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