In order to properly understand the
history of the Logans of Restalrig, one must understand the politics of
the day, including the attempt on the life of King James VI of Scotland
on 5 August 1600, known to some as the "Gowrie Conspiracy", and the "Gowrie
Mystery" to others.
information of 7th
Laird of Restlrig
B. Other key players
1. The King: James IV of SCT and James I of ENG
2. Ministers and Justices
3. The Ruthvens (Earl Gowrie)
4. George Sprot, notary
C. The king's
D. Those who defended the Logans
E. The evidence of Sprot
F. The modern review of the evidence/handwritting
G. What happened to Logan's children
H. The Forfeiture
I. The Reversal of Attainder
A. The last Laird of Restalrig: "Old Rugged and Dangerous"
Robert Logan's father died in 1561 when Robert was but six years of age and he was raised by his step-father, Lord Home and his mother Lady Agnes Gray, along with his younger brother John. Robert's mother produced a son, Alexander, with Lord Home which made Robert and Alexander half-brothers. Robert and Alexander remained close throughout their years. Robert was a well educated man, well aware of social events of his day, and unfortunately deeply steeped in political intrigue of the Royal Court. It is believed by this author that Lord Home (Robert's step-father) was executed for his involvement with Mary Stuart in 1573.
As early as 1573 (at the age of 18), Logan was involved in
holding the Castle of Edinburgh for Mary Stuart against the English,
alongside his step-father Lord Alexander Home. We can only assume
that Logan escaped the hanging that was due him because of his age (21
was considered having reached majority) or some deal was struck to
spare Logan. Thus began his life of intrigue.
Logan has been characterized by Protestant factions as being a "debosed [sic] drunked man". He was considered the "wildest of the wild" and a very dangerous and powerful man. He has been characterized as something of a pirate, but his behavior was overlooked mostly because "he was a man of substance and of a good house" and Logan further strengthened his support by alliances. Lord Willoughby described Logan as: "a vain lose man, a greate favourer of thefes reputed, yet a man of good clan, as they (the Scots) here tearme it, and a gud felow". Considering all his irresponsible behavior, one would expect to find Logan having financial troubles and owing great sums of money to others. Oddly, we find him "putting others to the horn", in other words, he was a lender of money.
Logan was a firm supporter of Queen Mary and the Catholic party, involving himself in numerous Catholic plots, though he was reported to be friendly to the Protestants of his day. But, Logan was also known for lending shelter to Protestant firebrand, wild Frank Stewart, Earl of Bothwell. It is this authors opinion that Logan was loyal to those interests that best served his interests, be they Catholic or Protestant. He was not a particularly religious man. To imply that Logan's religious leanings were Catholic because he was unable to embrace the changes wrought by the Reformation would be nothing short of a guess. But the facts are that Logan was very young during the Reformation (1560), and at this time the collegiate church that his family built and supported was destroyed by the Protestant General Assembly; there were English troops (and English allies) camped all over Restalrig, his family estate, during the Seige of Leith; and his step-father had apparent ties to the Catholics. Religion, in that age, was political. Politics were different than we know it today. Intrigue and plots against the King were common, very common. It was accepted practice to kidnap a Monarch if you wanted to forward a differing agenda. Kidnapping was a minor crime, but murdering a King is a different matter; murder is considered High Treason and is punishable by anything they can think to do to you. This distinction is a very important one and will be discussed later when we examine the King's claims.
Logan's first wife divorced him, for reasons I've not
discovered, after giving him one son in 1577. His second wife
produced four children in 9 years of marriage, before she
died. His third, and last wife, was quoted in 1601 as having
said: "If it be God's will, I desire never to have a child to him
(Logan)". Apparently God was not listening, as she later had a
daughter with Logan.
When Elias II was Abbot of Holyrood an event took place, which is largely ignored in Scottish History. In 1309 while the south of Scotland was overrun by the troops of Edward II the trial of the Knight Templars took place. It is from this trial that some curious light is thrown upper the inner life of the Order. The details of the trial ordered by Clement V is given in a very rare book entitled Concila”
The inquisitors were perhaps a bit impatient to hear about the devil, the cat and the curious story of the Skulls.
There is a strange story told which is traditionally linked with the Templars: A great lady of Maraclea was loved by a Templar, a lord of Sidon, but she died in her youth and on the night of her burial this wicked lover crept to the grave, dug up her body and violated it. Then a voice from the void bade him to return in nine months time for he would find a son. He obeyed the injunction and at the appointed time he opened the grave again and found a head on the leg bones of the skeleton-a skull and crossbones. The same voice bade him to guard it well for it would be the giver of good things. And so he carried it away with him and it protected him from his enemies. It passed into the possession of the Order” (This version of the story is from War, freemasonry and the ancient Gods, p305)
This story became connected to the Order and is mentioned in the inquisitions records and in the versions held by the freemasons, which adopted the skull and crossbones and often employed it as a device on tombstones.
When Sir Logan’s skeleton was rediscovered at South Leith Church. During the restoration of the Church in 1847 or 1848. The Jaw bone was missing and a explanation of this can be found in the ceremony of installation in the Masonic cross degree of the Knight Templar of Jerusalem under the obligations of the Masonic Order. The obligation start In the name of the blessed trinity and in commemoration of St John of Jerusalem, the first faithful soldier of and martyr of Jesus Christ. I do solemnly promise and swear that I will never illegally reveal the secrets of a Knight Templar to a Royal Arch mason…if ever I wilfully violate this, my solemn compact as a brother Knight Templar, mat my skull be sown asunder with a rough saw, my brains be taken out and put on a charger to be consumed by the scorching sun and my skull in another charger in commemoration of St John of Jerusalem, that first faithful soldier and martyr of our Lord and Saviour…” The penal sign, which is to draw the forefinger or the thumb across the forehead, is indicative of the penalty of having the skull sawn asunder.
So who could have removed the jawbone and carried the sentence of the Order? Suspicion must be placed on David Lindsay (1560-1613), the first protestant minister of South Leith Parish Church. He was chaplain to James VI, he married him to Anne of Denmark in 1589 and baptised his children. Lindsay was the only one to believe that there had been an attempt made on the life of the King at the house of the Earl of Gowrie, Perth. In fact he conducted a service of thanksgiving at the Mercat Cross in Edinburgh for the Kings safe return. However, none of David Lindsay’s fellow ministers believed a word of it and said so. If the Gowrie conspiracy was a hoax then the trial of the remains of Sir Robert Logan was also a farce and everyone knew it. The trial however did take place and that is a historic fact, but it wasn’t done for the reasons stated, it was for his actions at Fast Castle in trying to find Templar treasure and because of this he was condemned
David Lindsay had Masonic connections and was most likely a Mason himself. He also knew William Schew who set up the first Masonic lodges in Scotland. Not only this, David Lindsay might have been obeying the orders of the king: the monarch was and still is the head of the Masons in this country or, as today, a close relative of the Monarch and Royal Family. During the restoration of the church in 1848 many of the original gravestones within the Church were smashed. The bits used for the floors of the east porches of the church. I suspect this was done to cover up any connection with the freemasons, freemasons having an ambiguous position within the Christian church. Bearing in mind the disruption of 1843. They didn’t want any further problems. These gravestones can still be seen to this day.
