New Titles for Queen Margrethe's Descendants: 2008 & 2022, 2024

[kalnel]

I agree. I think she is viewing all this as the monarch who is doing what she believes is right for the royal house and her successor. (I think Princess Benedikte said as much in her response after the announcement.)

She may also be looking back at 1953 and hoping to avoid the division between brothers that happened with her father and Prince Knud.

But, I'm intrigued by her comment, "I could say something..." I have a feeling there is a "recollections may vary" aspect to the situation that we know nothing about.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

All that said a part of me actually wonders if this isn't just a case of finding an answer to fit the question after the fact. This answer makes it look like Daisy was doing something for the good of at least one of her sons which given the bad PR she has had because of it all, especially with a focus on how cold a grandmother she seems to be, at least salvages something. A clever PR move maybe now they've had time to regroup from the initial shock at the reaction. Call me cynical but when Communication teams mess up as bad as this was intitially they do usually step up their game.

I don't think it is a new revelation or claim that the Queen wanted the decision to be taken by herself and not the Crown Prince. She essentially said as much in her first written response to the controversy (five days after the announcement):

"Holding a royal title involves a number of commitments and duties that, in the future, will lie with fewer members of the royal family. This adjustment, which I view as a necessary future-proofing of the monarchy, I want to take in my own time."

https://www.kongehuset.dk/en/news/statement-from-hm-the-queen

Not impressed with how the Queen handled this issue of removing her grandchildren’s title.
She lacks being tactful in her judgement. I do wonder how she is handling other issues her country does not know about. Might be time to hand over “the reins” with dignity. Jmoo

If monarchs routinely abdicated over tactless behavior in their private lives, there would be a great deal more turnover in monarchies...

I fully agree with you, it would never happen in the kingdom of the Netherlands when queen Beatrix was queen, it was all resolved before queen Beatrix abdicated,

I admit I'm not familiar with the handling of the changes of 2001-2002 in the Dutch monarchy. But one difference which surely made things easier for Queen Beatrix is that her younger sons were always willing, even eager to devote themselves to private careers overseas and to largely leave representational duties to the crown prince. Prince Joachim, on the other hand, has made it clear that the reduction of his royal role and removal to France were not his own choice.

In addition, while Queen Beatrix was certainly involved in the downsizing of the Dutch Royal House, decisions on Royal House membership and titles in the Netherlands are ultimately made by the democratically elected parliament and government, so any criticisms of those decisions would not fall on Beatrix alone.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

So nothing new really, I'm intrigued though because it seems it was agreed long ago the children would loose their titles upon marriage anyway, even Alexandra said that and made it seem that had been accepted so what was Daisy saving Fred from? She could simply have made a point to reiterate the fact the agreement was for the children to loose their titles upon marriage, an agreement made by her. Putting that out there in some way (which would seem easier to do during a jubilee year IMO) would maybe have been enough.

Seeing as the Queen specifically referenced other royal families in her announcement, I wonder if she noticed the issue with the dukedom of Edinburgh in the British Royal Family. (To summarize for readers who do not closely follow the British royals: In 1999, Queen Elizabeth II issued a press release announcing that her oldest son and heir Charles had "agreed" to grant his brother the title Duke of Edinburgh when Charles was king. Although Charles is now king, the agreement has not yet been fulfilled.)

Even though the UK agreement was publicly announced in 1999, its existence has been forgotten even by people who ought to know better, namely royal reporters and royal watchers. Both press reports and royalty discussions these days frame it as a "wish" of the late Elizabeth and her husband Philip, ignoring that it was not merely their wish, but Charles's "agreed" promise.

So if Queen Margrethe II has been paying attention to the events in the UK, she might reasonably have concluded that a press release in 2022, no matter how unambiguously worded, would be forgotten by the time Prince Henrik junior marries in, say, 2052.

[...] but it also IMO suggests there is a real unease in the relationship between the brothers [...] ?

