The resignation of Sir Menzies Campbell, the Lib Dem leader, has provoked press speculation that the party "hounded out their leader (again)" as he faced the prospect of "a bloody coup like the one that toppled his predecessor, Charles Kennedy".
Many pointed to recent statements by Simon Hughes, the party's president, and Vincent Cable, now its acting leader, which betrayed a lack of confidence in Sir Menzies.
My colleague, Michael White, suggests today: "The word last night was that [Chris] Huhne [the Lib Dems' environment spokesman] had wielded the dagger. If that is true, he may pay a price in the coming contest with Nick Clegg [its home affairs spokesman]."
So what really happened? Sir Menzies's own, brief resignation statement claimed that he was stepping down because he had fulfilled his three objectives for his leadership ("to restore stability and purpose in the party ... to make the internal operations of the party more professional, and ... to prepare the party for a general election"), although he did admit that "questions about leadership are getting in the way of further progress by the party".
The official version, according to Mr Cable, is that Sir Ming "made up his own mind" over the weekend, taking his decision in the light of "long-term trends" and "the polls" (the Lib Dems dipped as low as 11% recently) and "decided this was the best contribution he could make to the party".
But other Lib Dems gave a little more insight into the process which led to the collapse of the Ming dynasty.
Lord Ashdown revealed that he had been planning to speak to Sir Ming today in order to tell him: "Look, Ming, it is going to be quite tough for you to continue until an election in 2009, but the important thing is very clear, and that is: when you go, go on your own terms and go when you want to go."
But "he beat me to it" by resigning, the former Lib Dem leader said.
Meanwhile, Lembit Opik, the party's business spokesman, told Guardian Unlimited that he suspected Sir Ming felt that "other people in the party might do better" as leader.
Many Lib Dem bloggers seem to believe the official line. Wit and Wisdom notes: "The media has been scurrying over the body looking for intrigue but it does appear that Ming decided on his departure of his own volition - albeit in the face of endless rumours about his appeal to voters and his ability to hold the position until a possible 2010 election."
Caron, of Caron's Musings, agrees: "I think he looked at the polls and the media stuff about his age and realised that there would be another two years of this and then he may have to face a general election on the brink of his 68th birthday. If the papers were portraying him as a skeleton now, then maybe he foresaw that the cartoons would get ever more macabre as time went on."
But the more mischievous Liberal Democrat Voice blog is running a poll asking "who gave Ming the final push?"
The options are the media, the young Turks (Mr Huhne, Mr Clegg and their allies), the bloggers, Ming himself, the polls, or Gordon Brown and David Cameron. A scathing reply from "Duncan" noted: "The answer is 'all of the above'," while "Simon Hughes and friends" was another suggestion.
David Grace, who blogs as Disgruntled Radical, defends the "young Turks": "Look at the loudest public critics of Ming ... Bill Rodgers, Dick Taverne, Chris Clarke ... The problem was not the so-called young Turks (Chris Huhne is in his 50s) but the old gits!"
Like many bloggers, Tom Papworth of Liberal Polemic blamed the media: "The press were simply not interested. It was as if they did not want to hear that Sir Menzies, at 66 years of age, leading a Liberal Democratic party, might actually have good, important points to make that the British people might want to hear ...
"The story had already been written: Ming was too old; the young Turks were waiting in the wings; the Lib Dems were being squeezed ... and if we did not dump our leaders soon we would crash to a defeat that would be worse than anything since the SDP merged with the Liberals in 1988."
There was evidence of discontent with Sir Menzies's leadership among the bloggers, however. Tristan, who blogs at Liberty Alone says: "My biggest worry was his apparent closeness to Labour, especially Gordon Brown."
Meanwhile, Rob Fenwick claims he was all set to launch a website called Recall Ming Campbell, designed to encourage Sir Menzies to step down and return to his former foreign affairs brief, where he was widely respected.
As Iain Sharpe notes: "It isn't clear at this stage how far this [Sir Ming's resignation] was a personal choice and how far it reflected the groundswell of opinion among Westminster village Lib Dems or even party activists."
If Facebook is any guide to the mood of the web-savvy Lib Dem grassroots, it might be worth noting that the group "We're sorry you're gone Sir Menzies - you're a top chap" currently has 23 members, while "Thank God Campbell has quit" limps by with only two.
As for who will replace the outgoing leader, Morten Morland, the political cartoonist, reckons he knows: "If a person is easy to draw, he'll do well, because the likelihood is he'll have other interesting characteristics too, which will make him appealing to journalists, thus raising the party's profile in the media. And people watching are more likely to remember him, which is a bonus!"
He then goes on to demonstrate through the medium of cartoons who the next leader will be. I won't give it away.
