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…

I couldn’t stand her either, that cold ruthlessness that you can’t help feel is who she really is and not just part of her gameplay.
But even I agree she deserved to win. The amount of heat she had thrown at her, how she deflected, sowed seeds of distrust, pulled people in, kept calm under pressure. Thats not luck.
The faithfuls were a bit dim generally and didn’t have a game plan but she was able to manipulate that. You have to hand it her.
And I don’t think she would have thrown Stephen under the bus.

Certainly, those are its downsides. Though Bob The Drag Queen was a delight.

After her speech at the RT about showing her kids she had integrity I’m not sure how she would have explained to them shafting Stephen at the end!

Maybe “we needed that holiday more!”

I have no idea how or why you think Rachel wasn't a faithful traitor to the end.

I think he’s genuinely honourable.

Rachel’s a bit like the woman a workplace bring in to implement the ‘change programme’.

Whereas, Stephen’s like the popular Head of Team, who has to support her restructure to save his own job, but still comes to your leaving drinks when you’re made redundant.

I'm happy with the ending.

I think the best players won

True!

Wouldn’t she put it down to the game? You have to lie to everyone.

Just caught up on BBC iPlayer - I am so relieved at outcome. Though why I feel so happy at Traitors being faithful to each other I can’t quite figure out 🤣

A faithful traitor to the end? She had no other options at the end. Jack wasn’t her ally, Jack was Stephen’s ally (sorry for spelling your name totally wrong Stephen, silly brain). She had ONE gameplay in the end game and that was to force Stephen’s vote and ensure he honoured the pact otherwise she would have been gone. Faz fumbled when they went down to four which worked in her favour, not to mention the luck of the chest.

Manipulative, lucky, she played the game and did the best she could in the end. Whether she was a faithful traitor was irrelevant - although her actions and manner suggested to me that she would not be, she wasn’t in that position. At the end, it’s a game, and she was good at the game as a traitor.

This is an absolutely mad comment. They are adults. They all signed up for the game. It’s not a moral failing if they’re tapped on the shoulder by Claudia. It would be a very boring programme if they didnt try and deceive and lie. Even faithfuls have to do that to some extent, if they suspect a popular character is a traitor but they don’t have enough to take it on at the round table.

I also think the faithfuls can be deceptive and almost traitorous at the end as well. There’s no way Leanne last year thought Francesca was a traitor but it’s nicer to win half a big pot of money than a 3rd of a big pot of money. It’s a game!

Thank you again for keeping us again, it's definitely been a challenge for you!

I suspect they offered them for Claudia but we're given option for someone else to wear them. Claudia has been favouring the burberry thus year...and I do want that duck jumper or a good copy of!

Can anyone remember what Rachel and Stephen said to camera after they’d made their pact in the hallway? I am sure one of them sounded a bit hesitant about it and actually think it might have been Stephen. All the way through though I’ve thought that if Rachel was truly tested (in the way he has been last two nights) she’d have chucked him but is that just her fantastic gameplay convincing me of that?

She said tonight on Uncloaked that she knew as soon as they made their pact she’d honour it but also said something like if he turns on me I’ll turn on him to camera on tonight’s episode so is she just playing on the fact she was never truly tested the way he was?

As a mum it would be hard to hand over £40k+ to someone when that’s potentially cars, uni fees or house deposits for kids. Not to mention any care her Mum might need. So I think Stephen was very lucky the way it worked out in the end.

I agree with the person who said they didn’t seem like they got on that well on Uncloaked! Weird relationship to have though I suppose.

That’s not what I said. I understand the concept of the game. I understand the need to lie and betray - even as a faithful at times. What I was referring to was the moral anguish. Most people find it hard to lie and deceive - even in a game. Most people would have an emotional response to that moral anguish. My perception was that she didn’t have a strong emotional response or much or an emotional response at all. In fact, I think she enjoyed the deception and power. Perhaps she can dissociate better than most. And perhaps some of those qualities are psychopathic in tendency. Tendency. I know mumsnet kinda love her, that’s just my view. It’s ok, you don’t have to agree.

Think Alan Cumming has nicked all of that for the US traitors!

I agree with the person who said they didn’t seem like they got on that well on Uncloaked! Weird relationship to have though I suppose.

There’s no reason why they’d get on well - they seem very different people with very different lives. I suspect they both saw it as more of a need to work effectively with a colleague you have little in common with but don’t actively dislike than a personal connection - which they will both have had to do in their day jobs.