I think that is strongly indicated. For one thing, Princess Marie labeled her husband's relationship with his brother as "complicated" in one of the couple's interviews about the title situation:

This is a BT interview on podcast, with J&M - on the streets in Paris.

I will translate the transcript of what is said, but it's... it's relevant in order to form a picture of what is going on.

Q: Have you spoken with the CP-couple?
M: "No."
J: "No, unfortunately."

Q: How is your relationship?
M: "As it is."
J: "As it can be." (Meaning: Given the circumstances.)

Q: That it's complicated?
M: "It's complicated. That's right. That's what it."

Moreover, the rumor that Prince Joachim's move to Copenhagen was perceived as encroaching on the Crown Prince Couple's role and resulted in the sidelining of him and his family appears to be so widely circulated that even serious reporters and royal experts have been repeating it.

(For the benefit of other readers, I quote the Tatler article tommy100 posted upthread, although it is certainly not the only article which has repeated it.)

In 2014, when Joachim sold Schackenborg Castle, his country residence, planning to relocate to Copenhagen, he quickly learnt that there was no room and not enough duties for him and his wife in the capital. Observers of the Danish royal court explain that the couple had crossed the line into the Crown Prince and Princess’s territory. Joachim and Marie were moved, seemingly reluctantly, to Paris in 2019, where the prince works at the Danish embassy.

While the rumor is not necessarily attributable to Prince Joachim himself (though I'd like to ask the Danish royal watchers whether he has ever hinted at it), the prince is surely aware that it has become part of the public narrative surrounding the title removal. His choice to let the "complicated relationship" comment remain the final word on the matter, instead of refuting the rumor in his various interviews, suggests to me that he himself believes it to some extent.

 

[JR76]

While the rumor is not necessarily attributable to Prince Joachim himself (though I'd like to ask the Danish royal watchers whether he has ever hinted at it), the prince is surely aware that it has become part of the public narrative surrounding the title removal. His choice to let the "complicated relationship" comment remain the final word on the matter, instead of refuting the rumor in his various interviews, suggests to me that he himself believes it to some extent.

Princess Marie said in an interview that their move to Paris wasn't their choice.

 

[Muhler]

It's official.
Joachim's children now have surnames: Monpezat.

https://www.bt.dk/royale/nu-er-det-sket-prins-joachims-fire-boern-har-skiftet-navn

Their names on the DRF site are now counts and komtesse of Monpezat.

- Previously their "surnames" were Prince/ss to Denmark. Because DRF members don't have surnames.
But now their passports and the social security card have their new surnames. - That means they can now start to notify everybody and their cat about their new surname. Like drivers license, bank accounts, phones and what not.

The reason their names weren't changes on 1st January was that a number of travels had been booked in their old names. And to avoid problems these trips had to be completed first.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Relatedly, Oskar Aanmoen has written that "the Danish press" reported the following information, but he has not given credit to the press source by name. (Unfortunately, this seems to be a frequent problem with Royal Central's reporting.) Can any posters identify the original article(s) in the Danish press which he is paraphrasing?

Despite the removal of their titles, it appears that Prince Joachim’s children have retained their titles in the Danish civil registry, according to a review by Danish press. The review notes that Count Nikolai and Count Felix are still listed as Princes, and they are styled as ‘Their Highnesses’.

The fact that they are still registered in the civil registry with princely titles means that Nikolai and Felix still have princely titles on official documents such as insurance papers or passports if they were to apply for them now. It is reported that this is the decision made by Prince Joachim’s children themselves.

The Ministry of Social Affairs, Housing, and the Elderly told the press press that individuals are responsible for changing their names unless they are under 18 years of age. The Ministry also states that there are no official guidelines for when to change one’s name.

A spokesperson to Countess Alexandra says the counts will soon submit changes to their titles in the register.

