| Author |
 Replies: 16 / Views: 19,208 |
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
3692 Posts |
What does it mean (if anything) when a person's face on a coin is turned to the left or to the right? Some kind of governing policy or point of view? I believe on US coins only Lincoln is looking in the opposite direction. (Canada) Victoria - to the left Edward - to the right George V - to the left George VI - to the left Elizabeth II - to the right Edited for correctness... I don't know how I got that wrong. I was even looking at pictures of it. Sorry for the confusion. However, there are two lefts in a row. Edited by Libertad
05/04/2011 11:33 am
|
|
|
|
Moderator
 United States
14463 Posts |
I believe that was true about Lincoln being the only one facing to the right on US coins, but with the new dollars and nickels, that is not always the case. |
|
Valued Member
Canada
372 Posts |
Everyone has a better profile,I would guess that the photographer told the monarks which side of their face looks better and they went along with it.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
1080 Posts |
I read an article once that advocated the direction of the bust indicated the artist's dominant hand. Barber coins often faced right because the die was made by carving a reverse image, and a right-handed person has an easier time drawing a left-facing profile. Most modern currency shows left-facing busts because the die was made as a sculpture that was mechanically reduced. The author's theory was that VDB was left-handed, thus Lincoln faces opposite the norm. Current coins have introduced a digital component into the mix throwing off this whole effect. Interesting theory. |
|
Valued Member
Poland
114 Posts |
For many countries portraits of rulers are switched left / right in sequence.
For example for the British monarchs:
Victoria <
Edward VII >
George V <
Edward VIII >
George VI <
Elizabeth II >
Edit: so Charles (or perhaps William if Charles is to be be skipped!) should be <
Edited by Murazor
05/04/2011 08:28 am
|
|
Moderator
Australia
16826 Posts |
The British tradition, ever since the reign of James II, has been that a new monarch faces the opposite way to their predecessor. Libertad's list is wrong; Edward VII faces right on all coins, British and colonial; George V faces left. Canada, Australia and the other dominions, colonies and commonwealth realms have always continued this tradition. Thus we have: James II < joint rule of William III and Mary II >> Anne < George I > George II < George III > George IV < William IV > Victoria < Edward VII > George V < (Edward VIII) > George VI < Elizabeth II > George V and George VI both face left because, theoretically, Edward VIII "should have" faced right in between them. Now it is just a tradition, not a law, but breaking a 300 year old tradition is rarely easy. However, Edward VIII himself made it known that he thought the whole thing was silly and wanted to face left on his coins; especially as his right-facing portrait wouldn't have shown off the fashionable parting in his hair. This is why no circulation portrait coins of Edward VIII were ever issued, for any country where Edward VIII was briefly king; by the time the argument between King and Mint was settled, Edward VIII had decided to abdicate. Ironically, Edward VIII had actually won his argument to scrap the tradition; if he had not abdicated, The Royal Mint would have shown him on coins with portrait facing left; as his extremely scarce portrait pattern coins indicate. The Mint retroactively re-instated the tradition when it came time to design coins for Edward's replacement, George VI who always faces left. When Prince Charles - and it will be Prince Charles, unless he drops dead before his mum does - becomes King George VII (he has in the past indicated that this would be his preferred reign-name, though we won't know for sure until he actually becomes king) he "should" face left on the coinage, unless he chooses to become like his controversial grand-uncle and try to break this tradition, too. Don't say "infinitely" when you mean "very"; otherwise, you'll have no word left when you want to talk about something really infinite. - C. S. Lewis
|
|
Valued Member
Poland
114 Posts |
Trying to break the tradition does not end well as we can see above.
Note however that an interesting situation can arise if queen Elizabeth dies or abdicates and prince Charles does not accept the crown passing it to the next in person succession - prince William. What side should his effigy be directed in that case? (Of course if the Queen lived longer than her son that the grandson would be a natural successor he should look left.)
