On the other hand, in all the letters written at the period by persons in Madrid most likely, from their position, to know the truth, not a syllable has been found in confirmation of the violent death said to have been suffered by Carlos.  Secretary Erasso, the papal nuncio Castagna, the Venetian envoy Cavalli, all express a conviction that the death of the prince had been brought about by his own extravagant conduct and mental excitement; by alternations of starving and voracious eating, by throwing himself into the fire; by icing his bed, and by similar acts of desperation.  Nearly every writer alludes to the incident of the refusal of the priest to admit Carlos to communion, upon the ground of his confessed deadly hatred to an individual whom all supposed to be the King.  It was also universally believed that Carlos meant to kill his father.  The nuncio asked Spinosa (then president of Castile) if this report were true.  “If nothing more were to be feared,” answered the priest, “the King would protect himself by other measures,” but the matter was worse, if worse could be.  The King, however, summoned all the foreign diplomatic body and assured them that the story was false.  After his arrest, the Prince, according to Castagna, attempted various means of suicide, abstaining, at last, many days from food, and dying in consequence, “discoursing, upon his deathbed, gravely and like a man of sense.”

The historian Cabrera, official panegyrist of Philip the Second, speaks of the death of Carlos as a natural one, but leaves a dark kind of mystery about the symptoms of his disease.  He states, that the Prince was tried and condemned by a commission or junta, consisting of Spinosa, Ruy Gomez, and the Licentiate Virviesca, but that he was carried off by an illness, the nature of which he does not describe.

Llorente found nothing in the records of the Inquisition to prove that the Holy Office had ever condemned the Prince or instituted any process against him.  He states that he was condemned by a commission, but that he died of a sickness which supervened.  It must be confessed that the illness was a convenient one, and that such diseases are very apt to attack individuals whom tyrants are disposed to remove from their path, while desirous, at the same time, to save appearances.  It would certainly be presumptuous to accept implicitly the narrative of de Thou, which is literally followed by Hoofd and by many modern writers.  On the other hand, it would be an exaggeration of historical scepticism to absolve Philip from the murder of his son, solely upon negative testimony.  The people about court did not believe in the crime.  They saw no proofs of it.  Of course they saw none.  Philip would take good care that there should be none if he had made up his mind that the death of the Prince should be considered a natural one.  And priori argument, which omits the character of the suspected culprit, and the extraordinary circumstances