The spokeswoman said ‘some trips have been booked for the boys’, and they will continue to use their old titles and titles during these trips, but will change their names once completed.

https://royalcentral.co.uk/europe/d...-to-still-be-using-their-royal-titles-185928/

An update from Muhler:

It's official.
Joachim's children now have surnames: Monpezat.

https://www.bt.dk/royale/nu-er-det-sket-prins-joachims-fire-boern-har-skiftet-navn

Their names on the DRF site are now counts and komtesse of Monpezat.

- Previously their "surnames" were Prince/ss to Denmark. Because DRF members don't have surnames.
But now their passports and the social security card have their new surnames. - That means they can now start to notify everybody and their cat about their new surname. Like drivers license, bank accounts, phones and what not.

The reason their names weren't changes on 1st January was that a number of travels had been booked in their old names. And to avoid problems these trips had to be completed first.

I would assume that the siblings now have the legal surname "af Monpezat" (of Monpezat), with their legal title being simply "HE Greve/Komtesse", but the article posted by Muhler appears to be behind a paywall. Can anyone confirm it?

 

[Muhler]

Correct. Their surnames are Monpezat.
Titles are not surnames, so say Nikolai is now officially Nikolai Monpezat.

The article is not behind a paywall. Perhaps it can't be viewed outside DK?

 

[JR76]

The article is not behind a paywall. Perhaps it can't be viewed outside DK?

I can see it.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I tried opening the article once more and was able to read it this time. It is actually unclear regarding how the former princes and princess have changed their registrations, but my impression is that according to the article they are still registered as members of the Royal House(!) and without a surname, and the only difference is that "Prins/esse til Danmark" has been replaced with "greve/komtesse af Monpezat".

https://www.bt.dk/royale/nu-er-det-sket-prins-joachims-fire-boern-har-skiftet-navn

Det viser et opslag i erhvervsregistret, hvor de nu er opført som medlemmer af Kongehuset under henholdsvis 'greve af Monpezat' og 'komtesse af Monpezat'.

Tidligere stod deres navne her angivet som 'Prins til Danmark' og 'Prinsesse til Danmark'.

Medlemmer af Kongehuset har ikke efternavne, og derfor er det deres titler, som figurerer i passet.

 

[Muhler]

I tried opening the article once more and was able to read it this time. It is actually unclear regarding how the former princes and princess have changed their registrations, but my impression is that according to the article they are still registered as members of the Royal House(!) and without a surname, and the only difference is that "Prins/esse til Danmark" has been replaced with "greve/komtesse af Monpezat".

https://www.bt.dk/royale/nu-er-det-sket-prins-joachims-fire-boern-har-skiftet-navn

No, the DRF website list them as counts and Komtesse of Monpezat.
But their surname is only Monpezat. And that's how they will be registered in Folkeregisteret = The public census register. A title is not a surname.
Whether you in DK can use your title in your passport, that I must confess I don't know.
I doubt you can use your title on your social security card, which is de facto the ID below your passport, alongside your drivers license. (There is no official ID card in DK.)

 

[Tatiana Maria]

If the former princes and princess were given the legal treatment of non-royal nobility, their surname ought to be "af Monpezat" and their title ought to be simply "greve" or "komtesse". But the article seems to be implying that they are still registered as members of the Royal House and therefore registered with no surname at all.

What seems reasonably clear is that before 2023, Monpezat was part of their title and not a surname. The 2008 press release, announcing the creation of Queen Margrethe II and Prince Consort Henrik's descendants as Counts and Countesses of Monpezat, varied from the usual form and specified the complete designation of "Count of Monpezat" or "Countess of Monpezat" was a title. Thus, the then princes and princesses did not acquire a surname.

Titlen føres endvidere af efterkommere født i lovligt ægteskab, i overensstemmelse med de almindelige regler, der gælder herom, hvilket vil sige, at titlen ’greve af Monpezat’ videreføres af mandlige descendenter, medens kvindelige descendenter fører titlen ’komtesse af Monpezat’.​

 

[Muhler]

Did some checking.

There are no titles on documents issued by the state: I.e. passport, drivers license, social security card etc.

So it must be Nikolai Monpezet.

