king's dissertation results

• Skip to main content
• Skip to footer

•   Student Services Online
• Type to search Student Services Online

I need to prove my module results so far

If you need to prove the module results you’ve achieved so far, all you need to do is access your Record of Agreed Results (ROAR) letter which you can download yourself from Gradintelligence . This document will show your ratified results for your completed modules so far in your course and shows King’s and ECTS credits. You can  view an example of this letter  online. I’m not sure how to log into my Gradintelligence account We run a process every month which invites any newly enrolled undergraduate or postgraduate taught student to register for a Higher Education Achievement Report (HEAR) on Gradintelligence. Your ROAR and HEAR are generated together and both are available on Gradintelligence. Once you have registered, you will be able to see all of the modules that you are undertaking and results. Important to know: Please check your KCL email account for information about registering for your HEAR. To download your Record of Agreed Results (ROAR):

• Activate your account on  gradintel.com  using your King's email address.
• We recommend searching your KCL email account for your activation link sent in an email when you started your course. Search “hear” or “gradintelligence” in your inbox.
• Once your results have been released, log in to  gradintel.com .
• If you have a ROAR available, it will be on the Gradintelligence homepage.
• Click “ view my ROAR ” to view the document.
• Click “ share my ROAR ” to send a secure link for someone else to view the document or print directly from a PDF viewer.

How quickly will my results appear? As soon as results have been ratified by an assessment board, and released on to the students record, they should appear within 2 working days. Important to know:

• During busy periods, the release of your results could take a bit more time. If you check your ROAR and HEAR and no results are showing within the expected time, please check back in a day or 2, and your results should then be available.
• No preliminary/provisional results that have been released onto your KEATS will appear on the HEAR or ROAR until they have been ratified by an examinations board.
• For undergraduates, results for the year are usually ratified during the summer months (after all exams have taken place)
• For postgraduate taught students on a 1-year course running from September to September; it is likely your results will only be ratified after 30 September.

I’m having difficulties accessing my account or my documents If you are a current student and having difficulties accessing your Gradintelligence account, please see our article Accessing my Higher Education Achievement Report (HEAR) on Gradintel for more guidance. If you have logged in but no ROAR or HEAR are appearing there, please let us know and we can look into this for you.

I’m looking for a GPA conversion for my results If you’re a King’s graduate or a current student approaching the end of your studies, and you're applying to institutions overseas that require a GPA for your degree, you’ll need to use an external service provider to calculate this conversion – unfortunately King’s can’t provide this for you. UK ENIC is one organisation that provides this service, as does WES , which focuses on the US and Canada. To be sure however, we advise checking with the institution are you applying to about conversion resources, since they may have particular organisations they use to verify conversions or equivalences.  

Related Articles (5)

Digital Humanities

• Arts & Humanities
• Arts Cluster
• Email [email protected]
• Website https://www.kcl.ac.uk/artshums/depts/ddh/index.aspx

United Kingdom

Student theses

• Title (ascending)

Search results

“comprehensive odyssey”, a digital critical repository of the odyssey and its sources: perspectives and consequences..

Supervisor: D'Alessio, G. B. (Supervisor) & Lavagnino, J. D. (Supervisor)

Student thesis : Doctoral Thesis › Doctor of Philosophy

‘Don’t @ me’: analysing online expression affordances on IRC and Twitter

Supervisor: Saunders, M. (Supervisor) & Ajana, B. (Supervisor)

USE OF THE ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING METHOD FOR THE RESTORATION OF CERAMIC AND GLASS ARCHAEOLOGICAL ARTEFACTS

Supervisor: Earl, G. (Supervisor) & Sully, D. (External person) (Supervisor)

The Web of Community Trust: Amateur Fiction Online: A Case Study in Community Focused Design for the Semantic Web

Supervisor: schraefel, M. (External person) (Supervisor)

The Use of Self-Tracking Technologies and Social Media in Self-Representation and Management of ‘Health’

Supervisor: Ajana, B. (Supervisor) & Ridsdale, L. (Supervisor)

The story of Occupy Wall Street: Narratives of politics and identity on Twitter

Supervisor: Gerbaudo, P. (Supervisor) & Jordan, T. (Supervisor)

The script of Matthew Paris and his collaborators: A digital approach

Supervisor: Crick, J. (Supervisor) & Stokes, P. (Supervisor)

The roles of the malcontent on the early modern English stage

Supervisor: Lavagnino, J. (Supervisor) & Massai, S. (Supervisor)

The Liberator’s Labyrinth: Stand-alone, Read-only Hypertext Fiction and the Nature of Authority in Literary & Hypertext Theory

Supervisor: Lawrence, F. (Supervisor) & Denard, R. H. (Supervisor)

The history and politics of civilisation: the debate about Russia in French and German historical scholarship from Voltaire to Herder

Supervisor: Bourke, R. (External person) (Supervisor)

The English contribution to the emergence of manuscript culture in eleventh-century Norway and Sweden

Supervisor: Stokes, P. A. (Supervisor) & McCarty, W. (Supervisor)

The Effects of the Internet on Collective Democratic Action in China

Supervisor: Jordan, T. (Supervisor) & Gerbaudo, P. (Supervisor)

The Development of Black Led Archives in London

Supervisor: Flinn, A. (External person) (Supervisor), Bressey, C. (External person) (Supervisor) & Bunn, J. (External person) (Supervisor)

The area told as a story: An inquiry into the relationship between verbal and map-based expressions of geographical information

Supervisor: McCarty, W. (Supervisor) & Lavagnino, J. D. (Supervisor)

Technical narratives : analysis, description and representation in the conservation of software-based art

Supervisor: Hedges, M. (Supervisor) & Laurenson, P. (External person) (Supervisor)

Supporting unsupervised context identification using social and physical sensors

Supervisor: Muller, H. (External person) (Supervisor)

Spatial Perception Mediated By Locative Media: Walking Through Connections In London

Supervisor: Dunn, S. E. (Supervisor) & Earl, G. P. (Supervisor)

Smudges on the glass: Tracing and locating the museum in the British Museum’s digitised collections.

Supervisor: Blanke, T. (Supervisor) & Adams, R. (Supervisor)

Rethinking 3D Visualisation: From photorealistic visual aid to multivocal environment to study and communicate cultural heritage.

Supervisor: Dunn, S. E. (Supervisor)

Relative and Dynamic Aspects of Variation in Response to Lexical Repetition: A Corpus-Based Case Study of The Translations of Faulkner's The Sound and The Fury into Lithuanian, Polish And Russian

Supervisor: McCarty, W. (Supervisor)

RELATIVE AND DYNAMIC ASPECTS OF VARIATION IN RESPONSE TO LEXICAL REPETITION: A CORPUS-BASED CASE STUDY OF THE TRANSLATIONS OF FAULKNER'S THE SOUND AND THE FURY INTO LITHUANIAN, POLISH AND RUSSIAN

Private in public: addressing the ethical, legal and curatorial issues of digital oral history.

Supervisor: Hedges, M. (Supervisor) & Geoghegan, B. (Supervisor)

Methods of Building Sustainable Digital Communities and Co-Productivity from Crowdsourcing in the GLAM Sector

Supervisor: Dunn, S. E. (Supervisor) & Hedges, M. C. (Supervisor)

Measuring the Impact of China’s Digital Heritage: Developing Multidimensional Impact Indicators for Digital Museum Resources

Supervisor: Tanner, S. (Supervisor) & Oreglia, E. (Supervisor)

Long-form Journalism and Archives in the Digital Landscape

Supervisor: Blanke, T. (Supervisor) & Coté, M. (Supervisor)

Supervisor: Blanke, T. (External person) (Supervisor) & Coté, M. (Supervisor)

Heritage and Digital learning: understanding how communities learn about Cultural Heritage from online content and how it can be embedded in traditional education

Supervisor: Earl, G. (Supervisor)

Governing Data in Modernity/Coloniality: Astronomy Data in the Atacama Desert and the Struggle for Collective Autonomy

Supervisor: Powell, A. B. (External person) (Supervisor) & Couldry, N. (External person) (Supervisor)

From Weibo to WeChat: social media activism in China

Supervisor: Gerbaudo, P. (Supervisor) & Coté, M. (Supervisor)

From Index Locorum to Citation Network: an Approavch to the Automatic Extraction of Canonical Reeferences and its Applications to the Study of Classical Texts

Supervisor: Ginzburg, J. (Supervisor), Lappin, S. (Supervisor) & McCarty, W. (Supervisor)

Exploring iconic images created by the Ministry of Information and their relation to cultural memory in Britain

Supervisor: Tanner, S. (Supervisor) & Dunn, S. (Supervisor)

Evaluating computational creativity: a standardised procedure for evaluating creative systems and its application

Supervisor: Collins, N. (External person) (Supervisor) & Thornton, C. (External person) (Supervisor)

Digital Narratives in Physical Museums. Narrative Construction with Contextual Technologies: The Di Casa in Casa Chatbot and the Museum of Augmented Urban Art in Milan.

Supervisor: Dunn, S. (Supervisor) & Hedges, M. (Supervisor)

Designing adaptivity in educational games to improve learning

Supervisor: Miles, S. (Supervisor), Kolling, M. (Supervisor) & Slovak, P. (Supervisor)

Decolonising South African museums in a digital age: re-imagining the Iziko Museums’ Natal Nguni catalogue and collection

Supervisor: Tanner, S. (Supervisor) & Anderson, S. (Supervisor)

Debating the US Constitution: A computational approach to the structure and geography of the ratification debate.

Supervisor: Edling, M. (Supervisor) & Hedges, M. (Supervisor)

Data, Camera, Action: Screen Production in a Streaming Era

Supervisor: Feldman, Z. (Supervisor), Conor, B. (Supervisor), Feldman, Z. (Supervisor), Conor, B. (Supervisor), Feldman, Z. (Supervisor) & Conor, B. (Supervisor)

Cybersecurity Rewired: Threats, unknowns and sociotechnical security practices

Supervisor: Stevens, T. (Supervisor), Mathew, A. (Supervisor) & McBurney, P. (Supervisor)

Common struggles: policy-based vs. scholar-led approaches to open access in the humanities

Supervisor: Anderson, S. (Supervisor) & Hall, G. (External person) (Supervisor)

Changing the Tradition: The Morphology of Nascent Insular Caroline Minuscule in Tenth-Century Britain

Supervisor: Crick, J. C. (Supervisor) & Stokes, P. A. (Supervisor)

Automated Collation and Digital Editions : From Theory to Practice

Supervisor: Pierazzo, E. (Supervisor) & Moul, V. A. (Supervisor)

A Tweet at the Table: Black British Identity Expression on Social Media

Supervisor: Feldman, Z. (Supervisor) & Ajana, B. (Supervisor)

A  syntax-based  approach  to  the  language  of  causality  in  Thomas Aquinas.   The   case   of principium and causa (Summa   Contra Gentiles, books I-II). Explorative study and first results.

Supervisor: McCarty, W. (Supervisor) & Prescott, A. (Supervisor)

A new British history of the home rule crisis: public opinion, representation and organisation

Supervisor: Readman, P. (Supervisor) & Bradley, J. (Supervisor)

An Ethnographic Study of Digital Humanists: Combining Virtual and Traditional Ethnography in the Electronic Textual Cultures Laboratory

Supervisor: Hedges, M. C. (Supervisor) & Lavagnino, J. D. (Supervisor)

A computational approach to Latin verbs: new resources and methods

Supervisor: Lenci, A. (External person) (Supervisor) & Marotta, G. (External person) (Supervisor)

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, automatically generate references for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Dissertation
• How to Write a Results Section | Tips & Examples

How to Write a Results Section | Tips & Examples

Published on 27 October 2016 by Bas Swaen . Revised on 25 October 2022 by Tegan George.

A results section is where you report the main findings of the data collection and analysis you conducted for your thesis or dissertation . You should report all relevant results concisely and objectively, in a logical order. Don’t include subjective interpretations of why you found these results or what they mean – any evaluation should be saved for the discussion section .

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Be assured that you'll submit flawless writing. Upload your document to correct all your mistakes.

Table of contents

How to write a results section, reporting quantitative research results, reporting qualitative research results, results vs discussion vs conclusion, checklist: research results, frequently asked questions about results sections.

When conducting research, it’s important to report the results of your study prior to discussing your interpretations of it. This gives your reader a clear idea of exactly what you found and keeps the data itself separate from your subjective analysis.

Here are a few best practices:

• Your results should always be written in the past tense.
• While the length of this section depends on how much data you collected and analysed, it should be written as concisely as possible.
• Only include results that are directly relevant to answering your research questions . Avoid speculative or interpretative words like ‘appears’ or ‘implies’.
• If you have other results you’d like to include, consider adding them to an appendix or footnotes.
• Always start out with your broadest results first, and then flow into your more granular (but still relevant) ones. Think of it like a shoe shop: first discuss the shoes as a whole, then the trainers, boots, sandals, etc.

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.

Correct my document today

If you conducted quantitative research , you’ll likely be working with the results of some sort of statistical analysis .

Your results section should report the results of any statistical tests you used to compare groups or assess relationships between variables . It should also state whether or not each hypothesis was supported.

The most logical way to structure quantitative results is to frame them around your research questions or hypotheses. For each question or hypothesis, share:

• A reminder of the type of analysis you used (e.g., a two-sample t test or simple linear regression ). A more detailed description of your analysis should go in your methodology section.
• A concise summary of each relevant result, both positive and negative. This can include any relevant descriptive statistics (e.g., means and standard deviations ) as well as inferential statistics (e.g., t scores, degrees of freedom , and p values ). Remember, these numbers are often placed in parentheses.
• A brief statement of how each result relates to the question, or whether the hypothesis was supported. You can briefly mention any results that didn’t fit with your expectations and assumptions, but save any speculation on their meaning or consequences for your discussion  and conclusion.

A note on tables and figures

In quantitative research, it’s often helpful to include visual elements such as graphs, charts, and tables , but only if they are directly relevant to your results. Give these elements clear, descriptive titles and labels so that your reader can easily understand what is being shown. If you want to include any other visual elements that are more tangential in nature, consider adding a figure and table list .

As a rule of thumb:

• Tables are used to communicate exact values, giving a concise overview of various results
• Graphs and charts are used to visualise trends and relationships, giving an at-a-glance illustration of key findings

Don’t forget to also mention any tables and figures you used within the text of your results section. Summarise or elaborate on specific aspects you think your reader should know about rather than merely restating the same numbers already shown.

Figure 1: Intention to donate to environmental organisations based on social distance from impact of environmental damage.

In qualitative research , your results might not all be directly related to specific hypotheses. In this case, you can structure your results section around key themes or topics that emerged from your analysis of the data.

For each theme, start with general observations about what the data showed. You can mention:

• Recurring points of agreement or disagreement
• Patterns and trends
• Particularly significant snippets from individual responses

Next, clarify and support these points with direct quotations. Be sure to report any relevant demographic information about participants. Further information (such as full transcripts , if appropriate) can be included in an appendix .

‘I think that in role-playing games, there’s more attention to character design, to world design, because the whole story is important and more attention is paid to certain game elements […] so that perhaps you do need bigger teams of creative experts than in an average shooter or something.’

Responses suggest that video game consumers consider some types of games to have more artistic potential than others.

Your results section should objectively report your findings, presenting only brief observations in relation to each question, hypothesis, or theme.

It should not  speculate about the meaning of the results or attempt to answer your main research question . Detailed interpretation of your results is more suitable for your discussion section , while synthesis of your results into an overall answer to your main research question is best left for your conclusion .

Prevent plagiarism, run a free check.

I have completed my data collection and analyzed the results.

I have included all results that are relevant to my research questions.

I have concisely and objectively reported each result, including relevant descriptive statistics and inferential statistics .

I have stated whether each hypothesis was supported or refuted.

I have used tables and figures to illustrate my results where appropriate.

All tables and figures are correctly labelled and referred to in the text.

There is no subjective interpretation or speculation on the meaning of the results.

You've finished writing up your results! Use the other checklists to further improve your thesis.

The results chapter of a thesis or dissertation presents your research results concisely and objectively.

In quantitative research , for each question or hypothesis , state:

• The type of analysis used
• Relevant results in the form of descriptive and inferential statistics
• Whether or not the alternative hypothesis was supported

In qualitative research , for each question or theme, describe:

• Recurring patterns
• Significant or representative individual responses
• Relevant quotations from the data

Don’t interpret or speculate in the results chapter.

Results are usually written in the past tense , because they are describing the outcome of completed actions.

The results chapter or section simply and objectively reports what you found, without speculating on why you found these results. The discussion interprets the meaning of the results, puts them in context, and explains why they matter.

In qualitative research , results and discussion are sometimes combined. But in quantitative research , it’s considered important to separate the objective results from your interpretation of them.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the ‘Cite this Scribbr article’ button to automatically add the citation to our free Reference Generator.

Swaen, B. (2022, October 25). How to Write a Results Section | Tips & Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved 30 May 2024, from https://www.scribbr.co.uk/thesis-dissertation/results-section/

Is this article helpful?

Other students also liked

What is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a discussion section | tips & examples, how to write a thesis or dissertation conclusion.

How To Write The Results/Findings Chapter

For quantitative studies (dissertations & theses).

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Expert Reviewed By: Kerryn Warren (PhD) | July 2021

So, you’ve completed your quantitative data analysis and it’s time to report on your findings. But where do you start? In this post, we’ll walk you through the results chapter (also called the findings or analysis chapter), step by step, so that you can craft this section of your dissertation or thesis with confidence. If you’re looking for information regarding the results chapter for qualitative studies, you can find that here .

Overview: Quantitative Results Chapter

• What exactly the results chapter is
• What you need to include in your chapter
• How to structure the chapter
• Tips and tricks for writing a top-notch chapter
• Free results chapter template

What exactly is the results chapter?

The results chapter (also referred to as the findings or analysis chapter) is one of the most important chapters of your dissertation or thesis because it shows the reader what you’ve found in terms of the quantitative data you’ve collected. It presents the data using a clear text narrative, supported by tables, graphs and charts. In doing so, it also highlights any potential issues (such as outliers or unusual findings) you’ve come across.

But how’s that different from the discussion chapter?

Well, in the results chapter, you only present your statistical findings. Only the numbers, so to speak – no more, no less. Contrasted to this, in the discussion chapter , you interpret your findings and link them to prior research (i.e. your literature review), as well as your research objectives and research questions . In other words, the results chapter presents and describes the data, while the discussion chapter interprets the data.

Let’s look at an example.

In your results chapter, you may have a plot that shows how respondents to a survey  responded: the numbers of respondents per category, for instance. You may also state whether this supports a hypothesis by using a p-value from a statistical test. But it is only in the discussion chapter where you will say why this is relevant or how it compares with the literature or the broader picture. So, in your results chapter, make sure that you don’t present anything other than the hard facts – this is not the place for subjectivity.

It’s worth mentioning that some universities prefer you to combine the results and discussion chapters. Even so, it is good practice to separate the results and discussion elements within the chapter, as this ensures your findings are fully described. Typically, though, the results and discussion chapters are split up in quantitative studies. If you’re unsure, chat with your research supervisor or chair to find out what their preference is.

What should you include in the results chapter?

Following your analysis, it’s likely you’ll have far more data than are necessary to include in your chapter. In all likelihood, you’ll have a mountain of SPSS or R output data, and it’s your job to decide what’s most relevant. You’ll need to cut through the noise and focus on the data that matters.

This doesn’t mean that those analyses were a waste of time – on the contrary, those analyses ensure that you have a good understanding of your dataset and how to interpret it. However, that doesn’t mean your reader or examiner needs to see the 165 histograms you created! Relevance is key.

How do I decide what’s relevant?

At this point, it can be difficult to strike a balance between what is and isn’t important. But the most important thing is to ensure your results reflect and align with the purpose of your study .  So, you need to revisit your research aims, objectives and research questions and use these as a litmus test for relevance. Make sure that you refer back to these constantly when writing up your chapter so that you stay on track.

As a general guide, your results chapter will typically include the following:

• Some demographic data about your sample
• Reliability tests (if you used measurement scales)
• Descriptive statistics
• Inferential statistics (if your research objectives and questions require these)
• Hypothesis tests (again, if your research objectives and questions require these)

We’ll discuss each of these points in more detail in the next section.

Importantly, your results chapter needs to lay the foundation for your discussion chapter . This means that, in your results chapter, you need to include all the data that you will use as the basis for your interpretation in the discussion chapter.

For example, if you plan to highlight the strong relationship between Variable X and Variable Y in your discussion chapter, you need to present the respective analysis in your results chapter – perhaps a correlation or regression analysis.

Need a helping hand?

How do I write the results chapter?

There are multiple steps involved in writing up the results chapter for your quantitative research. The exact number of steps applicable to you will vary from study to study and will depend on the nature of the research aims, objectives and research questions . However, we’ll outline the generic steps below.

Step 1 – Revisit your research questions

The first step in writing your results chapter is to revisit your research objectives and research questions . These will be (or at least, should be!) the driving force behind your results and discussion chapters, so you need to review them and then ask yourself which statistical analyses and tests (from your mountain of data) would specifically help you address these . For each research objective and research question, list the specific piece (or pieces) of analysis that address it.

At this stage, it’s also useful to think about the key points that you want to raise in your discussion chapter and note these down so that you have a clear reminder of which data points and analyses you want to highlight in the results chapter. Again, list your points and then list the specific piece of analysis that addresses each point. 

Next, you should draw up a rough outline of how you plan to structure your chapter . Which analyses and statistical tests will you present and in what order? We’ll discuss the “standard structure” in more detail later, but it’s worth mentioning now that it’s always useful to draw up a rough outline before you start writing (this advice applies to any chapter).

Step 2 – Craft an overview introduction

As with all chapters in your dissertation or thesis, you should start your quantitative results chapter by providing a brief overview of what you’ll do in the chapter and why . For example, you’d explain that you will start by presenting demographic data to understand the representativeness of the sample, before moving onto X, Y and Z.

This section shouldn’t be lengthy – a paragraph or two maximum. Also, it’s a good idea to weave the research questions into this section so that there’s a golden thread that runs through the document.

Step 3 – Present the sample demographic data

The first set of data that you’ll present is an overview of the sample demographics – in other words, the demographics of your respondents.

For example:

• What age range are they?
• How is gender distributed?
• How is ethnicity distributed?
• What areas do the participants live in?

The purpose of this is to assess how representative the sample is of the broader population. This is important for the sake of the generalisability of the results. If your sample is not representative of the population, you will not be able to generalise your findings. This is not necessarily the end of the world, but it is a limitation you’ll need to acknowledge.

Of course, to make this representativeness assessment, you’ll need to have a clear view of the demographics of the population. So, make sure that you design your survey to capture the correct demographic information that you will compare your sample to.

But what if I’m not interested in generalisability?

Well, even if your purpose is not necessarily to extrapolate your findings to the broader population, understanding your sample will allow you to interpret your findings appropriately, considering who responded. In other words, it will help you contextualise your findings . For example, if 80% of your sample was aged over 65, this may be a significant contextual factor to consider when interpreting the data. Therefore, it’s important to understand and present the demographic data.

 Step 4 – Review composite measures and the data “shape”.