As Logan’s sentence was carried out, and so his crime must have been against the Order. Whoever removed the jawbone must have been disturbed in there work. Only the marks of a rough saw were discovered on the skull of sir Robert Logan- the jaw bone being removed must have been to proof that a attempt had been made to carry out the orders of the Masonic Templar
However the Baron’s of Leith and Restalrig the de Lestaric’s and the Logan's were in the Middle Ages both Templar knights and later the Logan family had very strong Masonic connections.
This is the possible explanation of why Sir Robert Logan is erroneously connected to the foundation of the Preceptory of St Anthony. The “Rental Book of St Anthony” which names Sir Robert Logan as founder of the Preceptory of St Anthony was simply made up from unknown sources because in the early years of the 16th century plague broke out in Leith and out of about a dozen monks only two survived because they had fled. Subsequently the people of Leith broke into the Preceptory and destroyed all their records because among them would have been Tax and debt records. So when the monks returned they had no records to base their so called Rental book on. It is only in recent years and with access to the Papal records and by using the Ballantyne Records that a truer picture has emerged as to the origins of the Preceptory of St Anthony.Acknowledgement
In the years prior to his death, the 7th (and last) Laird of
Restalrig was acting a bit strange. He sold off major portions of
his estate (some people speculate Logan did this to keep the King from
confiscating his property in the event that he was caught in some
nefarious act, though there is no evidence to support this speculation
other than hind-sight.) There is evidence that Logan did
not enjoy owning property and also that he was raising capital to
finance a sea voyage to the West Indies. Frankly based on what I
have been able to see regarding Logan's behavior, I would suggest that
the man was mentally unstable, or at the very least an extremely
Logan died in the Canongate in July 1606 of plague and was buried at St. Mary's (now South Leith Church), and left an estate worth £ 29,042 , a very wealthy man.
in the Gowrie Conspriracy
and Logan Forfeiture
James I (of England) (1566-1625), King of England (1603-1625)
and, as James VI, King of Scotland (1567-1625).
Born on June 19, 1566, in Edinburgh Castle, James was the only son of Mary, Queen of Scots, and her second husband, Henry Stewart, Lord Darnley. When Mary was forced to abdicate in 1567, he was proclaimed King of Scotland, at the age of one year. A succession of regents ruled the kingdom until 1576, when James became nominal ruler. The boy king was little more than a puppet in the hands of political intriguers until 1581. In that year, with the aid of his favourites, James Stuart, Earl of Arran, and Esmé Stuart, Duke of Lennox, James assumed actual rule of Scotland. Scotland was at that time divided domestically by conflict between Protestants and Roman Catholics, and in foreign affairs by those favouring an alliance with France and those supporting England. In 1582 James was kidnapped by a group of Protestant nobles headed by William Ruthven, Earl of Gowrie, and was held virtual prisoner until he escaped the next year.
In 1586, by the Treaty of Berwick, James formed an alliance with his cousin, Elizabeth of England, and the following year, after the execution of his mother, he succeeded in reducing the power of the great Catholic nobles. His marriage to Anne of Denmark in 1589 brought him for a time into close relationship with the Protestants. After the Gowrie conspiracy of 1600, an alleged kidnap attempt at Gowrie House that gave the king an excellent pretext to move against the Gowrie family, James introduced bishops into the Church of Scotland, undermining its Presbyterian character, and assumed the title of Lord of the Isles to increase his control of the Highland nobility.
In 1603 Elizabeth I died childless, and James succeeded her as James I, the first Stuart king of England. In 1604 he ended England’s war with Spain, and he began the Ulster Plantation in 1607, but he could not solve the English Crown’s deep-seated political and financial problems. His choice of favourites, first Robert Carr, Viscount Rochester, and subsequently Earl of Somerset (who was imprisoned for poisoning Sir Thomas Overbury), and later George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham (who was assassinated), also led to difficulties with Parliament.
James was a natural scholar. On a visit to Cambridge in 1615 he
engaged some of the University’s fellows in argument and debate. He
wrote and published books on political theory and owned an extensive
library. As a boy he had been taught by the renowned humanist and
radical Protestant George Buchanan, who gave him an excellent education.
* Ed. note: the fact of James' homosexuality has not been established
beyond doubt, but it is considered true, yet there remains substantial
controversy on this point between his detractors and his defenders,
whose chief concern seems to be that any blemish on James' character might be seen to reflect
negatively on the legitimacy of the Authorized Version of the Bible, of
which James was the royal sponsor.
The Ministers and Justices:
The preachers of the Kirk, whose influence in Scotland was too
extensive for the king to neglect, were only with the greatest
difficulty persuaded to accept Jamess account of the occurrence,
although he, voluntarily submitted himself.to cross-examination by one
of their number. Their belief, and that of their partisans, influenced
no doubt by political hostility to James, was that the king had
invented the story of a conspiracy by Gowrie to cover his own design to
extirpate the Ruthven family.
Hart, William, Sir, Lord Justice of Scotland
David Lindsay was born about the year 1530 and was a scion of the house of Edzell a branch of the family of Crawford. His grandfather, Walter, fought and died at Flodden. After studying at St Andrews he went abroad to Italy and France and imbibed the principles of the Reformation. It is not likely that he was ever ordained to the priesthood of the Roman Church, for he was never characterised as an “Apostate” a charge levelled against others among his fellow labourers but there is no conclusive evidence on the point.
David Lindsay was the first protestant minister of South Leith Parish Church. He was chaplain to James VI, he married him to Anne of Denmark in 1589 and baptised his children. Lindsay was the only one to believe that there had been an attempt made on the life of the King at the house of the Earl of Gowrie, Perth. In fact he conducted a service of thanksgiving at the Mercat Cross in Edinburgh for the Kings safe return. However, none of David Lindsay’s fellow ministers believed a word of it and said so. If the Gowrie conspiracy was a hoax then the trial of the remains of Sir Robert Logan was also a farce and everyone knew it. The trial however did take place and that is a historic fact, but it wasn’t done for the reasons stated, it was for his actions at Fast Castle in trying to find Templar treasure and because of this he was condemned. This connection to Logan is a curious one, and seems a betrayal of his own family. The Lindsay and Logan families were very much intertwined by marriage, both before and after 1600.
