Epistola Ioannis Monlucii, episcopi Valentini regis Gallorum legati ad Poloni[a]e Ordines de Illustrissimo Andium duce in Regnum Polonicum allegendo

surgeons at the cutting open of the cadaver, for the Queen's heart had to be removed and brought to the chief seat of her provinces for burial. What they write about the Queen of England is certainly so absurd that it does not require a response; for no Prince has ever wanted to employ an external Prince or arbiter to settle disputes, if any exist between him and his subjects. What they write afterwards about those who were killed being invited to the wedding is certainly discovered to have been fabricated by some rustic, and a most inept one at that. For who—at least if he is French—would think that nobles, and those who are not related to the King, had been invited to his sister's wedding? But what need was there for these things at this wedding, when the King could have killed them all a hundred times before, as we have shown above? As for their saying that the King is a tyrant and most cruel, I do not believe anyone would dare to affirm that the name of tyrant and cruel can be derived from one single act; otherwise, Theodosius would have been considered cruel, who ordered six thousand people to be killed in the city of Thessalonica solely because they had thrown down his statue, yet all histories testify that he was both pious and most humane. But might not the Queen of Navarre also be called cruel, who, when she had captured several Catholic nobles through the leadership of Count Montgomery Gabriel, Count of Montgomery who had risen up in the Kingdom of Navarre for the sake of religion, and after they had surrendered—given the custom of soldiers—on their word of honor, she treated them most humanely for nine months, and when they expected no further cruelty, they were all most cruelly slaughtered after supper at the appointed hour.