I think my point was that lots of them end up quite pally but those two didn’t appear to get on at all. So they were close because of their roles, but possibly not friends. This made me think that the pact was not about them liking each other and wanting to win together, it was about best ensuring traitor success. Rachel got lucky that Stephen was honourable to the pact. I felt she wouldn’t have done the same but we’ll never know. That’s not how the game played out.

Yeah I don’t agree and still think it’s a mad take. It’s a competition. They don’t know each other. They’re strangers. They don’t owe each other the truth - or £90k or whatever the prize pot is - in a game where they signed up to play at lying and deceiving each other.

It’s not lying and deceiving when that’s the terms of the game. They aren’t unfaithful spouses after 40 years of marriage. It’s not a scam of a vulnerable person. They met 3 weeks ago!

It’s literally in the T&Cs of being part of the show! Such a drama queen take to have any moral anguish about the game they all signed up for.

Nothing wrong with working together to best ensure traitor success. In a way I think that’s a more honest take on the game than suddenly being best mates with someone you only met 5 minutes ago.

I suspect Rachel would have stuck with the pact, actually. She’s in a job where her reputation matters.

I was happy with that ending. It was very sweet of Stephen to share the winnings because he must have known he had the casting vote.

I don't think he did it for his reputation because he'd have got more recognition as a sole winner as well as double the prize.

It would have been a nastier ending if he'd written Rachel's name down because you'd have seen her get cast out then Jack be gutted and look an utter chump. It was nicer that they chose to share.

If faraaz and Jack had held it together and implemented Faraaz's plan there was a chance they could have won. But I didn't think Jack deserved to win. I'm not sure Faraaz deserved to win except for being a lovely bloke.

Stephen and Rachel worked for it.

I think the show runners were unlucky this year that the relationships fizzled out without drama and a traitor gave themselves away so quickly that the ST ruse was also short lived. I'd have LOVED it if that had run all the way to the final.

Then why did Stephen share? He should have taken all the money for himself. He could have easily done so.

There are lots of different ways to play a game. Some play to have fun. Some play to win at any cost. For almost all of the players, the only thing they walk away with is the experience. So perhaps the experience is more important than being a morally devoid person.

And just because it’s a game, it doesn’t mean it’s not real. You don’t get to suspend reality and say “well I had to do it for the game”. You don’t have to do it. The end doesn’t always justify the means.

I know, I know. I’m a mad drama queen.

Its not true Stephen held all the cards or "shared" the winnings.

Rachel could have taken the winnings in the round where Faraaz voted for Stephen. At that stage, both traitors had a real opportunity.

Rachel could have voted for Stephen, assuming Faraaz would do the same (as he’d told her he would). With Stephen voting for Faraaz (not Rachel, as promised, and very unlikely Jack) and Jack voting for Rachel, Stephen would have been eliminated.

Equally, Stephen could have taken his chance in that same round by voting for Rachel. He knew Jack was voting for her. If Rachel had voted for either Faraaz or Jack (i.e. anyone but Stephen, as promised) and Jack voted for Rachel, Rachel would have gone out.

In both scenarios, success depended on others voting as they’d indicated. If someone didn’t, it could easily have ended in a tie — and it would have been especially awkward if both traitors had turned on each other!

Rachel did extremely well to reach — and survive — the final. The only real luck she had was being selected in the first place and getting the box with the shield. Everything else was her ability to adapt to events and turn them to her or Stephen's advantage — something Stephen also did well.

I wasn’t her biggest fan at the start — she lacked a fun side — but I really enjoyed the outcome. Both traitors stayed as true to their word as the game allowed, and neither dragged a Faithful to the very end on a lie just to reveal they’d been used.

So true. I disliked him from the start, he made very little effort to contribute, had very little to say until there was no one else to speak for him, had very little personality then put down a woman because she played a better game than him.

It’s fine though because she’s a woman and she’s approaching a certain age. God forbid anyone has commented on his background in a derogatory way?

Stephen played the game well, made friendships and didn’t appear as out for himself. He showed it’s possible to win nicely (if that makes sense!).

Why is being called a Grandma ageist or an insult? Lots of us are proud to be older and a Grandma.

Maybe it’s not Faraaz casting aspersions as much as the people who consider such an innocent comment made in jest to be an insult. Doesn’t reflect well on you really.