Before you undertake any statistical analysis, you’ll need to do some checks to ensure that your data are suitable for the analysis methods and techniques you plan to use. If you try to analyse data that doesn’t meet the assumptions of a specific statistical technique, your results will be largely meaningless. Therefore, you may need to show that the methods and techniques you’ll use are “allowed”.

Most commonly, there are two areas you need to pay attention to:

#1: Composite measures

The first is when you have multiple scale-based measures that combine to capture one construct – this is called a composite measure .  For example, you may have four Likert scale-based measures that (should) all measure the same thing, but in different ways. In other words, in a survey, these four scales should all receive similar ratings. This is called “ internal consistency ”.

Internal consistency is not guaranteed though (especially if you developed the measures yourself), so you need to assess the reliability of each composite measure using a test. Typically, Cronbach’s Alpha is a common test used to assess internal consistency – i.e., to show that the items you’re combining are more or less saying the same thing. A high alpha score means that your measure is internally consistent. A low alpha score means you may need to consider scrapping one or more of the measures.

#2: Data shape

The second matter that you should address early on in your results chapter is data shape. In other words, you need to assess whether the data in your set are symmetrical (i.e. normally distributed) or not, as this will directly impact what type of analyses you can use. For many common inferential tests such as T-tests or ANOVAs (we’ll discuss these a bit later), your data needs to be normally distributed. If it’s not, you’ll need to adjust your strategy and use alternative tests.

To assess the shape of the data, you’ll usually assess a variety of descriptive statistics (such as the mean, median and skewness), which is what we’ll look at next.

Step 5 – Present the descriptive statistics

Now that you’ve laid the foundation by discussing the representativeness of your sample, as well as the reliability of your measures and the shape of your data, you can get started with the actual statistical analysis. The first step is to present the descriptive statistics for your variables.

For scaled data, this usually includes statistics such as:

• The mean – this is simply the mathematical average of a range of numbers.
• The median – this is the midpoint in a range of numbers when the numbers are arranged in order.
• The mode – this is the most commonly repeated number in the data set.
• Standard deviation – this metric indicates how dispersed a range of numbers is. In other words, how close all the numbers are to the mean (the average).
• Skewness – this indicates how symmetrical a range of numbers is. In other words, do they tend to cluster into a smooth bell curve shape in the middle of the graph (this is called a normal or parametric distribution), or do they lean to the left or right (this is called a non-normal or non-parametric distribution).
• Kurtosis – this metric indicates whether the data are heavily or lightly-tailed, relative to the normal distribution. In other words, how peaked or flat the distribution is.

A large table that indicates all the above for multiple variables can be a very effective way to present your data economically. You can also use colour coding to help make the data more easily digestible.

For categorical data, where you show the percentage of people who chose or fit into a category, for instance, you can either just plain describe the percentages or numbers of people who responded to something or use graphs and charts (such as bar graphs and pie charts) to present your data in this section of the chapter.

When using figures, make sure that you label them simply and clearly , so that your reader can easily understand them. There’s nothing more frustrating than a graph that’s missing axis labels! Keep in mind that although you’ll be presenting charts and graphs, your text content needs to present a clear narrative that can stand on its own. In other words, don’t rely purely on your figures and tables to convey your key points: highlight the crucial trends and values in the text. Figures and tables should complement the writing, not carry it .

Depending on your research aims, objectives and research questions, you may stop your analysis at this point (i.e. descriptive statistics). However, if your study requires inferential statistics, then it’s time to deep dive into those .

Step 6 – Present the inferential statistics

Inferential statistics are used to make generalisations about a population , whereas descriptive statistics focus purely on the sample . Inferential statistical techniques, broadly speaking, can be broken down into two groups .

First, there are those that compare measurements between groups , such as t-tests (which measure differences between two groups) and ANOVAs (which measure differences between multiple groups). Second, there are techniques that assess the relationships between variables , such as correlation analysis and regression analysis. Within each of these, some tests can be used for normally distributed (parametric) data and some tests are designed specifically for use on non-parametric data.

There are a seemingly endless number of tests that you can use to crunch your data, so it’s easy to run down a rabbit hole and end up with piles of test data. Ultimately, the most important thing is to make sure that you adopt the tests and techniques that allow you to achieve your research objectives and answer your research questions .

In this section of the results chapter, you should try to make use of figures and visual components as effectively as possible. For example, if you present a correlation table, use colour coding to highlight the significance of the correlation values, or scatterplots to visually demonstrate what the trend is. The easier you make it for your reader to digest your findings, the more effectively you’ll be able to make your arguments in the next chapter.

Step 7 – Test your hypotheses

If your study requires it, the next stage is hypothesis testing. A hypothesis is a statement , often indicating a difference between groups or relationship between variables, that can be supported or rejected by a statistical test. However, not all studies will involve hypotheses (again, it depends on the research objectives), so don’t feel like you “must” present and test hypotheses just because you’re undertaking quantitative research.

The basic process for hypothesis testing is as follows:

• Specify your null hypothesis (for example, “The chemical psilocybin has no effect on time perception).
• Specify your alternative hypothesis (e.g., “The chemical psilocybin has an effect on time perception)
• Set your significance level (this is usually 0.05)
• Calculate your statistics and find your p-value (e.g., p=0.01)
• Draw your conclusions (e.g., “The chemical psilocybin does have an effect on time perception”)

Finally, if the aim of your study is to develop and test a conceptual framework , this is the time to present it, following the testing of your hypotheses. While you don’t need to develop or discuss these findings further in the results chapter, indicating whether the tests (and their p-values) support or reject the hypotheses is crucial.

Step 8 – Provide a chapter summary

To wrap up your results chapter and transition to the discussion chapter, you should provide a brief summary of the key findings . “Brief” is the keyword here – much like the chapter introduction, this shouldn’t be lengthy – a paragraph or two maximum. Highlight the findings most relevant to your research objectives and research questions, and wrap it up.

Some final thoughts, tips and tricks

Now that you’ve got the essentials down, here are a few tips and tricks to make your quantitative results chapter shine:

• When writing your results chapter, report your findings in the past tense . You’re talking about what you’ve found in your data, not what you are currently looking for or trying to find.
• Structure your results chapter systematically and sequentially . If you had two experiments where findings from the one generated inputs into the other, report on them in order.
• Make your own tables and graphs rather than copying and pasting them from statistical analysis programmes like SPSS. Check out the DataIsBeautiful reddit for some inspiration.
• Once you’re done writing, review your work to make sure that you have provided enough information to answer your research questions , but also that you didn’t include superfluous information.

If you’ve got any questions about writing up the quantitative results chapter, please leave a comment below. If you’d like 1-on-1 assistance with your quantitative analysis and discussion, check out our hands-on coaching service , or book a free consultation with a friendly coach.

Psst... there’s more!

This post was based on one of our popular Research Bootcamps . If you're working on a research project, you'll definitely want to check this out ...

You Might Also Like:

Thank you. I will try my best to write my results.

Awesome content 👏🏾

this was great explaination

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

• Skip to Navigation
• Skip to Main Content
• Skip to Related Content
• Today's news
• Reviews and deals
• Climate change
• 2024 election
• Fall allergies
• Health news
• Mental health
• Sexual health
• Family health
• So mini ways
• Unapologetically
• Buying guides

Entertainment

• How to Watch
• My watchlist
• Stock market
• Biden economy
• Personal finance
• Stocks: most active
• Stocks: gainers
• Stocks: losers
• Trending tickers
• World indices
• US Treasury bonds
• Top mutual funds
• Highest open interest
• Highest implied volatility
• Currency converter
• Basic materials
• Communication services
• Consumer cyclical
• Consumer defensive
• Financial services
• Industrials
• Real estate
• Mutual funds
• Credit cards
• Credit card rates
• Balance transfer credit cards
• Business credit cards
• Cash back credit cards
• Rewards credit cards
• Travel credit cards
• Checking accounts
• Online checking accounts
• High-yield savings accounts
• Money market accounts
• Personal loans
• Student loans
• Car insurance
• Home buying
• Options pit
• Investment ideas
• Research reports
• Fantasy football
• Pro Pick 'Em
• College Pick 'Em
• Fantasy baseball
• Fantasy hockey
• Fantasy basketball
• Download the app
• Daily fantasy
• Scores and schedules
• GameChannel
• World Baseball Classic
• Premier League
• CONCACAF League
• Champions League
• Motorsports
• Horse racing
• Newsletters

New on Yahoo

• Privacy Dashboard
• Scores/Schedules
• Wemby Watch
• Fantasy Basketball
• In-Season Tournament
• All-Star Game
• Power Rankings
• Fantasy Baseball
• 2024 Schedule
• Scores/Schedule
• Fantasy Football
• Free Agency
• Fantasy Hockey
• UFC Schedule
• How To Watch the 2024 Season
• Yahoo Sports AM
• Leaderboard
• PGA Championship
• Scottie Scheffler Arrest
• Masters Tournament
• Tournament Schedule
• French Open
• Australian Open
• Playoff and Bowl Games
• March Madness
• Caitlin Clark Scoring Record
• College Sports
• Fantasy Sports
• Sports Betting 101
• Bet Calculator
• Legalization Tracker
• Casino Games
• Paris Games Home
• Kentucky Derby
• Preakness Stakes
• Belmont Stakes
• Ball Don't Lie
• Yahoo Fantasy Football Show
• College Football Enquirer
• Baseball Bar-B-Cast

Report: Jaylen Waddle, Dolphins reach 3-year, $84.75M extension

• Waddle gets $84.75M extension
• Korda has 'Tin Cup' moment
• Wolves-Mavs: 5 things to watch
• End of an error: Goodbye, Angel
• Mets pitcher's meltdown

WWE King and Queen of the Ring 2024 results, grades and analysis: Cody Rhodes defeats Logan Paul to retain Undisputed WWE Championship

Rhodes and paul were great in the main event, but another match was the clear show-stealer.

WWE King and Queen of the Ring took place Saturday in Saudi Arabia. It was the 23rd time in WWE history that a King of the Ring winner was crowned and just the 2nd time ever a Queen of the Ring was named.

There were three championship contests on the six-match card Saturday, but only one title changed hands. Dominik Mysterio interjected himself into the WWE Women's World Championship match, inadvertently allowing Liv Morgan to dethrone Becky Lynch.

Bronson Reed, Chad Gable and Sami Zayn stole the show in the night's best match, a triple-threat contest for the Intercontinental Championship.

Nia Jax and Gunther won the Queen and King of the Ring tournaments, respectively, and earned championship matches at WWE's SummerSlam event this August.

Logan Paul showcased his immense talent alongside Cody Rhodes in a strong main event that saw the American Nightmare walk out of Saudi Arabia with his Undisputed WWE Championship reign intact.

WWE King and Queen of the Ring results

Bianca Belair and Jade Cargill def. Indi Hartwell and Candice LeRae in 8:04 to retain their WWE Women's Tag Team Championships.

Best spot: Belair and Cargill’s tandem finisher

This is a GREAT finish for Bianca Belair and Jade Cargill. WOW #WWEKingAndQueen pic.twitter.com/9u5jkEcBW3 — Fightful Wrestling (@Fightful) May 25, 2024

Analysis: A solid pre-show match that featured some entertaining spots and storytelling. Cargill and Belair remain popular with fans and dominant forces in the ring, so it’s going to be rare to see a match of theirs not deliver some excitement, even in a brief showcase like on Saturday.

Liv Morgan def. Becky Lynch in 15:22 to win the WWE Women's World Championship.

Best spot: Morgan and Lynch exchanging submission holds

Analysis: A solid showing to kick off the main card action on Saturday, Dominik Mysterio’s involvement here protects Lynch and it appears as if we’re getting the rematch between these two women on Monday night. We saw a new wrinkle to Morgan’s repertoire as she utilized submission maneuvers fairly heavily during the match. Lynch, as always, shined and should continue to be among the biggest stars in WWE, champion or not.

Sami Zayn def. Bronson Reed and Chad Gable in 13:40 to retain the Intercontinental Championship.

Best spot: Reed’s suicide dive

Get out of the way when @BRONSONISHERE is coming through!!! #WWEKingAndQueen pic.twitter.com/1pESbi9b9e — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

Analysis: Match of the night. These three did a phenomenal job in an intense matchup that showcased different styles and allowed each competitor to have his moment in the spotlight. Zayn remains one of the most popular champions in WWE, Gable furthered the compelling Alpha Academy storyline and Reed was the breakout star of the event. A win-win-win all around.

Nia Jax def. Lyra Valkyria in 9:39 to win the Queen of the Ring tournament.

Best spot: Valkyria dodging two Jax finishers, lone offensive flurry

. @Real_Valkyria is not backing down! She is doing WHATEVER it takes to become Queen of the Ring 👊 #WWEKingAndQueen pic.twitter.com/2QXyPe9JnA — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

Analysis: Not a terribly exciting outcome, all things considered, but Jax will prove to be a strong foil for Bayley — or whoever is WWE Women’s Champion — come SummerSlam. Valkyria’s impressive run through the Queen of the Ring tournament should give her a solid boost as she continues to develop on the main roster.

Gunther def. Randy Orton in 22:56 to win the King of the Ring Tournament.

Best spot: Gunther’s splash sequence into an RKO

This is AWESOME 👏👏👏 #WWEKingAndQueen pic.twitter.com/8bBa6SOYln — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

Analysis: A masterclass in psychology, Orton and Gunther put on a classic in the King of the Ring final. For the most part, Orton was able to play the hits and go toe-to-toe with the destructive force that Gunther is, and the Ring General was able to showcase the threat he poses from both a physical and mental standpoint inside the ropes. Expect another physically grueling performance from Gunther and whoever he faces at SummerSlam (Drew McIntyre was named Damian Priest’s opponent for the World Heavyweight Championship at Clash at the Castle next month.)

Cody Rhodes def. Logan Paul in 24:17 to retain the Undisputed WWE Championship.

Best spot: Paul’s splash through the announce table

OH. MY. GOD. @LoganPaul just put @CodyRhodes through the announce desk 🤯 #WWEKingAndQueen pic.twitter.com/QEnCnALzcv — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

Analysis: Rhodes was almost certainly going to walk out of Saudi Arabia with his championship, but this match did a better job of presenting a legitimate threat to his reign because of Paul’s underhanded shenanigans. As much as I had hoped Paul would ditch the brass knuckles for this contest, they did come into play and factored into the finish. Rhodes continues to put on impressive main-event matches and I think everyone will admit that Paul is as good as anyone in building hype and executing when the time is right. There’s no clear direction for either champion moving forward, but that’ll all likely change in the very near future.

For full match breakdown and analysis, check out the recaps from our live coverage below.

Logan paul vs. cody rhodes for the undisputed wwe championship.

Rhodes, unsurprisingly, got the biggest pop of all during his entrance. During the pre-match festivities commentator Michael Cole continued to allude to Paul's use of brass knuckles and the fact that Maverick forfeited them to Cole earlier in the week.

🗣️ WOAHHHHHH @CodyRhodes has arrived to #WWEKingAndQueen ! pic.twitter.com/vYTZm1wYNc — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

The match began with Rhodes quickly pandering to the crowd before a collar-and-elbow. After the hold was broken, Paul attempted to trash talk and frustrate Rhodes. This sequence repeated again before the two men exchanged arm holds. Paul went for a quick, early cover, but Rhodes kicked out at 1.

A quick sequence ended with Rhodes going for his patented drop slap, but Paul blocked it. Rhodes, frustrated, went on the offensive, exchanging blows with Paul and hitting the United States Champion with a standing, modified suplex. The quick pin from Rhodes was unsuccessful and Paul gained the upper hand, sending the champion outside the ring and landing a splash to the floor.

The first true near-fall came when Paul landed what commentator Corey Graves called an "overbomb." Paul remained on the offensive and went for another pin after a standing moonsault. Rhodes quickly recovered and landed a top-rope arm drag on Paul, but began to sell a rib injury. Rhodes sent Paul outside of the ring with a Disaster Kick and went for a dive. Rhodes pulled back as Paul was about to move out of the way, showing awareness on both parties.

As the action continued outside, two of Paul's entourage got involved, with one slipping Paul a set of brass knuckles. Paul hit Rhodes in the midsection with the weapon, and instead of pinning Rhodes back in the ring, Paul turned his attention to Cole. Distracted, Rhodes hit Paul with a suicide dive and went on an extended offensive.

"You're nothing but a loser!" @MichaelCole is LIVID after @LoganPaul used some Brass Knuckles 😡 #WWEKingAndQueen pic.twitter.com/hZiTa7yYls — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

Rhodes, after missing a Disaster Kick, landed a near-fall after the Bionic Elbow. The champion then stayed in control, locking in the Figure Four before Paul forced a rope break. Paul went for a slingshot clothesline, which Rhodes countered into a Cody Cutter for a two-count.

CODY CUTTER!!! #WWEKingAndQueen pic.twitter.com/IhBF30zkZ5 — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

Paul regained control by reversing a potentially devastating move from Rhodes into a CrossRhodes finisher. After a quick scare from Rhodes, Paul forced the action outside the ring and began to utilize the announce table. Paul went for a Pedigree on Rhodes, but he reversed it into a Cody Cutter on the table. Rhodes went back into the ring as the referee counted out Paul, but the champion waved off the count at eight.

A Cross Rhodes from @LoganPaul 😱 #WWEKingAndQueen pic.twitter.com/rBMpvjyOfJ — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

Rhodes went outside to deliver more punishment to Paul, but Maverick shoved Rhodes into the steel steps and set the champion up for a top-rope frog splash through the Arabic announce table. Paul pushed Rhodes back into the ring and hit another splash, but Rhodes kicked out at two again, leaving the challenger stunned.

Rhodes would avoid a Paul turnbuckle splash, which connected with the referee instead. Rhodes hit Paul with a Vertebreaker and pinned Paul, but the incapacitated referee couldn't make the count. Paul capitalized, hitting Rhodes with a low blow before attempting to land the knockout blow with the brass knuckles. The special ring announcer Ibrahim al Hajjaj stopped Paul, allowing Rhodes to recover and land three CrossRhodes for the win.

What a main event 🙌 @CodyRhodes takes down @LoganPaul to remain Undisputed WWE Champion! #WWEKingAndQueen pic.twitter.com/XIfqwjGUxF — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

King of the Ring Final: Gunther vs. Randy Orton

Gunther came out first to very little fanfare. In what has become commonplace in the wake of Backlash earlier this month, the fans in Saudi Arabia sang Orton's theme song "Voices" as he made his deliberate march toward the ring.

The match began with a stare-down between the two men and the crowd chanting. The two engaged in a collar-and-elbow tie up, with Gunther forcing Orton to the corner before breaking the hold. They repeated the sequence, with Orton gaining the upper hand this time around.

Both men worked each others' arms before coming to another standoff. Orton had the first series of true offense with a pair of headlocks and a shoulder tackle. Gunther, after driving Orton into the corner, began to land vicious chops to Orton's chest. Orton, stunned but not down, caught a fourth chop attempt and started unloading on the Ring General himself.

😬😬😬 #WWEKingAndQueen pic.twitter.com/jfGIyUQG2w — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

Orton went for a quick RKO attempt that Gunther was able to escape from. Orton began to sell a back injury, allowing Gunther to focus on that area of the Viper's body. Gunther remained in control, stalking the injured Orton around the ring. Gunther hit Orton with a back breaker and went for the first pin of the match.

A shift in momentum occurred as Orton was able to fight and lift Gunther for a standing suplex and pair of clotheslines. Gunther, savvy to Orton's offense, avoided a snap powerslam and then regained the upper hand for a brief moment. Orton would finally land the powerslam and hit Gunther with his signature draped DDT. The crowd got behind Orton as he prepped Gunther for an RKO.

Gunther, countering the RKO again, hit Orton with a body slam and landed a top-rope splash. Gunther went for a second, but Orton rolled out of the way and finally hit his finisher. Orton was unable to get to Gunther in time for the pin, allowing the Ring General to roll out of the ring.

As action moved outside the ring, Orton slammed Gunther onto the announce table twice. Gunther recovered to shove Orton into the ring apron for a brief reprieve. Orton reversed a powerbomb attempt into a back-body drop and slammed Gunter onto the table for a third time.

Vintage Orton 🐍 #WWEKingAndQueen pic.twitter.com/3j4r7fDkuz — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

Both men returned to the ring and Gunther began to focus on Orotn's knee, locking in a half crab in the center of the ring. Orton attempted to fight out several times, but Gunther continued to reestablish the hold.

The match had a sudden finish as Orton hit an RKO and went for a pin on Gunther. Gunther kicked out at two, hit Orton's knee and rolled him up for the pinfall victory.

👑 The King General 👑 @Gunther_AUT defeats @RandyOrton in an UNBELIEVABLE match to become the King of the Ring! #WWEKingAndQueen pic.twitter.com/qrXR1zTt2B — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

Becky Lynch demands rematch

A backstage segment showed Lynch berating Dominik Mysterio, who interfered in her match with Liv Morgan earlier in the event. Lynch said she would invoke her rematch clause on Monday against Liv Morgan.

"On Monday at Raw, I am getting that rematch" @BeckyLynchWWE is NOT happy with how she lost her Women's World Championship and wants a rematch immediately... #WWEKingAndQueen pic.twitter.com/SKKHsWrCuq — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

Queen of the Ring Final: Lyra Valkyria vs. Nia Jax

Nia Jax entered first, displaying intensity, but it was Lyra Valkyria who had the more memorable entrance with a massive pair of raven's wings adorned to her black bodysuit. It was Valkyria's first Premium Live Event appearance.

Will Nia Jax become Queen Nia? #WWEKingAndQueen pic.twitter.com/p2CX2EL1lj — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

. @Real_Valkyria is ready to become Queen of the Ring! 👑 #WWEKingAndQueen pic.twitter.com/cIzojj8jf2 — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

Valkyria attempted several times to take down Jax with pinning combinations and a sleeper hold. Jax, showcasing her power, refused to go down until she was forced outside the ring. With Jax on the outside, Valkyria landed a drop kick through the ropes — but again, Jax didn't go down.

As action returned to the ring, Jax landed a big elbow for the match's first near fall. Jax continued the punishment, eventually locking in a submission hold. A brief rally from Valkyria was snuffed out by a Samoan drop.

Nia Jax is DOMINATING 😳 #WWEKingAndQueen pic.twitter.com/QUIbrvqCz0 — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

Jax went for her Annihilator finisher both in the ring and on the apron, but Valkyria moved out of the way and landed a bulldog, missile drop kick and tornado DDT for her biggest flurry of offense to that point in the match.

As Valkyria went to the top rope, Jax was able to move out of the way before landing a Samoan drop again. Jax's next attempt at her finisher was again countered, leading to a double stomp from Valkyria and a near-fall.

Recovered, Jax carried Valkyria to the top drop for an avalanche Samoan drop. Valkyria attempted to counter into a sunset flip powerbomb, but Jax hit a massive Annihilator finisher for the win.

