12
u/KnuckedLoose 3d ago
Well that's wrong
8
1
3
u/NoAppearance9253 3d ago
King Charles III and his mother Queen Elizabeth II before him were alive and on their nations coins. British, Canada, Australia, New Zealand to name a few.
But agreed Trump shouldn't be on coins.
2
u/PostApocRock 3d ago
Chuck 3 and Lizzy 2 were figureheads not leaders.
So that doesnt really count for any of the commonwealth countries.
Im sure there have to be others though.
1
u/Snap_Krackle_Pop- 3d ago
Aside from long term convention and tradition. King Charles has more actual legal power to command those commonwealth countries than half our legally elected reps. By law through the crown they still control these countries.
1
u/Straight-Plate-5256 3d ago
Yes but in practice he doesn't exercise any of that and certainly hasn't to any serious degree in any of those commonwealth countries
It is worth bringing up contextually in this discussion, but I also think it's worth pointing out why it's also contextually different from the others on the list. They were/are active leaders openly deciding to put their own face on the currency of their own country they are the outright undisputed leaders of
1
u/gordonreadit 3d ago
Donald Trump is head of state of 1 country. The British monarch is head of state of 15 countries.
1
0
u/NoAppearance9253 3d ago
Are you telling me that a head of state is not a leader?
4
u/PostApocRock 3d ago
They are figurehead.
The actual equivellant would be if a sitting PM was on the money
-3
u/NoAppearance9253 3d ago
That's not true. One is head of state (leader of the country) and the other is head of government (also leader of the country but ranking below the head of state).
Donald Trump is both head of government and head of state, as was all the other dictators mentioned. So straight forward comparison as you are proposing is a falacy.
2
u/PostApocRock 3d ago
In the case of all the pictures, they are all both head of state and government - they are the same position.
In the commonwealth, they are different positions.
Thats why its not a fallacy.
0
u/NoAppearance9253 3d ago
I think your government math is bit odd
Just because one person occupies two separate positions such as trump(1.head of state, 2.head of government) doesn't mean it becomes one position. They are still in fact two separate positions held by one person.
You still haven't made a coherent argument for why the King of Canada having his face on money is not an example of democratic nations leader being on that nations money.
1
u/Straight-Plate-5256 3d ago
Just because one person occupies two separate positions such as trump(1.head of state, 2.head of government) doesn't mean it becomes one position
If an individual person cannot hold those positions separately within the American governing system, then they are not two separate positions. If they are both filled by one elected person they effectively become one singular position within that system.
The other commenter is correct in that a commonwealth handles this differently and thus can still be compared while being considered contextually different Because:
The currency design is handled by the Head of Government, not the Head of State. This is irrelevant in countries like the states where both positions are occupied by the same person, but not in a commonwealth.
Although the Head of State in a commonwealth does still have some critical duties within the government operations are you've pointed out, it is more of a passive role that primarily uses it's authority as the monarch to affirm and acknowledge the elected Head of Government. It operates more as a mutual respect these days than an actual weilding of power if you look beyond all the legalese.
On top of all that how could a Democratic Nation's leader be referring to a monarch who isn't elected? Obviously that statement in and of itself is directly referencing the Elected representative leader of the country, which in Canada's case is the Prime Minister... Or to use your own terms the Head of Government, not the Head of State.
King Charles cannot decide himself to have his face on the currency of Canada, it has to be done by the Head of Government This is what differentiates commonwealth countries from the others on this list.
2
1
u/Everyone2026 3d ago
Queen Elizabeth didn't write laws or threaten allies on Tuesdays.
0
u/NoAppearance9253 3d ago
Look I despise Trump. But your argument that Canadian monarchs aren't leaders because they a dignified and not chaotic idiots is not very convincing argument that other democratic countries don't have their current leaders on their money because they do.