The Ruthvens:Patrick Ruthven, 3rd lord of Ruthven, (1520?–1566), father of:
Patrick Ruthven, 3rd lord of
Ruthven, (1520?–1566),was a firm supporter of Protestant
doctrines. A privy councillor to Mary Queen of Scots, he took a leading
part in the murder (1566) of David Rizzio and wrote a memoir of the
affair, which still exists in manuscript in the British Museum. He fled
to England, where he died shortly after. Associated with him in the
murder was his son, William
Ruthven, 4th lord of Ruthven and 1st earl of Gowrie, 1541?–1584.
He also fled to England and remained there until pardoned (1567). He
was head of the group of nobles who planned and carried out in 1582
what came to be known as the raid of Ruthven, in which they seized the
young King James VI (later James I of England) and brought about the
dismissal of Esmé Stuart, 1st duke of Lennox. Although pardoned
in 1583, Gowrie began plotting again. He was tried for high treason and
beheaded. Two of his sons, John Ruthven, 6th lord of Ruthven and
3rd earl of Gowrie, 1578?–1600, and Alexander Ruthven ,
1580?–1600, were involved in the mysterious Gowrie conspiracy of 1600.
The two brothers were murdered at their estates in Perth by the retinue
of James VI, with the king in attendance. None of the various
explanations offered after the murders were widely believed, though
the likeliest explanation is that the events evolved out of an
unsuccessful attempt by the Ruthvens to seize the king. James VI later
annexed their estates to the crown.
Scottish conspirator, was the second son of William, 4th Lord Ruthven and 1st earl of Gowrie (cr. 1581), by his wife Dorothea, daughter of Henry Stewart, 2nd Lord Methven. The Ruthven family was of ancient Scottish descent, and had owned extensive estates in the time of Wffliam the Lion; the Ruthven peerage dated from the year 1488. The 1st earl of Gowrie (? 1541I584), and his father, Patrick, 3rd Lord Ruthven (c. 1520--I566), had both been concerned in the murder of Rizzio in 1566; and both took an active part on the side of the Kirk in the constant intrigues and factions among the Scottish nobility of the period. The former had been the custodian of Mary, queen of Scots, during her imprisonment in Loch Leven, where, according to the queen, he had pestered her with amorous attentions; he had also been the chief actor in the plot known as the raid of Ruthven when King James VI. was treacherously seized while a guest at thecastle of Ruthven in 1582, and kept under restraint for several months while the earl remained at the head of the government. Though pardoned for this conspiracy he continued to plot against the king in conjunction with the earls of Mar and Angus; and he was executed for high treason on the 2nd of May 1584; his friends complaining that the confession on which he was convicted of treason was obtained by a promise of pardon from the king. His eldest son, William, 2nd earl of Gowrie, only survived till 1588, the family dignities and estates, which had been forfeited, having been restored to him in 1586.
When, therefore, John Ruthven succeeded to the earldom while still a
child, he inherited along with his vast estates family traditions of
treason and intrigue. There was also a popular belief, though without
foundation, that there was Tudor blood in his veins; and Burnet
afterwards asserted that Gowrie stood next in succession to the crown
of England after King James VI. Like his father and grandfather before
him, the young earl attached himself to the party of the reforming
preachers, who procured his election in 1592 as provost of Perth, a
post that was almost hereditary in the Ruthven family. He received an
excellent education at the grammar school of Perth and the university
of Edinburgh, where he was in the summer of 1593, about the time when
his mother, and his sister the countess of Atholl, aided Bothwell in
forcing himself sword in hand into the kings bedchamber in Holyrood
Palace. A few months later Gowrie joined with Atholl and Montrose in
offering to serve Queen Elizabeth, then almost openly hostile to the
Scottish king; and it is probable that he had also relations with the
rebellious Bothwell. Gowrie had thus been already deeply engaged in
treasonable conspiracy when, in August 1594, he proceeded to Italy with
his tutor, William Rhynd, to study at the university of Padua. On his
way home in 1599 he remained for some months at Geneva with the
reformer Theodore Beza; and at Paris he made acquaintance with the
English ambassador, who reported him to Cecil as devoted to Elizabeths
service, and a nobleman of whom there may be exceeding use made. In
Paris he may also at this time have had further communication with the
exiled Bothwell; in London he was received with marked favor by Queen
Elizabeth and her ministers.
These circumstances owe their importance to the light they throw on the obscurity of the celebrated Gowrie conspiracy, which resulted in the slaughter of the earl and his brother by attendants of King James at Gowrie House, Perth, a few weeks after Gowries return to Scotland in May 1600. This The event ranks among the unsolved enigmas of history. The mystery is caused by the improbabilities inherent in conany of the alternative hypotheses suggested to account spiracy. for the unquestionable facts of the occurrence; the discrepancies in the evidence produced at the time; the apparent lack of forethought or plan on the part of the chief actors, whichever hypothesis be adopted, as well as the thoughtless folly of their actual procedure; and the insufficiency of motive, whoever the guilty parties may have been. The solutions of the mystery that have been suggested are three in number: first, that Gowrie and his brother had concocted a plot to murder, or more probably to kidnap King James, and that they lured him to Gowrie House for this purpose; secondly, that James paid a surprise visit to Gowrie House with the intention, which he carried out, of slaughtering the two Ruthvens; and thirdly, that the tragedy was the outcome of an unpremeditated brawl following high words between the king and the earl, or his brother. To understand the relative probabilities of these hypotheses regard must be had to the condition of Scotland in the year 1600. Here it can only be recalled that plots to capture the person of the sovereign for the purpose of coercing his actions were of frequent occurrence, more than one of which had been successful, and in several of which the Ruthven family had themselves taken an active part; that the relations between England and Scotland were at this time more than usually strained, and that the young earl of Gowrie was reckoned in London among the adherents of Elizabeth; that the Kirk party, being at variance with James, looked upon Gowrie as an hereditary partisan of their cause, and had recently sent an agent to Paris to recall him to Scotland as their leader; that Gowrie was believed to be James' rival for the succession to the English crown. Moreover, as regards the question of motive it is to be observed, on the one hand, that the Ruthvens believed Gowries father to have been treacherously done to death, and his widow insulted by the kings favorite minister; while, on the other, James was indebted in a large sum of money to the earl of Gowries estate, and popular gossip credited either Gowrie or his brother, Alexander Ruthven, with being the lover of the queen. Although the evidence on these points, and on every minute circumstance connected with the tragedy itself, has been exhaustively examined by historians of the Gowrie conspiracy, it cannot be asserted that the mystery has been entirely dispelled; but, while it is improbable that complete certainty will ever be arrived at as to whether the guilt lay with James or with the Ruthven brothers, the most modern research in the light of materials inaccessible or overlooked till the 20th century, points pretty clearly to the conclusion that there was a genuine conspiracy by Gowrie and his brother to kidnap the king. If this be the true solution, it follows that King James was innocent of the blood of the Ruthvens; and it raises the presumption that his own account of the occurrence was, in spite of the glaring improbabilities which it involved, substantially true.
