Richard the third might require a review... despite his child-killing. He was still clearly capable of monstrous things, but he generally tried to be a good ruler of the country and before he came to power was strangely very loyal to Edward the IV who came before him, even when times were hard, he was one of the few who didn't keep switching sides. He was also incredibly brave, forget "...a kingdom for a horse" Richard died bravely, fighting suicidally and actually refusing a mount before being taken down by a halberd. I'll never forgive him for the what he did to lord Hastings though... Hastings was a truly loyal, honest man, and Richard killed him out of sheer paranoia... like the princes, a sickening waste of human life and a black stain on Richards character that runs just as deeply as the murder of the princes.
Nonetheless, perhaps Richard doesn't deserve to be classed as the archetypal monster of history. He's not guilty of being oppressive or sectarian and generally treated his subjects with kindness, possibly only to stop them from killing him of course. If he hadn't decided to sieze the crown, he would have gone down as one of the best regents the country has had. It is said that Richard may have discovered a family link making him the rightful heir. If this was the case, however, he need not have been so ruthless. It may be that the Wars of the Roses had taken their toll, and he had become paranoid and cynical. Whatever his motivation, he was a complex character who should not be automatically dismissed as a monster.
Like my view of William Wallace, I'll put him under the category of "man of his time." This applies especially to any possible personality changes caused by war-trauma.
He was a considerably more complex figure than Shakespeare would have you believe.
