The 1,000 Pound claim at least can be sourced from this website.
It very much was policy that killed the Irish and not the lack of food. Ireland exported enough food to feed the country four times over -- during the Famine.
This source notably does not make the claim that the amount was lowered in response to a request from Queen Victoria, which is the actually damning claim.
You seriously don't think that Calcutta donating more (£14,000) in 1846 and two years earlier than Queen Victoria (1848) isn't a damning fact? (and the Calcutta donation is a verified fact. So no need to dispute the anecdote about the Sultan's donation.)
As I mentioned in my response to your other comment, the controversial part of the anecdote is the claim that Victoria actually intercepted sent aid and convinced someone through diplomatic pressure to lower their intended donation.
OP does not bring up any additional donations besides the purported attempted donation from the sultan, so I'm not sure why you're bringing that up as some kind of controversial thing: You're literally the first person to mention it here.
As I've said in my other comments, there's plenty of evidence that the British government both did far less than they should have to help with the famine and there's also evidence that they willfully exacerbated it. I fully accept and appreciate that. I have no clue why you're waving that evidence at me as some kind of gotcha when the only thing I'm disputing is this single specific story.
I specifically brought up the other donations to show that the Crown's response was inadequate, and the Calcutta donation in 1846 was both earlier and larger, this not only before Queen Victoria had not yet donated but not yet started (in 1847) encouraging Protestant landowners to fundraise in lieu of donating herself...
So under all circumstances her behavior wasn't impressive. Ok? I'm suggesting that disputing the anecdote about allegedly pressuring the Sultan to reduce his donation is an unnecessary sidebar to reaching the same conclusion.
Agreed. So there's no need to perpetuate claims whose provenance is "someone 40 years later claimed to have heard this from the sultan's physician's son" (see my reply to GP). We have plenty else to use.
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.
The 1,000 Pound claim at least can be sourced from this website.
It very much was policy that killed the Irish and not the lack of food. Ireland exported enough food to feed the country four times over -- during the Famine.