The facts as related by James and other witnesses were, in outline, as follows. On the 5th of August 1600 the king rose early to hunt in the neighborhood of Falkland Palace, about 14 m. from Perth. Just as he was setting forth in company with the duke of Lennox, the earl of Mar, Sir Thomas Erskine and others, he was accosted by Alexander Ruthven (known as the master of Ruthven), a younger brother of the earl of Gowrie, who had ridden from Perth that morning to inform the king that he bad met on the previous day a man in possession of a pitcher full of foreign gold coins, whom he had secretly locked up in a room at Gowrie House. Ruthven urged the king to ride to Perth to examine this man for himself and to take possession of the treasure. After some hesitation James gave credit to the story, suspecting that the possessor of the coins was one of the numerous Catholic agents at that time moving about Scotland in disguise. Without giving a positive reply to Alexander Ruthven, James started to hunt; but later in the morning he called Ruthven to him and said he would ride to Perth when the hunting was over. Ruthven then despatched a servant, Henderson, by whom he had been accompanied from Perth in the early morning, to tell Gowrie that the king was coming to Gowrie House. This messenger gave the information to Gowrie about ten oclock in the morning. Meanwhile Alexander Ruthven was urging the king to lose no time, requesting him to keep the matter secret from his courtiers, and to bring to Gowrie House as small a retinue as possible. James, with a train of some fifteen persons, arrived at Gowrie House about one oclock, Alexander Ruthven having spurred forward for a mile or so to announce the kings approach. But notwithstanding Hendersons warning some three hours earlier, Gowrie had made no preparations for the kings entertainment, thus giving the impression of having been taken by surprise. After a meagre repast, for which he was kept waiting an hour, James, forbidding his retainers to follow him, went with Alexander Ruthven up the main staircase and passed through two chambers and two doors, both of which Ruthven locked behind them, into a turret-room at the angle of the house, with windows looking on the courtyard and the street. Here James expected to find the mysterious prisoner with the foreign gold. He found instead an armed man, who, as appeared later, was none other than Gowries servant, Henderson. Alexander Ruthven immediately put on his hat, and drawing Hendersons dagger, presented it to the kings breast with threats of instant death if James opened a window or called for help. An allusion by Ruthven to the execution of his father, the 1st earl of Gowrie, drew from James a reproof of Ruthvens ingratitude for various benefits conferred on his family. Ruthven then uncovered his head, declaring that Jamess life should be safe if he remained quiet; then, committing the king to the custody of Henderson, he left the turret ostensibly to consult Gowrie and locked the door behind him. While Ruthven was absent the king questioned Henderson, who professed ignorance of any plot and of the purpose for which he had been placed in the turret; he also at Jamess request opened one of the windows, and was about to open the other when Ruthven returned. Whether or not Alexander had seen his brother is uncertain. But Gowrie had meantime spread the report below that the king had taken horse and had ridden away; and the royal retinue were seeking their horses to follow him. Alexander, on re-entering the turret, attempted to bind Jamess hands; a struggle ensued, in the course of which the king was seen at the window by some of his followers below in the street, who also heard him cry treason and call for help to the earl of Mar. Gowrie affected not to hear these cries, but kept asking what was the matter. Lennox, Mar and most of the other lords and gentlemen ran up the main The staircase to the kings help, but were stopped by the slaughter locked door, which they spent some time in trying of the to batter down. John Ramsay (afterwards earl of Ruthvegs. Holdernesse), noticing a small dark stairway leading directly to the inner chamber adjoining the turret, ran up it and found the king struggling at grips with Ruthven. Drawing his dagger, Ramsay wounded Ruthven, who was then pushed down the stairway by the king. Sir Thomas Erskine, summoned by Ramsay, now followed up the small stairs with Dr Hugh Herries, and these two coming upon the wounded Ruthven despatched him with their swords. Gowrie, entering the courtyard with his stabler Thomas Cranstoun and seeing his brothers body, rushed up the staircase after Erskine and Herries, followed by Cranstoun and others of his retainers; and in the melee Gowrie was killed. Some commotion was caused in the town by the noise of these proceedings; but it quickly subsided, though the king did not deem it safe to return to Falkland for some hours.
Gowries two younger brothers, William and Patrick Ruthven, fled to
England; and after the accession of James to the English throne William
escaped abroad, but Patrick was taken and imprisoned for nineteen years
in the Tower of London. Released in 1622, Patrick Ruthven resided first
at Cambridge and afterwards in Somersetshire, being granted a small
pension by the crown. He married Elizabeth Woodford, widow of the 1st
Lord Gerrard, by whom he had two sons and a daughter, Mary; the latter
entered the service of Queen Henrietta Maria, and married the famous
painter van Dyck, who painted several portraits of her. Patrick died in
poverty in a cell in the Kings Bench iii 1652, being buried as Lord
Ruthven. His son, Patrick, presented a petition to Oliver Cromwell in
1656, in which, after reciting that the parliament of Scotland in 1641
had restored his father to the barony of Ruthven, he prayed that his
extreme poverty might be relieved by the bounty of the Protector.
The tragedy caused intense excitement throughout Scotland, and the investigation of the circumstances was followed with much interest in England also, where all the details were reported to Elizabeths ministers. The preachers of the Kirk, whose influence in Scotland was too extensive for the king to neglect, were only with the greatest difficulty persuaded to accept Jamess account of the occurrence, although he, voluntarily submitted himself to cross-examination by one of their number. Their belief, and that of their partisans, influenced no doubt by political hostility to James, was that the king had invented the story of a conspiracy by Gowrie to cover his own design to extirpate the Ruthven family. James g,ave some color to this belief, which has not been entirely abandoned, by the relentless severity with which he pursued the two younger, and unquestionably innocent, brothers of the earl. Great efforts were made by the government to prove the complicity of others in the plot. One noted and dissolute conspirator, Sir Robert Logan of Restalrig, was posthumously convicted of having been privy to the Gowrie conspiracy on the evidence of certain letters produced by a notary, George Sprot, who swore they had been written by Logan to Gowrie and others. These letters, which are still in existence, were in fact forged by Sprot in imitation of Logans handwriting; but the researches of Andrew Lang have shown cause for suspecting that the most important of them was either copied by Sprot from a genuine original by Logan, or that it embodied the substance of such a letter. If this be correct, it would appear that the conveyance of the king to Fast Castle, Logans impregnable fortress on the coast of Berwickshire, was part of the plot; and it supplies, at all events, an additional piece of evidence to prove the genuineness of the Gowrie conspiracy.
