Are we 100% in agreement that Queen Victoria's donation in 1848 was inadequate to prevent 1 million people from starving to death, and that Britain had direct responsibility for the gross inequality in land ownership that constituted Ireland in the 1840s, whereas the Ottoman Sultans, or Calcutta (or the Choctaw Nation) had zero responsibility?
I mean we could look at British spending (govt and crown) in the period 1845-52. Or note that Queen Victoria was one of the wealthiest women in the world, and Parliament granted her an annuity of £385,000 per year.
Yes, but the notion that a donation 10x larger was declined for optics is so fundamentally different from those claims I can’t even believe that there is any confusion here about how ridiculous including that is.
Why isn't "How did Queen Victoria spend her yearly £385,000 in 1845, and 1846, and 1847, and 1848" infinitely more relevant to deciding whether her documented lack of meaningful intervention should be considered embarrassing or not? I don't accept your framing at all.
No one is questioning that all of this is relevant to the famine. All we're saying is that this specific story quoted by OP is most likely fictitious, so we're better off focusing on all of the other evidence and facts (such as the facts that you're bringing up).
I honestly have no clue what you're trying to argue here: No one is actually arguing with any of your points, nor did either of us give any indication that we would disagree with them in comments before you came. What you're bringing up is essentially a non-sequitur to what this subthread is actually about.
Conversely, I'm saying that disputing the anecdote about allegedly pressuring the Sultan to reduce his donation is an unnecessary sidebar to reaching the inescapable conclusion that the Crown's response was embarrassing and dwarfed by other donations (e.g. Calcutta).
(We have multiple threads on this, if you want to respond let's pick one to make primary.)
The sidebar is necessary because it’s an unsubstantiated claim that dilutes the actual discussion.
It’s like slipping in an anecdote that she also ate children for breakfast. It’s right to call out incorrect stuff added even if it’s “supporting” the larger argument.
I mean we could look at British spending (govt and crown) in the period 1845-52. Or note that Queen Victoria was one of the wealthiest women in the world, and Parliament granted her an annuity of £385,000 per year.