To those who talk of title inflation, this title would be anti-inflationary. This would be due to it not being linked to a rating but to acceptance to the Candidates Tournament, which lets in very few people over the historic record.
A Higher Title Than Grand Master?

Having a 2700+ or 2800+ rating is already sufficient to show that you're a step above the rest so a title is unnecessary.

When the original title of Grand Master was issued, there were five recipients. Today there are over 1500 Grand Masters. Yet, we only know and see the regular play of only the elite top. Names like Vishy Anand, Wesley So, Fabiano Caruana, Sergey Karjiakin, Magnus Carlsen, are players that are clearly in a league of their own. The weakest GM has little in common with these top players. I hear commentators use the term Super Grand Master quite often, but to be honest, it sounds like a title my 6 year old son would come up with. Adding the modifier "super" hardly suffices, and it is only a term of parlance, not an official title. What if Fide made a new title called "Royal Grand Master"? This title would be for any player who has been accepted to the "Candidates Tournament". Because getting to the candidates tournament is such a heavy endeavor, it seems like a good standard to hold for this new title. The title would also be given retroactively to all previous candidates participants, previous world champions and world champion challengers. What do you think?
Magnus Carlsen holds the most prestigious title --- he is the Inventor of Chess.
Look at the GM title as a PhD of chess. There are PhDs who the best in their field and those who are not so recognizable, but there is no reason to invent new type of degree.