and discourse about historic monarchs always somehow seems to devolve into ‘who had the most blood on their hands?’ and it’s really a) pointless, b) almost impossible to determine; depending on how far back we’re going (executions & ‘collateral damage’ under the reign of queen victoria, for instance, is probably a lot easier to determine than 15th and 16th century monarchs), c) dependent on how long their reign was; and how much upheaval occured during it…

but mainly a) pointless, because, like i said earlier, it’s almost always done by people arguing that the monarch they’re most interested is ‘better’ than my fav; and not only that, but that they’re somehow a better person for being interested in their fav and not mine.

and you’re really not, because a) interest /= total/blind adoration, and/or acceptance of all a figure’s actions (that should be obvious, and yet) and b) literally every monarch from 15th-16th century had blood on their hands.