See Andrew Lang, James VI. and the Gowrie Mystery (London, 1902),
and the authorities there cited; Robert Pitcairn, Criminal Trials in
Scotland (~ vols., Edinburgh, 1833); David Moysie, Memoirs of the
Affairs of Scotland, 1577-1603 (Edinburgh, 1830); Louis A. Barb, The
Tragedy of Gowrie House (London, 1887); Andrew Bisset, Essays on
Historical Truth (London, 1871); David Calderwood, History of the Kirk
of Scotland (8 vols., Edinburgh, I 842 1849); P. F. Tytler, History of
Scotland (9 vols., Edinburgh, 1828 1843); John Hill Burton, History of
Scotland (7 vols., Edinburgh, 1867-1870). W. A. Craigie has edited as
Skotlands Rimur some Icelandic ballads relating to the Gowrie
conspiracy. He has also printed the Danish translation of the official
account of the conspiracy, which was published at Copenhagen in I6of.
(R. J. M.)
The destruction of the Ruthvens was the making of the Murrays. The head of this family, the Laird of Tullibardine, ancestor to the Duke of Athole, after the slaughter of the two brothers, came to the door of Gowrie House and danced for joy. Calderwood, who reports this incident, expresses his belief that for this malignant behaviour Tullibardine is undergoing his appropriate and well-merited punishment in the other world. ‘But little cause,’ he adds, ‘has he to dance at this hour.’ This representative of a family always unpatriotic and self-seeking, obtained for his eldest son Gowrie’s hereditary office of sheriff of the county of Perth, and for one of his younger sons the barony and castle of Ruthven. His relative, Sir David Murray, ancestor of the present Earl of Mansfield, received at the same time a grant of the abbey and lands of Scone.
In connection with this tragic event a story has been handed down by tradition which has been quoted in support of the theory that the Ruthvens were the victims, not the authors, of the conspiracy by which they lost their lives, and that the hatred entertained towards them by the King was in part at least owing to his jealousy of the younger Ruthven. It is alleged that the good looks of this gallant youth had attracted the notice of the Queen, and that he stood high in her Majesty’s good graces. James, it is said, on one occasion had presented his wife with a locket suspended to a ribbon of a peculiar colour. Rambling about his garden one day, the King stumbled upon Alexander Ruthven asleep in an arbour, and perceived around his neck a ribbon of the same colour as the one he had given to the Queen. Stung with jealousy and wrath, James hobbled off, as fast as his shambling gait would allow, to find his royal consort. One of the maids of honour, however, had witnessed the scene, and saw at a glance what was passing in the King’s mind. She instantly snatched the locket from the neck of the sleeping youth, and ran with all speed by another route to the Queen’s apartment. Placing the trinket in her Majesty’s hands, she in a few hurried words told her what had taken place. The Queen put the locket among her jewels and quietly awaited the result. In a minute or two the King burst into the apartment, flushed in face and sputtering with excitement, and demanded a sight of the trinket he had presented to his wife. Anne quietly opened her jewel. box and placed the locket in his hands. Surveying it with a suspicious and puzzled look, but unable to resist the evidence of his senses as to its identity, James remarked, in words which have become proverbial, ‘Diel ha’e me, but like’s an ill mark.’ Whatever amount of truth there may be in the story, there is good reason to believe that there is no truth in the allegation that the destruction of the Ruthvens was owing to the jealousy of the King.
The two younger brothers of the unfortunate Earl fled for their lives towards the Borders, and, travelling on foot through unfrequented byways, reached Berwick on the 10th of August, four days after their flight from Dirleton. Sir John Carey, the governor of that Border fortress, writing to Secretary Cecil, says: ‘The King has made great search and lays great wait for the two younger brothers, who, not daring to tarry in Scotland, they are this day come into Berwick secretly in disguised apparel, and being brought to me they only desire that their lives may be safe, and that they may have a little oversight here till the truth of their cause may be known. And the pitiful case of the old distressed good Countess hath made me the willinger to give my consent to their stay here a while.’
