Okay something is missing here that I do not understand about titles and changing them ......Why?
Why can't each country just keep it's own rules, laws, traditions, history, customs and heritage ....why this need that everyone Must be alike, male/female/king/queen/princes and so forth. Denmark is Denmark, Sweden is Sweden and so forth.......do we have to drink from the same glass of wine or eat the same food, or speak the same language to be understood? I don't personally think so.......this is your history regardless of what country you live in so why change the royal family to be like the next royal family.....we are all different and that;s what makes us and all the different royal families so unique.....we aren't robots yet I hope.
I like the difference in each country for that is what makes each country interesting and challenging for there is something to learn from each country and each royal family.......
Why change? Because it is the final closing piece of the profound changes which have completely changed Europe's monarchies. Look at King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden. He was just the fifth child after four sisters. And he did not have precedence because he was a boy: his sisters had no any right on the throne at all!
Look at Queen Margrethe II. As her father only had three daughters, neither she nor Benedikte nor Anne-Marie were supposed to follow their own father: Prince Knud of Denmark, The Hereditary Prince, would be the next King, had they not changed the law to make Margrethe the Thronefollower indeed.
Look at Prince Harry. Would he now not date a Meghan Markle but a nice Italian -and Roman Catholic- donna, for an example a Beatrice Borromeo, then he would have lost his place in the succession for marrying "a papist".
We are talking about persons living right now, when we are reading this forum. It are exactly King Carl XVI Gustaf's sisters, all alive today, who simply had no rights at all. The very reigning Queen Margrethe II of today would never have been Queen today, were these changes not made. Look at Carl Philip of Sweden and his Sofia Hellqvist. It was on A to Z printed in rule that a Swedish successor could not engage into marriage with "a Swedish countryman's daughter" without losing his rights.
All argument on "leave the titles, why change" fall flat dead when we would have used the same for the changes I described. Monarchies are far more flexible than the outside world thinks. Both King Juan Carlos and Emperor Akihito informed their Governments about their wish to abdicate. And their respectibe Governments initiated special Bills to read by Parliament to facilitate said wishes.
The line of male succession has been broken. Even the name of the royal dynasty is adapted by law to prevent issue known with the surname of the father (as has always been the tradition in society). We will see a never-before seen female dominance on Europe's thrones in the next generation: Ingrid Alexandra, Victoria and Estelle, Catharina-Amalia, Elisabeth, Amalia and Leonor. All of them will have a Prince as consort.
This sends two messages:
- where in all municipalities, provinces, departments, national services, state agencies, etc. there is gender equality, this is still not the case in the highest office of state
- female heads of state are seen as "weak", they need a consort with a lower title whereas male heads of state are "always stronger" and "of course" always outrank a Queen
This is 2017. It is time to settle it. And my personal solution would be: treat female consorts if they were male consorts:
S.M. le Roi des Belges
S.A.R. la princesse Mathilde de Belgique
H.M. The Queen of the United Kingdom of GB & NI
H.R.H The Prince Philip of the United Kingdom of GB & NI
Z.M. de Koning der Nederlanden
H.K.H. prinses Máxima der Nederlanden
S.K.H. der Grossherzog von Luxemburg
I.K.H. Prinzessin Maria Teresa von Luxemburg
H.M. Dronningen af Denmark
H.K.H. prins Henrik af Denmark
It is really not that difficult as then there is complete logica and equality in the titulature.