Alright, this'll probably be my last Papacy-related post 'til next time around. This will most likely only interest the handful of you following the St. Malachy angle. I haven't read any LJ yet and only caught one news report this morning, so don't yet know what anyone else is thinkin'.
At the moment, It appears to me as if the conclave have deliberately tried to fulfill prophecy (that is, satisfactorily bring about one of the anticipated outcomes).
As a candidate, Ratzinger has been portrayed as the figurehead of the ultra-conservative, absolutist, doctrine-preserving bloc within the Church. Very much a traditionalist. Right up 'til his bones rattled into the conclave, this is the public role he has held.
When a new pope selects their name, it has been tradition to select a name in emulation of a predecessor. That is, they select a name to symbolise their own policy and vision of their Papacy to come. In this light, the selection of the name Benedict would be made by a pope with a more moderate position and more flexible/accomodating policies.
In other words.. if left to follow tradition, which one could expect, one would NOT expect Ratzinger to pull the name Benedict out of his new hat. So what other motivation for selecting this name could there be?