In Rozencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, currently playing at the Old Vic, the two protagonists discuss the contents of a diplomatic letter they are conveying from Denmark to London. Guildenstern says “everything is made clear” in the letter, adding it contains “greetings to the family, expressions of loyalty, asking of favours, calling in of debts, obscure promises balanced by veiled threats”. In other words, diplomacy, he says.

Not everything was as clear with Theresa May’s article 50 letter to Europe on Wednesday, at least judging by the reaction, which alighted squarely on the veiled threats, rather than the many expressions of loyalty.

The messy episode may presage problems in the talks ahead, as the UK government seeks to communicate with two very different audiences; its European negotiators, and parts of the British public and media determined to see a conflict. One senior European diplomat based in the UK said: “My worry is that there are people in London and in Europe who do not want the talks to succeed. They want them to break down quickly”.

Many interpreted the letter as a veiled attempt at blackmail, with the Sun suggesting it was a case of “your money or your lives”. The interpretation was prompted by successive passages in the letter referring to security, including one saying: “In security terms a failure to reach agreement would mean our co-operation in the fight against crime and terrorism would be weakened”.

Don't blackmail us over security, EU warns May Read more

With politicians and the press running with this angle within minutes of the letter being published, and denunciatory quotes soon ricocheting between London and Brussels, Amber Rudd, the home secretary was despatched to douse the fire, but instead poured petrol on it by saying the UK could indeed withhold intelligence from the EU.

In what are likely to be very open negotiations, there will be other similar storms in the future, and Downing Street will need to be quicker on its feet. At the very least it appears no one in Downing Street proofread the closely guarded letter through the prism of myriad possible media interpretations. Or alternatively, they did, and saw no harm in sending the veiled threat.

Even so, some European diplomats based in London on Thursday admitted to being surprised that the letter had been interpreted so aggressively. One diplomat said: “Overall, we saw the letter as quite constructive, and warm about Europe. If the UK was to end security cooperation, they know would only be pointing a gun at its own head. We do not think Britain wants to do that.”

Another said: “I started reading this interpretation breaking out on Twitter in the afternoon, and we went back and reread the letter many times. But we read it as an attempt to say this would be the consequences of o deal, and that the British wanted a deal. That was the significance of the letter for us – the extent to which the British wanted a deal. It is noticeable how different the British and continental press have looked at this. The predominant tone in our newspapers is one of sadness.”

One experienced ambassador bemoaned the way in which the UK sees the whole negotiation as a poker game rather than as a shared enterprise. He added that his worry had been the extent to which May had focused on her backbenchers, and not on Europe. “The article 50 letter was her last chance to bring expectations and rhetoric in UK in line with expectations and rhetoric in Europe,” he said.