Wasn’t there a pope who cornered one of his administrative types shortly after election and told him, “Hey, here’s the name I’m going to go by. What number will it have? Oh, and I’m telling the faithful in ten minutes.” So the admin type gave him a number and it was the wrong one.
Danged clerical errors.
{The above pun brought to you because it’s not too obscure. For those without a humor detector, it’s also a joke.}
Such as. . . who?
Schnitte, Elizabeth’s father’s first name was Albert, like his grandfather, who was King Edward VII. He took the name George VI.
Actually, Queen Victoria very much wanted her son, Edward VII, to use his first name, Albert, or at least, Albert Edward, in honor of her husband. He chose not to.
I don’t know… maybe John Paul II? I mean, really, he didn’t have much choice for a name after John Paul I only stuck around for a month. (I would think not taking the name John Paul II would have cheezed off more people than John Paul I taking two names.)
And as a side comment on the “Beatles” theme, I remember a “news” headline in a National Lampoon magazine from that era that read something like “John Paul elected Pope, George Ringo disappointed.” 
Yepp. That’s what I said.
It was indeed. Good catch!
There are no Canon Laws that speak to what name the Pope can or can not take. It is a principal of law in general, and also of Canon Law, that ‘that which is not prohibited is allowed.’
Therefore, the Pope can take any name he damned well pleases. For even if there was a law on the books regulating the names of the Pope, the new Pope, by virtue of being Pope, can freely change the law – he is, after all, the chief (and sole) legislator of the Church.
Remember, JPI (and JPII) took two names, which was not traditional. So who’s to stop them? (OK, so they killed JPI, but they got used to it by JPII’s time.)
So, a new Pope can take Peter (presumably, Peter II) if he wants. He can keep his own name, too.
Now, WRT baptismal and confirmation names: In the 1917 Code of Canon Law, people were made to take ‘Christian names’ (presumably, the names of Saints). In the new Code (1983), the only restriction is that one can not use as a baptismal or confirmation name a name that is ‘contrary to the faith.’
So, if you want your child baptized ‘Crystal,’ that’s OK. If you want to take, ‘Summer’ as your confirmation name, that’s OK. If you want to take ‘Satan,’ ‘Hatred,’ or ‘Anti-Pope’ as your name, that’s right out.
Be aware that there are many priests, sisters, and religious ed. directors who are still insisting on saints’ names. Take 'em to ecclesiastical court, they can’t force that rule on anyone anymore.
My name shall be: “Incontentia Buttocks”
That’s what I meant Skopo… I know my Mom’s confirmation name is Theresa, which is also her ‘birth name’. I think she told me that when I was considering taking confession, but I never did do that.
As you also said, that’s what I thought of when a Pope picks his name. It seems fairly similar.
moriah I think that though a Pope might choose Peter as his name it just hasn’t been done simply because the first pope was Peter. Sort of a respect thing, and maybe because they don’t want to be placing themselves on the same level as him because of the whole ‘founding father’ attitude. I don’t see how anyone would really be offended by it nowadays though.
The immensely powerful one-name lobby (including many luminaries such as Charo, Cher, and Madonna) was incredibly upset.
This fact affected my father, who was born into a Catholic family in 1934. His mother wanted to name him Ralph, but was told that since there was no St. Ralph, she’d have to pick another name. So he was baptized Lawrence, with Ralph as his middle name. When his sister (born in 1941) came along, she was able to be baptized “Karen” because that name is a form of “Catherine”. Sharon, the baby of the family (though she turned 55 about a month ago), got her name approved because there are Biblical references to the rose of Sharon.
If Peter’s out at a pope’s name, how 'bout Jesus? How 'bout if it’s pronounced “Hey Zeus”? :D:D:D
Just a WAG, but maybe the reason for the change in that case was that “Mercury” was the name of a pagan god? It may have been contrary to the sensibilities of the time to have a pope with such an obviously pagan name?
Pope Murray the K.
No, you said Arthur. Sorry, I should have been more clear.
(I tend to be very anal about Royalty in history…don’t mind me)
Hell, yes! I swear I wanted to write “Albert.” No really. Cannot explain why I wrote “Arthur” 
The practice of referring to a cardinal as [first name] Cardinal [surname] is an editorial convention that has nothing to do with the cardinal’s actual name. It follows the practice of referring to British nobles as [first name], Lord [title of peerage], as in Alfred, Lord Tennyson. When Alfred Tennyson was made a baron in 1883, and chose “Tennyson” as his barony’s title, his name was still Alfred Tennyson, but he was thereafter referred to by his title “Alfred, Lord Tennyson” rather than his name. When John Michael O’Connor was made a cardinal, his name didn’t change, but he was thereafter referred to by his title in the same manner. His middle name no more became “Cardinal” than George Bush’s first name became “President” when he took office.
About a decade ago, The New York Times and several other newspapers abandoned the ancient style of referring to cardinals as “[first name] Cardinal [surname],” and began using the more modern style “Cardinal [surname].” Thus the recent coverage of the Boston archdiocese referred to “Cardinal Law” rather than to “Bernard Cardinal Law.” His middle name was and is Francis, both before and after his resignation.
After Pope John Paul George Ringo, the only logical name is
Pope Elvis
I coulda sworn they just take a Pole.
No Wait. That’s how they elect the guy…
never mind.
But it’s usually an Italian. John Paul II was the first Pole taken.