As re: Ireland, NO English King has EVER been good. Under Elizabeth, 41% of Ireland starved to death.
That does not make him good, just equally as bad.
The building of the Navy was no more ecologically damaging than any military activity was in that century anywhere in Europe.
Again, just as bad... Not good.
The forced religious changes would never have been tolerated by a population that was fully armed if they had been objected to that highly. Say what you want about people being forced, but the majority of England either supported the religious changes, or didn't care much. & the religious changes allowed England to develop the centralised state that would be needed later.
This is a highly speculative contention. There could be a great number of explanations, such as fear of reprisal against the general population by the better equipped and trained British Army.
I'll grant that he was prodigal w/ money. & yes, his French campaign wasn't helpful. But that is balanced by the Battle of Flodden, where 10,000 Scots (which included the King & most of the aristoracy) were wiped out.
Oh, so a massacre of 10,000 Scots is a redemptive act for wasting money. Tell me more.
The Dissolution of the Monasteries, while harsh, also could have been resisted by an armed population. It wasn't. Henry enabled England to be truly English for the first time.
Again, highly speculative, and you are also assuming that a monastery is something that a populist movement might have frequent contact with. Monasteries are not always in the center of a town.
I'll note also that the official language of government was switched from Norman French to English by Henry, thus allowing for the development of the language & nation along nationalist lines. This nationalist development was needed @ a time when, in order to survive & prosper, every other nation in Europe was doing the same. The fact that such radical changes in England were necessary only points out that EVERY country, even the RC ones, were enforcing religious uniformity. Ever heard of the Spanish Inquision? They were all building militaries @ frightful ecological costs. You can't judge Henry by 21st century standards. By 16th century standards, he was damned good, I think.
Why can't we judge him by 21st Century standards? Just because he may not have been a tyrant back then, does not mean we have to absolve him of the things he did. We do not absolve Britain and America of its history of slavery just because it was the 18th & 19th century. This kind of relativism undoes to whole notion of learning from history.