Lestappen, a destiny that never disappoints us - part two. United by fate but diveded by narrative: one heading toward the altar, the other toward the exit.
Topics: engagement arcs, decoupling arcs, co-parenting strategies, brand tone management, reframing and narrative control, understanding Brasil in-laws operation
⸻
One of the main topics these past days has been trying to understand, in practical terms, the differences between an engagement arc and a decoupling arc, aka what in MY OPINION - not the Bible brought Perceval to the altar and was leading Blondie to the door.
Below you’ll find a simple check-up list that helps visualize how each behaves in real time — and under each point, you’ll see small notes showing how the pattern played or is playing out for each storyline.
Two necessary notes before we begin
#1 A factor worth considering — and here I’ll use the “was leading” tense when referring to Blondie — is that the Rainbow Incident was no small event. It has the potential to reshuffle the entire deck, and there’s no way around it: its consequences are something that will have to be addressed. We’ll look at it separately, because what I’d really like to do (and hopefully I can set it up today) is create a small Rainbow PR Lab, a brainstorming exercise on how a situation like that could be managed or repaired with our own ideas.💡 I’ve been thinking about it for five days straight, purely as a personal exercise — and it’s genuinely hard to predict what happens next. But with this checklist, at least, you can get a clear glimpse into where we stand now - Rainbow excluded.
#2 Compared to a standard breakup narrative, a co-parenting decoupling rarely seeks erasure. Because the bond cannot fully disappear, it usually leans toward neutralization (turning noise into silence) and reframing (turning proximity into purpose). A perfect example of this dynamic has been visible this past week, with the in-laws episode — a textbook case of reframing family proximity into narrative calm. We’ll see it at the end of this post with a short analysis.
⸻
CHECK-UP LIST — PERCEVAL’S ENGAGEMENT ARC vs BLONDIE’S DECOUPLING ARC WITH CO-PARENTING
1. Visual Presence
Perceval → the presence of Alex has become increasingly constant across almost every public setting — from GPs to sponsor events, from family appearances to the Factory Visit and the calm official photos.
Blondie → appearances are becoming increasingly rare; the last major one being Monza, with unilateral😵💫 crossover moments and reinforcing content. Independent brand events, single-focus shots, and even recycled older images.
2. Linguistic Tone
Perceval → interviews mentioning “our journey,” “we grew a lot together,” and “blah blah blah ”😑
Blondie → the speech has turned singular — “I,” “my,” “this year,” “family.” The shift from “we” to “I” now defines her tone. The names disappeared.
3. Narrative Focus
Perceval → future-oriented: shared growth, new chapters, calm projection. Alex’s Foundation
Blondie → present-focused: work, career, family. The emotional storyline has stopped moving.
4. Family & Inner Circle
Perceval → the circle expands: parents, siblings, and in-laws appearing more frequently, from subtle inclusions to explicit blessings.
Blondie → family content remains, but under a neutral key.
5. Brand & Sponsorship Tone
Perceval → integrated visibility: joint campaigns, mirrored aesthetics, unified tone.
Blondie → fragmentation: brands separated, timing misaligned, messages disconnected.
6. Media & Paparazzi Strategy
Perceval → clean sets, pre-approved visuals, warm lighting, and calm coordination. Think of the famous jewelry-window photo — it’s all in that.
Blondie → opportunistic releases, random angles, “rebalancing” tone through forced headlines.
A reactive rather than proactive cycle, each outlet trying to create a story where the material doesn’t provide one.
Outlets like Privé have resorted to old, low-energy sets to fill space — no coherence, no joint management.
Those shots — especially the solo ones with the child — weren’t flattering; they lacked any visible intimacy and, in fact, carried tension.
The Saint-Tropez photos are a perfect example: reused across outlets, each pushing its own spin without coordination or care (the text was the more telling) , clearly filling a narrative vacuum.
7. Social Media Behaviour
Perceval → classic soft-launch rhythm evolving into public recognition — parallel stories, matching tones, subtle acknowledgments.
Blondie → minimal interactions, mostly universal validations (like).
Ring narratives disappear — but familial validation remains permanent, as total detachment would contradict the co-parenting dynamic.
In this case, the symmetry between both parties is evident.
8. Emotional Energy
Perceval → steady, high-control serenity. Everything feels polished, calm, precise.
Blondie → muted tone, visible fatigue, heavy emotional containment — a constant layer of damage control.
⸻
Note, Reframing in Action, “the in-laws”
The connection doesn’t vanish — it’s rewritten. The link remains visible, but the meaning has changed.
The relationship isn’t deleted — in the case of miniBlondie family, because as we said several times it’s impossible, so it’s reframed. This is the essence of Blondie’s In-Laws Operation — the proximity stays, but the narrative has shifted into something else: motorsport kinship, heritage, and institutional harmony.
For Senior, instead of “father-in-law,” we read “shared motorsport heritage.” Instead of “private family day,” we see “Federation hospitality.”
Junior, instead, is an even softer case of reframing. His inclusion doesn’t need to be redefined that much, because it is a bond that was already existing before MG and it was already framed in a non-familial, social context since ages. He now simply shifts back from “family link” to “colleague and friend,” a more neutral orbit.
This is precisely how neutralization works. The narrative becomes compatible with the Blondie-coded storyline — the “career-first, motorsport legacy” angle that suits his brand and public voice.
That’s exactly what we is reframing success: proximity without sentiment, visibility without many implications. Bravo Blondie.
⸻
LESTAPPEN ASK COLLECTION PART TWO
ASK1 — FROM ANON
“Words to mainstream press always mean the real intentions. // Hey Liv! 👋🏻If it’s not too much trouble, could you give us a brief analysis of each of their responses to the press and their intentions?”
ASK2 — FROM CHERRY ANON
“I didn’t expect the Chalex engagement, they always seemed more lowkey… OMG! Yes, please! I’d love to read that. Thank you so much, Liv!”🍒
ASK3 — FROM ANON
“Exit door // Yeah, it’s like they’re in parallel worlds right now.👀”
ASK4 — FROM ANON
“I don’t know if I fully believe yet that Max is actively planning his exit, but if anything, I think this highlights how much he doesn’t look like someone who is happy and excited about his relationship. He goes through the motions of saying the right things when asked, but neither of them seem truly happy around the other. People might say that Max just likes to be more private, but neither of them even looks as happy as they did even three years ago.”
ASK5 — FROM ANON
“This is quite funny because it’s true. The same can never be said of MG. The ring first is synonymous with genuinely wanting something to prosper, and that’s where the difference lies. Therefore, a ring now that they already have a baby won’t be a surprise… it’s pressure or obligation. ☠️ Desperate measures won’t surprise anyone anymore.”
ASK6 — FROM FOOTPRINT ANON
“That’s the level we’re at, just so we know. // Is MG losing his mind? Well, with what he’s done, it certainly seems so. I wish I could be a fly everywhere he goes and know everything. No, but seriously, is he going crazy?” 👣 Anon
Liv 💫
This is a saga, not a statement.