Maybe not quite what you’re looking for, but the entire Byzantine Empire was viewed rather dimly by Western scholars until about fifty years ago. In 1869, W.E.H. Lecky wrote:
Only since the Second World War has the historical reputation of the Byzantines been reassessed and rehabilitated.
[QUOTE=Struan]
That must have been a fun thing for the three of them to do! 
[/QUOTE]
Maybe, but I’m willing to bet the “prosecution” for this case did not do a diligent job.
Alison Weir pointed out that the corpses found when the tower was rennovated were described as being dressed in velvet. Velvet was unknown in the UK before the reign of Edward IV, and the only two people who were in the tower from that time until the remains were found, and who vanished and were the approximate age, were the princes. There is no one else the remains could have been.
More’s account, with someone who claimed to be in on the plot, predicted where the bodies would be found. It’s hard to argue that it’s false if it comes up with something that is discovered years later (the person talking to More described dropping the dead princes in the stairwell where the two corpses were discovered; he said he was told the bodies were moved later, but was not present, so it was just hearsay that they were moved).
There are also eyewitness acounts that the princes were seen in the Tower (which, as now, was a public are) after August of the year. Plus the king stopped paying their jailer around the time the princes vanished.
I doubt Richard killed them personally, but he clearly gave the order – he had a strong motive, since it would have put an end to all opposition to his reign*.
This is a fairly typical reaction to any historical figure that gets a bad reputation: people start saying, “Well, he couldn’t really be that bad” and start looking for excuses that don’t exist. Richard’s evil was definitely overstated, but he was a cruel and impulsive man who had other examples of killing those who were threats to his power.
*At the time, Henry Tudor was an obscure prince living in France with only the most tenuous of claims on the throne (he was not the true Lancastrian heir, which at the time was King Juan of Portugal) – one of the reasons why Henry never claimed his crown due to right of blood, but rather because of Right of Conquest.
Till about after the first world war in Europe NApoleon was scarcely thought of as better than what hitler is today.
Wonder how long before Hitler is rehabilitated. Future generations may not take such a dim view of him as we do.
How about Alexander the Great? What’s so great about a guy that leads invading armies, pillages, enslaves, etc?
Well, serious students of Scottish history generally rate Macbeth as a very good king, despite what Shakespeare may have told you.
[QUOTE=Tenar]
The fact that Dahmer may have had a religious conversion experience doesn’t mean that he was rehabilitated in the public perception.
[/QUOTE]
No, no, you misunderstand. Dahmer rehabilitated Jesus, who had an awful rep up to that time. 
In the West, Genghis Khan is pretty much synonymous with barbarity. But the recent book Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World takes a different view.
From one of the reviews:
Bah! So did many others. Changiz Khan was…well Changiz Khan. His actions were shocking even for his time.
The American Indian?
[QUOTE=Boyo Jim]
No, no, you misunderstand. Dahmer rehabilitated Jesus, who had an awful rep up to that time.
[/QUOTE]
With friends like that…
[QUOTE=HubZilla]
With friends like that…
[/QUOTE]
you’ll never want for stew meat.
[QUOTE=AK84]
Bah! So did many others. Changiz Khan was…well Changiz Khan. His actions were shocking even for his time.
[/QUOTE]
I am impressed you now an alternate spelling for Ghengis. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=MadTheSwine]
I am impressed you now an alternate spelling for Ghengis. :rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]
Well, it’s not as if his name was originally written in English, so there are a fair few ways to transliterate it into the Roman alphabet. From what I’ve heard (no cites, unfortunately), ‘Changiz’ is closer to the proper pronunciation than ‘Ghenghis’ is.
[QUOTE=MadTheSwine]
I am impressed you now an alternate spelling for Ghengis. :rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]
I’m impressed you know an alternate spelling for “know”.
[QUOTE=tremorviolet]
I’m impressed you know an alternate spelling for “know”.
[/QUOTE]
Good one.
But y’all new what he meant.
[QUOTE=Captain Carrot]
Well, it’s not as if his name was originally written in English, so there are a fair few ways to transliterate it into the Roman alphabet. From what I’ve heard (no cites, unfortunately), ‘Changiz’ is closer to the proper pronunciation than ‘Ghenghis’ is.
[/QUOTE]
Its “Chun-gay-zh”. Genghis sounds just wrong.
Cardinal Richelieu and Richard Nixon both benefit from a more nuanced view of history
[QUOTE=Kizarvexius]
Lt. William Bligh was celebrated as a hero when he returned to England after the *Bounty *mutiny, and for good reason, as his 47 day, 3600 mile trek in an overcrowded 23-foot ship’s launch was a miracle of seamanship. The court-martial that subsequently convened to try him for the loss of his ship acquitted Bligh of all responsibility for the incident, and the newly promoted Captain Bligh soon set sail back to Tahiti with a new crew (including a compliment of Royal Marines) to complete the mission he had set out to perform in the first place.
Over the following years, however, Bligh’s reputation suffered in the public eye. The influential families of Fletcher Christian (leader of the mutineers) and of Peter Haywood (midshipman convicted of mutiny but pardoned by the king) worked hard to defend the tarnished names of their respective sons by advancing specious tales of Bligh’s cruelty and corruption. Gradual shifts in the public perception of the slave trade (which Bligh’s voyage was intended to serve) and in the treatment of royal mariners, combined with popular mistrust of authority and the near-inevitable triumph of a good story over demonstrable fact served to repaint Bligh as a sadistic martinet. By the time Hollywood took on the *Bounty *saga, there was little truth left in the tale.
Caroline Alexander’s 2003 book The Bounty: The True Story of the Mutiny on the Bounty has done a great deal to restore Bligh’s reputation. Careful analysis of the historical record demonstrates that the infamous Lieutenant was actually surprisingly lenient in the handling of shipboard discipline. In fact, his theories for maintaining the health and wellbeing of his crew, modeled upon the enlightened idea of his own former commander, Captain Cook, were positively enlightened for their day.
[/QUOTE]
All true, but it also seems like there was something about Bligh that just rubbed people the wrong way. In addition to the mutiny, he was also run out of Australia after a disastrous tenure as governor of the colony.