of the decisions and he smiled and waved to the public.

One of his main problems, which he admitted himself in his will, is that he allowed himself to become a disrespected figure with no authority.
'
>I exhort my son, should he have the misfortune of becoming king, to remember he owes himself wholly to the happiness of his fellow citizens; that he should forget all hates and all grudges, particularly those connected with the misfortunes and sorrows which I am experiencing; that he can make the people happy only by ruling according to laws: but at the same time to remember that a king cannot make himself respected and do the good that is in his heart unless he has the necessary authority, and that otherwise, being tangled up in his activities and not inspiring respect, he is more harmful than useful.

You have to remember he had suffered a mental breakdown because of the political situation in France and also had to watch as some of his friends (and i think brother?) burnt to death at a costume party

The worst thing he did was that he dismantled and destroyed a lot of the monasteries, destroying a lot of Anglo Saxon texts and other legacies from that time.

Except Fernando VII

Any Bourbon King.

Only good Borbón in Spain was Charles III. Habsburgs were shit, but Borbons were even worse (again, Charles III was surprisingly very good).

This is false. All the Habsburgs except 1 (Phillip the II) were absolute trash tier. On the other hand Bourbons like Ferdinand the VI,Phillip the V,Charles the III or Alfonso XII were pretty good.

Sigimund Vasa was the worst polish monarch and definitely a good candidate for one of worst monarchs ever
Which is funny considering how successful Poland was at the time military and economically thanks to few amazing people.

All of those are applicable to Bourbon France just as well (except for the Ireland bit obviously). It's absolutism that you're condemning, really.

>Sheriff More? I'm Throne of of England

Actually yes, just Fernando VII and Felipe II were much worse

Brother was assassinated on a separate occasion, even worse for him. Always felt bad for the guy.