So why don't we pass the next six months debating what the next teensy-weensy royal might be called? I mean, we're all going to have an opinion on it, aren't we?
It's no easy task naming a child. And a royal child? Oh my.
If William and Kate stick to recent Mountbatten-Windsor tradition, their baby will need no less than four names – if it's a boy anyway. Daddy is William Arthur Philip Louis. Uncle Harry is actually Henry Charles Albert David. And grandad is Charles Philip Arthur George. I'm sure there's some sort of code in there, in terms of who gets to share a name with who.
If they have a little girl, and they're sticking with the tradition of name re-cycling (is it done to save energy?), then they're bound to pick at least one of great grandmama's – Elizabeth? Alexandra? Mary?
Naturally, odds will be on Diana featuring somewhere, should they have a little girl, and of course the nation would be ecstatic over that. But what of Kate's family? Surely she'll be allowed to pluck something from her own (slightly less illustrious) lineage?
Her father is a Michael. This might work well. It's a good and stable sort of name – not eccentric, but not overly stuffy either. Her mother is a Carole – hmm, I might be wrong, but even with the added 'e' on the end it doesn't sound quite royal enough.
Well let's have a dig through grandparents and great grandparents then: There's an Olive (maybe) and Noel (not a hope, anyone remember the stories about Gallagher snubbing the Queen and – THE HORROR! – taking cocaine in the Royal Toilet at No 10?). A Peter? Got one of those already with Peter Phillips. Or a Valerie? Val? Doubt it. Hmm.
Ronald? No, it makes me think of the children's book Paper Bag Princess, where he ends up being called a bum. Dorothy then? Nope. I quite like the name actually, but surely, you say 'Dot' you think 'Cotton'. Ah! Kate's great grandmother: Elizabeth! There must be something in that.
Do we think Kate and William will be so traditional as to use the names of their predecessors? Perhaps His Royal Highness's culture is so unbending that it will definitely be so. Yet, I'd like to think our modern royals could throw caution to the wind a little bit; naming your baby is one of the most creative things you ever do – it would be such a shame if history were to restrict them too much.
Maybe they could retain the tradition of very, very long names – but get a bit creative with what the names actually are. Uma Thurman could offer some inspiration – she had a baby girl in July of this year and just last month announced her daughter's full name: Rosalind Arusha Arkadina Altalune Florence Thurman-Busson. It's little wonder it took three months.
As much as I like the idea of future headlines featuring His Royal Highness Prince Rocky, or Her Royal Highness Princess Sparrow, I feel it's unlikely The Duchess of Cambridge will be quite so bonkers as to follow in the footsteps of the likes of Sarah Michelle Gellar or Nicole Ritchie.
That said, some of the more peripheral royals have names that are at least a little off the wall. Eugenie, for example – although named after a royal herself (one of Queen Victoria's granddaughters) her name remains rather unusual, as does Zara (if you don't count the international clothing brand).
So perhaps Prince William and The Duchess of Cambridge will surprise us – you know, mix it up a bit. How about Michael William Tiger Philip? Or Olive Elizabeth Poppysocks Mary?
If you were a thoroughly modern royal couple, what would you choose?
More on Parentdish: Have fun search for a regal baby name with our brand new baby name generator.