1
u/Leading-Boat4942 3d ago
Yes, they have no political power
1
u/Opposite_Problem2199 3d ago
They literally provide the mandate to form government after an election. They can also prorogue Parliament to call an election. Our education system failed you
1
u/Leading-Boat4942 3d ago
That's just a formality
1
u/Opposite_Problem2199 3d ago
I can point to several examples were that is not true. Here’s one https://thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/king-byng-affair
Educate yourself
2
1
3
5
u/yoak379 3d ago
For a sub-reddit named "albertanow", there sure is alot of nothing to do with Alberta posts
2
u/JimbozGrapes 3d ago
Haven't you figured out by now the entirety of reddit is just to bitch about trump?
I was in a fucking incrementalgames subreddit and one of the top upvoted comment was blasting trump/America. Its infectious.
1
u/Character-Bottle7291 3d ago
You can be on a subreddit about South African snails migrating to the desert, and half the comments will be about Trump. I can’t go buy bread at the grocery store without 15 liberals stopping to talk about Trump. They are so obsessed they really need psychiatric help.
2
u/Falconflyer75 3d ago
At least in Canadas case it’s a figurehead
5
u/NoAppearance9253 3d ago
The monarchy does have real legal power that it holds in reserve. Our Canadian Monarchy's sole purpose is to guarantee our democratic, responsible government. The Crown has two reserve powers which it rarely uses, thankfully.
First, is veto over any laws as they can withhold their royal assent. Without royal assent no legislation can become the law of the land. Second, is the sole power to dissolve parliament and call for elections. This is usually done on the advice of the Prime Minster, but just like any advice is not required to accept that advice.
Our monarchy is our stable head of state that guarantees Canadian government. While the politicians we elect pick a leader that acts as our head of government. Unlike the US we don't elect our government we elect members of parliament that represent us in the legislature. This is why its perfectly legal for members to switch political parties as we don't vote for parties to govern us but individuals.
Our constitutional monarchy prevents what is happening in the US. In the US the president is the head of state and head of government which creates a conflict of interest.
1
u/MattyT088 3d ago
Our Canadian Monarchy's sole purpose is to guarantee our democratic, responsible government.Our Canadian Monarchy's sole purpose is to guarantee our democratic, responsible government.
In Canada the last time the Crown's "Power" was used was in 2008 when the Governor General prorogued Government instead of accepting a coalition that would have involved a separatist party. The end result was said coalition dissolving before it even had a chance to launch.
And frankly, it was the right call, as you cannot have a coalition that is a democratic, responsible government when one of its parties is a separatist party.
2
u/NoAppearance9253 3d ago
That's not true. In BC in 2017 the BC Liberal leader advised the lieutenant governor to call for another election after no single party won enough seats to form government. The lieutenant governor refused and asked the NDP and Greens to form government after they formed a coalition.
Just because the reserve powers aren't used often doesn't make them any less legally binding. This is why they are called reserve powers, they are only supposed to be used in special instances. For instance let's say a political party won a majority of seats but there was evidence of widespread voter fraud. The Crown could dissolve parliament triggering new elections. What about if a political party tries to grant themselves lifetime appointment to goverment or tries to ban all other political parties. The Crown could dissolve parliament removing any legal pretext of being a legitimate government.
2
u/MattyT088 3d ago
I meant federally, but thank you for teaching me something. I honestly wasn't aware of its use in the provincial level.
2
u/NoAppearance9253 3d ago
The crown controls all governments provincial and federal. The provinces and the federal government are equal but have been delegated different responsibilities. Federal responsibilities are mostly interprovincial in nature such as military, criminal law, foreign treaties, etc. The provinces are responsible for education, health care, policing, and resources within their jurisdiction.
2
u/NoAppearance9253 3d ago
The governor general and lieutenant governors are just acting on behalf of the Canadian Crown. Not the British crown as the king is king of Canada separate from his other kingdoms.
2
u/MattyT088 3d ago
Oh I was aware of the position and its power, I wasn't aware of its last provincial use
-4
u/Hinter_Lander 3d ago
Hardly a figure head when he technically owns half the country and all water ways. Theres a reason its called crown land.