👑 Queen Nia 👑 Nia Jax is your Queen of the Ring Winner! #WWEKingAndQueen pic.twitter.com/jYpoyFx0xi — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

👑👑👑 What a Queen of the Ring tournament for Nia Jax! #WWEKingAndQueen pic.twitter.com/eARzuWoel6 — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

Chad Gable vs. Bronson Reed vs. Sami Zayn for the Intercontinental Championship

Chad Gable was first to enter, accompanied initially by both Maxxine Dupri and Otis, but the Alpha Academy leader ordered Dupri backstage — furthering an ongoing story from "Monday Night Raw." Gable, who understandably has drawn parallels to Kurt Angle, was serenaded with "You Suck" chants from the Saudi crowd.

Looks like @WWEGable only wants @otiswwe with him ringside and not @maxxinedupri ... 😬 #WWEKingAndQueen pic.twitter.com/ubyeMbt8kO — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

Gable ominously suggested to Otis to "stick to the plan" before entering the ring.

Reed entered next, and during his approach to the ring the ongoing QR code glitch storyline continued.

Sami Zayn, returning to the Middle East, got a brief, special video package before emerging wearing a traditional Thawb. Zayn, as he is almost anywhere he performs on Earth, was the overwhelming crowd favorite.

🗣️ LET'S GO! @SamiZayn has arrived to #WWEKingAndQueen ! pic.twitter.com/lsa8X2GlKx — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

When the bell sounded, the powerhouse Reed gained the upper hand. Action spilled outside the ring and Zayn landed a splash to take out Reed. Zayn's momentum continued briefly before Reed again used his power to overwhelm both of his opponents.

Gable, working as the clear heel, tied Zayn up in the ring apron and took Reed out with a missile drop kick.

A recovered Zayn sent both Reed and Gable outside the ring and landed a senton to take both men out. Zayn would land the first near-fall of the match, hitting a top-rope, sunset flip powerbomb on Reed. After the pin, Zayn repeatedly went for the Blue Thunder Bomb, but failed.

Action picked up as Gable reemerged, going for a superplex on Zayn, but Reed took out both men by turning it into a Tower of Doom-esque reversal. Reed then went for a massive moonsault on Zayn, but missed, Gable landed a moonsault of his own on Reed and then Zayn hit the big man with a tornado DDT.

😱😱😱 This match is CHAOS!!! #WWEKingAndQueen pic.twitter.com/BReqhXFKL5 — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

The frantic pace didn't slow. Gable — in another homage to Angle — secured the ankle lock on both men, Zayn hit Reed with a Blue Thunder Bomb for a near-fall which Gable broke up and then Reed had perhaps the spot of the match with a double Samoan drop into a suicide dive through the ropes.

Gable, Zayn and Reed would exchange German suplexes before Gable, the smallest man in the match, took out both rivals with a double German suplex.

💪💪💪 @WWEGable is INSANE! #WWEKingAndQueen pic.twitter.com/GKtykQ9Y17 — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

Gable then called on Otis to take out Reed and Zayn, but the Alpha Academy member refused to hit Zayn. Gable began to insult and slap Otis, and finally coalesced. Unfortunately for Gable, Zayn ducked, and Otis hit Gable with a clothesline.

OH NO!!! @otiswwe just accidentally took out @WWEGable 😬 #WWEKingAndQueen pic.twitter.com/vLm5ObYzJD — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

Zayn rushed back into the ring, hit the Helluva Kick on Reed and scored the pinfall and win.

Liv Morgan vs. Becky Lynch for the WWE Women's World Championship

The King and Queen of the Ring main card kicked off with Morgan and Lynch.

Lynch, the champion, entered first, wearing a tuxedo-inspired body suit and received an overwhelming reaction from fans.

The Man has come around to Jeddah! @BeckyLynchWWE puts her Women's World Championship on the line to get us started at #WWEKingAndQueen ! pic.twitter.com/f61Pcg8up9 — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

Morgan, on the other hand, received a lukewarm reaction from fans as she entered the match a clear heel.

The match began with a collar-and-elbow tie up before the two women exchanged shoves. Lynch gained the upper hand in the early stages both inside and outside of the ring. Momentum shifted as Lynch went for a second-rope leg drop that was countered by Morgan for the match's first near-fall.

Morgan kept up the punishment, countering several turnbuckle/rope maneuvers and slowing down the pace with submission holds. As the action continues with several near-falls and reversals, both women would take each other out with a pair of clotheslines.

Champion and challenger engaged in a slugfest in the middle of the ring before Lynch landed a Becksploder suplex finisher and baseball slide kick. Lynch went for another top rope move, which Morgan briefly countered before eventually being hit with a missile drop kick for a near-fall. Lynch went for two Disarm-her submissions that were countered by Morgan, the second into a Code Breaker and another near fall.

. @YaOnlyLivvOnce had @BeckyLynchWWE ROCKED 😳 #WWEKingAndQueen pic.twitter.com/KWLhine4wR — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

The theme of Lynch's high-risk moves being countered/dodged continued as Morgan turned the tables for a missile drop kick of her own and nearly finished the match with her ending maneuver, ObLIVioun. Lynch countered and began a chaotic sequence of back-and-forth pinning combinations and near-falls.

Both women got to their feet and exchanged blows before trading submission holds — Lynch with the Disarm-her and Morgan with the Rings of Saturn. With Lynch seemingly closing in on a win, Dominik Mysterio emerged, distracting Lynch and nearly handing Morgan a win.

. @DomMysterio35 is here! #WWEKingAndQueen pic.twitter.com/wApUMayahU — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

As Morgan looked to capitalize on a distracted/battered Lynch, the champion landed a superplex. Mysterio threw a chair into the ring and occupied the referee, allowing Morgan to use the chair to her advantage and hit ObLIVion to score the win and become the new WWE Women's World Champion.

DID THAT JUST HAPPEN?! @YaOnlyLivvOnce beats @BeckyLynchWWE ! She is the NEW Women's World Champion 😱 #WWEKingAndQueen pic.twitter.com/g7cYjCFvkD — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

Liv Morgan def. Becky Lynch in 15:22 to win the WWE Women's World Championship.

🤯🤯🤯 #WWEKingAndQueen pic.twitter.com/HKK1iYXar5 — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

Indi Hartwell and Candice LeRae vs. Jade Cargill and Bianca Belair for the WWE Women's Tag Team Championships

The festivities in Saudi Arabia kicked off with the Women's Tag Team Championship match. The heel team of Hartwell and LeRae were first to make their entrance. The champions, Cargill and Bianca entered separately, both sparking cheers from the crowd, but notably Cargill seemed to garner a bigger reaction.

Here. We. Go. The WWE Women's Tag Team Titles are on the line RIGHT NOW on The Countdown to #WWEKingAndQueen ! 🦚 https://t.co/xRBTNzqw23 🌍 https://t.co/aEwGYUp0uE pic.twitter.com/ApTUNoo1re — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

Hartwell and Cargill started the action, with the champion using her physical dominance early, landing a fall-away slam and some tandem offense on the challenger. Action shifted to Belair and LeRae, with the former selling a storyline knee injury she has been dealing with for a couple of weeks. Belair would go for a gorilla press slam but LeRae would counter and then the heels honed in on Belair's knee.

Hartwell kept up the punishment on Belair's knee, taunting the multi-time women's champion and isolating her from her corner. Belair's attempts to tag in Cargill were foiled several times and momentum stayed in Hartwell and LeRae's favor. Finally, after a reversal and rollthrough, Belair hit Cargill for the hot tag.

Cargill unloaded on the challengers, landing multiple splashes on both women and a sit-down powerbomb on Hartwell for a near-fall. Hartwell and LeRae quickly regained momentum, with the latter landing a pair of high-risk moves on Cargill. LeRae's missile drop kick backfired sending Cargill to her own corner for a tag. Belair and Cargill then executed a tandem finisher to pick up the sudden win.

⚡ HERE COMES THE STORM ⚡ @Jade_Cargill has taken over this match! #WWEKingAndQueen pic.twitter.com/QWBmMnVjUK — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

Bianca Belair and Jade Cargill def. Indi Hartwell and Candice LeRae in 8:04 to retain their WWE Women's Tag Team Championships.

💪💪💪 @BiancaBelairWWE and @Jade_Cargill leave #WWEKingAndQueen STILL the WWE Women's Tag Team Champions! pic.twitter.com/TMgORPIPZB — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

Catch up on how we got to King and Queen of the Ring

Here's a rundown of WWE's video hype packages for some of the matches taking place today:

. @CodyRhodes battles @LoganPaul in a Champion vs. Champion Match for the Undisputed WWE Title. Don’t miss #WWEKingAndQueen , streaming live today at 1 p.m. ET/10 a.m. PT on Peacock in the U.S. and on WWE Network everywhere else. pic.twitter.com/1GK37KFQIe — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

. @SamiZayn looks to defend his Intercontinental Championship against both @WWEGable and @BRONSONISHERE in a Triple Threat Match. Don’t miss #WWEKingAndQueen , streaming live today at 1 p.m. ET/10 a.m. PT on @peacock in the U.S. and on WWE Network everywhere else. pic.twitter.com/NlMm37ahJf — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

. @BeckyLynchWWE comes around to take on @YaOnlyLivvOnce in a highly-anticipated Women’s World Title Match. Don’t miss #WWEKingandQueen , streaming live today at 1 p.m. ET/10 a.m. PT on @peacock in the U.S. and on WWE Network everywhere else. pic.twitter.com/YD85ZBpv1R — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

. @Real_Valkyria takes on Nia Jax in the final match of the Queen of the Ring Tournament for the crown and a World Title opportunity at #SummerSlam . Don’t miss #WWEKingAndQueen , streaming live today at 1 p.m. ET/10 a.m PT on @peacock in the U.S. and on WWE Network everywhere else. pic.twitter.com/Tz5fhpKjup — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

WWE stars arrive at King and Queen of the Ring

WWE showed off the arrivals for the talent performing on Saturday's card. Take a look (Bronson Reed wins best dressed).

Future IC Champ? @BRONSONISHERE is ready to take home the Intercontinental Championship TODAY at #WWEKingAndQueen ! pic.twitter.com/DRnuf0xWuI — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

👑 Queen Lyra? 👑 In the biggest match of her career to date, @Real_Valkyria looks to become Queen of the Ring TODAY at #WWEKingAndQueen in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia! pic.twitter.com/PHeUNax0y1 — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

"Let's do it!" Can @CandiceLeRae & @indi_hartwell take down @BiancaBelairWWE & @Jade_Cargill to become WWE Women's Tag Team Champions TODAY at #WWEKingAndQueen ? pic.twitter.com/GQQz6fLt6i — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

With his best friend @FightOwensFight by his side, @SamiZayn is ready to defend his Intercontinental Championship TODAY at #WWEKingAndQueen in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia! pic.twitter.com/JzNMFJfkmm — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

Women's World Champ 🔜? @YaOnlyLivvOnce looks add some championship gold to the Liv Morgan Revenge Tour TODAY at #WWEKingAndQueen in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia! pic.twitter.com/Hu1Roytrsb — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

👑 Queen Nia? 👑 Nia Jax is ready to become Queen of the Ring TODAY at #WWEKingAndQueen in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia! pic.twitter.com/5bUMLfMRiz — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

Coffee: ✅ @BeckyLynchWWE is ready for her MASSIVE Women's World Title defense against @YaOnlyLivvOnce TODAY at #WWEKingAndQueen ! pic.twitter.com/5RHORhDKSx — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

The Maverick has arrived! Can @LoganPaul take home the Undisputed WWE Championship TODAY at #WWEKingAndQueen in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia? pic.twitter.com/8w5HKv2Fot — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

Cody is here! Undisputed WWE Champion @CodyRhodes is ready to take down @LoganPaul TODAY at #WWEKingAndQueen in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia! pic.twitter.com/h2AIoX2nlQ — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

WWE King and Queen of the Ring card, predictions

Here's a rundown of the card for Saturday's event, as well as how I see each match unfolding.

Logan Paul vs Cody Rhodes (c.) for the Undisputed WWE Championship – Similar to Rhodes’ match at Backlash earlier this month, I don’t expect the WWE’s top championship to change hands so soon after WrestleMania. That said, the build here has been Rhodes calling out Paul’s underhanded tactics during his reign as WWE United States Champion. Paul doesn’t have nearly the experience that Rhodes does in the business, but he’s among the most promising talents and biggest draws WWE has today. I definitely see Paul ditching his brass knuckles playbook and these two sharing a moment of mutual respect after Rhodes picks up his second successful premium live event title defense. Prediction: Cody Rhodes retains the Undisputed WWE Championship

Liv Morgan vs. Becky Lynch (c.) for the WWE Women’s World Championship – I think Morgan is going to walk out of Saudi Arabia as the WWE Women’s World Champion, but we’ll likely get an extended program between these two. Lynch is a big enough star that she’ll always be in or around the title picture, but the “Liv Morgan revenge tour” makes a lot more sense with her winning the championship. Morgan has already won Money in the Bank in her career, so this is the best — and quickest— way to get her atop Raw’s women’s division. I’d expect this to clear the way for Lynch to enter and possibly win Money in the Bank and continue her feud with Morgan through the summer. Prediction: Liv Morgan win the WWE Women's World Championship

Chad Gable vs. Bronson Reed vs. Sami Zayn (c.) for the Intercontinental Championship – Chad Gable and the downfall of Alpha Academy is one of the more compelling angles in WWE currently, so I don’t necessarily see how him winning the championship here furthers that along. After Maxxine Dupri and Akira Tozawa refused to intervene in his match with Zayn on the go-home Raw, it left just Gable and Otis in Alpha Academy. The most likely outcome here is Otis finally refuses to help Gable win, distracting him while Zayn picks up the win over Reed. Gable vs. Zayn for the Intercontinental Championship feels like a great SummerSlam opening match. Prediction: Sami Zayn retains the Intercontinental Championship

Candice LeRae and Indi Hartwell vs. Bianca Belair and Jade Cargill for the WWE Women's Tag Team Championship — A relatively late addition to the card, Belair and Cargill have both lost to Nia Jax over the past two weeks. This match could truly go either way, but I don't expect Belair and Cargill's reign to end quite yet. Prediction: Belair and Cargill retain the WWE Women's Tag Team Championship

King of the Ring final: Gunther vs. Randy Orton – Orton has never won the King of the Ring in his Hall of Fame-worthy career and this could be one of the last opportunities to do so. That said, after his record Intercontinental Championship reign ended at WrestleMania, a King of the Ring win makes sense to elevate Gunther into the World Heavyweight Championship picture while keeping Cody Rhodes' opponent open for SummerSlam. Prediction: Gunther wins to be crowned King of the Ring

Queen of the Ring final: Lyra Valkyria vs. Nia Jax– Sorry Lyra, but the crown will undoubtedly belong to Jax/Belair this year. With Bayley as a babyface champion, Jax being built into a major threat on SmackDown makes a ton of sense to set up a championship bout for SummerSlam. The King/Queen of the Ring usually works better with an insufferable heel and Jax fits the bill perfectly right now. Prediction: Nia Jax wins to be crowned Queen of the Ring

Recommended Stories

Nelly korda's hopes of a second major in 2024 virtually disappear after carding a 10 at the women's u.s. open.

Korda has already won six times in 2024. Her seventh victory likely won't come at the Women's U.S. Open.

Jaylen Waddle, Dolphins reportedly agree on 3-year, $84.75M extension with $76M guaranteed

Waddle is now one of the NFL's highest-paid receivers.

Yahoo Sports AM: Yer out!

In today's edition: Ángel Hernández calls it quits, Minnesota wins PWHL title, college football mulls new revenue stream, a 12-year wait for a gold medal, and more.

Shohei Ohtani's perfect remedy for a slump was comically bad Mets and their glove-tossing reliever

Dodgers manager Dave Roberts (probably) couldn't forecast this level of Mets ineptitude, but he did predict an Ohtani breakout in his pregame media scrum.

Among 8 NFL head coaches with new teams, what are odds of someone going one-and-done?

Seven coaches have been hit with the dreaded tag since the 2018 season and the idea of coaches getting canned after one season is not as rare as it used to be.

Yankees' Juan Soto called out, Aaron Boone ejected on another bizarre infield fly interference play

Two runners have been called out for interference on an infield fly in the past week.

Cubs rookie Shōta Imanaga falls back to earth, allows 7 ER in loss to Brewers following historic MLB start

Even with the bloated outing, Imanaga's ERA stands at a tidy 1.86.

Caleb Love withdraws from NBA Draft, returns to Arizona; top recruit Joson Sanon switches commitment to rival ASU

Love's return boosts Arizona's 2025 title hopes but comes with a long-term cost.

No. 1 Iga Swiatek battles back from match point to win French Open thriller over Naomi Osaka

Osaka had Swiatek on the ropes, but the three-time French Open champion advanced to the third round with a third-set rally in a thriller.

Paul Skenes' sensational MLB start continues with 9 strikeouts in Pirates' win over Tigers

Skenes now has 30 strikeouts in 22 MLB innings.

Charges against Scottie Scheffler dropped in police incident during PGA Championship

The World No. 1 is free of all charges stemming from a confrontation outside Valhalla Golf Club on May 17.

NASCAR: Front Row announces its adding a 3rd car for 2025 a day after Stewart-Haas says it's shutting down

Front Row has been a two-car team since the start of the 2020 season.

Fantasy football metronome Mike Evans still a ridiculous draft value after a decade of production

Andy Behrens dives into the disrespect one of the most consistent receivers of all time is getting in early fantasy football drafts.

Tarik Cohen will continue his NFL comeback attempt with the Jets

Injuries have kept Cohen off the field since 2020.

Court documents: Auburn RB Brian Battie could be permanently paralyzed after shooting

Battie was shot and his older brother was killed on May 18.

Data and trends that will define 2024 season: This WR stat can help ID potential draft sleepers and busts

For the first installment of the 'Data and trends that will define 2024 season' series, Fantasy Points' Ryan Heath joins the show to discuss why '1st downs per route run' should be one of the biggest guides to determine the success and efficiency of wide receivers in the NFL.

Caitlin Clark outplays Cameron Brink for career-high 30, but red-hot Sparks overwhelm Fever from long distance

Turnovers plagued Clark and the Fever again while the Sparks put on a clinic from beyond the 3-point arc.

Justin Fields laughs off idea that he’ll run kicks back for the Steelers: ‘I’m not here to do that’

After it took off on social media, Justin Fields officially shut down the idea that he’d be playing on special teams for the Steelers.

Ángel Hernández, MLB’s most infamous umpire, leaves us with an odd legacy

Being an MLB umpire is a thankless job, both emotionally taxing and physically strenuous. But Hernández’s outwardly standoffish attitude and penchant for comically bad calls did him no favors.

Stetson Bennett says his missed season was due to mental health after returning to Rams

Bennett missed last season and the Rams wouldn't say why.

• CBSSports.com
• Fanatics Sportsbook
• CBS Sports Home
• Triple Crown 
• Champions League
• Motor Sports
• High School

Football Pick'em

College Pick'em

Fantasy baseball, fantasy football, fantasy basketball, fantasy hockey, franchise games, 24/7 sports news network.

• CBS Sports Golazo Network
• PGA Tour on CBS
• UEFA Champions League
• UEFA Europa League
• Italian Serie A
• Watch CBS Sports Network
• TV Shows & Listings

The Early Edge

A Daily SportsLine Betting Podcast

Beyond the Arc

It's NBA Playoff Time!

• Podcasts Home
• The First Cut Golf
• We Need to Talk Now
• Eye On College Basketball
• NFL Pick Six
• Cover 3 College Football
• Fantasy Football Today
• My Teams Organize / See All Teams Help Account Settings Log Out

WWE King and Queen of the Ring results, recap, grades: Gunther and Nia Jax crowned in Jeddah

Two tournament finals and four championship matches highlight the action from saudi arabia.

Gunther and Nia Jax are on their way to world championship opportunities at SummerSlam after winning the King and Queen of the Ring tournaments on Saturday in Saudi Arabia. Gunther outlasted Randy Orton to win the men's tournament while Jax scraped by a gutsy effort from Lyra Valkyria.

There was plenty more action at King and Queen of the Ring, including four championship matches. Only one title changed hands at the event, with Liv Morgan continuing her "revenge tour" by using a steel chair ahead of finishing off Becky Lynch to win the women's world championship.

The night's main event saw another entertaining outing for United States champion Logan Paul. Paul suffered a defeat at the hands of undisputed WWE champion Cody Rhodes in a champion vs. champion match with only Rhodes' title on the line.

CBS Sports was with you the whole way through the event with live updates, highlights and grades as the action went down.

WWE King and Queen of the Ring results:

Women's Tag Team Championship -- Bianca Belair & Jade Cargill (c) vs. Candice LeRae & Indi Hartwell (Kickoff Match): Cargill's power allowed her to work over Hartwell to start the match but the tide turned when Belair's knee began giving her trouble once again. LeRae took advantage with a chop block to the knee as Hartwell had Belair engaged. The challengers continued to isolate Belair and work over Belair's knee through various strikes and holds. Hartwell also took a cheap shot at Cargill to keep Belair far away from the hot tag, but Belair made the tag moments later, allowing Cargill to blitz both opponents. A scary moment happened as Hartwell held Cargill suspended on the ropes and LeRae attempted a moonsault but landed mostly on her head, though LeRae was apparently fine. Belair tagged back in shortly after, attacked LeRae's knee and a DDT into an ocean cyclone suplex on LeRae won it for Belair and Cargill. Result: Bianca Belair & Jade Cargill def. Candice LeRae & Indi Hartwell to retain the titles

Women's World Championship -- Becky Lynch (c) vs. Liv Morgan: Liv got an early cheap shot in on a ref break. A bit of brawling around ringside followed before Morgan was able to sweep Lynch off the middle rope. Morgan kept a bit of momentum, landing some kicks in the corner and a big clothesline. Liv went for several pins during this stretch, keeping the pressure on Lynch as much as she could before grounding her with an arm lock. As Lynch looked to be fighting her way back into the match, both women hit simultaneous clotheslines. Lynch finally got rolling, knocking Morgan out of the ring and hitting a diving clothesline before a diving dropkick from the middle rope for a near fall. A codebreaker from Morgan led to a near fall as well. Lynch missed an attempt to dive onto Morgan from the top rope, allowing Morgan to hit a dropkick of her own and nearly put the match away but Lynch countered Oblivion. Some brawling led to Lynch locking in an armbar but Morgan countered into the rings of Saturn. After a struggle, Lynch was able to escape and lock in the Dis-Arm-Her. Dominik Mysterio then made his way to ringside, distracting Lynch long enough to allow Morgan to counter the Manhandle Slam with another codebreaker. Mysterio slid a chair in for Lynch to use, which she did not, but Mysterio distracted the referee, leading to Morgan hitting a DDT on the chair and then Oblivion to win the title. A somewhat sloppy performance from both -- especially Lynch -- at times but generally a good match. Result: Liv Morgan def. Becky Lynch via pinfall to win the title. Grade: B-

Intercontinental Championship -- Sami Zayn (c) vs. Chad Gable vs. Bronson Reed: Reed got off to a fast start, going right at both men before the action spilled outside and Zayn landed a dive onto Reed. Zayn continued his roll by taking the fight to Gable, culminating in a standing elbow from the middle rope. Reed came back into the match, dropping Zayn onto Gable in a combination uranage/reverse DDT. Momentum continued to swing between all three men. Zayn dove over the top rope onto both men and reversed a Reed Samoan drop into a powerbomb from the middle rope. Reed intervened with Zayn and Gable on the ropes, leading to him powerbombing Zayn and Gable into a superplex. Gable put Zayn in an ankle lock, switched to the same hold on Reed and then Zayn grabbed Gable in an ankle lock. Zayn released the hold as Reed charged in, allowing Zayn to hit the blue thunder bomb on Reed for a near fall. Reed stacked both men on his shoulders for a Samoan drop and then hit a suicide dive on both.

