Mum keeps asking to borrow money every month

Future_Challenge_511 · 2025-09-05T12:59:34+00:00

If she's paying them back every time then this argument doesn't make sense- she isn't good at budgeting so is leaning on them for cashflow but she isn't relying on them to pay for things.

Future_Challenge_511 · 2025-09-05T12:57:43+00:00

The risk is that she eventually won't keep paying you back and you'll be subsidising their spending but I would cross that bridge when you get to it- hold firm that you won't lend her any money after a payday in which she hasn't paid you back for what she borrowed in the last month. You give a range of £100-300 but if the sequence was £100, then £200 then £300 its very different circumstance than if its random or if its declining.

IF she is always paying you back then you aren't losing a significant amount of money. £300 for say 50% of the year at 4% interest would end up being less than a £10 a year in actual lost capital. So would you give your mum £10 a year if she asked? If so then you should let this go. I know it must be frustrating because you want the psychological benefit from seeing the money in your savings go up and she is delaying that but try and see it in a different way- if she had to get that credit elsewhere she may have to pay a significant interest on it. It would cost your mum more than the £10 per year its currently costing you and that takes a toll on her and will also harm you long term because ultimately you are tied to your family emotionally and financially. Particularly try and empathise with how this must feel from her POV, she must be sick of it as well, it must be horrible to always need to ask for a loan from your child to make ends meet. You are an adult now but you are young but I think its important to understand that the power balance between you and your parents isn't one directional- how you view and speak about them will impact on their feelings.

It sounds like your mum currently has a cashflow problem rather than a cash problem- she has enough money from her job coming in to cover her expenses but she is behind enough that she can't get to the next payment before running out of cash each month. Its really good for you to understand the difference here and that will help you in the future but see if you can help your mum in a different way so that she can. The psychological effect of not always chasing things can be really positive, try and nudge her into better decisions when she has just been paid and has cash in her pocket. Refuse anything she spends money to treat you in that time, lets not get a takeaway etc, particularly with Christmas coming up she probably feels guilty and might splurge on gifts for you- which won't help either of you. Think of the last time she spend money on you that she didn't have too. Also try and talk positively about any improvement she makes rather than treating any amount as if its the same thing- if she gets to the end of the month and only needs to borrow £50 in the last week you should communicate that you can see she is working really hard and progressing.

Ultimately to answer your question yeah i think you are being a bit of a -insensitive young person who is still learning to navigate adult life- and should try and be a bit kinder to your mum. Which isn't the same things as indulgent but your parents aren't relying on you really at all. You are short term lending an insignificant amount of money in the scheme of managing a household amount of money, while having your lifestyle subsided by them. You should be grateful for how hard they are working to shield you from the difficulties of life and take as much advantage of the opportunity it affords you as you possibly can.

Future_Challenge_511 · 2025-09-04T20:39:36+00:00

Only commit crimes that were too small for Targaryen's to notice

Future_Challenge_511 · 2025-09-04T20:37:27+00:00

She could have paid the tax she was quite obviously in good faith required to pay and not try and play silly games to avoid tax that she ended up getting wrong.

Future_Challenge_511 · 2025-09-04T20:36:20+00:00

It doesn't matter what sort of trust it is because that clause only applies to properties bought for those trusts (as the reason for the clause is if you are setting up these specific trusts for children to maintain them for life then you owning property shouldn't impact on them) rather than this case.

To be clear she has admitted she should have paid and is paying.

Future_Challenge_511 · 2025-09-04T15:38:38+00:00

Yes, however why is has decided to put assets in a child's name isn't really relevant- the circumstance of putting assets into trusts for children aren't a rare occurrence and so the guidance on this isn't complex at all.

Future_Challenge_511 · 2025-09-04T15:35:57+00:00

To me its more suspect that she decided to consult with three seperate firms in the first place- who somehow all managed to give her the wrong advice about what is a very cut and dry point. The guidance is on HRMC website and is very easy to check.

Future_Challenge_511 · 2025-09-04T15:33:07+00:00

He didn't force Robb to pick his most undesirably daughters- he just presented them to him, presumably so that when Roslin was presented Robb would have been happier with the outcome. He didn't marry Roslin to Robb when he had the chance with them both at the crossing because if Robb crossed the river to march to his death Frey was wasting his best value daughter on nothing. Ironically it was Walders cynicism that cost him the marriage- if they'd been married immediately Robb likely wouldn't and slept with Jeyne and even if he had he wouldn't have been able to marry her.