He can write his title on his door or greeting card. He can also insist on being titled Greve af Monpezat, like to his bank and they will style letters (almost exclusively online anyway, so no postman will be impressed) as such, but that would no doubt be seen as snobbish.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

If the article is wrong (or I have misinterpreted the article) and Nikolai et al do have a surname, then it must be af Monpezat (of Monpezat), not plain Monpezat. In the same way, the surname of the counts and countesses of Rosenborg is af Rosenborg (of Rosenborg), which is the reason the female-line grandchildren of Queen Margrethe II's cousin Christian bear the "af" even though as female-line descendants they are not allowed to inherit the comital title.

 

[Muhler]

That would be the equivalent of von or van - and that doesn't exist in DK.

Never heard of anyone with a surname like: af Rosenborg, or af Thott.

Monpezat is (as I see it) a slægtsnavn, like the other noble names in DK.
A slægtsnavn is a last name passed on within a family after very specific rules. These rules stems back to the Name-law of 1526 and here it was laid out who could use what name within noble families in DK.
(A more general name-law was made in 1828, because it became common for people at that time to take a surname as a family name. Prior to that most people simply called themselves say Thomas Jenssøn after the father, Jens. Or Marie Kirstensdatter after her mother, Kirsten.)
Basically that meant that a (noble) name was passed on to sons of legal marriages only.

In contrast to many countries DK has for 500 years had a specific law regarding names.

The Danish rules for last names is here:
https://familieretshuset.dk/navne/navne/fornavn-mellemnavn-efternavn
In Danish.
Last name = efternavn.
You can only have one last name in DK.
You can combine two last names with a hyphen.
(That would means af-Monpezat - and that makes no sense in Danish.)

If you have both your mother and your father's last names in your name, say Theodor Friis Hansen, then your father's name automatically becomes your last name, unless you drop your father's last name, and is called Theodor Friis, or you take another last name, say Persephone then it's Theodor Friis Hansen Persephone.
Or you use a hyphen then it's Theodor Friis-Hansen.
- The Danish name law is very detailed!

There are at present some 146.668 approved last names in DK.
You cannot freely take a last name that is used by less than 2.000 persons. Unless each and everyone of them give their permission.

There is a reason why some of the nobles in the circle of friends around M&F are called Ahlefeldt-Laurvig-Bille - rather than say Michael Greve af Ahlefeldt.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

That would be the equivalent of von or van - and that doesn't exist in DK.

Never heard of anyone with a surname like: af Rosenborg, or af Thott.

You can verify the number of Danes who are legally registered with the surname "af Rosenborg" at the official website of the Danish statistics bureau:

https://www.dst.dk/da/Statistik/emner/borgere/navne/HvorMange

I am surprised that you have never heard of the female-line grandchildren surnamed "af Rosenborg" whom I mentioned in the previous post, but here is an article about one of them:

https://www.billedbladet.dk/kendte/...orgs-soen-konfirmeret-jeg-er-saa-stolt-af-ham

Surnames with the particle "von" are also registered in Denmark according to the database above.

You can combine two last names with a hyphen.
(That would means af-Monpezat - and that makes no sense in Danish.)

The surname is "af Rosenborg"; "af" is not a surname of its own.

 

[Muhler]

I stand corrected then.

It does make sense if they are slægtsnavne. There are specific rules for such names.
The rules regarding slægtsnavne mostly apply to nobles. And I must confess I haven't had a closer look at these rules.
There are IRRC some 180-something noble names in DK at present.

But for mere red-blooded names the rules must be as I explained previously and there is no af or von.
(Von is accepted because you can't force foreigners to change their last names once they are allowed to settle in DK, get citizenship and assimilate.

- The most simple solution to clarify all this is to write the court.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The full text of the general Name Law is here:

https://www.retsinformation.dk/eli/lta/2021/1815

It currently doesn't forbid prefixes in surnames such as af, de, von or van.

