Britain Wonders if Baby Prince Will be Circumcised; Prince Charles Snipped by Royal Mohel

[Purveyor]

British royal watchers continued aflutter on Wednesday as speculation mounted about the possibility that the baby prince would follow the tradition of his ancestors, and be circumcised within the week.

While the custom of royal circumcision has a centuries long history in Britain, Princess Diana is believed to have ended the tradition with Princes William and Harry, according to the London Evening Standard, leaving uncertainty as to whether the religious rite will be re-instated for the new generation.

Circumcision for members of the royal family in England dates back to King George I, who introduced the custom. Queen Victoria traced the British royal family’s tree back to ancient Israel’s King David, and insisted that her sons be circumcised along the lines of Jewish tradition, which calls for foreskin to be snipped on the eighth day after birth.

Edward VII, the Duke of Windsor and Prince Charles all had their foreskins removed, the latter by Jacob Snowman GP, at Buckingham Palace in 1948. Charles’ brothers Andrew and Edward were also snipped.

more...

http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/07/24/britain-wonders-if-baby-prince-will-be-circumcised-prince-charles-snipped-by-royal-mohel/

sorry...I couldn't resist and three cheers to Princess Diana!

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. Yes, good for Princess Diana!

And since the baby's father wasn't snipped, the new Prince probably won't be either.

Like father, like son...

[TroyD]

15. It depends on whether William & Kate decide to re-establish the tradition

Just because William & Harry may not have been snipped (and we don't know for sure if they weren't without confirmation) doesn't mean this new baby won't be. There's a lot of pressure to follow long-standing Royal traditions, and there are a lot of articles about it in the British press this week. This is one of many I've seen. Prominent members of the Jewish community like Stephen Pollard of the Jewish Chronicle are even suggesting names of Mohels to the Palace.

Clarence House said in a statement today that it was a private decision and didn't confirm or deny whether it would happen.

[Igel]

2. Aw, did they have to talk about Anglo-Israelism at all?

Seriously.

There are already enough quacko-Islamist rumors about Middleton's being Jewish, and therefore the possible king of England being a Jew by some loon-ball "hundredth of a drop rule'.

Don't need Anglo-Israelism. Nope. Just don't need it mentioned.

[GiaGiovanni]

3. How did Queen Victoria trace her lineage to King David?

Just curious.

[LittleBlue]

7. Probably the often-used "lost tribes of Israel"

Been claimed by numerous kooky Christian sects for hundreds of years.

IIRC the Church of Latter Day Saints claim the Native Americans are a lost tribe.

[GiaGiovanni]

8. Ah. So not a real check on lineage.

I would think it would be very difficult to trace one's family tree back that far.

[LittleBlue]

9. No. Like most religious claims tying fables to modern day reality

it's specious nonsense.

[woolldog]

4. I hope so.

Snipped just looks better. And it's healthier.

[DavidDvorkin]

5. And away we go

Prepare yourself.

[Horse with no Name]

12. Yeeeup....mind if I sit a bit?

[DavidDvorkin]

13. I see you've brought popcorn

[xfundy]

6. Hope they'll drop that bit of barbarism.

All the "medical miracles" claimed by the snippy crowd are BS.

What really happens to these living pieces of human skin?

• They go into cosmetics, "anti-aging" face cremes, and;

• They are often used for commercial medical experiments.

They can have my flesh once I'm dead. Till then, I'm hanging on to it, or what's left; the snippers got me, like most American boys, and I had no say in the matter. And yes, I'm still pissed about it.

The practice was adopted at the turn of the 20th century because quacks claimed it would "cure" masturbation, among other things.

[arely staircase]

10. britain should have much bigger concerns nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. It does - DU is the only place I've seen this mentioned

(I've seen someone on DU ask this before this article). The Evening Standard "Londoner's Diary" is a gossip column, and it looks like they were pretty desperate for something to write about, and chose this. They had read Holden's biography of Prince Charles, and you can see that this is the first time anyone has brought this up to him this time around:

“I’m just back from playing poker in America,” a jet-lagged Holden told me this morning. “I haven’t written a royal book for 10 years. I was watching television and I thought: ‘Thank God I’m not part of that any more.’”

So they tried another royal biographer, who basically says "people don't normally do it now":

“It’s largely a question of medical fashion,” says royal biographer Hugo Vickers. “In my day they did. By 1980/2000 they didn’t.”

'Britain' is not discussing this. The Evening Standard needed something to fill the column, and 'The Algeminer' has picked up on that, without bothering to find out if anyone else in Britain gives a toss.

[Buns_of_Fire]

11. I'll wait for CNN's wall-to-wall coverage of the event. nt

[rustydog]

14. Please forgive me, but who gives a flying F**K at a rolling donut? whether he is or isn't?

Last time I looked, we were not subject to the royal crown...Who gives a flying "you -know-what" at a rolling donut whether this privileged royal snot is circumcised or not? really, who fucking cares?

[Raine]

16. TMI, I can live without that info and happily. nt

[olddots]

17. this subject is being bet on in Vegas right now.

anybody got any TIPS on which way it could go ?

[olddots]

19. Oh come on people

somebody better come up with some circumcision jokes in a hurry