The Gowrie Conspiracy

On page 76, our tour guide passes over with no comment the curious affair of the Gowrie Plot. Over the period of several hours on August 5, 1600, the King of Scotland was easily captured by a supposedly rebel lord—the Earl of Gowrie—and just as easily escaped. The events of the day are confusing and several interpretations may be laid on them.
In brief, Alexander Ruthven, the young brother of the Earl of Gowrie, convinced James, who was in the field hunting, to accompany Ruthven to Gowrie House in Perth. The story he is supposed to have given the king is that he had captured a vagrant carrying a pot of gold. When they arrived in Perth, Ruthven conducted the king to a tower room in which was a tall armed man. Ruthven left James there, locking the door behind him; and told the king's party, coming later, that the King had already left Perth. Some time later, the king shouted from a window in his room. His attendants rushed the tower, killing Ruthven, and James was freed unharmed.
There are three broad interpretations of these events:

1. That there was a plot by Ruthven, or Gowrie and Ruthven, to kidnap and/or kill the king.
2. That it was a plot by the king to ruin the Ruthvens, whom he viewed as dangerous to his throne.
3. That it was just a misunderstanding that was blown out of proportion.

There isn't room (an I have no patience) to sift the evidence here. No explanation seems entirely satisfactory. Samuel Cowen, in an entertaining book, takes the position that the king was the conspirator. Andrew Lang, in James VI and the Gowrie Mystery looks at all sides, but concludes that Gowrie and Ruthven were the plotters.
Why is this important (especially given that our tour guide does not find it so)? It is not because if insight it gives us on James's character--clearly the evidence is ambiguous whether the king in this case was

• Greedy and gullible, or
  
• Crafty and vengeful, or
• Careless and ill-tempered

No, the importance, if there is any, lies in the use James made of this incident in later years. He kept it as a personal holiday (and so the court must also) and held it up as a special sign of providence. Unless the third interpretation above is true, this required a certain cynicism, or perhaps self-aggrandizement, hints of which I think we will frequently see in James I of England.