But there are certain rules for surnames which are newly created (as opposed to changing to an existing surname). The rules are that a newly formed surname cannot be confused with a protected surname, a company name or trademark etc., a stage name, a famous person's name, or a first name, and a new surname cannot be inappropriate or offensive.


§ 6. Navne, der ikke bæres som efternavn her i landet, kan tages som efternavn, medmindre navnet

1) let kan forveksles med et beskyttet efternavn, jf. § 3,

2) indgår i eller let kan forveksles med navnet på et selskab, en forening, et varemærke eller lignende, som er anmeldt efter stk. 2,

3) er et almindeligt kendt kunstnernavn, som er anmeldt efter stk. 2, eller let kan forveksles hermed,

4) er navnet på en almindeligt kendt udenlandsk eller historisk person eller let kan forveksles hermed,

5) er et egentligt fornavn,

6) er uegnet til at blive anvendt som efternavn her i landet eller

7) er upassende eller kan vække anstød.

 

[Muhler]

Yes, it's quite a lengthy process to change your last name to a completely newly invented one. And far from always successful.

It's easier with a first name, but there are still similar rules as well.
You can't name yourself Coca Cola, or the Danish equivalent of B'tthead or something silly like Hassssmannn.

I guess the change to Monpezat went quite smoothly for obvious reasons.

 

[Toledo]

I have to say I love when you explain traditions and language differences in Denmark to differentiate names, particles, last name usage by nobles vs non nobles. This is a fascinating forum conversation.

 

[Archduchess Zelia]

For once, an interesting albeit brief article from Billed Bladet with the DRF's former (and first ever) Director of Communications, Lis M. Frederiksen, about the title debacle:

* Kongehusets tidligere pressechef: Det er en barsk omgang for familien *

She notes that the debacle has been tough for the family but otherwise doesn't have an opinion on it. She goes on to add:

"I had a great partnership with the Queen. That I can only speak enthusiastically about. The Queen is a formidable person. But you have to make sure to be informed and well-prepared, or else...," Lis M. Frederiksen smiles.

Nothing new per se that QMII hates a dawdler but said alongside her comments on the title removals, I can't help but relate it to that. I can vividly imagine QMII being so fed up at potentially months going by without receiving the alternative solution from Joachim that she just decided to remove the titles at once.

 

[Silverpot]

For once, an interesting albeit brief article from Billed Bladet with the DRF's former (and first ever) Director of Communications, Lis M. Frederiksen, about the title debacle:

* Kongehusets tidligere pressechef: Det er en barsk omgang for familien *

She notes that the debacle has been tough for the family but otherwise doesn't have an opinion on it. She goes on to add:



Nothing new per se that QMII hates a dawdler but said alongside her comments on the title removals, I can't help but relate it to that. I can vividly imagine QMII being so fed up at potentially months going by without receiving the alternative solution from Joachim that she just decided to remove the titles at once.

Yup, that's what I think happened too. And I would've done the same, being irritated by not getting a valid response or a better idea from J.

 

[Prinsara]

Despite the fact that there's no evidence of this, it's highly unlikely media-savvy Alexandra would have gone on the instantaneous offensive had Joachim been at fault, the press has not uncovered any evidence or received any helpful leaks Joachim was responsible, Joachim is a respected military aide and not known to be a ditherer while Margrethe is known for poor familial communication...?

Sure, let's continue to blame Joachim.

 

[kalnel]

Nothing new per se that QMII hates a dawdler but said alongside her comments on the title removals, I can't help but relate it to that. I can vividly imagine QMII being so fed up at potentially months going by without receiving the alternative solution from Joachim that she just decided to remove the titles at once.

Add to that QMII being in pain from her back and seeing firsthand the situation in England, and she was probably determined to get this settled immediately.

 

[Toledo]

Add to that QMII being in pain from her back and seeing firsthand the situation in England, and she was probably determined to get this settled immediately.