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1733 Posts |
Prince Charles has yet to indicate he would pass the crown, everyone but him seems to have suggested it as far as I have read.
|
|
Moderator
Australia
16826 Posts |
Charles can't simply "not accept" the throne, as if it were a morsel on the dessert cart he didn't particularly fancy. As the succession laws currently stand, he's got no choice. He's going to become king, whether he wants the job or not and whether we his subjects want him as king or not, unless he dies or he disqualifies himself from the succession, by (for example) becoming a Catholic, or if Parliament is persuaded to repeal and replace the Act of Settlement (the succession laws) before the current monarch dies - and that simply isn't going to happen because Queen Elizabeth expects Charles to succeed her and would not give consent to Parliament to change the Act of Settlement while she is still alive. If Charles managed to disqualify himself from the throne in such a way that he never became king and his heirs and successors (ie Prince William) weren't disqualified along with him, then yes. Charles would be deemed "naturally dead" as far as the British laws of succession was concerned, and William would be next in line (presumably as William V) with coins facing left when he became king. If, on the other hand, Charles "does an Edward VIII" and becomes king only to abdicate shortly afterwards, then we'd have the same situation we had in 1936. Charles' coins (if any were made or struck) would face left; William's coins (whether Charles actually made any coins or not) would face right. Of course, if Canada took a dislike to Charles and didn't want him as their king, it could in theory write whatever succession laws it chose. Canada, Australia and the other Commonwealth Realms are all independent countries, constitutional monarchies that all just happen to have the same person as monarch right now. It is merely a gentleman's agreement between the Realms that we would all write uniform laws of succession to make sure we all pick the same heir to the throne, preventing rival members of the Royal Family from inheriting the thrones of different countries. It's not inconceivable that different realms could write different succession laws, but the Royal Family itself still remembers the bitterness of the Hannover split and has made it clear it doesn't want to see a repeat of that fiasco in modern times. If the succession laws change, they will have to change everywhere at once. Canada is also free to put whatever portrait of the monarch on the coins that it wishes to. The flip-flopping portraits were a British Royal Mint tradition which Canada is no longer obliged to follow. In generations past, the Royal Canadian Mint had to accept whatever royal portrait The Royal Mint in London gave it to use; but now, royal portraiture has become decentralised, with each Realm choosing its own path. Canada now uses its own unique, Canadian-designed royal portraits; the other Realms (at least, the ones big enough to have their own mints, like Australia) will all likely follow suit in the coming decades, whether we get a new monarch or not. Don't say "infinitely" when you mean "very"; otherwise, you'll have no word left when you want to talk about something really infinite. - C. S. Lewis
|
|
Pillar of the Community
Canada
1733 Posts |
I like the fact you pointed out that Commonwealth countries can actually do as they please as far as Monarchs go. This is correct. Charles could be King of the United Kingdoms, but not necessarily of Canada or Australia. For all intents and purposes and considering that the office is only a place keeper in the political hierarchy, it would make no sense to start an international incident over choosing someone else.
I really do not want to see a dead PM on a the obverse of a coin. Ever. Long live the Queen ;)
|
|
Valued Member
United States
247 Posts |
With U.S. change at least Lincoln is always watching his back.  For obvious reasons  |
|
Valued Member
Poland
114 Posts |
Quote:
Canadian-designed royal portraits; the other Realms (at least, the ones big enough to have their own mints, like Australia) will all likely follow suit in the coming decades, whether we get a new monarch or not. In fact Australia has its own portrait of the Queen (by V. Gottwald) that has been used once on a commemorative (but circulating) $0.50 coin and then on a golden proof set:  |
|
New Member
Australia
1 Posts |
Thank you SAP. I heard this on Q.I. and your explanation in relation to GV and GVI makes perfect sense. And of course Charles will be King though I was not aware that he has stated he would assume the title GVII. Murazor, that's right. That was the 2000 royal visit 50c piece which I have.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 Canada
5588 Posts |
Wow! ... a 7 year old thread brought back to life.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
5029 Posts |
Nice revival. I found it quite interesting, and likely even more relevant 7 years later regarding some of the info provided.  |
|
Moderator
United States
188317 Posts |
 to the Community, zapkvr! |
| |
Replies: 16 / Views: 19,208 |
Posted 05/04/2011 07:48 am