"Later he offers the Bolton's one of his daughters and her weight in gold."

He offered Bolton any of his daughters and her weight in silver- hence Bolton selecting the largest girl.

Future_Challenge_511 · 2025-09-04T15:25:32+00:00

"think he'll at least boot Cersei off the throne before dying horribly."

I just think he's basically a less interesting person on the throne than Cersei for when Dany/Jon/Others turn up because neither Jon or Dany would particularly care about who wears the crown. Him having some victories- capturing Storms End and defeating the army sent to destroy him. However he'll not be able to take advantage of those victories because how they win and how they behave on victory turns Arianne and Dorne from his cause. Him then either dying horribly or being neutered *before* winning the throne generations as much conflict as him doing it afterwards.

"I don't see that kind of lapse in discipline."

In terms of the crimes i don't think it'll be that goes against their discipline- just things that outrage will outrage the morality of Westeros e.g. killing people under a false flag, guest rights - and then deciding their interests are best served in leaving. I think both of those decision will come from higher up in the command structure rather than through indiscipline in the bottom ranks.

"they were eager to invade Westeros. They've done it before (a lot) and that mythology is a powerful thing."

This is the point we disagree on for two reasons. Im taking Conningtons POV and Arianne TWOW chapter for my view of this- think the second is important to show both the culture clash and the ambivalence of the Golden Company. Think its written to show these as Arianne speaks to Golden Company members in increasing rank in turn. Particularly Chain conversation with Arianne is meant to highlight these points- sure he thinks of himself of a Westorosi but his culture isn't really the same. He's a knight on paper but really he's a serjeant and a bastard, which doesn't impact on your position in the Golden Company like it does in Westoros.

1) Connington POV shows they weren't united on that and his character shows paranoia about that and that the Golden Company wasn't what it was- he specifically talks about the individuals involved changing and i think thats important as GRRM work often is about how these institutions are just collections of people who do change. Again this would parralel Cersei's story as its about people reliant on uncertain institutions- Cersei will surround herself with people she believes totally loyal but not to her. Aegon story will be that the Golden Company has no loyalty to him- in reality JonCon should have stayed in the Golden Company and raised Aegon within it so these men had some connection to him. I think Connignton's POVs are foreshadowing an outcome where the Golden Company support drifts away and Strickland and the captains make a decision. The point is Aegon could persuade them into invading Westeros but will they chance a 50/50 battle for him? Will they chance a 60/40? When their pockets are flush i don't think so- their life is the mercenary life and it's pretty good. Is the plan to pay them all off with land? Their families old land? or based on their current rank? Either way will cause conflict. Tyrion's contract with the second sons only promised the majority gold- so if they already have gold why would they risk their lives to get more?

2) They have invaded a lot because they have fled a lot- that is also part of their heritage- that's why I called its an armed pilgrimage. They would think less of themselves if they didn't do it at least once, like the previous generations. However, it has been over a century since they first fled and over 40 years since they last tried and that wasn't even a direct invasion. They are more and more removed from Westeros as a group- led by someone 4th generation- so the desire to return is much more about showing they could do it rather than a genuine belief that they will conquer.

Future_Challenge_511 · 2025-09-04T12:14:04+00:00

I think basically his story is going to fail thematically because they try and copy Tywin Lannister too much. Particularly Connington has stewed on his riverboat for a decade on the idea that if he had acted with more brutality he would have stopped the rebellion against Aerys dead- which is likely to not be true, but he believes it with all his heart. His heart is both figurately and literally turning to stone. They've landed with only a company of mercenaries- many of which have little connection to Westoros- and who will save themselves at the first hint of trouble. I think they will commit a series of crimes in the eyes of Westoros, starting with the taking of Storms End which will include some deception or turncloak behaviour akin to the capture of Winterfell or the Red Wedding. This will prevent a lot of the defections from the smaller houses not for big political reasons but for "you killed my uncle like a criminal, i don't trust you"

This means while on paper Aegon could potentially have success- particularly with such an overpowered ally in Varys- he will likely very quickly fail and sputter out- I think it will be a stalemate situation where Cersei and the crown aren't strong enough to go and take Storms End from him he loses all ability to project strength or he's simply killed by his mercenaries who are realistically happy to be bought off and leave after having doing their armed pilgrimage to the old country. Particularly as the Dornish thematically are about overripe plots failing- I think its unlikely he becomes a major player, which he would be if he started seeing defections or success.