Gable hit Zayn with a couple of German suplexes as Zayn was going for a Helluva Kick on Reed, Zayn then reversed and hit Gable with the same before Reed tried to German suplex both men simultaneously. But it Gable who accomplished that feat seconds later. Outside the ring, Otis clotheslined Reed at Gable's insistence. Gable then threw Zayn out of the ring and instructed Otis to do the same. Otis refused and Gable began berating him, giving Otis a shove and a slap. Gable held Zayn up again and Otis tried to deliver the clothesline but Zayn ducked and Otis hit Gable. With Gable down, Zayn entered the ring, hit a Helluva Kick on Reed and won the match. A big-move match that kept moving, which was the real goal other than Otis costing Gable the match to keep that story moving. Result: Sami Zayn def. Chad Gable and Bronson Reed via pinfall to retain the title. Grade: B

Queen of the Ring Finals -- Lyra Valkyria vs. Nia Jax: Jax easily fended off a roll-up attempt by Valkyria, as well as a drop toe hold. Valkyria was trying to use speed and to avoid Jax's power, sending Jax through the ropes and hitting a dive, though Jax didn't leave her feet and smashed Valkyria into the ring apron. Jax finally slowed things down and dropped an elbow for a two-count. Jax continued to grind Valkyria down methodically but Valkyria briefly came back with a series of strikes that drove Jax to her knee. Jax was able to recover and hit a Samoan drop. Valkyria slid out of the way of a Jax attempt to hit the Annihilator on the ring apron and then hit Jax with a bulldog on the floor. Back in the ring, Valkyria hit a tornado DDT for a near fall. Jax again hit a Samoan drop and went to for an Annihilator but was knocked from the ropes into a double stomp from Valkyria followed by a leg drop to the back for another near fall. Valkyria attempted to powerbomb Jax off the second rope but in the struggle Jax was able to drop onto her with a modified Annihilator for the win. This was the right call on the Queen of the Ring given Valkyria needs to connect with fans more and Jax can run with the crown as a key part of her character. Also, this was a good showing for both women, letting Valkyria show more fire and get more out of it than her other matches in the tournament. Result: Nia Jax def. Lyra Valkyria via pinfall to become Queen of the Ring. Grade: B

King of the Ring Finals -- Gunther vs. Randy Orton: An extended struggle in a collar and elbow tie-up showed that the match is likely to be worked at Orton's preferred pace. Another collar and elbow struggle followed. Both men took turns working the arm. Orton locked in a side headlock, dropped Gunther with a shoulder tackle and locked in a grounded side headlock, which he held through multiple attempts from Gunther to escape. As the ref broke the hold along the ropes, Gunther delivered a chop before a second landed, and a third. Orton caught the fourth chop attempt and fired in right hands before an exchange of European uppercuts ended with Gunther being dropped. Gunther went for a powerbomb but Orton nearly hit an RKO on the counter. Gunther started working the back, driving forearms into Orton's spine.

Gunther cut off Orton comeback attempts by continuing to focus on the back, including a big body slam. The two men struggled to suplex each other before Orton was the one able to hit the move and try and struggle back into the bach, only to take a forearm to the back and hard chop to the chest. Gunther grabbed the ropes to avoid a power slam after Orton got rolling with strikes and clotheslines and again grabbed control of the match until Orton hit the powerslam on the second attempt. Orton hit the hanging DDT and fired up to hit the RKO. Gunther shoved Orton off before the RKO and landed another body slam and a splash from the top rope for a near fall. Gunther went for a second splash but Orton rolled out of the way and hit an RKO. Before Orton could attempt a pin, Gunther rolled out of the ring. Orton followed Gunther outside and twice dropped him on the commentary desk, back body dropping his way out of a powerbomb attempt before slamming Gunther on the desk for a third time. Gunther cut off Orton's charge by dropkicking Orton in the knee as Orton tried to reenter the ring. A few more shots to the knee proceeded Gunther locking in a half crab. After a second half crab by Gunther, Orton exploded into an RKO. Gunther kicked out at two, attacking Orton's knee in the process. Gunther then locked in a crucifix pin to score the win even as one of Orton's shoulders was nowhere near the mat. The end was a bit screwy with Orton's shoulder visibly being up throughout the pin (to the point where the commentary team couldn't ignore it) but otherwise this was a fantastic match to cap off a tournament filled with great action. Result: Gunther def. Randy Orton via pinfall to become King of the Ring. Grade: A-

Undisputed WWE Championship -- Cody Rhodes (c) vs. Logan Paul: A bit of chain wrestling got things going early, with Rhodes trying to show he could simply outwrestle Paul, though Paul held his own with some reversals. After some shoves, the two began to fire in strikes before a Rhodes front suplex. Paul dropped into a splits to duck under a Rhodes cross-body and then took Rhodes to ringside where he drove him into the ring steps. Back in the ring, Paul drove punches into Rhodes' body ahead of an overbomb for a near fall. Another near fall came after a standing moonsault by Paul. Rhodes tossed Paul off the top rope with an armdrag but Paul continued to attack Rhodes' ribs and abdomen. Rhodes smashed a Prime bottle into Paul's face before a "fan" put his hands on Rhodes, leading Rhodes to drag him over the guard rail. As the referee was dealing with the situation, another fan gave Paul brass knuckles, which he then used to punch Rhodes in the ribs.

Paul got distracted by arguing with Michael Cole, allowing Rhodes to fly from the ring onto Paul and hit a powerslam when they reentered the ring. Rhodes locked Paul in a figure-four leglock. Paul broke the hold by grabbing the rope after screaming, "Chill, Cody, you're gonna break my leg." A Cody Cutter scored another near victory for Rhodes. Paul countered a Rhodes vertebreaker and hit a Cross Rhodes but Rhodes kicked out at two. After the action spilled back outside the ring, Paul attempted to hit a pedigree onto the commentary desk but Rhodes escaped and hit a Cody Cutter onto the table. After Rhodes entered the ring, the referee was about to count to 10 but Rhodes told him to stop the count and let him win in the ring. This allowed Paul to recover and he drove a right hand into Rhodes' face. Paul put Rhodes on the desk and went to the top rope, putting Rhodes through the desk with a highlight reel frog splash.

Paul dragged Rhodes back into the ring for a second frog splash but Rhodes kicked out at two. Rhodes hit a vertebreaker for what would have been the win but the referee had been taken out after getting accidentally smashed in the corner. Paul hit Rhodes with a low blow. Paul pulled the brass knuckles out but the Saudi guest ring announcer (a comedian and entertainer) grabbed Paul's foot, allowing Rhodes to eventually block the punch and hit Cross Rhodes for the win. We no longer have to talk about Paul matches as though he isn't a wrestler, he's done this long enough and its time to treat him like anyone else on the roster when discussing his matches. The good thing about that is that his matches continue to be very good. Rhodes obviously can more than deliver in the ring, which meant the match was very good, though not quite edging out Gunther vs. Orton for match of the night. Result: Cody Rhodes def. Logan Paul via pinfall to retain the title. Grade: B+

CBS Sports HQ Newsletter

We bring sports news that matters to your inbox, to help you stay informed and get a winning edge., thanks for signing up, keep an eye on your inbox., there was an error processing your subscription., share video.

Previewing WWE Backlash

Wrestlemania 40 Storylines

Wrestlemania 40 Main Event Preview

Everything You Need To Know About The Wrestlemania 40 Main Event

WWE King and Queen of the Ring 2024 results: Gunther, Nia Jax take the crown

A king and queen of WWE have been crowned.

The next set of royalty in wrestling was determined Saturday with the 2024 King and Queen of the Ring. The premium live event in Saudi Arabia was where the finals of each tournament took place with Randy Orton vs. Gunther on the men's side and Nia Jax against Lyra Valkyria on the women's side.

King and Queen won’t be the titles up for grabs either as four championships − the Undisputed WWE Championship, Women's World Championship, Intercontinental Championship and Women's Tag Team Championship − were put on the line, and one major title switched hands.

Here are the results and top highlights from King and Queen of the Ring 2024:

Undisputed WWE Championship match: Cody Rhodes (c) vs. Logan Paul

Logan Paul continued to impress when he had control in the early stages of the match, but once Rhodes got momentum and took the action outside of the ring, Paul was able to get the brass knuckles that were barred from this match. He delivered a shot to Rhodes' midsection and looked to be headed to another win until he got distracted by the words of Michael Cole. It gave Rhodes enough time to recover and launch himself outside and the ring and inflict damage.

Rhodes was first to hit a finisher with a Cody cutter, it just wasn't enough to get the pin. He tried to continue the onslaught, but Paul countered with his own Cross Rhodes. The champion would kick out of the pin. Paul would try to send Rhodes through the announcer's table, only to have Rhodes counter it with a Cody cutter.

With Paul down outside the ring, Rhodes looked to win on a count out. Once the referee got to nine, Rhodes stopped the referee and insisted he win clean. It wasn't a bright idea; Paul landed a blow to Rhodes, and then he hit another wild frogsplash from the turnbuckle through the announcer's table. He landed another frogsplash in the ring for the win, and in somewhat surprising fashion, Rhodes kicked out.

The referee got accidentally taken out by Paul, and with the referee down, Paul delivered a low blow and brought the brass knuckles out again. The guest ring announcer stepped in and stopped Paul from delivering a blow, and Rhodes got up to deliver three Cross Rhodes, the finishing touches on retaining his title and taking down the United States Champion.

Rhodes' second title defense was another solid match, and Paul continues to get credibility as a solidified WWE superstar. Paul said a victory would make him the leader of the "Triple H" era, but it still remains under the leadership of "The American Nightmare."

Triple H makes Drew McIntyre vs. Damian Priest official

When WWE returns to Drew McIntyre's home country, he will be competing for gold.

WWE chief content officer Paul "Triple H" Levesque announced Drew McIntyre has been medically cleared to compete, and since he has his rematch clause from when he lost the World Heavyweight Championship minutes after winning it at WrestleMania 40, it'll be official at Clash of the Castle.

McIntyre will face current champion Damian Priest on June 15 in Glasgow.

King of the Ring final: Gunther vs. Randy Orton

The aura inside Jeddah SuperDome was immaculate for what people knew would be a fantastic match between a future WWE Hall of Famer and one of the top performers in the business.

Randy Orton and Gunther spent much time feeling the match out as the crowd made it known it was backing Orton. The speed picked up when Orton appeared to hurt his leg and then add damage to that reconstructed back when he failed to execute an RKO. From there, Gunther went to town, landing shots at-will.

Gunther went for the win with a frogsplash, but Orton surprisingly kicked out. Gunther went for another, only this time Orton dodged it and then hit a signature RKO. Gunther rolled out of the ring to avoid the pin, so Orton decided to punish "The Ring General" by throwing him on the announcer's table multiple times. Once things got back in the ring, Gunther went back to attacking Orton's knee and back in punishing fashion.

Orton has been known to quickly change the match with an RKO, and he did just that and looked to be headed for a win. Gunther somehow kicked out, and when he did, Orton took more damage to the left knee. With him in pain, Gunther rolled him up on his shoulders and he got the pin to win the match. Now, "The Ring General" is King of the Ring.

"What happened today is the 'Apex Predator' became the prey to 'The Ring General,'" Gunther said.

Queen of the Ring final: Lyra Valkyria vs. Nia Jax

It was billed as the top seed vs. the Cinderella story, but it's the irresistible force that's your new queen.

Lyra Valkyria faced a tall task to win Queen of the Ring since Jax is such a dominant force and her experience is far greater than the new main roster addition. Valkyria got some shots in early, but it didn't take long for Jax to take control of the match. Despite never having a true advantage, Valkyria got some solid moves in, including a dropkick and tornado DDT.

Valkyria swung for the fences when she tried a power bomb off the turnbuckle, but Jax wouldn't go down. Instead, she landed her brutal annihilator that completely took Valkyria out. Jax got the pin, and WWE chief content officer Paul "Triple H" Levesque was there to put the crown on the new queen in what was an emotional moment for Jax.

Triple threat match for Intercontinental Championship: Sami Zayn (c) vs. Chad Gable vs. Bronson Reed

It's always a feel-good moment seeing Sami Zayn perform in Saudi Arabia, and the crowd was amped to see the champion in the ring in what felt like a semblance of the Backlash France crowd. Zayn isn't from the country, but he had the home-field advantage that was going wild with everything he did, including launching himself over the top rope onto the challengers.

The first threat of Zayn losing was when Gable got an ankle lock on the champion, but when he shifted the focus to Reed, Zayn recovered and not only did his own ankle lock, he picked up Reed for a wild blue thunder power bomb.

Gable brought out Otis to be a disrupter, but he couldn't pull off an attack on Zayn. Gable belittled him for not doing it, and when Otis actually went for it, Zayn moved and the Alpha Academy member clotheslined his leader. While Otis realized his mistake, Zayn got in the ring, delivered a helluva kick to Reed and got the pin. The Intercontinental title stays with the champion, and even more questions are raised for Alpha Academy.

Women’s World Championship match: Becky Lynch (c) vs. Liv Morgan

The Liv Morgan revenge tour is raging on.

The two stars traded blows in the first half of the match, and despite the minor botches in some moves, they each kept the pace of the match flowing. It was pretty much a shootout with a plethora of pin attempts happening within seconds of each other from Lynch and Morgan. Lynch was the first one to get a finisher in with a dis-arm-her, but Morgan got out of it and sequence of roll ups ensued.

Things took a turn when Dominik Mysterio, who swore he'd make sure Morgan didn't win the title, appeared ringside. However, it distracted Lynch more than the challenger and Morgan got enough time to recover to land a codebreaker. But it wouldn't secure the win.

Mysterio tried to give a chair to Lynch, but Morgan capitalized by executing a DDT on Lynch on the chair while the referee was distracted. Morgan got the champion frazzled, and she landed an obLIVion to get the pin and complete the next step in her revenge tour. It was not only was her first singles victory over Lynch, she now the new Women's World Champion, and somewhere out there, Rhea Ripley cannot be happy with what her "Dom Dom" did.

Women's Tag Team Championship match: Jade Cargill and Bianca Belair (c) vs. Indi Hartwell and Candice LeRae

On paper, this shouldn't have been much of a contest for the champions, but a change in direction from Hartwell and LeRae was not only needed, it made it a competitive match.

LeRae had taken pride in the damage she put on Belair's left knee and it was a heavy emphasis of the challengers' attack, and Hartwell's taunts of "The EST" added heat. Belair was eventually able to get the hot tag to Cargill and she displayed the power with a hard-hitting powerbomb on Hartwell.

Belair would then get her revenge. Cargill got Belair in on the tag, and the champion had a great sequence where Belair delivered a DDT to LeRae before Cargill launched her with an ocean cyclone suplex. Belair got the pin to secure the win.

It was hard to imagine the tag titles changing given the dominance Belair and Cargill are showing in the division, but LeRae and Hartwell displayed a solid performance that prevented it from being a squash.

When is King and Queen of the Ring 2024?

The 2024 King and Queen of the Ring is Saturday, May 25 at 1 p.m. ET. The event will take place at 8 p.m. local time in Jeddah.

Where is King and Queen of the Ring 2024?

The 2024 King and Queen of the Ring will be at Jeddah SuperDome in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. 

How to watch King and Queen of the Ring 2024

The event can be streamed on Peacock , but you must have their premium or premium-plus subscription to watch. Internationally, it will be available on WWE Network.

King and Queen of the Ring 2024 match card

Matches not in order

• King of the Ring final: Gunther vs. Randy Orton.
• Queen of the Ring final: Lyra Valkyria vs. Nia Jax.
• Undisputed WWE Championship match: Cody Rhodes (c) vs. Logan Paul.
• Women’s World Championship match: Becky Lynch (c) vs. Liv Morgan.
• Triple threat match for Intercontinental Championship: Sami Zayn (c) vs. Chad Gable vs. Bronson Reed.
• Women's Tag Team Championship match: Jade Cargill and Bianca Belair (c) vs. Indi Hartwell and Candice LeRae.

King and Queen of the Ring 2024 predictions

• King of the Ring final: Gunther def. Randy Orton.
• Queen of the Ring final: Nia Jax def.Lyra Valkyria.
• Undisputed WWE Championship match: Cody Rhodes def. Logan Paul.
• Women’s World Championship match: Liv Morgan def. Becky Lynch.
• Triple threat match for Intercontinental Championship: Chad Gable def. Sami Zayn and Bronson Reed.
• Women's Tag Team Championship match: Jade Cargill and Bianca Belair def. Indi Hartwell and Candice LeRae.

King and Queen of the Ring winners get championship match

Winning the King or Queen of the Ring tournament has been a career-defying achievement for several stars in the past, like being the springboard for championships.

Now, the winners of each tournament will be guaranteed a championship opportunity. WWE chief content officer Paul “Triple H” Levesque said on Thursday the winners of the two matches will get a championship match at SummerSlam on Aug. 3.

King of the Ring bracket

First Round

• Gunther def. Sheamus
• Ilja Dragunov def. Richochet
• Jey Uso def. Finn Balor
• Randy Orton def. AJ Styles
• Tama Tonga def. Angelo Dawkins
• Carmelo Hayes def. Baron Corbin
• LA Knight def. Santos Escobar
• Kofi Kingston def. Rey Mysterio

Quarterfinals

• Gunther def. Kofi Kingston
• Jey Uso def. Ilja Dragunov
• Randy Orton def. Carmelo Hayes
• Tama Tonga def. LA Knight
• Gunther def. Jey Uso
• Randy Orton def. Tama Tonga
• Gunther vs. Randy Orton

Queen of the Ring bracket

First round

• Iyo Sky def. Natalya
• Lyra Valkyria def. Dakota Kai
• Zoey Stark def. Ivy Nile
• Bianca Belair def. Candice LeRae
• Jade Cargill def. Piper Niven
• Nia Jax def. Naomi
• Tiffany Stratton def. Michin
• Shayna Baszler def. Maxxine Dupri
• Iyo Sky def. Shayna Baszler
• Lyra Valkyria def. Zoey Stark
• Nia Jax def. Jade Cargill
• Bianca Belair def. Tiffany Stratton
• Lyra Valkyria def. Iyo Sky
• Nia Jax vs. Bianca Belair
• Lyra Valkyria vs. Nia Jax

King of the Ring history

The 23rd King of the Ring will be crowned Saturday, as the tournament first took place in 1985. Here are all the stars that won King of the Ring:

• 1985: Don Muraco
• 1986: Harley Race
• 1987: Randy Savage
• 1988: Ted DiBiase
• 1989: Tito Santana
• 1991: Bret Hart
• 1993: Bret Hart
• 1994: Owen Hart
• 1995: Mabel
• 1996: Stone Cold Steve Austin
• 1997: Triple H
• 1998: Ken Shamrock
• 1999: Billy Gunn
• 2000: Kurt Angle
• 2002: Brock Lesnar
• 2006: Booker T
• 2008: William Regal
• 2010: Sheamus
• 2015: Bad News Barrett
• 2019: Baron Corbin
• 2021: Xavier Woods

Queen of the Ring history

This is the second Queen of the Ring tournament after it debuted in 2021. Zelina Vega won the first ever Queen of the Ring.

More From Forbes

Wwe king and queen of the ring 2024 results: cody rhodes topples logan paul.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

Logan Paul will challenge Cody Rhodes in an effort to become a dual champio. (Credit: WWE/Getty ... [+] Images)

Cody Rhodes defeated Logan Paul at WWE King And Queen Of The Ring 2024 to retain the Universal Championship in an instant classic.

In the second marquee title defense for Rhodes since he won WWE’s top title at WrestleMania 40 last month, “The American Nightmare” toppled Paul, the United States Champion, with a Cross Rhodes after a back-and-forth match that continued Paul’s incredible run in WWE and kept the title around the waist of Rhodes.

For Paul, the loss was certainly not a surprise. His US title was not on the line, and WWE wasn’t going to put its most prestigious championship on a seldom seen part-timer—again.

For Rhodes, however, the question now becomes: where does he go from here?

When Rhodes was the challenger for then-champion Roman Reigns and in pursuit of his first-ever WWE Championship, there was an easy story to tell. Rhodes was the beloved underdog looking to dethrone the evil boss who spent more than three years running rougshod over WWE.

As champion, Rhodes is trying to tell a different story, one that isn’t as easy to get fans invested in. While in pursuit of Reigns, WWE’s business boomed to its greatest heights in well over two decades. But even Rhodes himself has admitted that he doesn't view himself as the draw Reigns was.

Apple Brings Back iPhone 14 Pro For First Time At Lower Price Refurbished

Trump lashes out at robert de niro after actor calls him a ‘tyrant’ outside courthouse, trump trial prosecutor ends closing argument after nearly 5 hours jury instructions set for wednesday.

One could argue that Reigns was the driving force behind WWE’s hottest stretch ever, with record-breaking sellout streaks , strong TV shows with both Raw and SmackDown as well as consistently great pay-per-views. It’s a much more difficult road for Rhodes to travel.

He doesn’t have the benefit of being involved in a historically great storyline with The Bloodline and Reigns, who is on an indefinite hiatus, anymore. Meanwhile, the WWE Draft left SmackDown without a ton of intriguing challengers for Rhodes, given that many of WWE’s biggest and best heels are on the Raw brand.

Rewind back five years, when Kofi Kingston was the surprising WWE Champion, and he seemed to bounce around from one brief feud to another. As a result, his title reign—which followed an unforgettable victory over Daniel Bryan at WrestleMania 35—left a lot to be desired. In fact, it’s hard to remember much about his run with the belt outside of the way it ended when Brock Lesnar defeated him in less than 10 seconds.

Rhodes is a bigger singles star than Kingston, of course, but after a short-lived feud with AJ Styles and what could be a brief rivalry with Paul, WWE seems unsure how it wants to book Rhodes’ run with its No. 1 championship. That tends to happen naturally with Babyface champions, who generally aren’t as intriguing as heel ones, and it puts WWE in a difficult spot.

Rhodes is expected to have a lengthy run as champion, perhaps all the way to WrestleMania 41 for a potentially epic showdown with The Rock. But even with WWE creative head Triple H proving to be a strong long-term storyteller, he’s got a hard challenge ahead in terms of keeping Rhodes fresh and exciting as champion.

With The Bloodline saga still going strong as arguably WWE’s most important storyline, it’s up to Triple H and the creative team to ensure that Rhodes doesn’t lose his momentum or come off as a secondary act.

That’s easier said than done, and although Rhodes’ victory over Paul at WWE King and Queen of the Ring was a good start, there still lies a long road ahead.

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

Join The Conversation

One Community. Many Voices. Create a free account to share your thoughts. 

Forbes Community Guidelines

Our community is about connecting people through open and thoughtful conversations. We want our readers to share their views and exchange ideas and facts in a safe space.