Such was the vindictive hatred which James cherished towards these two innocent and helpless youths, that on his way to take possession of the English throne he issued at Burghley, where he remained several days, a proclamation, dated 27th April, 1603, commanding all sheriffs and justices to arrest ‘William and Patrick Ruthven,’ and to bring them before the Privy Council. He also warned all persons against harbouring or concealing them. William, the elder of the two, made his escape to the Continent, where he acquired a great reputation for his knowledge of chemistry. Burnet says that it was given out that he had discovered the philosopher’s stone. A turn for the study of natural science, combined with magic, was hereditary in the Ruthvens. Lord Patrick, the assassin of Rizzio, presented Queen Mary with a diamond ring, which he told her had the virtue of preserving her from poison. His son, the first Earl, was alleged to have consulted wizards for the purpose of prying into futurity, and Earl John, the conspirator, brought with him from Italy ‘a little close parchment bag full of magical characters and words of enchantment, wherein it seemed that he had put his confidence, thinking himself never safe without them, and therefore ever carried them about with him.’ Patrick, the youngest of the five sons of the Earl of Gowrie (‘Greysteil’) was arrested under the proclamation issued by the vindictive enemy of his house and carried to the Tower, where he languished without trial or even accusation for a period of nineteen years, extending from about the nineteenth to the thirty-eighth year of his age. In 1616 Patrick Ruthven obtained a grant of an annual payment of £200 ‘for apparel, books, physic, and such like necessaries,’ which sum was to be in lieu of the allowances previously made to the Lieutenant of the Tower for those purposes. Six years after this period the doors of Patrick Ruthven’s prison were at length opened, and he was set at liberty on condition that he should reside at the University of Cambridge, or within six miles of it. A few weeks later (11th September, 1622) he received an annuity of £500 ‘payable out of the Exchequer for life.’ On the 4th of February, 1623—4, he petitioned the King for an enlargement of the condition which bound him to reside at Cambridge. His request was granted, but, with the old petty jealousy of his approach to the royal presence, it was with the reservation that he should come no nearer the Court than he was permitted to do by the previous stipulation, and that he should not at any time seat himself in any place where his Majesty should not like him to be resident. He selected Somersetshire for his place of abode in the meantime. In 1624 a proposal was made, sanctioned by King James, for the establishment of a Royal Academy, and in the list of those who were to be the first Fellows sanctioned and approved by the King occurs the name of ’Patrick Ruthven.’ Nothing farther is known of his history until after the lapse of sixteen years, when James had been long dead. On the 27th of February, 1639—40, a deed was executed by him assigning £120 per annum, part of his pension of £500, to his ‘lovinge daughter, Mary Ruthven, spinster.’ This was the first notice of his having been married. It has recently been discovered that his wife was Elizabeth Woodford, ‘a fair young lady,’ widow of Thomas, first Lord Gerrard of Abbots Bromley, who died when Lord President of Wales, in 1617. But nothing is known as to how she became acquainted with the prisoner in the Tower, or where or when they were married. The lady died in 1624, leaving Patrick Ruthven a widower, with two daughters and three sons. Mary Ruthven, the younger daughter, is said to have been a young lady of extraordinary beauty. She was for some time at the Court of Queen Henrietta, and became the wife of Sir Anthony Vandyke, to whom she bore a daughter, but on the 9th of December, 1641, the very day on which the child was baptised, the great painter died. His daughter, named Justina, married Sir John Stepney of Prendergast. The gleam of sunshine which had been thrown across Patrick Ruthven’s melancholy life was thus swallowed up in darkness. Amid the turmoil of the Great Civil War, Patrick Ruthven’s pension appears to have been unpaid, and he was reduced to absolute poverty. He procured a degree of doctor of medicine and practised as a physician in London, but apparently with not much pecuniary success. Sir Harry Slingsby states in his Diary, under the year 1639, that his wife, after consulting many other medical advisers, made some ‘trials of Mr. Ruthven, a Scottish gentleman of the family of the Lord Gowrie, who made it his study in the art of physic to administer help to others, but not for any gain to himself.’ In Sanderson’s ‘Additions to Bishop Goodman,’ referring probably to the year 1651, it is stated that Patrick Ruthven ‘walks the streets poor, but well experienced in chymical physic and in other parts of learning.’ He was a fellow-student in chemistry and astrology with the celebrated Napier of Merchiston, who mentions him as a person ‘occupied in alchymie.’ It appears that in common with other leading members of his house, Patrick Ruthven was a student of those ‘mysteries of chemical philosophy which ignorance and prejudice have too often confounded with sorcery and magic.’ It is very sad to think that this inheritor and representative of some of the noblest blood in Scotland—a cousin of the King, and an accomplished philosopher—died at the. age of sixty-eight in the King’s Bench. His second son, Patrick, was twice married, but it is not known whether he left any issue. In 1656 he petitioned the Protector, Oliver Cromwell, for relief, alleging that £5,000 was due for arrears of his father’s pension. His petition was referred to the Council, but the result is not mentioned.
Sir Robert Logan of Restalrig, was posthumously convicted of having
been privy to the Gowrie conspiracy on the evidence of certain letters
produced by a notary George Sprott.
|Publisher||Printed by Melch. Bradwood, for William Aspley,|
|Title||The examinations, arraignment & conuiction of George Sprot, notary in Aye-mouth together with his constant and extraordinarie behauiour at his death, in Edenborough, Aug. 12. 1608. Written & set forth by Sir William Hart, Knight, L. Iustice of Scotland. Whereby appeareth the treasonable deuice betwixt Iohn late Earle of Gowry and Robert Logane of Restalrig (commonly called Lesterig) plotted by them for the cruell murthering of our most gracious Souereigne. Before which treatise is prefixed also a preface, written by G. Abbot Doctour of Diuinitie, and Deane of Winchester, who was present at the sayd Sprots execution.|
|Title||Examinations, arraignment & conviction of George Sprot, notary in Aye-mouth|
|Description||Abbot's preface forms the bulk of the book.|
|Description||The last leaf is blank.|
|Description||A variant of the 1609 edition.|
|Description||Reproduction of the original in the Yale University. Library.|
|Subject||Sprott, George, -- d. 1608 -- Early works to 1800.|
|Subject||Gowrie conspiracy, 1600 -- Early works to 1800.|
|Creator||Hart, William, Sir, Lord Justice of Scotland.|
|Creator||Abbot, George, 1562-1633.|
C. The King's claims
“When they found occation that hes Majestie’s haill nobillis and courtiers wer gone furthe, the twa brether desyrit his Majesty to goe and sie yair cabinet. Hes Majesty, a blist soul, thinking no evil went wt yame, qr they enterit in gripis wt him wt dageris to have slain him. But……he cryit ouir ane window ‘Treasone, treasone’. In the meine tyme the foirsaid twa brether had ane man standing behind the tapestrie in armes with ane twa handed sword in his hand quha wes ordeinit, giff yair sould come any helpe, he sould keip the dore till the murder could be done. Bot it pleasit God yat he wes maid powerless and could not steir out of this place qr he stuid. In the meine tyme hes Majesty and the twa brether are at the wrestling. Thomas Erskine and John Ramsay hes Majestie’s page of honour for the tyme came running up to the cabinet and at the last the twa brether conspyreris baith wer stikit and the Lord preservit the holy innocent Prince.”
This touching description of the attempted murder of the “holy innocent Prince” by the Earl of Gowrie and his brother, the Master of Ruthven relies entirely on the information of King James 6th himself. It is in effect the official version of events and was received with much scepticism by many people in Scotland and further afield.
defended the Logans
On 5 August 1600 there occurred at the Gowrie House in Perth a mysterious incident which has come down to us as "the Gowrie Conspiracy" about which several books have been written. It involved a supposed attempt on the life of James VI and the deaths of John Ruthven, 3rd Earl of Gowrie and his brother, Alexander. The king had ridden from Falkland Palace, having heard a story about the discovery of a crock of gold. It is impossible to tell how much of the evidence on both sides was invented afterwards to account for all the bizarre happenings of that day.
James was allegedly lured up into a turret overlooking the courtyard where he is supposed to have been threatened with a dagger. The king called "Murder! Murder!" from the turret window and this sparked off a riot and panic in the courtyard below. During this scuffle the Earl of Gowrie was killed at his own front door and when his brother came dashing down the stairs to the rescue he was also killed.