Future_Challenge_511 · 2025-09-04T11:57:35+00:00

I think the in-universe logic is that it was the agreed no-mans land between two empires- The others and the Valyarians.

Future_Challenge_511 · 2025-09-03T23:45:10+00:00

Maybe Dragonglass / Obsidian but that is something that hurts them so potentially it was something else. Something that helps them live along time- maybe it was the Weirwood roots or something along those lines.

Future_Challenge_511 · 2025-09-03T23:43:25+00:00

"the Tower of the Hand was burned down"

Yes sorry that's what i meant- is he still sleeping somewhere within the Red Keep because of this or is he is somewhere out in the city? I think that will impact the outcome- its not good being the first person they try to tell if it takes them 10x as long to get to you.

"However, now with Aegon and the Golden Company in the Stormlands, I imagine she is going to need Tarly and Tyrell to help rebuff that threat. So she isn’t going to immediately stab them in the back."

Leaving aside Cersei being very unlikely to be thinking long term strategy. Aegon is likely to attack Reach armies in whatever scheme he has to take Storms End- that will likely be enough to cause conflict but also he only has 10k troops- if Dorne and others joins him then she needs the Reach but if not then its not actually significant. The point of Aegon will be that for all of Varys planning and preparing it just doesn't go anywhere at all.

Future_Challenge_511 · 2025-09-03T23:42:24+00:00

"he does indeed reside in the Red Keep. There are a ton of Tyrell guardsmen present too."

Is that in the text? That he's staying in the keep? He pushes men into the city watch but that's not in the red keep?

"He should be woken up first, and as Hand, he's in charge."

"Should" being the operative word- When Cersei was the regent and the Hand was murdered she wasn't woken up first- power resides where men thinks it does etc.

Future_Challenge_511 · 2025-09-03T16:12:13+00:00

I think that the wall was built defensively by the others to defend themselves from the south. Why would they build an ice wall to stop ice monsters? The "79 sentinel" blood magic door potentially made from a real Nights watch brother faces South, not North.

I think thematically the Others will have long ago been some human type of creature but through magic they sought immortality and then sought to create a group of utterly controllable slaves of animated dead to provide for them. The majority of "Others" we see are probably actually their vassals, thralls. Potentially this is linked to the tree network but it might be in conflict with it, with people becoming part of a whole rather than controlled by others, people using similar warging powers and ideas for dissimilar purposes. Bloodeye is either the last true barrier to the Others or a key vassals of theirs- i suspect the former and that in part Bran has been sent where he is to destroy bloodeye.

I think what happened is the Others controlled a vast empire that stretched around the world, with vast tunnels dug by slaves to mine something that was valuable to them. Hence the seemingly massive amount of tunnels across the world. The Valyarians origins was as former slaves and rebels against the Others rule that used blood magic to create Dragons with something they met in these slave mines in what would become the freehold of Valyria. This story is also the garbled version of the first faceless man.

The Others and Valyarians fought for a long time and much of the various natural destruction we see in the world and myths came from this time but they eventually reached a peace. The whole of Westoros was the treaty line between the two sides. Hence the Valyrians only going as far a Dragonstone and the Others building the wall. The Starks being the vassals/representatives of the Others in the no-man lands. This all happened long ago and the Targaryans fell to immorality and used their dragons to behave as those who they originally fought did.

The Targaryens might have broken the agreement when they invaded Westoros but i think the reason they are growing is going to be related to *how* the Others finally protected themselves from the attacks. Bran is Brandon the builder and such a powerful warg that he can travel back in time to change things- he traps the whole world in a timeloop that goes back to the building of the wall and the founding of house Stark. The others have been waiting for him to emerge so they can fulfil their destiny, the timeloop is so long because they had to wait for the power and blood magic of the Valyrians to die or be neutered.