In order to do so, please follow the posting rules in our site's  Terms of Service.   We've summarized some of those key rules below. Simply put, keep it civil.

Your post will be rejected if we notice that it seems to contain:

• False or intentionally out-of-context or misleading information
• Insults, profanity, incoherent, obscene or inflammatory language or threats of any kind
• Attacks on the identity of other commenters or the article's author
• Content that otherwise violates our site's  terms.

User accounts will be blocked if we notice or believe that users are engaged in:

• Continuous attempts to re-post comments that have been previously moderated/rejected
• Racist, sexist, homophobic or other discriminatory comments
• Attempts or tactics that put the site security at risk
• Actions that otherwise violate our site's  terms.

So, how can you be a power user?

• Stay on topic and share your insights
• Feel free to be clear and thoughtful to get your point across
• ‘Like’ or ‘Dislike’ to show your point of view.
• Protect your community.
• Use the report tool to alert us when someone breaks the rules.

Thanks for reading our community guidelines. Please read the full list of posting rules found in our site's  Terms of Service.

• SI SWIMSUIT
• SI SPORTSBOOK
• FIGHT SCHEDULE

WWE King and Queen of the Ring 2024 Live Stream & Results: Cody Rhodes vs. Logan Paul

Fernando quiles jr. | may 25, 2024.

The WWE King and Queen of the Ring 2024 PLE will take place today, and you can catch a live stream of the countdown show.

Before the Undisputed WWE Championship match between titleholder Cody Rhodes and Logan Paul and the King and Queen of the finals commence, there is a key title match that fans will get to see for free. The WWE Women's Tag Team Champions Bianca Belair and Jade Cargill will put their gold at stake against Candice LeRae and Indi Hartwell on the pre-show.

LeRae and Hartwell received the title shot after mocking Belair for her loss to Nia Jax in the Queen of the Ring semifinals on Friday Night SmackDown. Cargill scared off LeRae and Hartwell before seeing SmackDown GM Nick Aldis, who made the match official.

WWE KING AND QUEEN OF THE RING 2024 PREDICTIONS: WHO WILL BE CROWNED IN JEDDAH?

WWE King and Queen of the Ring 2024 Results & Live Stream

The countdown show will begin at 11 a.m. ET. You can watch the live stream below:

We will also be bringing you live coverage throughout the day with WWE King and Queen of the Ring 2024 results. In the finals of the KOTR, GUNTHER will collide with Randy Orton. The QOTR finals will feature Nia Jax going one-on-one with Lyra Valkyria.

There is the aforementioned Undisputed WWE Championship match between Cody Rhodes and Logan Paul, but that's not the only title match on the PLE portion of the card. Becky Lynch will put her Women's World Championship at stake against Liv Morgan. We'll also get to see a triple threat match for the Intercontinental Championship, as Sami Zayn defends against Chad Gable and Bronson Reed.

MMA Knockout on Sports Illustrated will begin coverage of the WWE King and Queen of the Ring 2024 when the Women's Tag Team Championship match starts. Keep refreshing this page for the latest updates.

WWE King and Queen of the Ring 2024 Results

Bianca Belair & Jade Cargill vs. Candice LeRae & Indi Hartwell

Here. We. Go. The WWE Women's Tag Team Titles are on the line RIGHT NOW on The Countdown to #WWEKingAndQueen ! 🦚 https://t.co/xRBTNzqw23 🌍 https://t.co/aEwGYUp0uE pic.twitter.com/ApTUNoo1re — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

Candice went for a move off the second rope, but Bianca cut her off. Belair went for a Gorilla Press Slam, but her injured knee gave out.

Jade got the hot tag and nailed Candice with a Spinebuster. She hit corner splashes on both LeRae and Indi before planting Hartwell with a sitout powerbomb before Candice broke up the pin.

⚡ HERE COMES THE STORM ⚡ @Jade_Cargill has taken over this match! #WWEKingAndQueen pic.twitter.com/QWBmMnVjUK — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

Belair and Jade hit a DDT into a wheelbarrow suplex combination on LeRae for the win.

Bianca Belair y Jade Cargill RETIENEN los Women's Tag Team Championship con este movimiento conjunto sobre Candice LeRae, en un combate de exhibición para que Bianca y Jade tengan su hueco en el PPV. Un DDT mezclado con un Suplex. Curioso. #WWEKingAndQueen pic.twitter.com/b7A39bLAsh — LuigiWrestling (@LuigiWrestling) May 25, 2024

Winners and STILL WWE Women's Tag Team Champions : Bianca Belair and Jade Cargill

Becky Lynch (c) vs. Liv Morgan - for the Women's World Championship

The Liv Morgan Revenge Tour has made a stop in Jeddah! Can @YaOnlyLivvOnce leave #WWEKingAndQueen the NEW Women's World Champion? 🤔 pic.twitter.com/ORvsCHuvQg — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

The Man has come around to Jeddah! @BeckyLynchWWE puts her Women's World Championship on the line to get us started at #WWEKingAndQueen ! pic.twitter.com/f61Pcg8up9 — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

The action quickly spilled outside and Becky sent Liv's head into the steel steps and the barricade. Liv drove Becky into the ring apron. Lynch went for her middle rope leg drop, but she was dragged down to the mat by Liv.

Becky and Liv hit simultaneous clotheslines. Lynch climbed the top turnbuckle, but she was cut off. Becky shoved Liv off and landed a missile dropkick for a two-count. Liv used the middle rope for momentum and hit a Codebreaker for a near fall.

Becky locked in an armbar, but Morgan reversed into a Rings of Saturn. Becky turned over for a pin attempt, but Morgan kept the submission on. Becky then rolled over for the Dis-Arm-Her, but Dominik Mysterio appeared and this distracted Becky.

. @DomMysterio35 is here! #WWEKingAndQueen pic.twitter.com/wApUMayahU — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

Liv countered the Manhandle Slam into the Codebreaker for a close two-count. Liv went up the top turnbuckle, but Becky met her there for a superplex. Dom tossed a steel chair in the ring and distracted the referee. Liv nailed Becky with a DDT on the chair followed by Oblivion for the win.

DID THAT JUST HAPPEN?! @YaOnlyLivvOnce beats @BeckyLynchWWE ! She is the NEW Women's World Champion 😱 #WWEKingAndQueen pic.twitter.com/g7cYjCFvkD — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

Dom knew exactly what he was doing ... #WWEKingandQueen pic.twitter.com/7xSsUt6dS5 — Sports Illustrated's Fernando Quiles Jr. (@FQJMMA) May 25, 2024

Winner and NEW Women's World Champion : Liv Morgan

Sami Zayn (c) vs. Chad Gable and Bronson Reed - for the WWE Intercontinental Championship

Looks like @WWEGable only wants @otiswwe with him ringside and not @maxxinedupri ... 😬 #WWEKingAndQueen pic.twitter.com/ubyeMbt8kO — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

🗣️ LET'S GO! @SamiZayn has arrived to #WWEKingAndQueen ! pic.twitter.com/lsa8X2GlKx — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

Reed used his power advantage early. He got Gable in a reverse DDT position and caught Sami in a Uranage and slammed him onto Gable. Sami hit a senton over the top rope onto Gable and Reed on the outside. Zayn hit a sunset flip on Reed from the turnbuckle for a two-count.

A flying @SamiZayn ! #WWEKingAndQueen pic.twitter.com/H47cIApF8h — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

Reed went for a moonsault, but Zayn moved out of the way. Zayn hit a tornado DDT on Reed, but Gable got him in an Ankle Lock. Chad then locked in the submission on Reed before Sami got him in an Ankle Lock of his own. Sami hit a Blue Thunder Bomb on Reed for a near fall.

BLUE THUNDER BOMB DE SAMI ZAYN A BRONSON REED. Qué jodido combatazo. #WWEKingAndQueen pic.twitter.com/KfnqJaST6r — LuigiWrestling (@LuigiWrestling) May 25, 2024

Reed hit a suicide dive on Sami and Gable.

Triple threat banger #WWEKingandQueen https://t.co/ceyiBKvxLX — Sports Illustrated's Fernando Quiles Jr. (@FQJMMA) May 25, 2024

Otis hit a shoulder block on Reed, but he hesitated hitting Sami. Gable was irate and he shoved Otis before slapping him. Otis finally went for a running clothesline, but he accidentally hit Gable.

OTIS HIT CHAD GABLE!!! #WWEKINGANDQUEEN pic.twitter.com/5qbBLmqFHo — Wrestling Pics & Clips (@WrestleClips) May 25, 2024

In the ring, Sami nailed the Helluva Kick on Reed for the win.

Winner and STILL WWE Intercontinental Champion : Sami Zayn

Nia Jax vs. Lyra Valkyria - Queen of the Ring 2024 Finals

Will Nia Jax become Queen Nia? #WWEKingAndQueen pic.twitter.com/p2CX2EL1lj — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

. @Real_Valkyria is ready to become Queen of the Ring! 👑 #WWEKingAndQueen pic.twitter.com/cIzojj8jf2 — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

Jax used her power advantage early, but Lyra eventually hit a tornado DDT for a near fall. Nia hit a Samoan Drop. She went for the Annihilator, but Lyra cut her off and landed a double foot stomp. Lyra went up the top turnbuckle for a leg drop.

Nia Jax is DOMINATING 😳 #WWEKingAndQueen pic.twitter.com/QUIbrvqCz0 — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

Lyra went for a sunset flip powerbomb, but Nia landed right on her for the Annihilator for the finish.

I am laughing way too much at this finish 🤣 #WWEKINGANDQUEEN pic.twitter.com/Jx3pNQdben — Sports Illustrated's Fernando Quiles Jr. (@FQJMMA) May 25, 2024

👑👑👑 What a Queen of the Ring tournament for Nia Jax! #WWEKingAndQueen pic.twitter.com/eARzuWoel6 — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

Winner and the 2024 Queen of the Ring : Nia Jax

Becky Lynch was backstage berating Dominik Mysterio. She then told Byron Saxton that she has a rematch

GUNTHER vs. Randy Orton - King of the Ring 2024 Finals

Buckle up... It's time for the King of the Ring Finals! 👑 #WWEKingAndQueen pic.twitter.com/x4zqghUBtt — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

I think it's awesome how the Backlash crowd in Lyon, France has made a positive impact on WWE crowds around the world. You paid your ticket, keep the hype going! #WWEKINGANDQUEEN pic.twitter.com/gXZGiABvpK — Sports Illustrated's Fernando Quiles Jr. (@FQJMMA) May 25, 2024

👀 #WWEKingAndQueen pic.twitter.com/B3DHLoUf10 — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

This is SURREAL. @RandyOrton vs. @Gunther_AUT in the King of the Ring Finals RIGHT NOW at #WWEKingAndQueen ! pic.twitter.com/Ny9llaZERc — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

GUNTHER had Orton grounded early with an arm lock, but Orton turned the tide with his own arm hold. Orton had a side headlock on "The Ring General," but Gunther landed a chop on the break. He followed up with a second chop, and a third.

GUNTHER stunned Orton with a European Uppercut, but Orton dropped him with one of his own. GUNTHER went for a powerbomb, but Orton looked to counter with an RKO that was thwarted when Orton landed right on his surgically reparied back.

😬😬😬 #WWEKingAndQueen pic.twitter.com/jfGIyUQG2w — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

GUNTHER hit another chop, but Orton landed two clotheslines. He went for his trademark powerslam, but GUNTHER didn't take the bait. When Orton went down on the failed powerslam, "The Viper" landed on his injured knee.

Gunther vuelve a evitar, en este caso, el Powerslam de Randy Orton, que se duele de la rodilla. Se nota por donde van. #WWEKingAndQueen pic.twitter.com/PMWXGKyvlB — LuigiWrestling (@LuigiWrestling) May 25, 2024

GUNTHER charged in, but this time Orton hit the powerslam. He went for the draping DDT and he landed it. Orton looked for an RKO, but GUNTHER shoved him off and hit a scoop slam. He then hit a Frog Splash for a near fall.

A second spash attempt missed, and Orton hit the RKO. Orton was too hurt to make the pin, allowing GUNTHER to roll out of the ring.

This is AWESOME 👏👏👏 #WWEKingAndQueen pic.twitter.com/8bBa6SOYln — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

On the outside, Orton hit two backdrops on the announce table. "The Ring General" sent Orton crashing into the ring apron. GUNTHER attempted a Powerbomb on the outside, but Orton reversed and sent him crashing to the announce table a third time.

Vintage Orton 🐍 #WWEKingAndQueen pic.twitter.com/3j4r7fDkuz — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

GUNTHER locked in the Half Crab submission. Another RKO connected for Orton, but GUNTHER kicked out and got in a cradle pin for the win. Orton's injured knee was too painful for him to kick out.

GUNTHER IS THE NEW KING OF THE KING!!! #WWEKINGANDQUEEN pic.twitter.com/g36Dj4ErVz — Wrestling Pics & Clips (@WrestleClips) May 25, 2024

Winner and 2024 King of the Ring : GUNTHER

Backstage, Paul "Triple H" Levesque was with Kayla Braxton to announce that Drew McIntyre will challenge Damian Priest for the World Heavyweight Championship at Clash at the Castle on June 15th in Glasgow, Scotland.

Three weeks from today, LIVE from Glasgow, Scotland, @DMcIntyreWWE gets his opportunity to challenge @ArcherOfInfamy for the World Heavyweight Championship at #WWECastle . pic.twitter.com/XXJ7yiY234 — Triple H (@TripleH) May 25, 2024

Cody Rhodes (c) vs. Logan Paul - for the Undisputed WWE Championship

Will @LoganPaul walk out of #WWEKingAndQueen as Undisputed WWE Champion? pic.twitter.com/wJCS4rDT4C — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

🗣️ WOAHHHHHH @CodyRhodes has arrived to #WWEKingAndQueen ! pic.twitter.com/vYTZm1wYNc — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

Logan slammed Cody's arm down the mat after calling him a "b****." The two engaged in a shoving match before Rhodes popped Logan with a forearm. Cody went for a crossbody, but Logan did a split to avoid the move. He then threw Cody into the steps.

. @LoganPaul is taking flight ✈️ #WWEKingAndQueen pic.twitter.com/lcIvK1FQ0Y — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

Paul landed some body punches to Rhodes in the corner. He then hit the Alley Op Powerbomb for a two-count.

Paul climbed the top turnbuckle, but Rhodes leaped up and hit an arm drag. Rhodes was selling a rib injury. With Logan on the ring apron, Rhodes landed the Disaster Kick. One of Logan's cronies gave Paul a Prime drink, but Rhodes hit him with it.

One of Paul's buddies handed him brass kuckles, and he used the weapon to hit Cody in the bad ribs while the referee was distracted. Paul argued with Michael Cole, which allowed Rhodes to hit a suicide dive.

Ya empieza Logan Paul a coger el puño americano y demás, con sus amiguitos de Prime. Mintiendo sobre lo que había dicho en SmackDown, como no. #WWEKingAndQueen pic.twitter.com/sdU0AbtqHh — LuigiWrestling (@LuigiWrestling) May 25, 2024

Logan missed the slingshot clothesline and Rhodes nailed him with the Cody Cutter for a near fall. Logan stole Cody's finisher, Cross Rhodes, for a two-count.

CODY CUTTER!!! #WWEKingAndQueen pic.twitter.com/IhBF30zkZ5 — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

A Cross Rhodes from @LoganPaul 😱 #WWEKingAndQueen pic.twitter.com/rBMpvjyOfJ — WWE (@WWE) May 25, 2024

Logan cleared the announce table and went for a Pedigree, but Rhodes fought back. Rhodes hit the Cody Cutter off the barricade onto the announce table. The referee was going to count Logan out, but Cody stopped him.

Rhodes then cleared the other announce table. Paul nailed Cody with a punch to the jaw. He then placed Cody on the announce table. Paul grabbed another Prime bottle and went up the top turnbuckle. He hit the Frog Splash right through the table.

FROG SPLASH DE LOGAN PAUL A CODY RHODES SOBRE LA MESAAAAAAA #WWEKINGANDQUEEN pic.twitter.com/8xJ2uBz1x4 — LuigiWrestling (@LuigiWrestling) May 25, 2024

Paul then hit the Frog Splash on Cody in the ring, but "The American Nightmare" kicked out.

Both Cody and Logan accidentally hit corner splashes on the referee. Rhodes hit the Vertebreaker, but the referee was down. Logan hit a low blow. He then pulled out the brass knuckles again, but the guest ring announcer held onto his leg, allowed Cody to hit Cross Rhodes three times for the finish.

#ANDSTILL Cody Rhodes successfully defends the Undisputed WWE Championship vs Logan Paul in the Main Event! #WWEKingandQueen pic.twitter.com/N9En8fJZQ1 — WrestlePurists (@WrestlePurists) May 25, 2024

Winner and STILL Undisputed WWE Champion : Cody Rhodes

HUGE UPDATE ON WWE MONDAY NIGHT RAW SUPERSTAR'S CONTRACT STATUS AS EXPIRATION LOOMS

Stick with MMA Knockout for more daily coverage of the UFC, MMA, WWE, and AEW.

Follow MMA Knockout on  Twitter ,  Instagram  and  Facebook .

FERNANDO QUILES JR.

Fernando has over a decade of combat sports news writing experience. He currently covers MMA, boxing, and pro wrestling. Fernando joined MMA Knockout as the Lead Writer/Editor when it was founded in 2023.

WHA Dissertation Prize

The World History Association awards the annual WHA Dissertation Prize for the best doctoral dissertation in world, global, or transnational history.

2023 Dissertation Prize Winners

Congratulations to our 2023 Dissertation Prize winner Mejgan Massoumi , Fellow & Lecturer at the Stanford Civic, Liberal, and Global Education Program for her dissertation entitled "The Sounds of Kabul: Radio and the Politics of Popular Culture in Modern Afghanistan, 1960-79."

As noted by the committee: This dissertation explores the history of Afghanistan as a major producer of music across Islamic Eurasia and throughout its own global diaspora. A project about global networks, it is based on research in many archives, including in Kabul, many of which the author visited against serious odds.  Massoumi explains that the radio was a global technology that revolutionized the relationship between everyday people (both men and women) and the world and that permitted Afghans to articulate their place in the world through global lenses like the cold war, decolonization, and student movements worldwide. Massomi makes multiple important contributions to research and analysis in world history, including the emerging field identified as the history of sound. This dissertation presents an important analysis of the relationships between multiple spatial scales in modern world history, showing how radio and sound history offer a way to understand a synthesis of global and local. Moreover, this dissertation makes an excellent case for the importance of popular culture in the shaping of global connections. Massoumi’s analysis of the populism of the Afghan pop star Ahmad Zahir, for example, is a significant contribution to understanding the relationships between pop culture, global cosmopolitanism, and local tradition. It shows the diffusion of popular culture through the diffusion of technology, demonstrating the rise of a local and regional culture that first assimilated and then disseminated secular world popular culture among a Muslim population that world history surveys seldom acknowledge.

The committee has determined two honorable mention winners for this year's prize:

Hayley Genevieve Brazier for her dissertation entitled “Seafloor Machina: Aging Technologies in the Depths of the Pacific Ocean.” As noted by the committee:  This dissertation, an innovative interdisciplinary project that combines research in history and marine science, is a unique and skillfully researched study of the history of the impacts of industrial technologies on the ocean seafloor from the 1890s onward, with a focus on oil and gas drilling, undersea telegraph cables, and cabled observatories. The work is an important contribution to the “blue humanities” and to science and technology studies as well as world history. Brazier makes an excellent case for how historical study can assist in elucidating the long-term environmental impacts of industrial technology by drawing attention to global environmental impacts of late-nineteenth and twentieth-century imperialism. Her work touches on animal studies, technology, and industrialization, revealing a dazzling range of undersea human activity. This methodologically capacious work includes oral interviews and scientific information as well as archival records, and it deftly links ocean and industrial history to twenty-first century global concerns.

Rob Konkel for his dissertation entitled "Building Blocs: Raw Materials and the Global Economy in the Age of Disequilibrium.” As noted by the committee: This lively and relevant dissertation is a globally resonant account of trade in tungsten and manganese, two strategic raw materials needed for steelmaking, which were concentrated in locations that were remote from sites of advanced steel production. Konkel focuses on the decades between the 1880s and the 1940s and on the economic warfare and actual warfare that top steel producers engaged in to obtain the materials in question.  The dissertation is well written, and the proposition that “raw materials are key drivers of global history” is a terrific one for the field to take up. The study is spatially acute, organized around its central proposition that heavy industry was intractably global even as locations of resources and production were relatively fixed and distant from one another. Konkel argues that “bloc thinking” in international affairs was an effort to sequester natural resource supply chains into self-contained units, and he is also well attuned to the implications of his work for contemporary concerns like the race for rare earths today.

Thank you to all of the scholars who submitted their work to this year's competition. Thank you to the 2023 Dissertation Prize Committee: Ruth Mostern (chair), Peter Adebayo, Andrew Barnes, Felipe Fernandez-Armesto, John Voll, and Urmi Willoughby for all of the work you put into this process. You can read the committee's full report here . And congratulations again to this year's winners!

2024 Dissertation Prize Submissions

Submissions for this prize open on August 15, 2024.  The World History Association awards the annual WHA Dissertation Prize for the best doctoral dissertation in world, global, or transnational history—that is, one that examines any historical issue with global implications, including but not limited to the exchange and interchange of cultures, the comparison of two or more civilizations or cultures, or the study in a macrohistorical manner of a phenomenon that had a global impact. To be eligible for the 2024 prize, the dissertation must have been defended as part of Ph.D. or equivalent degree between the dates of 31 August 2022 and 21 August 2024.  Eligible candidates are allowed to submit once, not multiple years.  Deadline date for submissions is October 1, 2024.

The 2024 prize, which consists of a $500 award, a certificate, and a one-year membership to the WHA , will be formally awarded at the  WHA ’s 2025 conference if the awardee is in attendance.

Submissions should include a cover letter or contact information sheet, abstract, and a  PDF file of the full dissertation. All dissertation submissions must be in the English language.  The cover or sheet should include the following: name, professional or home address, email, telephone and name of PhD granting institution. 

Click here to apply for the WHA Dissertation Prize.

Entries must be submitted by  1 October 2024 . Late entries and submissions that do not adhere to these guidelines will be disqualified.

The Dissertation Prize Committee will determine the winner of the prize. In the event that the committee considers that the quality of the entries does not warrant the awarding of any prize, it shall have the right to make no award.

Contact the  WHA  with any questions regarding the prize or its guidelines.