The probable truth is that there
was no conspiracy at all. The king was terrified of naked steel and
must have genuinely (but mistakenly) fancied himself to have been in
danger of his life. Crying out as he did, his entourage naturally
thought the worst and defended themselves and their king, killing,
amongst others, their host and his brother, neither of whom, so far as
we can prove, had any idea what was happening. Both bodies were taken
to Edinburgh and a macabre sitting of Parliament convicted the corpses
of treason. The king, however, was determined to make the incident
appear to be a conspiracy against his life and he therefore confiscated
all the Gowrie lands, possessions and monetary wealth. One of his
courtiers, the future Sir William Stewart of Grantully, was
given the Gowrie lands of Strathbraan 'for the saving of our lives at
the late conspiracy at Perth on the fifth day of August last bypast'.
James Murray, the king's Cup Bearer, ancestor of the Earls of
Mansfield, received Scone and Stormont, which the same family possesses
to this day. The incident was opportune for James: Gowrie's grandfather
had been one of the Murderers of David Rizzio in 1566 and his
father had organised the Ruthven Raid. Besides, the King owed Gowrie
Ł80,000, a debt that could now be set aside.
|From the Perthshire Diary:
There was said to be a hereditary feud between James and the Ruthven family. Lord Ruthven was implicated in the murder of Riccio and was therefore an enemy of James’ mother, Mary Queen of Scots.The Earl of Gowrie was later hung for his part in the Ruthven Raid. A case might therefore just be made for saying that the Earl of Gowrie and his brother wished to exact family revenge against the king but it appears inherently improbable. The Earl was only twenty-two, his brother younger. They could have no hope of murdering the King and remaining alive themselves for there were no other noblemen implicated in the affair. James, for his part, was known to be mean, vindictive, grasping and a proven liar. In addition, he owed the Earl a debt of Ł80,000 which was then conveniently cancelled and the family lands were confiscated to the Crown. The scepticism which greeted James’ story of the affair seems more than justified.
Victims of the Gowrie ConspiracyThe so-called Gowrie Conspiracy certainly resulted in the deaths of the Earl of Gowrie and his younger brother, but whether there was an actual conspiracy against the King is very much more problematical.
There was a deliberate and sustained attack on the character of the Earl of Gowrie after his death. Preaching in Edinburgh, the minister Patrick Galloway could say, “As to that man Gowrie, let none think that by this traitorous fact of his, that our religion has received ane blot; for ane of our religion was he not but a deep dissimulat hypocrite! Ane profound Atheist! Ane incarnall Devil in the coat of an Angel! As is maist evident baith by this traitorous fact, whilk we have received by his familiars” . There was the allegation that Gowrie, when in Italy, had audiences with the Pope and “made covenant and bands with him” to persuade the King to return to the Catholic faith.
After his death, a small paper book was found in his pocket allegedly scribbled over with necromantic signs and figures. Much effort was made to demonstrate from this that Gowrie was a sorcerer and a necromancer.
To obtain further information, Mr William Rhynd, who acted as the Earl’s tutor while he was abroad, was examined. His evidence not coming up to expectations, torture was applied without much success. George Nicholson writing to Lord Cecil in England. “Mr William Rhynd, the pedagogue, hath been extremely booted, but confesseth nothing of that matter against the Earl or his brother.”
There was still no evidence of a conspiracy to murder the King though three of the Earl’s companions were arraigned on a charge of attempting to defend the Earl and his brother when they were attacked by the King's servants. The three men, Thomas Cranstoun, probably the Earl’s secretary, George Craigingelt, a family servant and John Macduff, the Baron Officer of Strathbraan where the Gowries held land and a castle at Trochrie, were all charged.
“Albeit the said John Baron heard, saw and knew of his Majesty’s peril, nowise moved therewith……to make him any relief, but on the contrary pressing to assist the said treasonable attempt against his Majesty, ran forth to the High Street, where the deceased Earl was for the time and declared to him that his deceased brother was slain; and thereby incensed the said Earl to draw his swords and ran to his lodgings where his Majesty was for the time and invaded his Majesty’s servants, and pursuing them for their slaughter, dang them in divers parts of their bodies; and insisted in the treasonable execution of his conspiracy, to the very death……” and “did what in you lay to stir up all men to assist the deceased Earl in his said conspiracy.”
This is a somewhat different version of events to that given by Andrew Melville, perhaps more probable and giving the King a less heroic role.
John Macduff and his two companions were found guilty and hanged at the Mercat Cross in Perth on August 23rd, but as a contemporary wrote, “they confessed nothing which might smell of any conspiracy.”
If no evidence for a conspiracy ever came to light it was not for want of trying. Some three hundred and fifty five innocent citizens of Perth were examined in the aftermath of the murders.
A mile S.E. of the links lies the ancient village of RESTALRIG, the home of the Logans, from whom the superiority of Leith was purchased in 1553 by the queen regent. Sir Robert Logan (d. 1606) was alleged to have been one of the Gowrie conspirators and to have arranged to imprison the king in Fast Castle. Ihis charge, however, was not made until three years after his death, when his bones were exhumed for trial. He was then found guilty of high treason and sentence of forfeiture, but there is reason to suspect that the whole case was trumped up. The old church escaped demolition at the Reformation and even the fine east window was saved. In the vaults repose Sir Robert and other Logans, besides several of the lords Balmerino, and Lord Broughams father lies in the kirkyard. The well of St Triduana, which was reputed to possess wonderful curative powers, vanished when the North British railway was constructed.
"LEITH." LoveToKnow 1911 Online Encyclopedia. © 2003, 2004 LoveToKnow.
THE STORY OF THE SCOTTISH CHURCH
FROM THE REFORMATION TO THE
M‘Crie, D.D., LL.D.
Historic Families of Scotland
THE RUTHVENS OF GOWRIE.
But it was not
until eight years after the death of Gowrie and his brother that the
most conclusive evidence of the truth of the conspiracy was brought to
light. A notary named Sprot, who resided in Eyemouth, a fishing village
near St. Abb's Head, hinted to several persons that he was acquainted
with some secrets respecting the Gowrie conspiracy. These intimations
reached the ears of the members of the Privy Council, who caused Sprot
to be apprehended and examined by torture. He made a full confession of
all that he knew, and produced some portions of a correspondence which
Robert Logan, the laird of Restalrig, had carried on with the two
brothers. A certain Laird Bower, a retainer of Logan's, had been
entrusted with the perilous task of carrying these letters, and as he
was unable to read or write, he had been obliged to obtain the
assistance of Sprot to decipher the instructions which were addressed
to him by his master. The notary, fatally for himself, had stolen some
of these letters from among Bower's papers. The documents were
produced, and after a careful examination by the Privy Council,
declared to be in Logan's handwriting. The unfortunate notary was
condemned to be hanged for misprision or concealment of treason. He
adhered to his confession to the last, and after being thrown from the
ladder he thrice clapped his hands in confirmation of the truth of his
confession. Logan had died some years before this, but his bones were
dug up and brought to the bar of the Justiciary Court, where the dead
man was put on his trial for treason. He was found guilty, and by a
sentence equally odious and illegal, his lands were forfeited and his
posterity declared infamous. The discovery of Logan's letters was
thought to have set this disputed question finally at rest; but Mr.
