If it’s a boy, Elessar would be awesome(and a huge marketing opportunity)
Excellent choice but it needs to be spelled with the classic double e.
The Queen offered to make Anne’s children HRH, but Anne and Mark Philips decided against it.
Phillips also declined to be made an earl (as is customary for male commoners who marry into the family). Assuming the Queen doesn’t issue new letters patent any daughter the Cambridges have will be styled “The Lady N Mountbatten-Windsor”, any younger sons would be “The Lord N Mountbatten-Windsor”.
Just in case Kate and William are reading this thread looking for suggestions, I’m going to toss this one out:
Hurricane Thunderdome Awesome Hawk
Most badass monarch of all time.
Yes. Because, under the terms of their marriage treaty, Mary I’s husband had the title ‘King of England’ during her lifetime. And whether this made him Philip I never needed to be clarified, either at the time or at any time since.
I know Mary II’s husband was William III (and there was a William IV later), but that was a very different situation.
Anyway, I don’t really expect them to name their child Philip, as we still have a Prince Philip. And a Philip called “Philip” might decline to reign as Philip. Prince Philip Ralph Michael Frederick, say, might be crowned King Frederick, precisely because the English don’t have kings named Philip.
Wow, seven repetitions of the name Philip in about as many clauses. That’s eight now. Gah!
To be fair, Mel did write it…
Edward VIII’s first given name was Edward. “David” was his seventh given name (or sixth “middle” name).
It’s very unlikely that there’s going to be a (real) King Arthur. John, Charles, Stephen, Richard, and James are too closely associated with unpopular or failed monarchs. Albert is also not going to happen because of Victoria’s sorrow that her own beloved husband wasn’t allowed to be King Albert. Prince Charles has made it known that if he ever makes it to the throne, he’s going to be George VII. William, Henry, George, and Edward are all still good. Phillip is probably okay.
Isn’t Arthur viewed as unlucky because several heirs apparent / presumptive have pre-deceased the monarch? Henry VIII’s brother is the obvious one, but weren’t there several short-lived Arthurs in earlier generations?
So I was looking at House of Windsor Christian names:
The present monarch, descendants, and spouses past and present:
Elizabeth Alexandra Mary, Queen
Philip, Duke of Edinburgh
Charles Philip Arthur George, Duke of Cornwall
Camilla Rosemary, Duchess of Cornwall
Diana Frances, Princess of Wales
William Arthur Philip Louis, Duke of Cambridge
Catherine Elizabeth, Duchess of Cambridge
Henry Charles Albert David of Wales
Anne Elizabeth Alice Louise, Princess Royal
Mark Anthony Peter Phillips
Peter Mark Andrew Phillips
Zara Anne Elizabeth Phillips
Andrew Albert Christian Edward, Duke of York
Sarah Margaret, Duchess of York
Beatrice Elizabeth Mary of York
Eugenie Victoria Helena of York
Edward Antony Richard Louis, Earl of Wessex
Sophie Helen, Countess of Wessex
Louise Alice Elizabeth Mary Windsor
James Alexander Philip Theo, Viscount Severn
~
I’m not seeing a lot of firm namesake patterns in this bunch. Both of Charles’s sons share one or two Christian names with him, but this does not seem to be a general naming rule.
For now, I’m calling the hypothetical baby Cambridges Ralph and Adele.
Any child of William, boy or girl, will take precidence over Harry – they don’t need to change the law. IF, however, the have a girl, then she has a brother next, that kid will then take precidence over her.
Nitpick: Edward VIII was David. Edward VII, their grandfather, was also known as Bertie, since his first name was “Bertie”, the same as George VI. (George VI also had a younger brother whose first name was George. Confusing as hell, isn’t it?)
I like the idea of a Queen Victoria II. I don’t think the connection would be that weird – her great-grandmother survived being Queen Elizabeth. What about:
Victoria Frances Katherine? Katherine’s another good name. Henry or Edward would be interesting, as there has never been a number higher than VIII in Britain.
At the last big Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, the subset that is the 16 Realms agreed that that they would all introduce legislation to change this so that the first-born would become monarch, regardless of gender. The UK parliament has a draft Bill ready, but not yet implemented. I suppose today’s news hurries it along. It can always be backdated anyway I suppose.
Does the law in the UK actually allow a non-person to be the monarch?
When they were worried about William IV dying with a baby on the way, they made it so that Victoria would instantly become Queen but lose the crown at the moment of birth (with Queen Adelaide then becoming the regent).
I can’t believe you’ve got this far without suggesting the most awe-inspiring name – King KONG!
But I really think they should pick a name with a common feel to it – what is an English equivalent to Cletus or Billy Bob?
Those of you suggesting Ralph: do you mean Ralph or “Rafe”? 
How about Bruce or Colin or Hugh or James or Neville or Nigel or Robert or Rupert?
Anne or Charlotte or Jane or Victoria or Virginia.
Poor Kate! Hope you’re feeling better. 
Kevin.
Long live King Kevin I!
Or Queen Tracy would do nicely too.
Okay , if its a girl and or one of them is a girl, I want Hermonie to be taken into concideration for the name. Bring the royals into the next century.
Declan
The previously mentioned rules changes make that permissible, actually.
Oh God…we’ve got another, what, six or seven months of this to come…