"

 Prince/Duchess of Cambridge 

Because the child is a boy and because the Duke of Cambridge's second title is the Earl of Strathearn we now know that the new baby is HRH The Earl of Strathearn, since he takes his fathers next title by courtesy, just as other heirs to British Dukes do, so the title of the article should be HRH The Earl of Strathearn, and it should also be noted in the section about his Title and Style. 31.109.139.238  
Dukes heir uses a courtesy title only if he have no title by own right. Now he is Prince george of Cambridge he don't need a courtesy title. If Prince William predesease his father, the new born will prince george the duke of Cambridge and etc.
eg:- George V 's third son was styled HRH The Prince Henry, The Duke of Gloucester, Earl of Ulster and Baron Culloden. his heirs(first Prince William then Prince Richard after his brothers death) hold Princely titles because of Kings male line grand children, as called Prince William of Gloucester and Prince Richard of Gloucester instead of Earl of Ulster. But Present Duke, prince Richards children don't have princely titls because they are kings great grand children(Only Prince of Wales elderst sons children get princely titles among kings grand children) and his son called Earl of Ulster and sons heir and elderst son called Lord Culloden.  

When the child has been born, assuming we don't know the given name immediately, should we move this article to Prince of Cambridge or Princess of Cambridge? This article may be linked on the Main page under In the news, so we should probably be prepared for that. I noticed there was already an Unnamed Prince of Cambridge and an Unnamed Princess of Cambridge redirecting to Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge#Pregnancy (I have just edited them to redirect here instead). Online 
No, that would not be right. The child will not be Prince of Cambridge or Princess of Cambridge, i.e. that will not be a substantive title like Prince of Wales or Duke of Cambridge. The child will be a prince of the United Kingdom known as Prince(ss) X of Cambridge. It would be best to just leave the article at Child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge until the child is named; the present title certainly won't become less accurate or less precise once the childis born.   

The child will be officially entitled Prince (Name) of Cambridge or Princess (Name) of Cambridge. So probably not.  (Want to have a chat?) 
Prince(ss) NN of Cambridge would be the best answer, but seeing as the child will be given a name within the first couple days anyway, there's no point moving the article only to move it again a couple days later. The Princess NN of Country came about mostly because of the Danish tradition of waiting until the baptism to name the child, so the articles were made when the children were born and then we had an article in place while we waited for the name. In other cases, ie Princess Estelle of Sweden or Princess Eleonore of Begium, the article Princess NN of Sweden/Belgium was created and then moved within a day or two to its proper location when their names were announced. But this article is already in place, so moving it, only to move it yet again a day or two later is pointless.   
Personally, I think Norman is a great name for a Prince, although Princess NN also has a certain ring to it.  
I agree with Morhange. Additionally, we might not be certain as to the child's precise style until one is used (styles have broken precedent before, remember!), so we really ought to avoid assuming something based on precedent which could soon turn out to be WRONG... BD 

The style of the boy is given as ""His Royal Highness Prince [name] of Cambridge"" on the official webpages of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge - so speculation about that can now end... (www.dukeandduchessofcambridge.org/news-and-diary/the-duchess-of-cambridge-has-been-delivered-of-son)

Since this article is locked, can someone correct, ""as was the case for his father who was n