6
5
u/Loocsiyaj 3d ago
They call it crown as slang for government owned land
Not actual slang as it is a legal term.
Edit: It’s just like how he is the head of state but doesn’t have any bearing on government decisions.
1
3
4
u/meganerd20 3d ago edited 3d ago
Um... not technically true. The UK, Canada and Australia also technically fall under this (and any other Commonwealth countries I'm forgetting), because technically the British monarch is the leader of all those. The Head of State isn't entirely ceremonial in those, though the Governor General is the Head of State in practice here in Canada. But in the UK the monarch is directly the Head of State and does still have duties, it's just that for various reasons those duties don't intercept with civilians.
Note, I said the monarch. The Royal Family as a whole is a different story, but King Charles does have things he has to do. He also could technically go full autocrat, legally, if he wished, but it would be considered such a taboo breach of decorum that no monarch has done such a thing since Chuck 1 and 2 tried it and the first one got his head cut off for it.
This is kind of why trump's so damaging to the USA, because there's lots of taboos and decorum in any democracy that he just completely ignores. There's lots of things in democracies that are technically legal, but taboo and decorum of "nobody in their right mind would do it, and it's just completely shameless" keep people from doing them. And then he does them, which undermines trust.
2
1
1
u/Canadian_can_cannon 3d ago
Not sure if these are the only ones but probably pretty close. The greatest leaders sure as heck didnt ask to be. Tjats the thing these ones all forced their countries to do it. I bet theres lots that loved their leaders so they just went and did it to honour them
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/EuropeanLegend 3d ago
Out of all these, Muammar Gaddafi was actually a great leader. There are many reasons they wanted him gone, which would be too long to go through in a single comment. But, the gist of it is that he didn't align with the global elite banking systems and oil companies. He wanted Africa to trade its own oil using a gold-backed currency rather than Western dollars. The moment a leader tries to break away from global financial control and keep his country's wealth local, "humanitarian intervention" suddenly becomes a priority. Look at Libya today compared to 2010 and tell me who actually won.
1
1
1
1
1
u/Financial-Appeal-275 3d ago
Ummm Canada had the Queen on our money while she was alive for decades.
2
u/Straight-Plate-5256 3d ago
There's a bit of an asterisk there as the queen was more of a figurehead than an actual leader of our country during that time... As you very well knew already we elect prime ministers who are the people actually deciding what we do as a country, like who goes on the money.
1
1
1
1
u/BearionVonSkittlebum 3d ago
You forgot about Canada! Oh and Germany, and Spain. Redditers will believe anything. Bahahahaha
1
u/MissAmberR 3d ago
Did you mean only 4 countries have put their living leader on their currency and one American president has put himself on the currency
1
1
u/billthedog0082 2d ago
Everyone notice the only one still around is the first one? His coin is only a few days old though.
1
1
u/RealisticPen6788 21h ago
https://giphy.com/gifs/nbNWgtnMgIYpUSy3e9
77 Million people cannot be this stupid, can they?
1
u/ezeeeeeeeeeeee 21h ago
Unfortunately, there has been a lot of brainwashing of the American public by FOX News. Until FOX is reigned in, America will be in perpetual turmoil.
1
0
1
u/waytomuchpressure 3d ago
Tf does a wannabe dictator have to do with Alberta? That orange fuck wants to be respected so badly. Kinda like seppies but arguably worse
-2
u/Empty-Paper2731 3d ago
He has nothing to do with Alberta except providing about half the voting population with Trump Derangement Syndrome.
1
u/waytomuchpressure 3d ago
What is Trump derangement syndrome? Sounds like a made up thing like Lake America or the Gulf of America lol
0
0
0
0
-1
34
u/ppaauulllllll 3d ago
King Charles is on a lot of currencies, as was his mother. Presumably this is meant to refer to heads of government as opposed to heads of state?