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…

Rachel would have had so many more fans if she had fake cried a bit. The world loves an ineffectual woman crier.

Do you think they make more money after the show from appearances etc?

I think they deserved to win. They played a strategic game all the way through. I did think Stephen might waver at the end but, morally, couldn’t shaft Rachel and Jack when it came down to it.. I wonder if they thought about the flack that Harry got for winning traitors when he shafted Molly. I think Rachel would have got the same negative press as she was perceived as ruthless. As a comms specialist, she would know better than most how it would play out if she deceived Stephen. This way it’s a win-win for both of them.

He did from me !!
Didn’t a lot of people dislike him at the time? I seem to remember a lot of people thought he was a snake.

I think she was magnificent.

She can probably watch the job offers roll in after this.

Stephen did share the winnings at the end. Rachel couldn’t rely on Faraaz voting for Stephen the round before. It would have been very risky if she’d voted for Stephen and then been the only one to do that which would have lost all Stephen’s trust.

At the last moment it was all down to Stephen whether he shared the winnings or not. And he did. Who knows whether Rachel would have done the same if it was the other way round, we can’t know that - maybe she would, maybe she wouldn’t.

Ultimately they both deserved the win, so it was a great ending.

Rachel is already being called ruthless in the press today by everyone from the Guardian to the DM.
It's touched a nerve with me because it reminds me of the workplace where middle aged women are called ruthless while middle aged men are capable or dynamic or pro-active.

in this season they showed more discussion about voting patterns, which while not as interesting as the cage theory etc, is really significant information for the faithful. I wonder if this kind of stuff was edited out before to make it feel less like a game and more like a drama.

I really enjoyed this season, I feel like they picked a good cast, not just people looking to get famous after, and the traitors have finally realised they have a huge advantage if they stick together, in a game where being alive in the final five is really the goal. Enjoyed the secret traitor and dagger mechanic too.

What I would like to see in the next season?

I think unconscious bias training would help stop minorities and ND people being targeted early on.

The 'lovers' mechanic where each is a traitor and a faithful respectively and if they finish together they take all the money.

More opportunities like in the last task where traitors can sabotage for their benefit, but at risk of looking scummy.

Absolutely disagree. She has fans because she was consistently composed, competent and in control. If she’d cried, many people would have thought that was fake because it would have been at odds with how she was. The only way her crying would have added to her popularity is if she had cried in private in a confessional.

I think you have misread my post. I love Rachel. But clearly from the many posts here calling her a psychopath/ devious/ hard faced, many are uncomfortable with a competent and cool woman.

The same goes for the press.

I get the feeling we’re not allowed to dislike middle-aged, middle class women on here.

Rachel was very full on in some of her interrogations at the round table with others. It was a bit overkill. ‘What was it like in th turret’ to Ross springs to mind.

And the ‘I caught a traitor, dont you dare take that away from me’ was really ‘dont you dare take that challenge me’. Bit awkward, wouldn’t fancy being sitting at that table.

A lot of people find her very good at playing the game but just not likeable. She said herself she had no alliances im the final.

A lot of the others also weren’t likeable in my opinion. Does anyone ever question poor Fiona and Amanda’s likeability? They were just strong opinionated women, how could anyone not take to them. Justice for them! 😂

I think initially it just came from the expectation that all traitors betray eventually, I think the producers always need to give the suggestion that it might happen, but betrayal would have made no sense for either of them after a certain point. Look at how screwed over Minah was once Charlotte came onboard.

Yes! Assertiveness from a woman is perceived as aggression.

I wonder why Jade went into
a game show of deception and lies given that she’s so fragile and she must have had enough self awareness by that age.
It was unpleasant to watch her reaction at so many round tables when accused especially when she would then do tit for tat. She just came across as petulant and illogical.
All of that plus crying at the RT when the penny dropped about Stephen was watched by millions and I wonder how this all might affect her going forward.

They almost all said they wanted to be traitors at the start, everyone was prepared to lie. That is the game, I really dislike the way Rachel is being portrayed as psychopathic for playing the game

Theres absolutely no reason why Faraz and Jack, who contributed very little throughout, should win over Rachel and Stephen. It's not cold or emotionless to lie to them to win a game, it's like poker -you have to bluff and lie, and you have have guess when people she bluffing and lying, why would you hand them a win by not lying?

Rachel didn't throw anyone under the bus unlike Stephen. She didn't tell them they were her best friend and then vote for them. She didn't bring stephens name up until he did and she stayed faithful to her alleyship which was Stephen.

I think Rachel played a brilliant game. There's always going to be an element of luck but she on multiple occasions had a lot of heat and managed to convince the table she was faithful, which none of the actual faithful managed to do.

She was loud at the round table, she deflected the conversation away from Stephen on multiple occasions. Jessie kept questioning why no one listened to her, it was because Rachel kept steering the conversation

Having people listen to you, believe you and still like you is a skill. Stephen played more of an under the radar make friends game, but Rachel I thought really commanded the whole game from quite early on.

Did you all notice there was no discussion on Uncloaked about Matthew's botched game play? 😀
Also why do all the gay men have taches?

You’re right. And can you imagine how much worse it would have been if she hadn’t had kids and an aging mum to refer to as her reason for wanting to win?

At least she ticked one of the Required Female Traits boxes, even if she was failing for being cool/cold/heartless/ruthless.

Even Mr Scarlet said he couldn’t warm to her, despite me saying she was just like me in work mode (I’ve said on other threads that she and I do the same job).

Of course you can. But to say " Rachel would definitely have thrown Stephen under the bus" when you have no way of knowing that- and she saved him many times- seems weird to me ( I am not saying you have said this but posters have).

I liked Amanda and Harriet. Fiona was unhinged and played a terrible game, so no, I don't rate her.

I actually liked Harriet as well, which seems to be unpopular

Fiona is the neighbour/ work colleague everyone tried to avoid.

Agree Jack didn’t deserve to win. I’d really have liked to have seen more of the earlier banished players. I think Netty would have been interesting. I think Sam would have grown on me. I don’t think Ellie really got going - I’d have liked to have seen more from her.

I think Maz might have done well.
I quite liked Sam too. He was clever.

Didn't Maz identify at least one of the Traitors or did I imagine it?

I cannot see this as a ‘game’. I know it is a gameshow. But the prize for some can change their life so it isn’t a sort of flimsy ‘it doesn’t matter’.
I cannot help but think the production team must interfere sometimes. A word here, a clue there. If it isn’t going quite how they hoped it would. It is a show, and they want it to have maximum impact.
And forget applying if you are not young and fit. Well, you can but don’t expect to get to the end. The missions will mean you won’t be able to.
Some had Rachel and Stephen on their radar but were not listened to by other faithfuls who were by and large hopeless.
An exercise in prejudice influencing thinking.

Yes agree with this.

??? how should they make it go?
Strongly disagree.
I expect if any old ppl had gone to the end they would have made the missions easier.

Yep, many of the interesting characters got voted out first. It’s a shame we didn’t see any of the friendships that we did on S1 and 3.