You're basically making my point for me. The Queen of England is the theoretical owner of most of the land in all of Canada. Take a look at this map of Ontario, for example:

https://mapsontheweb.zoom-maps.com/post/140865732363/crown-l...

It doesn't make sense to compare or consider heads of states' wealth. They can't spend like a true billionaire and they have powers that billionaires do not. They can order the death of almost any human being on earth without worrying about security.

It makes more sense to talk of power differentials between heads of state and heads of government than it does mere cash.

> The Queen of England is the theoretical owner of most of the land in all of Canada.

No, the Queen of Canada is. Given the nature of the respective constitutional monarchies, the distinction is significant, even though those crowns are held by the same natural person.

> It doesn't make sense to compare or consider heads of states' wealth.

It doesn't make sense to treat the wealth held by a constitutional monarchy the same as personal wealth of the monarch, but with either absolute monarchies or heads of state who don't have any abstract claim on the wealth of the nation or state as such, those issues don't arise, and even with Constitutional monarchs the personal wealth of the monarch as distinct from that controlled by the State in the name of the monarch can be discussed with little problem.

> The Queen of England is the theoretical owner

No, she isn't. The crown holdings haven't been owned privately for hundreds of years.

The gross of that wealth is probably not going to be inheritable to Putin’s family, though I doubt his family aren’t set up for generations. The wealth Putin ammassed is based on confiscation from other oligarchs who made their wealth in turn by embezelment from the public wealth of the former USSR and actual embezzlement done by the little Napoleon of Russia himself (yes, I mean Putin and yes I’m hinting at a certain complex).