Past Winners

• Carl Kubler : “Barbarians on the Shore: Global Trade and Everyday Life on the South China Coast, 1780 - 1860"

Honorable mention

• Ellen Nye : “Empires of Obligation: Law, Money, and Debt between England and the Ottoman Empire, 1670 - 1720"
• Kristyl Obispado : “The Pacific Sailors: Global workers at and on the edge of the Spanish empire (1580s – 1640s)”

Honorable mentions

• Jake Richards : “Liberated Africans and Law in the South Atlantic, c. 1839 – 1871”
• Nicholas Roberts : “A Sea of Wealth: Sayyid Sa’id bin Sultan, His Omani Empire, and the Making of An Oceanic Marketplace”
• Erik Glowark : “The Christianization of Kyushu: A World-Historical Interpretation of the Jesuit Mission to Japan, 1549-1650”
• Kristen Alff : “The Business of Property: Levantine Joint-stock Companies, Land, Law, and Capitalist Development Around the Mediterranean, 1850-1925”
• Vladimir Hamed-Troyansky : “Imperial Refuge: Resettlement of Muslims from Russia in the Ottoman Empire, 1860-1914”
• Sara Silverstein : “Doctors as Diplomats: The Origins of Universal Healthcare in International Society”
• Barry McCarron : “The Global Irish and Chinese: Migration, Exclusion, and Foreign Relations among Empires, 1784–1904”
• Kathryn Hain : “The Slave Trade of European Women to the Middle East and Asia from Antiquity to the Ninth Century”
• Isaiah Wilner : “Raven Cried for Me: Narratives of Transformation on the Northwest Coast of America”
• Patrick Kelly : “Sovereignty and Salvation: Transnational Human Rights Activism in the Americas in the Long 1970s”
• Phillip Guingona : “Crafted Links and Accidental Connections of Empire: A History of Early Twentieth-Century Sino-Philippine Interaction
• Bryce Beemer : “The Creole City in Southeast Asia: Slave Gathering Warfare and Culture Exchange in Burma, Thailand, and Manipur, 1752–1885”

Awards Sample banner

Awards Sample banner EXCERPT

Advertisement

Supported by

U.K. 2024 General Election: What to Know

• Share full article

By Esther Bintliff

Reporting from London

Why does this election matter?

How does britain vote, what are the main issues, who is running, and who is likely to win, when will we find out the results, where can i find more information.

The general election on July 4 is a pivotal moment for Britain after 14 years of government by the Conservative Party. The last full parliamentary election was in December 2019, when Boris Johnson won a landslide victory for the Conservatives , propelled by his charisma and a promise to “Get Brexit done” after the country’s decision to leave the European Union in a 2016 referendum.

A lot has changed since then. In July, voters will give their verdict on five tumultuous years of government that have spanned the coronavirus pandemic , the troubled implementation of Brexit , the “Partygate” scandal around Mr. Johnson’s rule-breaking during pandemic lockdowns and the disastrous six-week tenure of Prime Minister Liz Truss .

Polls suggest that the center-left Labour Party is set to return to power after more than a decade in opposition, which would bring a fundamental realignment to British politics.

The United Kingdom — which consists of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales — is divided into 650 constituencies.

Voters in each constituency select a candidate to represent them as a member of Parliament, and the political party that wins the most seats usually forms the next government. That party’s leader also becomes prime minister.

To win an overall majority, a party must secure 326 seats. If the top party falls short of that, the outcome is known as a “hung Parliament” and the party can try to form a coalition government with other parties. In 2010, the Conservatives joined with the Liberal Democrats to form Britain’s first coalition government since World War II, and, in 2017 , the Conservatives allied with Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionist Party.

The state of Britain’s economy is the top issue for most voters today, according to polls, in the wake of a cost-of-living crisis and record inflation — which reached a peak of 11.1 percent in 2022 and has only recently begun to return to target levels .

The National Health Service , the state-funded health care system that provides free care across the country, is another top priority. A decade of fiscal austerity that began under Prime Minister David Cameron after the 2009 global financial crisis left Britain’s public services deeply underfunded and facing chronic staff shortages. Waiting lists for N.H.S. treatment were already growing before the pandemic, and have since rocketed further upward , a major source of public dissatisfaction.

Immigration comes third in many voters’ lists of top issues, although its importance differs starkly according to party preference. Only 20 percent of Labour voters said it was one of their most pressing national concerns, compared with 65 percent of Conservatives in a recent poll conducted by YouGov .

The two largest parties in Britain are the Conservatives, led by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak , and the Labour Party, led by Keir Starmer , a former public prosecutor and human rights lawyer.

Labour has maintained a double-digit lead in the polls for more than 18 months , during which time the Conservatives have suffered a series of stinging losses in parliamentary special elections and elections for mayors and local councils . Although the polls often narrow in the final weeks of an election campaign, analysts believe the Conservatives would have to achieve something close to miraculous to win a majority.

In Scotland, the Scottish National Party became the most popular party in 2015 , displacing Labour there. But a funding scandal and the departure of Nicola Sturgeon as first minister has weakened the party’s support over the past year. Polls now suggest that Labour has a chance of gaining significant ground in Scotland this time round, which would ease Mr. Starmer’s path to becoming prime minister.

The populist Reform Party, which was co-founded by Nigel Farage, the champion of Brexit , has risen in the polls in recent months. Conservative Party officials fear that the anti-immigration party could siphon away supporters from their candidates, although Mr. Farage’s decision not to run as a candidate will have been welcomed by the Tories.

Two other parties, the Liberal Democrats and the Green Party , made sizable gains in local elections in early May. But while both are aiming to add seats in July, Britain’s electoral system makes it harder for smaller parties to win seats in a parliamentary election.

Just after polls close at 10 p.m. on July 4, exit-poll results are announced, based on surveys of thousands of voters after they have cast their ballots.

Exit polls are not always accurate — famously, in Britain’s 1992 and 2015 elections, they predicted a hung Parliament, when in fact the Conservative Party went on to win a majority. But they have become increasingly reliable in the country in recent years and are generally seen as offering a good early indication of how the public has voted.

The first results from a few individual constituencies will be announced from around 11 p.m., and then a steady rhythm of results arrive through the early hours of the next morning. By around 7 a.m., the overall result is usually clear, although some rural seats can be announced later.

Sunak Announces U.K. Elections for July 4, Months Earlier Than Expected

Rishi Sunak’s Dismal Task: Leading U.K. Conservatives to Likely Defeat

Scotland’s Governing S.N.P. Looks to a Stalwart After Its Leader Quits

England’s Local Elections and Their Wider Significance, Explained

Pearce Archive    |    Trotskyist Writers Index   |    ETOL Main Page

Joseph Redman

The british stalinists and the moscow trials, (march 1958).

From Labour Review , Vol. 3 No. 2 , March–April 1958, pp. 44–53. Joseph Redman was a pseudonym of Brian Pearce. Transcribed by Ted Crawford. Marked up by Einde O’ Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL) .

‘Foreigners little realize how vital it was for Stalin in 1936, 1937 and 1938 to be able to declare that the British, American, French, German, Polish, Bulgarian and Chinese communists unanimously supported the liquidation of the “Trotskyite, fascist mad dogs and wreckers” ...’ – W.G. Krivitsky, I Was Stalin’s Agent (1939), p. 79.

‘These apologists for Stalin will one day regret their hasty zeal, for truth, breaking a path through every obstacle, will carry away many reputations.’ – L.D. Trotsky, Les Crimes de Staline (1937), p. 62.

TWENTY years ago there took place the trial of Bukharin and twenty others, the third and largest of a series of three historic State trials in the Soviet Union. Like the fraction of the iceberg that shows above the water’s surface, these trials were the publicly-paraded fraction of a vast mass of repressions carried out in 1936-38 by Yagoda and Yezhov under the supreme direction of Stalin. It is not the purpose of this article to examine the trials themselves or to discuss their causes and consequences for the Soviet Union and the international working-class movement. Its purpose is merely to recall how the leaders and spokesmen of the Stalinist organization in Britain reacted to the trials and what some of the effects of their reaction were in the British working-class movement, so that lessons may be learned regarding the political character of the organization and the individuals concerned.  

The First Trial

The first of the three great ‘public’ trials took place in August 1936. Immediately upon the publication of the indictment, the DW came out with an editorial (August 17) accepting the guilt of the accused men: ‘The revelations ... will fill all decent citizens with loathing and hatred ... Crowning infamy of all is the evidence showing how they were linked up with the Nazi Secret Police .. .’ This instantaneous and whole-hearted endorsement of whatever Stalin’s policemen chose to allege at any given moment was to prove characteristic of the British Stalinist reaction to each of the successive trials.

The prototype of another statement which was in re-appear regularly throughout this period figured in the DW ’s editorial of August 22: ‘The extent and organization of the plot, with its cold-blooded killings of the leaders of the international working class, has shocked the Labour and socialist movement of the world.’ In reality, of course, the effect of trial was to compromise the Soviet Union in the eyes of many workers and to play into the hands of the most Right-wing sections. Accordingly, a third ‘keynote’ had to be sounded right from the beginning, with the headline in the DW of August 24 to the report that the International Federation of Trade Unions had asked the Soviet authorities to allow a foreign lawyer to defend the accused: Citrine Sides with Traitors . On the other hand, any expression of approval for the trial by a bourgeois newspaper or other ‘source’ was to be eagerly seized upon and publicized during these years, and already in this issue we find The Observer quoted, in a special ‘box’, as saying: ‘It is futile to think the trial was staged and the charges trumped up.’ [1]

With the minimum of delay the implications of the trials for current politics began to be drawn, especially with regard to Spain. The DW leader of August 25 affirmed that ‘Trotsky ... whose agents are trying to betray the Spanish Republic by advancing provocative “Left” slogans ... is the very spearpoint of counter-revolution’, and next day J.R. Campbell had an article comparing Zinoviev to Franco. At the same time, a programme of rewriting of the history of the Bolshevik Party and the October Revolution was launched with an article by Ralph Fox in the DW of August 28, entitled Trotsky Was No Great General , followed by another on September 1: He Was Always a Base Double-Crosser . [2] A Communist Party pamphlet The Moscow Trial , by W.G. Shepherd, carried the retrospective smear campaign further, telling readers that in October 1917 ‘the organization leadership was not, as is sometimes supposed, in [Trotsky’s] hands ... He was a bad organizer.’ The main point of this pamphlet, however, was squarely to identify ‘Trotskyists’ with police agents.

Shepherd based himself in his defence of the trial upon the declarations of D.N. Pritt, KC, (‘None can challenge either Mr Pritt’s integrity or his competence to understand the significance of court procedure and the value of evidence’), and indeed the importance of these cannot be exaggerated in assessing how this trial and its successors were ‘sold’ to the Left in Britain.

Mr Pritt made two principal contributions to the propaganda for the August 1936 trial. He wrote the preface to the pamphlet The Moscow Trial, 1936 , a report of the proceedings published by the Anglo-Russian Parliamentary Committee (secretary, W.P. Coates). This report omitted from the testimony of Holtzman, one of the accused, his reference to a meeting in a non-existent ‘Hotel Bristol’ in Copenhagen, a slip in the ‘libretto’ which had been widely remarked upon. (Compare p. 49 of this pamphlet with p. 100 of the English version of the Report of Court Proceedings. Case of the Trotskyite-Zinovievite Terrorist Centre , published in Moscow, 1936.) ‘Once again’, wrote Pritt, ‘the more faint-hearted socialists are beset with doubt and anxieties’, but ‘once again we can feel confident that when the smoke has rolled away from the battlefield of controversy it will be realized that the charge was true, the confessions correct, and the prosecution fairly conducted ... But in order that public opinion shall reach this verdict ... it must be properly informed of the facts; and it is here that this little book will be of such value.’ Pritt also wrote a pamphlet of his own, The Zinoviev Trial , in which he dealt with the suspicion some sceptics had expressed that the confessions might not be entirely spontaneous – might, indeed, be influenced by torture or intimidation of some sort. The abjectness of the confessions was ‘sufficiently explained when one bears in mind the very great differences in form and style that naturally exist between one race and another ... In conversations I have held in Soviet prisons with accused persons awaiting trial on substantial charges, I have not infrequently been struck by the readiness with which they have stated to me in the presence of warders that they are guilty and cannot complain if they are punished.’ And anyway, after all, accused persons often plead guilty when they see ‘the evidence against them is overwhelming’. True, no evidence was actually produced at the trial other than the confessions of the accused; but ‘it is no part of the duty of the judicial authorities to publish reports showing exactly how they have conducted preliminary investigations of which the persons who are at once most interested and best informed, viz., the accused, make no complaint.’ Actually, ‘one can well imagine that the Soviet Government, so far as concerns the point of view of properly informing foreign criticism, would much have preferred that all or most of the accused should have pleaded Not Guilty and contested the case. The full strength of the case would then have been seen and appraised ...’

What strikes one most forcibly in re-reading today the literature of the first trial is the complete silence of the British Stalinists about some of the most contradictory and question-begging of its features. Not only the famous Hotel Bristol – the even more famous Café Bristol was not ‘discovered’ until February 1937 – but many other, less ‘technical’, points were passed over. Molotov was conspicuously missing from the list of the ‘leaders of party and State’ whom Zinoviev and Co. were accused of plotting to murder – and from the ceremonial list of these leaders included by Vyshinsky in his closing speech – though he was the nominal head of the Soviet Government at the time. (Alexander Orlov, a former NKVD officer, tells us in his book The Secret History of Stalin’s Crimes (1954), p. 81, that the dictator, who wished to frighten Molotov a little, personally struck out his name from the list of ‘intended victims of the conspiracy’!) [3] Nor did they refer back later on, when Kossior and Postyshev were put away as ‘Ukrainian bourgeois-nationalists’, to their presence among the leaders whose deaths had allegedly been demanded by Rudolf Hess, through Trotsky. Nobody questioned the consistency of accusing Trotsky of being a fascist while stating (Smirnov’s last plea, Report of Court Proceedings , pp. 171–2) that he regarded the Soviet Union as ‘a fascist State’. Nobody suggested that it was somewhat premature of N. Lurye to get himself sent into Russia by the Gestapo in April 1932 ( ibid. , pp. 102–3); or that Trotsky had shown curious tactlessness in choosing five Jews – Olberg, Berman-Yurin, David and the two Luryes [4] – to collaborate with the Gestapo. That Holtzman testified to meeting Trotsky’s son Sedov in Copenhagen whereas Olberg said Sedov had not managed to get there ( ibid. pp.87, 100) excited no surprise. Above all, the complete unconcern of the Prosecutor about these and other contradictions and oddities in the confessions, which he made no attempt to sort out, was matched by a corresponding unconcern among the British Stalinists. [5] Like Vyshinsky, too, they gave no sign of finding it suspicious that the treasonable intrigues of these Trotskyites’, dating from 1931, had been carried on exclusively with Germany, no role having been played, apparently, by Britain, France, Poland or Italy. (As Trotsky observed, there ‘terrorists’ might make an attempt on Stalin’s life, but never on Litvinov’s diplomacy.)

Jack Cohen, in those days responsible for the political education of communist students, contributed to the party monthly Discussion for September 1936 a piece on Heroes of Fascism and Counter-Revolution in which he asserted that in 1933 Trotsky had issued a call for ‘terroristic acts to “remove” the party leaders’, in an article in the Weltbühne which actually speaks not of terrorism but of a workers’ revolution against the bureaucracy. (Neither Cohen nor any of the other Stalinists ever quoted, of course, from Trotsky’s numerous writings condemning terrorism as useless and harmful, as ‘bureaucratism turned inside-out’, such as The Kirov Assassination [1935].) Pat Sloan, of the Friends of the Soviet Union (now British-Soviet Friendship Society), wrote in the New Statesman of September 5: ‘I do not see what was unconvincing in the Moscow trial.’ [6] Walter Holmes, in his Worker’s Notebook in the DW of September 4, told of a conversation with ‘members of the Labour Party’ who reassured him: ‘What are you worrying about? ... Everybody in our party has got enough sense to know they ought to be shot.’ Reg Bishop, however, admitted in Inprecorr of September 5 that Labour was not quite so solidly convinced on this point: ‘The Labour Daily Herald vies in venom and spite with the Daily Mail ... It is pathetic to see men like Brailsford and Tom Johnston failing to see through the tricks prepared for them by Trotsky to cover up his tracks.’ Douglas Garman, in the New Statesman of September 12, demanded: ‘If ... they were innocent, why should they have confessed at all?’ (The editor replied: ‘We say that confessions without independent corroborative evidence are not convincing.’) [7] Ivor Montagu, in Left Book News for October, pooh-poohed suggestions that torture, whether physical or moral, or promises of pardon in return for perjury, could have anything to do with the confessions, and gave some historical background in which he quoted Lenin’s criticisms of Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kamenev, while saying nothing of his criticisms of Stalin. R. Page Arnot, in the Labour Monthly for October, wrote: ‘Trotskyism is now revealed as an ancillary of fascism ... The ILP is in great danger of falling into the hands of Trotskyists and becoming a wing of fascism. Let the members of the ILP look to it.’ Pat Sloan, again, in the October number of Russia Today specially devoted to the trial, had a new explanation for the confessions: ‘These were men who, in their desire for publicity, had never refused an opportunity to speak to a large audience.’ From the same inspired pen came an argument, in Controversy of December, worthy of the confidence men of South Sea Bubble days: ‘The Soviet Government does not intend to broadcast to the whole world all the evidence of activities of Hitler’s agents it could broadcast.’ (Though well-informed about the secret archives of the Soviet intelligence service, Sloan was, at this stage, a bit shaky on the topography of Denmark’s capital: ‘Anyway, are we sure there’s no Hotel Bristol in Copenhagen? The denial, I believe, comes only from Norway.’)

Towards the end of 1936 and beginning of 1937 there were two trials in Germany of real Trotskyites for real subversive activity. In Danzig, Jakubowski and nine others were given severe hard-labour sentences for issuing leaflets declaring that ‘the defence of the Soviet Union remains an unconditional duty for the proletariat’, and in Hamburg a group of fifteen, which included a Vienna Schutzbund member and a worker who had fought in the 1923 uprising, suffered similarly for similar activity. There were no confessions and there was plenty of material evidence. No report of these cases appeared in the DW or other Stalinist publications. It is curious that Nazi propaganda in this period alleged that in spite of appearances the Fourth International was a secret agency of the Third, operating on the basis of a division of labour. Accounts of a conference (at Breda) between representatives of the two Internationals were spread by Goebbels, just as Stalin told the world of Trotsky’s talks with Hess. [8]  

The Second Trial

Already during the period of the first trial, as we have seen, King Street’s concern for ‘working-class unity’ was subordinated to the paramount need to attack anybody and everybody in the Labour movement who expressed doubt regarding the justice of the verdict. This became still clearer when the second trial was launched, in January 1937. The DW of January 25 carried the headline: The Herald Defends Spies and Assassins , and a leader Enemies of the Working Class , which declared: ‘It is for the working class of Britain to deal with those who in this country constitute themselves the defenders of the Trotskyites and thereby assist fascism and strike a blow at socialism all over the world.’ On January 29 the paper attacked the New Leader for ‘playing into the hands of the enemy’ because it had called for an independent inquiry into the trial such as Pritt and others had organized in connexion with the Reichstag Fire trial in 1933. Arnot was the DW ’s reporter at the second trial: he assured readers that the only pressure which had been brought to bear on the prisoners was ‘the pressure of facts’ (January 27).

The campaign to justify Stalin’s purges and to make the utmost political capital out of them was raised to a higher level and put on a more organized basis than hitherto by John Gollan, in his address to the enlarged meeting of the national council of the Young Communist League held on January 30–31. The historical ‘rewrite’ adumbrated by Ralph Fox was undertaken more thoroughly and at some length by Gollan. The address was published as a. duplicated document under the title The Development of Trotskyism from Menshevism to Alliance with Fascism and Counter-Revolution . Gollan showed how Lenin’s chief assistant in building the Red Army was not Trotsky but Stalin, how Trotsky had advocated that industrialization be carried out ‘at the expense of the peasant masses’ (saved by Stalin) etc. etc. This remarkable assemblage of half-truths and untruths concluded with a list of ‘the real Bolshevik Old Guard’, in which figure the names Rudzutak, Bubnov, Chubar, Kossior and Postyshev, all shot or imprisoned by Stalin shortly afterwards. Harry Pollitt went one better than this in his list of ‘the real Old Guard’ who ‘are still at their posts’, by including the name of ... Yezhov, whom hardly anybody – probably not Pollitt himself – had even heard of until his sudden elevation in September 1936 to be head of the NKVD following Yagoda’s fall! This exploit occurred in a pamphlet called The Truth About Trotskyism , published at the end of January. Another gem from the same source is Pollitt’s comment on the confessions of the accused: ‘The evidence produced in the Moscow trial is not confessions in the ordinary sense but statements signed in the way depositions are signed in any British court ...’ [9] The main point of the pamphlet, made in a contribution by R.P. Dutt, was to show that it was ‘essential to ... destroy the Trotskyist propaganda and influence which is seeking to win a foothold within the Labour movement, since these attempts represent in fact the channel of fascist penetration into the Labour movement’. In addition to the Gollan address and the Pollitt-Dutt pamphlet the DW brought out a special supplement on the trial in its issue of February 1 (‘Keep It Always’), in which, after the ritual statement ‘everywhere in the British Labour movement the scrupulous fairness of the trial, the overwhelming guilt of the accused, and the justness of the sentences is recognized’, readers were urged to send protests to the Daily Herald regarding its sceptical attitude thereto. A statement by the central committee of the Communist Party published in this issue emphasized that ‘the lead given by the Soviet Union ... requires to be energetically followed up throughout the whole Labour movement, and above all in Great Britain ...’

From this time onward one can say without exaggeration that the fight against ‘Trotskyism’ became one of the main preoccupations of the Communist Party, diverting the energies and confusing the minds of its members and disrupting the working-class movement more and more. [10] R.F. Andrews (Andrew Rothstein) now came well to the fore, as might be expected, with a series of articles in the DW . ‘The criminals have received their well-merited sentences ... Millions of people have had their eyes opened to the inner essence of Trotskyism’ (February 5); ‘Trotsky ... a malignant, avowed and still dangerous criminal’ (February 9); ‘ Herald – Shameful Blot on Labour’, i.e., for doubting the justice of the verdict (February 15). [11] A mere pamphlet such as Pritt had devoted to the Zinoviev trial was now realized to be inadequate and a whole book, Soviet Justice and the Trial of Radek (1937), was published, the work of a fresh legal talent, Dudley Collard, though not without an introduction by Pritt (‘The impression gained from Mr Collard’s description will, I think, enable many who were puzzled by the first trial not merely to convince themselves on the genuineness of the second, but also to derive from that a conviction of the genuineness of the first’). This pathetic effort contains such propositions as (p.52): ‘I have read some statement to the effect that no aeroplanes flew from Germany to Norway in December 1935. It seems hard to believe that this is so ...’ Here the reference is to the statement issued by the Oslo airport authorities that no foreign aeroplanes landed there in December 1935, contrary to Pyatakov’s confession that he had landed there on his way to visit Trotsky. (Attempts were later made to explain that perhaps Pyatakov’s memory was at fault and his aeroplane had actually landed on a frozen fiord; but, alas, this version was incompatible with the accused man’s account of his journey by car from the aeroplane to Trotsky’s dwelling.) After a display of quite extraordinary gullibility, Collard came to the conclusion (p. 79) that ‘the court was more merciful than I would have been!’ That was sufficient to ensure his book the maximum boost treatment throughout the Stalinist movement. William Gallacher, reviewing Collard in the DW of March 19, wrote: ‘Here one sees the Soviet legal system as it really is, the most advanced, the most humane in the world ... It is a book which once read must make any normal human being resolve that never again under any circumstances will he have truck with Trotsky, his followers or any of his works.’ Harking back to one of the mysteries of the first trial, the DW gave a sizable bit of its valuable space in the issue of February 26 to a plan of the Grand Hotel, Copenhagen, allegedly showing that one could enter a café said to be called the Café Bristol through this hotel – though how Holtzman could have proposed to ‘put up’ at this café still remained unexplained! [12] The egregious Arnot, in an article on The Trotskyist Trial in the Labour Monthly for March, quoted Lenin on MacDonald to show how workers’ leaders can degenerate (but did not quote Lenin on Stalin!), took a swipe at Emrys Hughes (‘a middle-class Philistine’) for an article in Forward critical of the trials, and opened up with all guns against the Manchester Guardian . Principled political criticism of the Liberals was ‘out’ in this epoch of Popular-Frontery, but here was something more important. The Guardian had stated that, in the course of the waves of repression sweeping over the Soviet Union in the wake of the second trial, ‘the Polish communists ... have suffered heavy casualties under the Stalinist persecution’. As is now admitted, almost the entire leadership of the Polish Communist Party was in fact liquidated by the NKVD in this period, and the party itself dissolved. This was the buffoonery that Arnot wrote at the time: ‘They have not “suffered heavy casualities”; there is no “Stalinist persecution” ... At one time the Trotskyists complained that the condemnation of their errors was a sign of anti-Semitism. Now, apparently, the condemnation of their crimes is to be presented as “the assault on the Polish Virgin” ...’

