3 ms·

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

• lolinder 2y ago
  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.
  • smcin 2y ago
    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.