That preserves the figure documented by French reporting and explains why a different number appears online.
It also avoids suggesting that the family won an American-style $58 million jackpot.
Does Nobody Know Who They Are?
The phrase is rhetorically powerful but difficult to interpret literally.
The lottery operator obviously had to verify the winning ticket and the identities of the people claiming the prize. Lawyers, financial advisers or other professionals may also have known.
Some relatives or residents might have privately suspected or known who the winners were.
What reporting consistently establishes is that their identities were not publicly disclosed. The mayor said the family wanted peace and the ability to continue living normally.
The community honored that wish. News reports described them simply as a couple, a family with children or local residents.
Therefore, “nobody knows who” should be understood to mean that their identities remain unknown to the general public—not that no human being anywhere knows their names.
Why the Anonymity Matters
Large charitable gifts are often accompanied by naming rights, ceremonies, plaques or public-relations campaigns.
The Saint-Michel family chose a different model.
Their contributions became highly visible, but they did not.
Children could see banners thanking the anonymous benefactors. Parents knew someone had paid the canteen budget. Municipal officials publicly acknowledged the gifts. Yet the donors did not place their names on the program.
That anonymity changed the moral emphasis of the story.
Attention remained on what the money accomplished: fewer financial pressures on families, better meals, support for elderly residents and investment in community facilities.
It also helped protect the family from unwanted requests, public scrutiny and the profound social disruption that can follow a major lottery win.
Remaining anonymous for nearly two decades while giving repeatedly required more than a spontaneous act of generosity. It required discipline and a clear decision about how the wealth would be used.
A Gift Worth More Than Its Face Value
The meal program was valuable not only because of the total number of euros donated.
School-meal costs arrive repeatedly. For a family with several children, even a modest daily charge becomes a meaningful annual expense.
Eliminating that bill gave parents a predictable financial benefit. Unlike a one-time gift, it returned every school day.
The universal nature of the program was also significant. Every child using the canteen benefited, reducing the possibility that recipients would be stigmatized as poor or dependent on charity.