At this time the Stalinists were putting forth determined efforts to capture the Labour League of Youth, for which they published a paper called Advance . The March issue of this journal carried an article, We Have Our Wreckers, Too! by Ted Willis, later to win fame as author of The Blue Lamp , but then the leading Stalinist youth-worker. ‘The recent trial and sentences on the Terrorists in Moscow were of particular interest to the members of the League of Youth for an obvious reason. That being the fact that, for the last year we have been blessed (is that the right word?) with a tiny group of people in the League who style themselves Trotskyists ... Turn them lock, stock and barrel out of the Labour movement!’ Fittingly, at the same time as Ted Willis was making his debut in this field, John Strachey, then the top Stalinist publicist in this country, was telling readers of Left News that he believed that

The psychological student of the future will look back on the long-drawn-out incredulity of British public opinion over the Moscow trials of 1936 and 1937 as one of the strangest and most interesting psychological phenomena of the present time. For it will be clear to such a student that there were no rational grounds for disbelief. The fact is that there is no answer to the simple question: ‘If these men were innocent, why did they confess?’ ... Before the inexorable, extremely prolonged, though gentle, cross-examination of the Soviet investigators, their last convictions broke down.

Major contributions to the fight against Trotskyism now came thick and fast. Stalin’s speech at the February-March plenum of the central committee of the Soviet Communist Party, setting out his thesis that the further the Soviet Union progressed the more intense became the class struggle and the greater was the need for security work, was published in full in the DW (‘Especially in Britain do we require to pay heed to his words regarding the danger of the rotten theory that because the Trotskyists are few we can afford to pay little attention to them ... This is a report to be carefully read and studied, not once but many times’ – March 31). At the second National Congress for Peace and Friendship with the USSR, Pritt soothed the anxieties of those who had doubts about the course of justice under Stalin. ‘I do happen to know that, when you are arrested in the USSR ... there are very elaborate rules of criminal procedure to see that your case will be proceeded with promptly and to ensure that there shall be no delay in having it put forward’ (Congress Report, p. 51). In Left News for April, Ivor Montagu reviewed, under the heading The Guilty the official report of the second trial, together with Collard’s book. A feature of this article was its misquotation from The Revolution Betrayed , designed to show that Trotsky prophesied the defeat of the Soviet Union in war with Nazi Germany. (Montagu gives: ‘Defeat will be fatal to the leading circles of the USSR and to the social bases of the country.’ Trotsky actually wrote ‘would’, not ‘will’, and made plain in the following paragraph that he considered the defeat of Germany more probable:

Notwithstanding all its contradictions, the Soviet regime in the matter of stability still has immense advantages over the regimes of its probable enemies. The very possibility of a rule by the Nazis over the German people was created by the unbearable tenseness of social antagonisms in Germany. These antagonisms have not been removed and not even weakened, but only suppressed by the lid of fascism. A war will bring them to the surface. Hitler has far less chances than had Wilhelm II of carrying a war to victory. Only a timely revolution, by saving Germany from war, could save her from a new defeat. ( The Revolution Betrayed , chapter viii , section 5)

Montagu also referred to Trotsky as ‘perhaps the star contributor to the Hearst Press on Soviet affairs’. In fact, Trotsky always refused even to receive a representative of the Hearst Press, and anything they published over his name was lifted’, often with distortions, from other papers. (Lenin had had occasion in July 1917 to remark regarding a similar slander by the Menshevik Montagus of those days: ‘They have stooped to such a ridiculous thing as blaming the Pravda for the fact that its dispatches to the socialist papers of Sweden and other countries ... have been reprinted by the German papers, often garbled! ... As if the reprinting or the vicious distortions can be blamed on the authors!’)

In Challenge of May 27 Gollan asserted ‘the absolute necessity ... of once and for all ridding the youth movement of all Trotskyist elements as a pre-condition for unity’, thus subordinating the urgent need for workers’ unity to the requirements of the NKVD.  

Between the Second and Third Trials

The case of the Generals – a sort of intermezzo between the second and third trials – gave the British Stalinists fresh occasion to display their ‘loyalty’ and quarrel with other sections of the working-class movement on its account. This was a secret trial, without confessions, but no matter: the first announcement of the case was greeted by the DW with a leader stating that ‘thanks to the unrelaxing vigilance of the Soviet intelligence service, a further shattering blow has been given to the criminal war-making elements who seek to undermine and destroy the Socialist Fatherland of the international working class’ (June 12). On June 14 the paper announced: Red Army Traitors Executed . The leading article affirmed, as usual, that ‘the workers of Britain will rejoice’, but nevertheless Pollitt, in a special statement published in the same issue, had to rebuke the Herald for getting ‘so hot and bothered’ about this trial. In a statement congratulating the Soviet Government on the executions, published in the DW of June 16, the central committee welcomed, on behalf of the British workers, ‘the wiping out of the bureaucratic degenerates associated with fascism ...’ Arnot proclaimed ( DW , June 18) his conviction of the reliability of the official account of the crimes of Tukhachevsky, Gamarnik, Eidemann and the others: ‘That it is a true story no reasonable man can doubt.’ Montagu added his stone next day ( A Blow at Fascism ) and called for heightened vigilance against ‘such agents in the working class movement elsewhere and working to the same end’. Pat Sloan’s Russia Today (July) hastened to identify itself with the executioners: ‘No true friend of the Soviet Union ... can feel other than a sense of satisfaction that the activities of spies, diversionists and wreckers in the Soviet Army have been given an abrupt quietus ... All talk about the personal struggle of the “dictator” Stalin is rubbish.’ Dutt pitched into Brailsford for his doubts ( On Which Side? , DW , June 21) [13] and Jack Gaster denounced the ‘slanders’ of the Herald at a Hyde Park meeting ( DW , June 22).

About the middle of 1937 it began to be known in the West that a truly gigantic, unprecedentedly sweeping wave of arrests was engulfing many who hitherto had been regarded as secure and loyal pillars of the Stalin regime. This put the British Stalinists in a quandary. When Mezhlauk, for instance, was appointed to succeed Ordzhonikidze as Commissar for Heavy Industry, he was headlined in the DW of February 27 as an Old Soldier of the Revolution . When he was arrested a few months later they could thus hardly dispose of him in the traditional way as ‘never an Old Bolshevik’. So they ignored the arrest, and dealt similarly with the many similar cases that now poured out of the tape-machines. A photograph of Marshal Yegorov appeared in the DW of July 14; when he was arrested shortly afterwards, nothing was said. A photograph of Marshal Bluecher was published in the issue of February 25, actually after his arrest! (At the same time, the wretched Daily Herald came in for another pasting in the DW of October 8 for having published a report of the murder by NKVD agents in Switzerland of Ignace Reiss, an NKVD man who had tried to break with Stalin.)

Perhaps the most revealing instance of the methods of the British Stalinists in dealing with the arrests which they knew about but dared not admit to their dupes is provided by the case of the Lost Editor. When the Soviet official History of the Civil War , Vol.I, was first announced as a forthcoming publication, in the DW of March 11, the list of editors, headed by Stalin and Gorky, included the names of Gamarnik and Bubnov. General Gamarnik having allegedly committed suicide as an exposed accomplice of Tukhachevsky ( Entangled with Enemies of USSR, Took Own Life – DW , June 2), his name had of course disappeared from the advertisement of the book published in Russia Today of November 1937. But though Bubnov had been arrested as an enemy of the people in time for his name to be removed from the title-page of the book before it reached the shops, it was still to be seen on the fly-leaf! When Rothstein reviewed this work in Russia Today of February 1938 he cannily listed the editors as ‘Joseph Stalin, Maxim Gorky and others’. The arrest of Bubnov was a particularly hard blow for the British Stalinists, since they had made special use of his name as that of an Old Bolshevik still in favour. Perhaps resentment at his inconsiderateness in getting arrested was the reason why the DW did not report his return to Moscow in 1956, as an old, broken man, after nearly twenty years in prison. [14]

Particularly worthy of being rescued from oblivion, among the achievements of ‘working-class journalism’ in this period, is an article in the DW of August 20 by Ben Francis, the paper’s Moscow correspondent, in praise of the wonderful work being done by Zakovsky, in charge of security in Leningrad. Around this time, as Khrushchev described in his famous ‘secret speech’ ( Manchester Guardian pamphlet version, The Dethronement of Stalin [1956], p. 15), Zakovsky was having prisoners brought before him after torture in order to offer them their lives in return for their agreement to make a false confession (‘You, yourself’, said Zakovsky, ‘will not need to invent anything. The NKVD will prepare for you a ready outline ... You will have to study it carefully and remember well all questions and answers which the court might ask’).

An example of the contempt into which the trials were bringing both the Soviet authorities and the British Stalinists is provided by the article by ‘Y.Y.’ (Robert Lynd) in the New Statesman of June 26. On the ascription of all shortcoming in Soviet industry to Soviet sabotage, he wrote that, apparently, ‘wherever there is a screw loose in Russia it was Trotsky who loosened it’, and he summed up the King Street theory of the trials thus: ‘Stalin can do no wrong. He will give these men a fair trial, but, as a matter of fact, they would not be put on their trial at all unless it were certain that they were guilty. Therefore, even without knowing the evidence, we know that they are guilty.’ [15] Desperate in their concern to keep the other point of view from their dupes, the Stalinist editors of Left Review refused to publish an advertisement of The Case of Leon Trotsky , being the report of the examination of Trotsky, regarding the statements affecting him made in the trials, carried out by the Commission of Inquiry headed by John Dewey. This was revealed in a letter in the New Statesman of November 6 from the publisher, Mr Frederick Warburg. Replying for Left Review in the next issue of the New Statesman , Randall Swingler explained that ‘there is a line at which criticism ends and destructive attacks begin, and we regret that this line separates us both from Dr Goebbels and from Leon Trotsky’. [16] This spot of publicity compelled the publication of a review of the book in the DW of November 17, in which J.R. Campbell claimed that it gave ‘added confirmation to the Moscow trials, which showed Trotsky as a political degenerate, an ally of fascism, a vile maniacal enemy of socialism and peace’. A letter from Charles van Gelderen pointing out some glaring inaccuracies in Campbell’s article was refused publication in the DW ; it appeared, however, in the (London) Militant for December.

The political consequences of all this pernicious nonsense were well summed up in an article by H.J. Laski in the New York Nation for November 20:

There is no doubt but the mass executions in the Soviet Union in the last two years have greatly injured the prestige of Russia with the rank and file of the Labour Party. They do not understand them, and they feel that those who accept them without discussion are not satisfactory allies. I do not comment on this view; I merely record it. In my judgment. the executions undoubtedly cost the supporters of the United Front something like half a million votes in the Bournemouth Conference.

The year 1938, which opened with the final disappearance of the slogan: ‘Workers of all lands, unite!’ from the masthead of the DW , was to see even further feats of genuine sabotage of workers’ unity by the Stalinists under the banner of anti-Trotskyism. Communist speakers refused to appear on the same platform with ILP speakers at ‘Aid Spain’ meetings. All remnants of shame and caution were cast aside in this truly maniacal campaign. Thus, in Discussion of January, Pat Sloan wrote: ‘Masses and leaders are united; the people adore “our Stalin”. Stalin respects the masses as no other political leader of today respects the masses ...’ In Controversy of the same month the same propagandist declared himself unfamiliar with and unready to accept as genuine Stalin’s statement of November 6, 1918, on Trotsky’s role in the October Revolution (Stalin, The October Revolution , published in the Marxist-Leninist Library by Lawrence and Wishart in 1936, p.30), which had been mentioned by a contributor, and proceeded to withdraw from the battle on the grounds that ‘it is impossible to continue a controversy with someone as unscrupulous ... Trotskyism ... is incompatible with historical truth’. [17] Dutt, in the DW of January 21, quoted some remarks of Lenin’s about Bukharin (also, incidentally, Dzerzhinsky and other ‘Left Communists’ who died in the odour of Stalinist sanctity) as though they referred to Trotsky. R. Osborn (Reuben Osbert, the psychiatrist) brought out a book, The Psychology of Reaction (1938), in which he tried to identify fascism and ‘Trotskyism’ psychologically (‘A knowledge of the psychology of fascist leaders is at the same time a knowledge of the psychology of the Trotskyists’) and this was reviewed enthusiastically by John Strachey in Left News for February. (Strachey offered as his own view that ‘Trotskyists’ were recruited mainly from ‘insufficiently sensitive’, ‘inhuman’ types).  

The Third Trial

Now came the third and last of the great ‘public’ trials – the Trial of the Twenty-One, bigger and more fantastic than any of the foregoing, with Bukharin, Rykov, Rakovsky and Krestinsky in the leading roles. The British Stalinists (who had made extensive use of the writings of Bukharin and Rykov in the anti-Trotskyist campaign of 1925-28, presenting them as great Marxist thinkers and statesmen) did not flinch. [18] The DW leader of March 2 declared: ‘Soviet justice will prove itself once again as the unsleeping sword on behalf of the working class and the peoples of the world against their enemies.’ Eden having been replaced by Halifax, British agents now found their place in the legend alongside the German ones, and R. Page Arnot, in his dispatches from the Moscow court-room, solemnly explained how Rakovsky had been in British pay since 1924 and Trotsky since 1926. As before – Stalin still retaining confidence in the Franco-Soviet Pact – it appeared that none of the accused had had any contact with France, even in the years when French imperialism was heading the anti-Soviet forces in the world. Even so far back, it seemed, the cunning ‘Trotskyists’ had foreseen what the pattern of diplomacy would be at the time of their trial.

Furthermore, Trotsky had been a German spy since 1921; though why he should wish to link up with an impoverished and defeated State such as Germany was then, or why, indeed, being at the height of his authority in Russia at that time, he should have troubled to make such connexions at all, was never explained. The British Stalinists knew their place better than even as much as to comment on these oddities. (Arnot confined his observations to such safe remarks as: ‘Vyshinsky ... is always a credit to his calling’) [19] As before, however, certain ill-conditioned elements in the Labour movement gave trouble. The DW had to devote a leading article on March 7 to – Brailsford Again . (‘They did not confess of their own accord. They held out to the last until they realized the Soviet authorities had complete proof of all their crimes, and then admitted only what could not be denied.’) The central committee of the party published in the DW of March 8 its routine, required declaration kicking the accused (‘Every weak, corrupt or ambitious traitor to Socialism’), denouncing ‘the fascist agent Trotsky’ and expressing ‘full confidence’ in Yezhov, ‘our Bolshevik comrade’. William Wainwright, in Challenge of March 10, really went to town on the trial: ‘This is more than a trial. It is a fight between the forces of war and the forces of peace.’ After the ritual bit of historical untruth (Trotsky ‘was not one of the leaders of the rising. Stalin was’), Wainwright went on to allege that the accused wanted to let the fascists into Russia. ‘Just as Franco did in Spain ... Let us be glad that this trial has taken place, that these men will be sentenced ... Let us in our youth organizations clean out those ... who support those whose crime is against the people.’

The DW leader of March 11, dealing with the ILP’s appeal to Moscow not to execute the convicted men, was entitled: ‘Degenerates Appeal for Degenerates’. In Inprecorr of March 12, Reg Bishop welcomed the publication in certain bourgeois papers of articles accepting the genuineness of the tria1 [20] , while at the same time deploring that at the most recent meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party a resolution had been moved condemning it. The resolution was defeated, true; ‘but it is a deplorable thing that it should even have been mooted in a responsible Labour gathering’. The New Statesman ’s attitude had been unsatisfactory, too; but then, that was ‘mainly read by intellectuals’. Albert Inkpin, secretary of the World Committee of Friends of the Soviet Union, had a letter in the March 12 issue of the offending weekly, telling the editor that ‘all fascists and reactionaries’ would applaud his doubts about the trial. (Replying, the editor declared that it was rather the picture of nearly all the founders of the Soviet State being spies and wreckers that was likely to give pleasure to the enemies of the USSR. Besides, if the New Statesman had ventured to suggest such a thing, not so very long before, the FSU would certainly have jumped on them. ‘What Soviet hero dare we praise today? Who is tomorrow’s carrion?’)

Harry Pollitt himself, in the DW of March 12, told the world that ‘the trials in Moscow represent a new triumph in the history of progress’, the article being illustrated by a photograph of Stalin with Yezhov, that Old Bolshevik shortly to be dismissed and die in obscurity. Forces from the cultural field also joined in the battle on this occasion. Jack Lindsay put a letter into Tribune of March 18 affirming that ‘surely the strangest thing about the Moscow trials is the way that critics find them “psychologically” puzzling ... That is the one thing they are not ... The cleavage between the men who trusted the powers of the masses, and the men who trusted only their own “cleverness” had to come. And naturally persons with “individualistic” minds can’t understand! Naturally they get scared and see themselves in the dock.’ So there! Sean O’Casey contributed a lamentable article in the DW of March 25 ( The Sword of the Soviet ) containing such statements as: ‘The opposition to and envy of Lenin and Stalin by Trotsky was evident before even the Revolution of 1917 began.’ (O’Casey cannot but have known how little cause Trotsky had to ‘envy’ Stalin before 1917 and would have been hard put to it to show how such envy made itself ‘evident’!).

Rather unkindly, in view of the efforts of Messrs Lindsay and O’Casey, Russia Today for April dismissed the victims as ‘almost all middle-class intellectuals’. The same issue carried an article by Kath Taylor describing the anger of Russian workers at the revelations of sabotage made in the ‘Bukharin’ trial. Now they realized, she wrote, why ‘they waited hours long in the food queues only to find the food almost unfit to eat when they got it home ... Now we knew why our wages had been held up, and the reasons for many other things that had made life so hard at the most difficult moments.’ [21]

Let us conclude our quotations with one from John Strachey, who wrote in the DW , appropriately enough on April 1, that ‘no one who really reads the evidence, either of the former trials or of this one, can doubt that these things happened’, and assessed the conviction of the wretched victims as ‘the greatest anti-fascist victory which we have yet recorded.’

1. This was the issue with the editorial headed: Shoot the Reptiles! Commenting on it, the New Statesman of August 29 remarked prophetically: ‘Those who shoot them today may be themselves shot as reptiles at the next turn of the wheel.’ (This was to be the fate of Yagoda, head of the NKVD at the time of the first trial, shot in 1938.) It was presumably by an oversight that the DW never quoted the verses which graced the August 29 issue of the Paris White Guard paper Vozrozhdenye following the announcement of the executions after the first trial.

2. Fox did not live – he was killed in Spain a few months later – to reflect on the fate of two of the persons whom he named in this article as examples of how there were still plenty of Old Bolsheviks around and loyal to Stalin: ‘Bubnov, Stasova and Krestinsky continue to hold important and honourable places in the leadership of the Soviet State.’

3. As soon as Molotov had made up his quarrel with Stalin, defendants began confessing to plots against him so far back as 1934 (Muralov, Shestov, Arnold, in the trial of January 1937) of which nothing had been said in the confessions of August 1936. Trotsky commented: ‘The conclusions are absolutely clear: the defendants had as little freedom in their choice of “victims” as in all other respects.’

4. It was Moisei Lurye, incidentally, writing under the pseudonym ‘Alexander Emel’, who wrote in Inprecorr (German edition), November 15, 1932, that ‘in Pilsudski’s Poland Trotsky enjoys the particular sympathy of the political police’. Cf. J. Klugmann: ‘The secret police of the Polish dictatorship were specially educated in Trotskyism ... ( From Trotsky to Tito [1951], p. 82)

5. Contrast the earnest efforts of Christian apologists to reconcile the contradictions and differences between the various Gospels. Anyone approaching the study of the August 1936 trial for the first time is recommended to notice the following points. Ter-Vaganian stated that the terrorist group was formed in autumn 1931 and Zinoviev that it began in summer 1932, while Mrachkovsky made it date from the end of 1932. In November 1932 Kamenev and Zinoviev had been banished to the East and were not allowed back until the middle of 1933. Smirnov was in prison from the beginning of 1933 onwards, so could hardly have participated effectively in the plot to kill Kirov (December 1934). Berman-Yurin dated the Seventh Congress of the Comintern in September 1934 (it took place in July–August 1935), and explained that a plot to kill Stalin at a Comintern executive meeting failed because David, the assassin-designate, was unable to get a pass to enter the hall, whereas David said the plot failed because Stalin did not attend the meeting. A number of persons whose alleged testimony was quoted in the indictment or in court (Radin, Schmidt, Karev, Matorin etc.) were never produced either as witnesses or as accused at this or any later trial. Trotsky’s appeal (to the central executive committee!) in his Open Letter of March 1932 to ‘put Stalin out of the way’ ( Report of Court Proceedings , p. 127) was actually an appeal to them to ‘at last put into effect the final urgent advice by Lenin, to “remove Stalin”,’ i.e., a reference to the document known as Lenin’s Testament , as may be seen from the Bulletin of the Opposition in which this Open Letter quite openly appeared.

6. Contrast the sceptical mood of many Soviet citizens reflected in the story which was current in Moscow during the trial: Alexei Tolstoy, upon being arrested and examined, had confessed that he was the author of Hamlet ...

7. The example of Galileo, who ‘confessed’ and repudiated his own discoveries under the mere threat of torture, seems never to have been discussed in Stalinist writing on the trials; nor that of the numerous ‘witches’ who, during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, went to their deaths confessing to having had communication with the Devil; nor even that of the Duke of Northumberland who in 1553 confessed to Catholicism even on the very scaffold, in the delusive hope of a pardon from Queen Mary. Krivitsky ( op. cit. p. 212) remarks that ‘the real wonder is that, despite their broken condition and the monstrous forms of pressure exerted by the Ogpu on Stalin’s political opponents, so few did confess. For every one of the 54 prisoners who figured in the three “treason trials”, at least 100 were shot without being broken down.’