Bisset professes to find in these documents the strongest corroboration
of his disbelief of the conspiracy. Some of his arguments are ingenious
and not wholly without weight, and if the letters had disappeared grave
doubts might have been entertained of their genuineness. But the
originals have, fortunately, been preserved and are deposited in the
General Register Office, Edinburgh. It is somewhat surprising to learn
that Mr. Bisset, who has taken upon him so confidently to pronounce
these documents spurious, has never seen them, and has contented
himself with requesting a friend to examine them for the purpose of
ascertaining whether the paper on which they are written bears the
watermark of the year 1600. This friend of course informed him that
there was no watermark of any year on the paper. Mr. Bisset might and
ought to have known, that it was not until a century after the date of
the Gowrie conspiracy that a watermark with a year on it came into use.
The genuineness of these letters was attested at the time by several
witnesses who were acquainted with Logan's handwriting. They have
repeatedly of late years been subjected to a searching scrutiny by
persons skilled in deciphering ancient papers, and have been compared
with undoubted specimens of Logan's handwriting, and the result has
been a unanimous and unhesitating decision in favour of the genuineness
of the letters. Logan, the writer of these letters, was a gentleman of
ancient family, the uterine brother of Lord Home, but a reckless and
unprincipled villain, a scoffer at religion, and a person of openly
profligate life. (1887)
G. What happened to Logan's children?
According to Major G.J.N. Logan
I. Robert; born about 1577 to first wife Elizabeth McGill (who divorced Logan soon thereafter ); supposedly died "abroad" before 1645 (according to Home, though this has not been proven).
II. George; born about 1587 to second wife Jonet Ker; supposedly died 1645 (according to Home, though this has not been proven) .
III. John; born about 1588 to second wife Jonet Ker; married Elizabeth Quippo/Whippo; issue 5 children; father of the "Burncastle" line; died before November 1626. Has this line been erroneously connected to Restalrig?
IV. Alexander; born about 1590 to second wife Jonet Ker; married ?; father of the "Cumnock" line; died after 1645 in Stenton, East Lothian.
V. Jonet; born before 1596 to second wife Jonet Ker; married the last Stewart of Minto.
VI. Anna; born between 1601-1606 to third wife, Marion Ker; still alive in 1616; fate unknown.
The Testament Dative of Robert Logan
(the 7th) mentions children: Robert, Alexander, Jonet, and Anna.
The Forfieture does not mention any children by name.
The Reversal of Attainder mentions: Alexander, Jonet, and Anna. ("... the said children at the time of their said fathers forfeiture  were all minors [less than 21], and did not at all participate in any of the crimes for which he suffered forfeiture, so that these ought in no way to be imputed to them ...") If Alexander was a minor in 1609, why was he allowed to declare inventory for his father's testament in 1607, two years earlier??
Where did Logan Home find sons, George and John? The Burncastle line claims to descend from John, son of Robert (the 7th). If I am not mistaken, the clan cheif title was in this line until the last male Logan died. Now that begs the question, if Robert Logan, the 7th, and his posterity are abolished from the Book of Arms and Nobility, how did any Logan, supposedly descended from Robert, become clan cheif? If the Reversal of Attainder fully restored Alexander's rights, it seems he should have carried on the clan cheif title. Another mystery.
The debate rages on. I'm not
sure if anyone really knows what happened. Apparently, John, Alexander,
and Jonet made out OK, and probably Anna as well. The question
remains: what happened to Robert and George?
H. The Forfeiture
The Court of Parliment: 24 jun 1609
I. The Reversal of Attainder
Translation of the Reveral of Attainder of Alexander, Jonet, and Anna Logan, Children of Robert, the Seventh and Last Baron [Laird] of Restalrig:
"James, by the Grace of God, King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland and Defender of the Faith, to all our loyal subjects, to whom the present letters shall come, greeting, know ye, that, understanding that, on account of the process and award of forfeiture made and passed against the late Robert Logan of Restalrig and Alexander, Jonet, and Anna Logan, his lawful children, the said children were rendered incapable of enjoying and possessing any lands, officies or dignities within our Kingdoms, and calling to mind that the said children at the time of their said fathers forfeiture were all minors, and did not at all participate in any of the crimes for which he suffered forfeiture, so that these ought in no way to be imputed to them, or turned to their prejudice, therefore for divers other good causes and considerations of our special grace, favour and clemency, with the advice and consent of the Lord Commissioners for managing our affairs in our absence, we have recapacitated and reinstated, as by these presents we do reinstate, recapacitate, and restore, the foresaid Alexander, Jonet, and Anna Logan to their former good fame, and secular honours and dignities whatsoever, and we have granted, as by these presents we do grant to them our full power to bear testimony in causes, to exercise and use all other lawful acts, as well in judgment as without the same in prosecution of all their actions and causes, to be capable of holding all dignities and officies to enjoy, use, and possess, or in any manner whatever have right to all their own lands, farms, possessions and assedations whatsoever, or which they may in the future happen to acquire (otherwise than by succession to their foresaid late father, to which these presents shall in no way extend), in the same manner and as freely in all respects, as they were able to do before the award of forfeiture was pronounced against their foresaid late father; Likewise, we of our Royal Power and Authority do relieve them and their posterity from all infamy, scandal and ignominy which could be imputed to them by reason of the said forfeiture, so that henceforth these shall in no way be turned to their loss or injury either in judgment or without the same; wherefore We command all our lieges and subjects that none shall dare or presume to injure their good fame by word or deed, by reason of the said forfeiture under every penalty which they could incur against our Royal Majesty in this particular. In Witness wherefore we have directed our Great Seal to be appended to the presents at Whitehall the second day of April, the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred and sixteen and in the forty-ninth and fourteenth years of our reign." [2 April 1616]
Basically Robert's minor children at the time of forfeiture (one has to wonder if this meant the year Robert's bones were convicted in 1609, or when this supposed murder attempt was made, 5 August 1600) were allowed to live a normal life, with the exception that they could inherit nothing from their father's estate (especially seeing as that the King had already taken the entire estate away!!) This clemency did not extend to the three oldest children, sons: Robert, George, and John.