Now I see how wise and brave QMII was when she decided to take this action last year even if it meant to start a micro war between the brothers, wives and one ex-wife. I have no doubt she would have stripped of all titles any relative, or wife, that becomes a nuisance and disrespectful of her role as monarch.

In the end, she gave Frederick less to worry about when he becomes king. Hope his UK cousin Will is that lucky.

 

[Archduchess Zelia]

Add to that QMII being in pain from her back and seeing firsthand the situation in England, and she was probably determined to get this settled immediately.

Indeed! I also imagine she's known the surgery was coming – or at least was on the table – for a while. A 82-year-old having an extensive procedure done under lengthy anaesthesia certainly is at a risk for complications.

Despite the fact that there's no evidence of this, it's highly unlikely media-savvy Alexandra would have gone on the instantaneous offensive had Joachim been at fault, the press has not uncovered any evidence or received any helpful leaks Joachim was responsible, Joachim is a respected military aide and not known to be a ditherer while Margrethe is known for poor familial communication...?

Sure, let's continue to blame Joachim.

I don't understand the argument about Alexandra? I think media-savviness is written all over the framing of the title removal. Joachim's side has been extremely vocal – even in spite of QMII's expressed wishes – yet there's lots of information and context that's been left out.

For example, Joachim explicitly said his response to the 5 May proposal was to ask for consideration time but he's never elaborated on whether or not he ever did return with an answer.

There's "no evidence" that Joachim dragged his feet, no, but there's no evidence to the contrary either.

As for leaks, that sort of goes without saying. Unlike the BRF, the DRF doesn't practice briefing against one another. If they have something to say, they put their full voices behind it Add to that that the only part of the family that routinely vents to the press is Joachim's and they have no interest in briefing against themselves.

Can't speak for anyone else but I'm not "blaming" Joachim (and I don't actually remember seeing anyone here absolve QMII of blame in this – what I have seen, though, is people who back Joachim's side completely deny that he shares at least part of the blame in the flawed communication) If my theory is right, QMII getting fed up with waiting and just getting it overwith is clearly not the ideal or healthy way to solve an issue.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

One of my main points was that the style and titles of the Greek royal family and other deposed houses are regulated by European traditions and protocol that is shared by all the courts of Europe. Most likely also by the non-European courts. For instance as we saw in the official announcement of the marriage between Prince Ghazi of Jordan and Princess Miriam of Bulgaria she was referred to as both a princess and a royal highness.
According to other traditions Queen Margrethe as the head of her house regulates the titles and status of the members of her family. King Carl Gustav referred to, and made use of, the same right and traditions ("the ancient right of princes") in his decision to reorganize his house. I've read that many of these traditions were put in print by the Congress of Vienna, but they also referred back to more ancient traditions of the Holy Roman Empire.

Yes, I'm aware that other European courts (and, from what you said, at least some of the non-European courts) behave in the same manner. Earlier in this thread I commented to defend the Queen by noting that the double standard is also practiced by her fellow European monarchs. In the original post which began this discussion, I also made that clear:

While the Queen's actions are no different with the actions of other European monarchs, I am not sure how she could argue in good faith that the same behavior she fully accepts from her sister is unacceptable from her grandson.

I'm also aware that there is a long tradition of these actions, although it is not quite as simple as saying that they were shared by all the courts of Europe. As just one example, after King James I & VI (correction: II & VII) of Great Britain and his wife and son were deposed by his son-in-law and daughter, his successors on the British throne strenuously objected to the decision of the French and other courts to continue titling James as King and his son as Prince of Wales.

All of that does not change my point though that Queen Margrethe II, and yes, also other European and at least some non-European monarchs - in no way do I mean to criticize her in particular - assert the right to remove royal titles but do not respect the right of other heads of state to do the same.

 

[Mbruno]

I'm also aware that there is a long tradition of these actions, although it is not quite as simple as saying that they were shared by all the courts of Europe. As just one example, after King James I & VI of Great Britain and his wife and son were deposed by his son-in-law and daughter, his successors on the British throne strenuously objected to the decision of the French and other courts to continue titling James as King and his son as Prince of Wales.