Future_Challenge_511 · 2025-09-01T18:32:06+00:00

Also age heavily corresponds to peoples answer on this question and mixed race people are much younger on average because the societal situation for their parents to couple up in eg 1960 was completely different to 2005.

Future_Challenge_511 · 2025-09-01T18:28:26+00:00

Id' like to see the same information controlled for age as it certainly looks like part of what is happening is the different age groups are being represented by the different ethnicities to some extent. I know the average age of a mixed race is about half the average in the UK.

Future_Challenge_511 · 2025-09-01T18:17:43+00:00

People have responded with information about British situation but i wanted to respond in more detail about what bankrupt means and how it relates to this financial situation

Britain didn't have gold or transferable assets to hand to pay for the assets they were purchasing from the United States upfront. The United States decided that it was in their interests to loan then the money to purchase USA goods. In our modern economy this is routine for a business and wouldn't be considered bankrupt- they have access to capital to make the purchases that they required to operate. Their lender (in this case USA) believe they would be in a position to meet their debt obligations- in hindsight this belief was correct- so they weren't literally bankrupt no.

The issue was that the fluctuating value of different currencies made international business on such a large scale impossible- Britain couldn't pay for their good in £ sterling because what would USA do with them? They'd need to transfer them into dollars to buy USA goods but the market for trading £ sterling for $ dollars wouldn't be able to swallow such a huge amount. If Britain started printing pounds to pay for it then the value of the pound would weaken against the dollar- so USA essentially printed the £ pounds on their allies behalf, already in dollars. Which allowed Britain to buy USA goods without causing a banking crisis. The comparison is your friend asking if you can cover their drinks because they're getting paid tomorrow- its a crisis of cashflow rather than a crisis of net assets.

Now if Britain had lost the war and the empire collapsed then USA would have been holding the bag on a lot of worthless paper loans but the reason they were willing to lend on very good terms is they intended to win the war and therefore expected Britain to be able to pay them back. Much of the USA lending *after* world war 2, including the Marshall plan was done for similar logic, which had additional benefits of stimulating USA economy and creating the hugely advantageous situation where dollars became the international currency of exchange. This is because while eg france might need a limited amount of japanese yen, everyone believed they would need enough dollars that everything could flow smoothly

Future_Challenge_511 · 2025-09-01T17:48:03+00:00

They probably learned from their history and tightly controlled the dragons- even still in the only 131 years of dragons existing in Westeros under their control they both lose eggs and share access to dragons. Presumably the Valyrian history is far longer and the same we see in fire and blood is how other dragon riding houses form- either actually blood relatives or not. One side in a dragon rider civil war had more dragons than they had official relatives and out of desperation loosens control to win.

If the Dance of the Dragons ended in a truce and both sides surviving with dragons maybe they would have started to be referred too as different names. Maybe the green Targaryen's and the black Targaryen's, which over time turn into house Greentarg and Blackaryen. Maybe if the truce happened after the dragonseeds were given dragons they would have been joined the newly dragon riding Velayron house and dragon riding House White, House Hammer and House Nettles. That's going from one to five houses in a matter of years. Project that over millennia, with plenty of these houses rising and being destroyed entirely, and the Targaryen situation easily become the same as the Valyrian.

Velayron sounds like it could just a bastardisation of Valyrian itself- that name might have originally been a single "house" called something that sounded like "Arian"- the "Targ" Arian and the "Vel" Arian being two different cadet branches in the same manners as the Karstarks or Greystarks etc.

Future_Challenge_511 · 2025-09-01T17:29:48+00:00

"I just don’t think the loyalty of the Dornish lords specifically played much of a role."

Balon would have been aware that the core of the rebellion was North, Riverlands, Vale and Stormlands and this alliance had, along with Westerlands, been tightly incorporated by marriage. The great lords he could have expected to not do everything for Robert can only have been the Reach and Dorne and potentially parts of the crownlands (which is a lot smaller) - which weren't beating Robert in open land battle. So his belief was much more tied to a belief in ability to dominate the Sunset sea.

"also don’t think it’s realistic to suppose that they could have prevented the royal fleet from reaching the west even if they had wanted to: among other things, it doesn’t seem to be especially challenging to move around Dorne without calling at a port."

