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 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.