Everybody knows the phrase "an heir and a spare" - but what about the "royal third"? Set to be fifth in the line of succession, the third child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge is very unlikely to ever come to the throne - and when George and Charlotte have children, he'll be pushed even further down the tree.
So what does history tell us about the role of the royal third? And what might the new Prince learn from those who have been before him?
Traditionally, the third child has tended to be the charm. Those in Britain's past included Henry VIII, Edward VI, James II and William IV.
Back then, life expectancy not being what it is today, the third had a better chance of inheriting. Indeed, three was deemed a riskily small royal family. Thus Queen Charlotte, wife of George III, had 15 children. Queen Victoria had nine, and might have had more had Prince Albert lived. Charles I and Henrietta Maria also had nine. Added to this were various illegitimate offspring.
The golden era of the royal third was the Tudor period. Henry VIII was not cherished by his parents and some distance from the throne. But this stood him in good stead when - after his elder brother Arthur died - he leapfrogged his middle sister Margaret, according to the laws of primogeniture, and ascended to the throne. While Arthur had been schooled in the art of government, Henry had learned to take nothing for granted and was constantly on guard.