Summary of Q&A in Billed Bladet #44, 2015.
Where a Christina Rasmussen is embarrassed by PH wanting to be king and why does the DRF continue to allow him going on like that?
Jon Bloch Skipper explains that any changes in PH's title is solely up to QMII, so she's got the ape. (Because she is the only one who can request the Parliament, through the government, to change PH's status to king since this requires a change of the Constitution. Any other titles does not require the approval of the Parliament).
Then he adds: "Having said that I also wonder why the court doesn't soon put a lid on this discussion, which is not in line with Danish history and tradition and which hurt the Prince Consort personally and the DRF as an institution.
Based on various Jon Bloch Skipper columns that Muhler has kindly translated and shared on this forum, I have formed the definite impression that Mr. Bloch Skipper is, to be blunt, not a credible source in legal matters. At best, he seems to have trouble distingushing between the written law and unwritten custom. (At worst, he simply invents things - I hope that worst case is not true.)
To factcheck his above-quoted column from 2015:
1) The Constitution of the Kingdom of Denmark, the highest law of the land, can be read in its entirety online on many different websites. Here is a full English translation (out of convenience, I am posting a current publication, but I am willing to search for an archived version from 2015 if someone requests it):
There is not a single word in the Constitution on the subject of royal titles, even in general. Absolutely nothing in the Constitution validates Jon Bloch Skipper's specific claim that the monarch has authority over certain royal titles but not other royal titles. (In addition to his claim that the monarch cannot confer the title of King but can confer other royal titles, he has also claimed that the monarch cannot remove the title Crown Prince but can remove the title of Prince. There is no evidence in the Constitution for that claim, either.)
2) Henrik was the first male spouse of a sovereign of Denmark. Thus, "Danish history and tradition" in regards to titles of specifically male consorts began and ended with him. From that perspective, to style him as King would have been no more and no less Danish-traditional than to style him as Prince.
On the other hand, if one takes a gender-neutral perspective of "Danish history and tradition", then most consorts of Danish monarchs have borne a title (Queen) which is considered the equivalent of their spouse's title (King), and Henrik bearing a lower title was an exception from of tradition.
To give Mr. Bloch Skipper the benefit of the doubt, perhaps he was referring to Danish traditions among non-royals. A man who marries a Countess does not become a Count, and a man who marries a Miss Jensen traditionally does not become Mr. Jensen. But if Mr. Bloch Skipper was appealing to non-royal tradition, then he ought to have been arguing for Queen Margrethe II to renounce her own royal title and become Countess Margrethe of Monpezat, since nonroyal women traditionally give up their own titles and surnames on marriage.