Friends working in the Ministry Of Defence told me, however it's been expected to be these names for some time.
But as it has not been formally announced, wait and see, you never know, there might be a change.
Hard to find a traditional name that has not had a previous ship sunk at some time, for example, HMS Invincible was sunk in WW1.
HMS Ark Royal was sunk in 1941.
Had CVA-01 onwards been built, (RN
wanted 3, treasury said 'no chance') the first two would have been called Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales.
As it was a Labour government which cancelled them in 1966 (and they had little choice, the design needed much changing, the RN
admitted they would not have the manpower to operate more than one at a time plus the RN
were already getting capital ships in the shape of nuclear subs), maybe choosing to use the names again is a form of apology to the RN
But in 1966, the RN
were feeble in the face of a strong RAF campaign against the carriers, they even moved Australia 500 miles north to show that land based aircraft could provide cover 'East Of Suez'.
The navy struggled to provide senarios justifying the huge expense of new carriers, the cold war was the main mission, with frigates and subs, the RN
never mentioned a possible Argentine invasion of the Falklands as a senario either.
Later, the Sea Harriers were approved as in the Cold War mission, the addition of Sea Harriers to already ordered large ASW helicopter carriers could be justified, as the main threat was Soviet long range anti ship missiles, launched from aircraft, ships or subs, the ship/sub launched ones relied on mid course guidance and target detection by TU
-95 aircraft, which would often be outside the range of Sea-Dart ship to air missiles.
The Sea Harriers would allow longer range interception against TU
-95s, or any other long range Soviet naval aviation aircraft for that matter.
Now the Cold War is over, out of area is back in vogue, that's how CVF
has got approved, the RN
will no doubt take some pain to pay for them, but without them, they will be lacking a role that is at the core of expeditionary warfare capabilities, aside from amphibious transport and minesweeping.