We knew it was never going to be Apple, Blue, North or even something pretty mainstream like Molly.
The royals work from an extremely small pool of baby names, which are generally deemed acceptable because they are a throwback to previous Majesties and HRHs. Hence the preponderance of Georges, Williams and Marys.
This must make it tricky enough for the new royal parents, not to mention a mite unnerving for the bookies who know that the punters will have already narrowed it down to a handful of racing certainties.
In this instance Charlotte, Elizabeth and Diana were all on the money - all featuring in the low odds list.
That Diana would be in there somewhere was a cert. Had it not been, eyebrows would surely have been raised. William (and Kate's) tribute to his late and much-loved mother is as poignant as it is inevitable. The People's Princess who didn't live to see this little girl.
But they were wise not to make it her first name, not to burden the poor child with a label she could never escape. The comparisons will be made anyway. The ghost of her tragic grandmother will always be there in the background. But as Princess Charlotte, the newest royal has at least, more chance to be her own woman, to make her own mark.
Charlotte is seen as a tribute to grandfather Charles. It's also the middle name of Kate's sister, the baby's auntie Pippa. And it also has regal precedence - there was a Queen Charlotte who was born way back in 1744.
Elizabeth is, of course, for the baby's great-grandmother, the reigning monarch. It also echoes back to Elizabeth I, flame-haired daughter of Henry VIII. As the name of arguably the two greatest queens in English history it is hopefully a good omen with regards to the child's longevity, popularity and mettle.
All-round, then, a grand name that encompasses the two immediate royal generations and pays equal homage to both William's parents. So everyone's happy?
You just wonder about Carol, queen bee of the Middletons. Could Kate's mother be blamed for feeling just a tiny bit hurt at being left out of the name game?
It's not unknown, after all, for loving daughters (and Kate is one) to pay tribute to their own mum by calling their first girl after her. A mention in there somewhere anyway.
Loyal, discreet, supportive and loving, Carol has famously been a massive help to both Kate and William particularly after the birth of George. She and her daughter (and son-in-law) are obviously very, very close.
So in this instance would a fourth name really have been too much? That wee extra tribute to Kate's own mother to give her her place up there with the royal in-laws? Maybe next time?
Maybe next time Princess Carol. It does have a ring to it.
You'd hate to think that the poor woman might lose out to, say, Princess Camilla.