Bourgeon agreed, pointing to the Spanish ambassador's comments in 1571 that "several things" were preparing and would happen during the wedding festivities. A contemporary pamphlet claimed that evil royal advisors had planned the massacre with the aim of establishing a Turkish-style tyranny in France. However, Heller revealed that this pamphlet was a form of anti-Italian propaganda intended to unite the Huguenot and Catholic nobility against Catherine. Neale disagrees with the pamphleteers that Catherine premeditated a plan to attack the Huguenots, pointing out that the true purpose of the Bayonne meeting was to arrange a double wedding for her children into the Philip II family . Neale and Knecht agree that the pamphlets do not accurately represent the nature of the massacre. They suggest that the spark of the plot was the failed assassination of Coligny. Salviati's account confirms this by noting that "things would not have gone the same way" if the shot had killed Coligny, indicating that the plot was a real reaction to fears of a Huguenot revolt. Sutherland clarifies this, suggesting that the plot against the Huguenot nobles was never an ideal, but a desperate plot for a desperate situation, and this is representative of the Spanish ambassador's view that "the admiral's death was a planned action, that of the Huguenots". it was the result of a sudden decision." Salviati's account indicates that the Queen Mother acted alone in organizing the general massacre "exhorting Charles to massacre all who followed". Holt disagrees, evidence shows that there was a consensus within the royal council in support of the attack on the nobles, but rejects that the king's council condoned the popular massacre that followed. This is credible, Charles himself ordered the violence to stop and the Duke of Guise also worked to prevent it