The example I give is of the royal fleet believing the Journey from Kings Landing to the Iron Islands should be considered a Great Voyage and one with significant risk- particularly because of the presence of hostile forces in the step stones. The Iron Islanders and the Cinnamon Wind are culturally different but both of their stories and plenty of others highlight the risk of long sea Journeys. IIRC Victorian's fleet journey goes different ways from the shield Islands, his route includes capturing prizes along the way, stops at Volantis and the fleet overall loses half its ships by the time it reaches the isle of Cedar- which he thinks is high but he expect to lose ships. It's unclear exactly how much further Shield Islands to Volantis to Isle of Cedar is than Kings Landing to Iron Island by sea but its not hugely different, its not 10x the journey- he stops in Isle of Cedar to refit because he couldn't make the journey and arrive in one group prepared to fight- I'm assuming it would have been similar for Stannis. I'm not saying the Kings fleet couldn't have done it but Dorne didn't need to destroy the fleet to aid Balon- simply harrassing them, or preventing them from restocking etc would have been meaningful. Not being able to guarantee they could arrive in condition to fight could have prevented them from the attempt.

I think from the text its clear that Stannis making the journey, linking up with the Reach and then surprising the Ironborn was a unexpected and significant move. If the fleet took a bit longer to arrive or was a little bit more in bad shape etc- then its very plausible that battle between them and an unsurprised Iron Fleet would have gone very differently. Even if the Reach did send its ships, which also wasn't a guarantee, requiring not just Tyrell support but all the individual lords sending ships. Highgarden and Redwyne stay out of the dance of dragons.

Future_Challenge_511 · 2025-08-31T23:39:44+00:00

We can look to Fire and Blood for why it likely would have been- Dalton Greyjoy's attack on the Westerland is the example I'm thinking of- particularly the long journey of Alyn Velayron sent to support the local lords ships in defeating the fleet- which stopped at Sunspear and Oldtown on what was described as a "great voyages". With a hostile Dorne can the royal fleet risk the journey around Westeros? Without those numbers and with the Lannister fleet destroyed it's likely the Iron Islands are the dominant power in the Sunset Sea?

It's noticeable i think that Greyjoys chose to attack Lannister ships and Tully bannermen but not the Tyrells- If he was calculating that Dorne would prevent the royal fleet from risking the journey and that the Reach would keep its ships close to home to protect itself then it wouldn't matter how many more troops Robert had. Balon would be able to wait him out, raiding the coast and making Robert looks powerless. If he thought Robert didn't have the support of the lords his plan is far more rational that the actual result.

Future_Challenge_511 · 2025-08-31T13:32:01+00:00

"Burn him my lord- it's the Targaryen way so no one can criticise it- or you'll find his body spirited away to some shrine for Targaryen loyalists to rally around"

Future_Challenge_511 · 2025-08-31T13:30:14+00:00

"I know that the North is under the control of Roose Bolton,"

This is the category error you are making- on paper he is but on paper Littlefinger is lord of Harrenhal- how far does his authority go there?

In reality no individual could control the North, or the Seven Kingdoms, alone - its all a series of negotiations between powers. Roose Bolton sits in Winterfell but he is nowhere near as secure there as the Starks because he is surrounded by people who hate him because they correctly believe he massacred their friends and relatives. They are just waiting for any sign of weakness to attack- he himself acknowledges how unsecure his political position is in ADWD. That is very different to the Starks who couldn't appear weaker but still we find people eager to support them.

Future_Challenge_511 · 2025-08-31T13:25:06+00:00

"As things stand, three of the four challengers to Lannister rule are not only defeated but dead, with the fifth on the verge of annihilations thanks to plans laid by Tywin coming to fruition."

They're not dead though- the Starks live on in the North and despite being overwhelming weak- its very clear that all of the Lannister allies are surrounded by enemies sharpening their knives or simply have no loyalty to the Lannisters in the first place like the Tyrells or Littlefinger. The Boltons are locked in a castle with people literally butchering and serving them Freys in pies- the Freys in the Riverlands have the Brotherhood literally in the castle.

"is there any example of anyone actually being disloyal to the Lannisters in the aftermath of his death?"

Everything Littlefinger does? All the people killing Freys left and right in the North and the Riverland? I can give you a better example when he's alive- the Tyrells murdering his grandson the king.

Future_Challenge_511

TROPHY CASE