Learns the hard way that friendship is transitory in a world ruled by Mammon3. When George's sisters turn their backs on her to spend time with Miss Swartz, George tries to console her by explaining the simple facts of the “ready-money society”: “they would have loved you if you had had two hundred thousand pounds. . . [t]his is the way they were raised” (204). So, when her father faces financial problems, Amelia discovers her own toll. Mr. Osborne tells his son that unless he sees "Amelia's ten thousand less," George will not marry her, because he will have "no lame duck daughter" in his family (134). This, despite the fact that it was “the lame duck”, Mr Sedley, who helped Mr Osborne make his fortune in the first place (134). However, friendship, like many other things, is transitory in Vanity Fair. Less explicit than the sum mentioned above, is the allusion to Amelia's impending doom, by the "chronometer which was surmounted by a cheerful brass group of the sacrifice of Iphigenia", and which summons the Osbornes to dinner (129). It refers to the Greek story of Agamemnon sacrificing his daughter Iphigenia for good winds, but it is also an apt description of how Mr. Osborne “sacrifices” his future daughter-in-law for money and status. When Mr. Osborne discovers that Amelia's father is indeed bankrupt, he repudiates her and calls off the engagement. She is no longer of any use to him, as she can no longer bring the money and status necessary to become his daughter-in-law. He, therefore, "sacrifices" her for the heiress Miss Swartz. Mr. Osborne breaks the engagement between Amelia and George, because he wants to create a better marriage for his son, which will bring economic and social capital, which in turn will profit his vanity. So, when George defies his father and secretly marries Amelia, his father