8. At the Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal the Soviet representatives conspicuously refrained from asking Hess about his alleged anti-Soviet negotiations with Trotsky. In March 1946 a number of prominent British people, including H.G. Wells, George Orwell, Julian Symons and Frank Horrabin, signed an appeal to the Tribunal asking that Trotsky’s widow be allowed to interrogate Hess in order to clear her husband’s name, or that at least the Allied experts examining Gestapo records make a statement showing to what extent they had found confirmation of the story told in the Moscow trials. No action was taken on these requests, and to this day no evidence of Nazi-Trotskyite’ negotiations has been published.

9. Pollitt also wrote in this pamphlet: ‘The bold Trotsky, eh? Wants an international court of inquiry. His tools are left to face it out. Why doesn’t he face it with them? Why doesn’t he go to Moscow?’ Neither here nor anywhere else in Stalinist publications was it ever revealed that Trotsky repeatedly demanded that the Soviet Government bring extradition proceedings against him – which would have necessitated their making a case in a Norwegian or Mexican court.

10 . Anti-Trotskyism eventually became for a time the chief activity of J.R. Campbell, as is reflected in Phil Bolsover’s article, in the DW of April 2, 1938, The Man behind the Answers , describing Campbell at work preparing his Answers to Questions feature: ‘And if you see sometimes a grim, but not unhappy, gleam behind those horn-rimmed spectacles that are lifted occasionally to survey the busy room, you’ll know it’s ten to one that Johnnie Campbell is dealing with some Trotskyist or other. One of his sharper joys is to take an artistic delight in dissecting the sophistries, the half-truths, the complete falsehoods of the breed; laying bare the poverty of their creed for all to see. “Give him a Trotskyist and he’ll be happy for hours”, someone once said.’

11. Around this time died Sergo Ordzhonikidze, Commissar for Heavy Industry. Under the headline Stalin bears Coffin of “Bolshevism’s Fiery Knight” , the DW of February 22 reported the funeral: ‘As Stalin stood with his hands sorrowfully crossed, a wave of the people’s love and loyalty swept towards him. Beside him stood Zinaida Ordzhonikidze, Sergo’s wife ...’ An article about the dead man which appeared next day was headed: Health Shattered by Trotskyist Wrecking . On August 12 a leader headed Foul Lies denounced the Herald for carrying a story that Ordzhonikidze had killed himself and that his brothers has been arrested. (‘All Labour men and women [should now]> protest .against the anti-Soviet line of this most scurrilous rag in the newspaper world.’) Russia Today for September, under the heading Another Daily Herald Slander , declared that ‘we are able to state definitely there is not a word of truth in this assertion’. In his secret speech of February 25, 1956 ( The Dethronement of Stalin [1956], p. 27) Khrushchev said: ‘Stalin allowed the liquidation of Ordzhonikidze’s brother and brought Ordzhonikidze himself to such a state that he was forced to shoot himself.’ When Khrushchev and Bulganin came to Britain in the warship Ordzhonikidze , Walter Holmes published in his Worker’s Notebook ( DW , April 16, 1956) a note on the man after whom the ship was named: ‘Ordzhonikidze died in 1937, when many of his assistants were being arrested on charges of spying, sabotage etc. There were rumours that he had been driven to suicide ... It has now been established that Sergo Ordzhonikidze was suspicious of Beria’s political position. After the death of Ordzhonikidze, Beria and his fellow-conspirators continued cruelly to revenge themselves on his family ...’

12 . The extreme concern shown to shore up Holtzman’s evidence is explained by two facts – his was the only statement giving anything like precise details of time and place, and it furnished the basis for all the rest of the story. Concentration on the place where Holtzman allegedly went also served to divert attention from the fact that the person – Sedov – whom he had allegedly met there had been able to prove conclusively, by means of his student’s attendance card and other documents, that he was taking an examination in another city at the time!

13. Returning to the attack on June 8, Dutt wrote with characteristic scorn of ‘liberal intellectual waverers who are incapable of facing the hard realities of the fight against fascism’.

14. Even nearer the bone than the Bubnov case was that of Rose Cohen, a British Communist Party member since 1921, one-time office-manager of the Labour Research Department and member of the Party’s colonial bureau, wife of Petrovsky-Bennett, the Comintern’s nuncio in Britain. While working in Moscow on the staff of Moscow Daily News she was arrested as a spy and never heard of again. An earlier (and unluckier) Edith Bone, her case was never mentioned in the Stalinist press. For details, see Fight and Militant (London) of June 1938 and subsequently.

15. William Rust was perhaps the most honest of the British Stalinists in the matter of admitting that there was nothing whatever to go on beyond the confessions. In his review, in the DW of March 1, 1937, of the verbatim report of the second trial, he wrote: ‘Of the treason and the actual negotiations with the fascist governments there is, of course, no documentary proof ...’ Desperate for ‘documentary proof’ of some sort, the DW of November 10 published a block showing. side by side, the symbol used by a ‘Trotskyist’ publishing firm in Antwerp – a lightning-flash across a globe – and the Mosleyite ‘flash-in-the-pan’. The caption supplied read: ‘Similarity with a significance.’ (During the second world war the five-pointed star was used as an emblem in various ways by the Soviet, American, Indian and Japanese armies).

16. J.R. Campbell defended in the DW of April 11, 1938, that paper’s refusal of advertisements for ‘Trotskyite’ publications: ‘It would be senseless for the Daily Worker to give a free advertisement to opposition political tendencies.’ With this may be compared Walter Holmes’s Worker’s Notebook of November 27, 1936, in which he reproduced a letter from Mr Warburg telling how the Observer had refused an advertisement for John Langdon-Davies’s book Behind the Spanish Barricades , and commented: ‘We agree with Messrs. Secker and Warburg about the grave character of this censorship of advertisements.’

17. Sloan came back to the pages of Controversy in the March issue to denounce Stalin’s words as ‘an unscrupulous misquotation by Trotsky’, to defend the Communist Party’s refusal to allow republication of John Reed’s Ten Days That Shook The World (‘It is a little naïve. I think, to ask communists to popularize an inaccurate account of the internal affairs in Bolshevik leadership in 1917’). and to declare regarding the victims of the trials: ‘It is a good thing they have been shot. Further, if there were more of them, then more of them should have been shot.’

18. J.R. Campbell, closely associated in his time with the Bukharin-Rykov trend, wrote firmly in the DW of March 17, after the executions: ‘It is enemies of socialism and peace who have perished. We should not mourn.’ Lawrence and Wishart brought out a book about the trial – The Plot Against the Soviet Union and World Peace – by B.N. Ponomarev, in which this Soviet authority made it plain that one of the chief criteria for people’s political reliability was ‘their attitude towards ... the struggle against Trotskyism’ (p. 186). (Ponomarev is a member of the central committee of the Soviet Communist Party, working with Suslov in the department concerned with relations with other Communist Parties, and in this capacity recently received. e.g., a delegation from the Australian Communist Party, according to Pravda of January 5, 1958.)

19. One really might have expected some comment on the statement made through Rakovsky that Trotsky had put the British imperialists up to the Arcos raid in 1927, arranging through ‘a certain Meller or Mueller ... the discovery of specially fabricated provocative documents’ ( DW , March 7). After all, the line of the Communist Party had always been that the Arcos raid had produced nothing to justify the charges made against the Soviet agencies in this country. No mention of Rakovsky’s statement at his trial is made in the detailed account of the Arcos Raid in the History of Anglo-Soviet Relations by W.P. and Zelda Coates published by Lawrence and Wishart in 1944. Yet in their book From Tsardom to the Stalin Constitution (1938) Mr and Mrs Coates had declared their belief in the genuineness of the confessions ... In his dispatch printed in the DW of March 9, Arnot quoted without comment an alleged statement by Trotsky in 1918: ‘Stalin – Lenin’s closest assistant – must be destroyed’. It would indeed have been hard for Arnot to comment acceptably, for in 1923 he had written for the Labour Research Department a short history of The Russian Revolution , in which he showed how far Stalin was from being ‘Lenin’s closest assistant’ in 1918, and who in fact occupied that position! Much was made, by Arnot and others, in connexion with all three trials, of the alleged fact that some of the accused had at one time or another been Mensheviks, but no mention appeared of Vyshinsky’s having been a Menshevik down to 1920.

20. All through the period 1936–38 Walter Holmes had kept up a running fire in his Worker’s Notebook in the DW of quotations from bourgeois papers directed against the ‘Trotskyists’. Perhaps his best bag was one from the Times of Malaya which he published on August 7, 1937, reporting the formation of a bloc between Monarchists and Trotskyists’.

21. Compare eyewitness Fitzroy Maclean’s account of the trial in his Eastern Approaches (1949). Zelensky, former chairman of Gosplan, “confessed’ to having put powdered glass and nails into the butter and to having destroyed truckloads of eggs. ‘At this startling revelation a grunt of rage and horror rose from the audience. Now they knew what was the matter with the butter, and why there were never any eggs. Deliberate sabotage was somehow a much more satisfactory solution than carelessness or inefficiency. Besides. Zelensky had admitted that he had been in contact with a sinister foreigner, a politician, a member of the British Labour Party, a certain Mr A.V. Alexander, who had encouraged him in his fell designs. No wonder that he had put ground glass in the butter. And nails! What a warning, too, to have nothing to do with foreigners, even though they masqueraded as socialists.’ Doubtless taking his cue from the inclusion of A.V. Alexander in the dramatis personae of the ‘Bukharin’ trial. Arnot went even further in attacking fellow-socialists in his Labour Monthly article of May 1938 than he had ventured to do previously: he now wrote of ‘H.N. Brailsford and ILP leaders, whose position as dupes of Trotsky or agents of Trotsky is still to be examined.’

  Top of page

Last updated: 24 February 2020

General election latest: Man who lost mum during pandemic asks Sunak about lockdown parties

Rishi Sunak has held another Q&A with voters - and faced a blunt query from a man who lost his mother to COVID during lockdown. Meanwhile, Sir Keir Starmer has faced accusations of a left-wing cull in the Labour Party.

Thursday 30 May 2024 16:04, UK

• General Election 2024

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Election news

• 'How can we trust you?' Voter challenges PM over partygate
• No reason Abbott shouldn't be able to stand, says Rayner
• Dropped candidate suing Labour | Starmer denies left-wing cull
• Greens vow 'bold' ideas | Reform proposes 'immigration tax'
• Live reporting by Tim Baker  and (earlier)  Ben Bloch  and Katie Williams

Expert analysis

• Darren McCaffrey: Partygate clearly still an issue for Tories
• Beth Rigby: Massive distraction gives Starmer questions to answer
• Gurpreet Narwan: Reform light on detail - but could still be pivotal

Election essentials

• Trackers: Who's leading polls? | Is PM keeping promises?
• Campaign Heritage: Memorable moments from elections gone by
• Follow Sky's politics podcasts: Electoral Dysfunction | Politics At Jack And Sam's
• Read more: What happens next? | Who is standing down? | Key seats to watch | How to register to vote | What counts as voter ID? | Check if your constituency's changing | Your essential guide to election lingo | Sky's election night plans

Sky political correspondent Darren McCaffery was listening in as Rishi Sunak answered questions from the public.

As we reported, this included him being asked about the fine he received for breaking COVID regulations in 2020 when chancellor ( read more ).

Darren says this shows partygate "is clearly still an issue for the Conservative Party - and this is a prime minister who did receive a fixed penalty notice over that".

He adds that the person asking - who had lost their mother - "seemed pretty angry at the prime minister".

This, Darren says, is a reminder of which issues "still resonate with members of the public".

Mr Sunak did try to address the issue by explaining he was at a meeting, but was also "trying to pivot away to his record as chancellor on the furlough scheme".

Darren says that, while some of those covering the election may get "led slightly by government announcements and opposition announcements on a daily basis", there are many voters for whom "there are other issues at play here, whether they be historical or not, that are going to factor into how the vote in five weeks".

The prime minister is next asked what the Conservatives will do to ensure net zero will remain a priority.

He has been accused of watering down the government's green pledges since becoming prime minister ( read more here ).

Rishi Sunak responds that as a father of two daughters aged 11 and 13, he believes in tackling climate change.

"I want us to get to net zero because that's the right thing to do for my kids, your kids, or grandkids, making sure that we leave the environment in a better state than we found it," he says.

Tories 'won't rip out your boiler'

Mr Sunak says he will prioritise UK energy security, including backing energy coming out of the North Sea.

He also says the Tories will look after people's bills and won't force homeowners to "prematurely rip out your boiler, upgrade your home, change your car, because those things cost thousands of pounds".

"We don't need to do them right now. We will do them slowly over time in a measured way," he says, and takes a swipe at Sir Keir Starmer by saying Labour doesn't "believe in British energy".

Another person asks the PM about two things - the recently announced national service scheme and a lack of patriotism among young people.

In response, Mr Sunak says national service will help people develop skills, but also that it is going to foster a culture of service and bring people together at a time when "there are a lot of forces pulling us apart".

He says that it will become a new "rite of passage" and will help solve the question about patriotism, because it will instil a "renewed sense of service".

The first question to Rishi Sunak is notably direct.

An audience member says he lost his mother during the pandemic in 2020 and could not be with her in hospital. He suggests this was happening while parties were taking place at Downing Street.

Mr Sunak, then chancellor, was fined by police along with Boris and Carrie Johnson for breaching COVID rules over an event on 19 June that year.

"How can anyone trust you or the party after things like this?" he asks Mr Sunak.

The prime minister responds with condolences for his loss and apologises for "what was going on at Downing Street".

"As you know, I was working on things to help you and your business and many other families like that… hopefully some of you here benefited from some of the support that we put in place."

On whether he can be trusted, Mr Sunak says he did "everything" he could to protect the public during some "really big shocks" over the past few years.

"When our country goes through tough times, I will always be there to support you," he says.

The prime minister is on his feet in Milton Keynes, offering his usual pitch to voters that he is the man with a plan - and "bold ideas" like national service and the pensions "triple-lock plus".

He says Sir Keir Starmer "doesn't stand for anything" and cannot be trusted to run the country.

Rishi Sunak will be taking questions after his speech - we'll bring you the best bits.

Rishi Sunak will be holding another Q&A with voters in Milton Keynes shortly - he's due to start around 3.25pm.

You'll be able to watch live in the stream above, and we'll bring you the best lines here in the Politics Hub.

Sky political editor Beth Rigby spoke to Labour's deputy leader Angela Rayner earlier today.

The pair spoke about the current row engulfing the current election favourites - including questions about Diane Abbott's future and other candidates on the left of Labour feeling like they are under attack from the leadership ( read more here ).

Ms Rayner told Beth that Ms Abbott should be allowed to stand in the election - and claimed Sir Keir Starmer is not part of any factionalism.

"This is a massive distraction from the campaign," Beth says.

"It looks to overblow what they are trying to do or overshadow what they're trying to do on policy.

"It now looks like - is Keir Starmer trying to purge the party of the left? There are lots of questions for him.

"And it might be that some people in the party think that this should have been wrapped up and not allowed to run."

With the general election campaigns well under way, a slew of polling is coming in - feeding the ravenous appetites of those who want to know how the vote will turn out in six weeks' time.

But just a week in, there is already somewhat of a chasm between what different pollsters are saying in these voter intention surveys.

On the "narrow" side, JL Partners has Labour 12 points ahead of the Conservatives - three points closer than their last set of results from a month earlier.

At the other end of the spectrum is YouGov's poll for Sky News - their results  show a gap of 27 points  between the two main parties.

So what is causing this massive difference?

Our  political reporter  Tim Baker  explains:

This week, Beth gets Ruth and Jess's take on what's happening now that Diane Abbott has had the Labour whip restored. The WhatsApps from Beth’s sources keep coming as they're recording.

They discuss the strategies behind the Sunak and Starmer campaigns – with one going for headline-grabbing pledges and the other spending the first week focusing on the personal rather than policy.

There's news from Jess on her plans for the campaign – and she met a dog named after Ted Heath when she was out door-knocking, so that takes us in only one direction.

👉 Click here to follow Electoral Dysfunction wherever you get your podcasts 👈

Email Beth, Jess, and Ruth at [email protected] , post on X to @BethRigby, or send a WhatsApp voice note on 07934 200 444.    

As we've been reporting, Labour's deputy leader was  cleared of wrongdoing  by police this week after a Tory party deputy chair alleged she wrongly declared her address on the electoral register.

The investigation has been ongoing since early April, and speaking to Sky's political editor Beth Rigby , Angela Rayner revealed how she felt when police dropped the probe,

"There was a relief," she said. "But it was more frustration because I was confident from the start that I hadn't done anything wrong.

"And it was disbelief that it was going on and gathering this momentum, that it was gathering."

She said the row "deliberately distracted" from issues she was raising "on behalf of the people in this country", so the closure of the probe felt "bittersweet".

'Disaster happening' in housing market

Ms Rayner said Sir Keir Starmer and her shadow cabinet colleagues were "incredibly supportive", but added: "It was frustrating because every time I was out in the media, everybody wanted to talk about my housing."

But she wanted to talk about "the disaster of what's happening" in the housing market more broadly.

"When these stories about MPs [appear] constantly, then it looks like we're all in it for ourselves, or we're all doing bad things.

"And I knew I hadn't done that, and I just felt that it gave the wrong message.

On the personal impact of the police investigation, Ms Rayner said that as a working class person, a policy investigation "taints you" and "people think, oh, she's up to no good".

"I'm not. That was difficult because I've always tried to do the right thing."

Be the first to get Breaking News

Install the Sky News app for free

Browser does not support script.

King's College London - Homepage

• Undergraduate
• Postgraduate
• International Students
• Study abroad
• Professional Education
• Short courses
• International Foundation
• Accommodation
• Visit King's
• Learning & teaching
• Language Centre
• Student Services Online
• Libraries & Collections
• Student news
• Careers & Employability
• Students' Union
• Academic calendar
• King's Sport
• Research at King's
• King's Health Partners
• Arts & Humanities
• Dentistry, Oral & Craniofacial Sciences
• Life Sciences & Medicine
• Natural, Mathematical & Engineering Sciences
• Nursing, Midwifery & Palliative Care
• Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience
• Social Science & Public Policy
• Alumni Community
• Alumni benefits
• Events & reunions
• News & features
• Mission & strategy
• Internationalisation
• Governance & Legal
• Organisational structure
• Work at King's
• Diversity & Inclusion
• Financial information

Student Conduct and Appeals Office

• Academic Appeals

Advice on the appeals process, as well as support preparing an appeal is available from  KCLSU Advice . You can find forms for all stages of appeals in the respective sections below.

Undergraduate and Postgraduate (Taught) students may appeal against decisions made by their Faculty Assessment Board (FAB) on matters such as module results, progression and reassessment decisions, as provided by the T44 Academic Appeals (taught programmes) Regulation.

The process involves two stages:

• Appeals concerning decisions of the FAB (‘Stage One’); and
• Appeals to the Head of Student Conduct & Appeals (‘Stage Two’)

Stage One Appeals must be submitted on this webform within 15 working days of the publication of results of the relevant module(s), sent to Student Conduct & Appeals (SCA). Appeals received after this deadline will only be accepted at the discretion of SCA.

A FAB may review a decision on one or both of the following grounds: 

(a) Where there is evidence that the assessment/s may have been adversely affected by mitigating circumstances which you were unable, or for valid reasons unwilling, to make known before the original decision was reached;

(b) Where there is clear evidence that assessment/s may have been adversely affected by a significant administrative error on the part of the College or in the conduct of the assessment.

Appeals which are based upon a challenge to the academic judgment of the examiners will not be considered.

You are expected to inform the university of any mitigating circumstances by submitting a Mitigating Circumstances Form ('MCF') as soon as possible either before an assessment, or within 7 days of it.  By presenting yourself for an assessment, you are deemed to have declared yourself to be in a position to undertake the assessment.

Therefore, any appeals which involve the retrospective disclosure of mitigating circumstances would need to demonstrate why an earlier disclosure was not made. 

Appeals should normally be accompanied by independent, third party evidence of the mitigating circumstances or administrative errors upon which the appeal is based. It is your responsibility to submit all evidence by the deadline for your appeal, and to have certified translations undertaken, where appropriate.

SCA may refuse to forward (filter) an appeal where:

(a) The appeal is not made on the correct form, or the form is incomplete;

(b) The appeal has been submitted late;

(c) If appealing on ground 7.17a, there is no independent third party evidence of the mitigating circumstances; or the evidence provided is not a certified translation;

(d) The appeal contains no evidence that either of the grounds for review has been met;

(e) The appeal is frivolous or vexatious; and/or

(f) where the appeal does not fall within the scope of this regulation and should be considered under an alternative regulation.

If your appeal is filtered you will have the opportunity to contest the decision and, if successful, your appeal will be forwarded to the FAB.

Upon receipt of an appeal, the FAB will determine whether the criteria for an appeal has been met. Where they have, the FAB will decide whether to modify or confirm its original decision. They will normally meet and communicate their decision, sent by SCA, within 30 working days of the publication of results of the assessment(s) to which the appeal relates.

Following the completion of a Stage One Appeal, you may submit a Stage Two Appeal if you are dissatisfied with the previous outcome. Stage Two Appeals must be submitted on the form  to SCA within 10 working days of the date of the Stage One Appeal outcome letter. Appeals received after this deadline will only be accepted at the discretion of SCA.

In accordance with the T44 Regulation, a Stage One decision may be reviewed if at least one of the following grounds are met:

(a) that there is new evidence that could not have been, or for good reason was not, made available at the time of the Stage One submission and that sufficient evidence remains that the appeal warrants further consideration;

(b) that evidence can be produced of significant procedural error on the part of the College in considering the appeal, and that sufficient evidence remains that the appeal warrants further consideration;

(c) giving due consideration to the evidence previously provided, the decision of the FAB was unreasonable

The Head of Student Conduct & Appeals (or nominee) will determine whether the criteria for an appeal have been met. Where they have, an Appeal Committee will be convened; otherwise, the appeal will be dismissed. This decision will normally be communicated within 30 working days of receipt of the Stage Two Appeal.

Where an Appeal Committee is convened, you will normally receive at least 10 working days' notice of the hearing, and will be invited to present your case to the Panel. The Chair of the FAB (or nominee) will also be invited to give evidence. The Committee will determine whether there is sufficient reason to challenge the decision of the FAB; where it concludes such reason is present, it can set aside the original decision and replace it with one of its own, or refer the case back to the FAB, with commentary, for re-consideration. The decision of the Committee will be normally communicated to you and the Chair of the FAB within 5 working days of the decision.

Further guidance about Committee procedures can be found  here .

When all internal procedures are complete, students may request an independent review of their case by the  Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education , if they remain dissatisfied with the College’s final outcome.

• Office of the Independent Adjudicator
• PGR Appeals
• G28 Appeals
• Fitness for Registration & Practise
• Bullying and Harassment
• Admissions Complaints
• Academic Misconduct
• Non academic misconduct
• G25 Appeals
• Student Complaints
• Examinations
• Research Degrees
• Supervisors
• Oral Examinations
• Re-examination
• Thesis Format
• Coronavirus
• Student Conduct & Appeals Office
• Academic Services Intranet

© 2024 King's College London | Strand | London WC2R 2LS | England | United Kingdom | Tel +44 (0)20 7836 5454