Where do you get this from?
Prince Charles’ office has flat out denied this. I don’t know why it keeps cropping up.
There’s nothing wrong with King Charles. If we stopped naming King’s after bad ones, we would have run out of names by now. Charles II may have been a bit randy, but as Bad Monarchs go, he’s way down the list.
George IV was a car crash.
There is no rule on which ordinal gets used. It was suggested in the 50s that it would be a good idea to use the higher one, but it’s not a matter of law. (Churchill said that if “a King James came to the throne he might well be designated by the numeral appropriate to the Scottish succession.” But he seems pretty annoyed by the whole issue in that exchange, so he was probably just searching for the answer most likely to stifle the controversy in Scotland over Elizabeth II.)
They’re speculating it might be twins.
Link.
If it’s boy-girl twins, and she has a c-section: would the doc be under orders to take out the boy first? 
Well, if that’s not a recipe for a dynastic war, I don’t know what is!
Not James - Edward already has a son called James.
The boy should be Steve or Barry. The girl should be Donna or Gemma. Completely buck all the current naming trends.
Will this news add impetus to the talk / wish to have the throne skip a generation and pass directly to Wills?
WOW -
Now there’s speculation by a local radio station that maybe the baby was conceived here (“here” being Singapore)
Can anyone shed light on what date the baby would have been conceived?
No due date has been announced yet, so conception date is just speculation.
If she’s less than 12 weeks along, as suspected, then the deed could have been done late Sept/early Oct.
When was she in Singapore?
Is there an obvious order the surgeon should remove twins during a c-section?
Because if there isn’t, and it’s purely the surgeon’s choice, he could effectively be selecting the next monarch (assuming it’s same-sex twins).
Awesome!
It might cause vapid speculation, but that’s all it would be. Really, the time for that has passed anyways. The Queen is 86, so it’s unwise at this point to make the arrangements for her death subject to a years-long process of international constitutional exploration.
Slightly off topic 
If its a girl and they call her Elizabeth. Then at least Scotland would finally get a Queen Elizabeth the 2nd unlike the current monarch.
Annoys me when i see all this QE2 nonsense in Scotland she is QE1 to us
If you’ll pardon the phrasing, I guess it’s just whichever is on top?
(slightly concerned by your username, and the fact you’re in the UK - I didn’t used to be married to you, did I?) 
On topic, and completely agree. She’s the first QE of the United Kingdom, regardless of what the Sassenachs say.
Pretty sure not. But you’re my wife now.
Vote for independence and you can call her what you like. I presume you won’t be happy with William V either?
But that cuts both ways. As others have pointed out, the idea was aired in the 1950s - in the wake of the decision by the Court of Session that she could called herself whatever she liked - that the higher numbering, whether Scottish or English, will be used. Which, given that the numbers don’t have some sort of mystical significance and are merely a convenient way of differentiating monarchs with the same name, actually makes a lot of practical sense. It’s also how several other European monarchies have dealt with the problem.
I was amused by this exchange:
Very droll.
11 and 12 sept. would they announce officially where they think conception was do u think?
Well played 
Ah, according to the BBC pregnancy calendar, to be 11 weeks pregnant, the deed would have been done around the 26th September, so it’s not looking likely, I’m afraid.
And no, that’s not their style to announce such personal information (although I wouldn’t put it past the UK tabloids to hack someone’s voicemail to get the gory details and publish them).