We’ll Meet You At The Fire Pit | Traitors 2026 | Thread 13 | THERE WILL BE SPOILERS

[CaveMum]

Previous thread: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/telly_addicts/5480370-end-game-the-battle-of-ardross-castle-who-will-triumph-the-pouting-milk-maid-the-interchangeables-jade-or-the-traitors-traitors-2026-thread-12-spoiler-free?page=1

Thread to continue discussions of Traitors 2026 (UK Version)

If you haven’t seen the Final of this year’s Traitors then stop right there and get yourself over to iPlayer.

Don’t say I didn’t warn you!

Players, the floor is yours…

Excellent post. I've been trying to articulate this and you do it brilliantly. He was equally good if not better at manipulating the narrative in the castle, and had no problem voting out Hugo and Fiona, and bringing Rachel up in discussion way more than she did him, yet because he had funky jumpsuits and comedy facial expressions nobody seemed to notice.

Well said, I completely agree with you.

OK @Somnambule but at least you could acknowledge there's been hundreds of us on these threads fully backing Rachel and making your exact same point. I missed the part where she said she was in the Peri-menopause and so I now admire her a little bit more.

I've just read that Rachel's mum has died, which is really sad.

I don't think it is a purely gendered thing about Rachel and Stephen. In my view, she was clearly more calculated about everything. He kind of got by she but she thought up things to say, initiated various conversations, in ways he didn't do.

I wasn't talking specifically on Mumsnet, I meant in the media generally - but ok yes, in amongst the criticism of being cold and ruthless there have been people supporting her too.

I've no idea if she is perimenopausal - I speaking generally about women in her stage of life (of which I am also one) who are views as being a bit frumpy and past it, and attract a lot of negativity where a young funky man behaving in exactly the same way gets celebrated for being wonderful.

She was clever. Clever women are often accused of being calculated, scheming, manipulative etc. she just played the game intelligently and thoughtfully.

I feel for Rachel. I hope he mum got to see her win too.

Also, someone has offered to pay for Faraaz's family to go on Hajj, according to the Metro. I hope they get to go.

Yes she did get to tell her she won

ah that’s good on the haj

Agree . Loved Rachel’s integrity whilst playing the game so brilliantly .

i dont know how people can say Jack did nothing
if he had won, the editing would have been different
i mean who did anything?
apart from survive, not get banished, not get murdered, keep your cards close to your chest, keep your enemies close
harriet tried but couldnt resist

I read that they edit each episode depending on what happens at the RT. They watch the entire RT first, then go back and edit the rest of footage for the day / episode so that it makes sense with what happens at the RT.

Faraaz actually did what you describe, Jack did not, hence why he was voted out. He didn’t keep anyone close, he had no idea who the traitors were.

Not sure that's true. There have been cases where faithfuls have won in the past where there has been almost an element of disappointment because they essentially got there by keeping their heads down or being too dim to be a threat to the traitors.

Agree, possibly edit would have been a bit different if he'd won, but I doubt the producers are hiding footage of him being a mastermind faithful because he didn't end up winning, because as he was the last faithful banished it would have been just as interesting.

I'm always disappointed when faithfuls win, because they're always so dim and win by being stupid enough to be kept in to the end or by, in the first season, a traitor tipping them the wink as he left.

They'll edit the entire season based on the final outcome - so it's all a narrative that builds to a known conclusion. They'll know when they're editing episode 1 that Rachel and Stephen win.

They might have minimised the extent to which Jack trusted Stephen to create more uncertainty/drama about how he would vote. But otherwise, no there's no benefit from making Jack seem more vanilla, knowing how far he went in the game.

Aw that’s so sweet, love Faraaz 💛

I feel if anything the edit was kind to Jack because he went so far.

He is on his Instagram boasting of being the only faithful to have never received a vote at a round Table (ignoring the fact that he got 2 at the end). Um Molly? No votes at all ever and she brought far more to the game than he did.

Molly and Jack were at the very end for the single reason that the person they completely and fully trusted as a faithful in the game was in fact a traitor. That’s how they made it to the end and they were never going to win if their game was to make it to the end with their best traitor pal. That just really wasn’t going to end well for them.

Agree with all of this!
I wasn’t in Rachel’s corner until near the end where I had to admit she played brilliantly. Even luck ended up liking her 😂
But seriously, I believe Stephen kept the letter of their pact by never voting for her but not the spirit in how much he egged on suspicions about her near the end. He clearly wanted her banished so he could win all the money.

Rachel worked so hard for that win in the end. She had nobody in the final who fully supported her as a faithful and Stephen was really not helping her!

Stephen admitted himself that he mentioned Rachel too much. He just wasn't as good at the strategic game as Rachel. The way she mentioned Stephen was far more subtle and less likely to gain momentum and banish him. She was a master at deflectiing suspicion from him through the game too.