All of that does not change my point though that Queen Margrethe II, and yes, also other European and at least some non-European monarchs - in no way do I mean to criticize her in particular - assert the right to remove royal titles but do not respect the right of other heads of state to do the same.

I believe you meant King James II & VII of England and Scotland. I think the situation of the Queen's grandchildren is, however, slightly different from that of former ruling families. When the extant royal courts refer to members of former ruling famiies by their royal styles, I believe they are implicitly disputing the legitimacy of republics to abolish titles that proceed from another sovereign authority which predates them . The titles (or, rather, the right to use them) may be abolished domestically (i.e., within the Republic's jurisdiction), but they continue to exist, from their point of view, in international law, which is also the same approach that the International Commission on Orders of Chivalry takes, by the way, on orders of knighthood awarded by former ruling families.

In the case of Prince Joachim's children, their titles were awarded and are now being removed by the same sovereign authority, i.e., the Crown of Denmark, which has full control over them. If, for example, King Charles III decided tomorrow that Archie and Lilibet would no longer be Prince/Princess, I am pretty sure that the Danish court, by the same logic, would not call them Prince/Princess either.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

He is refusing to change his IG handle.

But does it matter? "To Denmark" isn't a title he's misusing. And it clearly doesn't bother QMII (not enough to do something about it). It might even be the new "surname" Joachim's kids have been given to put in their passports (since they seemingly were registered by their full titles before – which in and of itself was a bit weird to me).

But unless something has recently changed, "to Denmark" is a component of the title "Prince to Denmark" and not a surname (as the members of the Royal House are not legally registered with one). And the focus of the title change seems to have been on the "to Denmark" more than the "Prince" - the Queen did not command more distant relatives who use Prince/Princess (but not "to Denmark") titles, even ones resident in Denmark, to drop those titles.

 

[Prinsara]

But "to Denmark" reflects that he is in the line of succession, which he is. There are Princes and Princesses of Denmark who are not.

Nikolai isn't at all stupid, nor is he particularly provocative. He knows exactly what he's doing, and he also knows "til Danmark" wasn't (and can't really be) taken away from him, unless farmor wants to start using more decrees.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

But "to Denmark" reflects that he is in the line of succession, which he is. There are Princes and Princesses of Denmark who are not.

From 1853 until 2023, all persons in the line of succession to the Danish crown were Princes and Princesses to Denmark.

Before 1853, there were some in the line of succession who were Princes and Princesses but not to (or of) Denmark, but none who were "to Denmark" without being Princes or Princesses.

Nikolai isn't at all stupid, nor is he particularly provocative. He knows exactly what he's doing, and he also knows "til Danmark" wasn't (and can't really be) taken away from him, unless farmor wants to start using more decrees.

I don't think I fully understand your point (isn't "knows exactly what he's doing" synonymous with being "provocative" in this context?), but by the same logic, "Prins" can't really be taken away from him, either.

The Danish version of the press release (not decree) of September 28, 2022 was clear that the titles "Prince and Princess to Denmark" would be discontinued and the grandchildren would "only" be able to be use the title "Count and Countess of Monpezat". There was no distinction made between the title "Prince" and the title "to Denmark". HM's intention was clear, even if she is currently unable or unwilling to enforce it.

https://www.kongehuset.dk/nyheder/ændringer-i-titler-og-tiltaleformer-i-den-kongelige-familie

I naturlig forlængelse heraf har Hendes Majestæt besluttet, at Hans Kongelige Højhed Prins Joachims efterkommere med virkning fra den 1. januar 2023 alene kan benytte deres titler som grever og komtesse af Monpezat, idet deres hidtidige titler som prinser og prinsesse til Danmark bortfalder. Prins Joachims efterkommere vil således fremover skulle tiltales som excellencer. Dronningens beslutning ligger i tråd med lignende tilpasninger, som andre kongehuse på forskellig vis har gennemført i de senere år.