This article uses the case of Anjou to analyse the argumentative strategies deployed in letters of remission for homicides from the end of the 15^th century until the 18^th century. In the letters of remission, it is not so much the actual behaviour of the people applying for remission that can be addressed, but rather the communication strategies used to be granted royal pardon. A study on the long run illustrates how these strategies changed over time, and what were the expectations of royal power towards violence committed by people falling under its jurisdiction. While defendants claimed self-defence throughout the period, four successive types of argumentative strategies are identified: claiming the relative lawfulness of premeditation (end of the 15^th century), confessing anger (during the reign of François I), asserting a kind of self-control (end of the 16^th century), and confessing drunkenness (18^th century).