Sunday, July 22nd | 10 Av 5778

July 24, 2013 8:27 am

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

avatar by Joshua Levitt

Email a copy of "Britain Wonders if Baby Prince Will be Circumcised; Prince Charles Snipped by Royal Mohel" to a friend

Britain's Prince Charles in 2012. Photo: Wikipedia.

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.

According to Anthony Holden’s biography of Prince Charles, cited by the Evening Standard, Jacob Snowman was summoned to the palace five days after Charles’s christening. Snowman was a mohel, a religious circumcision specialist, from London’s Jewish community, and he was chosen over the royal physician to perform the ritual.

Maurice Levenson, Secretary of the UK’s Initiation Society, told The Algemeiner that Dr. Snowman, who died in 1959, was Medical Officer of the Initiation Society for 27 years and was highly regarded as a surgeon-Mohel, and his responsibility for Prince Charles’s circumcision was well known in the community. Dr. Snowman’s son, Dr Leonard Snowman, also served as Medical Officer of the Society.

“Brit Milah is the Jewish religious ceremony that incorporates the surgical procedure and various prayers for the well-being and future success of the newborn, and the custom is that Jewish babies are given their names during the ceremony. I would imagine that the ‘religious’ aspect would have been omitted in the case of the Royal Family when the operation was carried out,” Levenson said.

The Initiation Society was established in 1745 to provide training for practitioners of circumcision in the Jewish Community and to ensure that every Jewish family in the UK could access the services of a Mohel regardless of their personal circumstances. In cases of need the Society also provided financial assistance to the families at the time a baby was born. The Society continues to this day training, authorizing and regulating Mohelim for the Jewish Community. It is the only regulatory body in the UK for Mohelim.

Although the rite was considered of vital importance over the past two centuries, Princess Diana was not interested, and royal watchers believe she decided not to have her son’s circumcised.

Royal biographer Hugo Vickers told the Evening Standard: “It’s largely a question of medical fashion. In my day they did. By 1980/2000 they didn’t.”

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter Email This Article

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner
  • Matilda Woodhouse

    I agree.

  • Matilda Woodhouse

    And in Europe HIV is not that high and most males here are left as nature intended. Condoms protect against HIV and STDs.

  • Matilda Woodhouse

    Well said Michael. Some people just don’t know biology.

  • Matilda Woodhouse

    No that is because they do not use condoms and have a lot of poverty and poor health care.

  • Matilda Woodhouse

    What a shame this carries on over there still.

  • Joe

    weather medically fasionable or not,the truth is men can live perfectly fine without a circumcision and most men in the world do,so it is t0tally unnecessary

  • sunitha

    What a story..

  • Patrick

    Shalom; I have a dilema on my hands; I read from Genesis the Tribes were from a patriarchal system. I read the “Jews” have adopted the “matriarchal” system.

    I understand the Brithish “Royal” have lineage to David, Jacob, Isaac and Abraham viz a Patriarchal genealogy.

    It is my understanding Judah George Windsor alias; KING GEORGE THE SIXTH gave the Promised Land in order to create the “Jewish” state in 1948 during the 4 Blood Moon Tetrads falling on Passover and Sukkoth.

    If “Judah” and “Jew” were one in the same, who did Judah (George) give up the Promised Land to; to “Jews” or to “Judah”? It is obvious to me if “Jew” and “Judah” were synonomous it would stand t’reason Judah George would have, on its own initiative, created the Judahaic state and NOT transfer the Promised Land to the Cana’anite Vatican curia and its council of Cana’anites! From my research it was Judah whom Yahua order to sack Fortress Zion and failed. Then Yahua ordered David to sack Fortress Zion, which he did, by accessing the fortress through the stream running into the fortress. Also, Fortress Zion was held by the Jebusites who were of Cana’an. I understand Jacob cheated Esau out of his birthright leaving Esau high and dry. I also understand Esau gravetated to the Cana’anites as; 1. he was seeking a treaty with Cana’an as he had killed the first “Free”mason; Nimrod and the Hivites (money masters then/now) held vast riches. I have read Genesis 36 wherein the sons of Esau-Edom were called “Dukes” whilst Israelite men were known as; “Princes”. We also know the union of the sons of Isaac can be found hidden in the titles Lizzy Windsor, chief of the Tribe of Judah, gives i. e. her husband is PRINCE Philip as well the DUKE of Edinburgh. Bearing this in mind, the patriarch of Cana’an would be Satan therefore, in order to hide this fact, Cana’an diverted to the matriarchal system. I believe the State of ISRAEL is a Cana’anite state and a “give back” to Cana’an, by Judah, for the sacking of Fortress Zion thousands of years ago. I also believe Esau-Edom misnamed himself “Jew” in order to deceive many (JUST LIKE DEAR OLD MOM AND BROTHER DID TO ISAAC) into believing “Jew” and “Judah” are one in the same. I also believe the state of ISRAEL is going to be used to induce as many remnants of Israel there in so it will be destroyed by Iran as a “pay back” to the Tribes of Israel for the cheating Jacob and Rebekah did to Esau. From Genesis I found Esau to be a great hunter and did what was asked of him by Isaac and feel for him for being “jewed” or “jacobbed” out of his birthright and blessings. Clearly, under Hebrew Law, this was a fraud! Before I shoot myself in the foot, whilst in my mouth, it would be appreciated if you can refute what I have just written. Thank you for the time you spend on reading this note. Best regards; Patrick

    • Rockie overlunde.

      Dear Sir,

      What an well informed comment. Tell me sir, have you written any books? If not, then you should. the world needs concerned people if it is to get out of this mess, but it will be set back to the original truth of God. thanks.

  • oopd

    looks like englandia is run by the tribe

  • Ken

    Leave it to mankind to debate the integrity of their sexual organs.

    Not surprising as throughout history, there has always been an effort to control human sexuality.

    Circumcision for both male and female is one such way…nowadays performed under the guise of “medical benefits”.

  • John

    Been reading here and there for years that the British royals are cryto-Jews. Been hard pressed to find any supporting evidence. This article would be circumstantial evidence at best but sometimes you just have to go with the cards dealt. I’d say with the above information, case closed.

  • Pat

    Prince William’s willingness to engage in the “full boat” experience of healthy Dads and Moms with healthy babies is one of the more princely-kingly duties of rroyalty in Britain to endear the entire family to the British people, and one of the real bonuses of a new royal prince.

  • Brian

    Circumcision trivializes the brilliant design and sensitivity of the human male penis. It takes away the moving parts, make caressing the person difficult, ultimately causes a huge degree of sensitivity to disappear as the head becomes calcified and keratinized in a way never intended in the genetic scheme of things, and is a huge loss even in a reasonably-well-executed procedure (that may be an oxymoron.) The head is attached to the foreskin at birth and should not be ripped off in any case. No-one, parents included, should presume to make this decision for an infant.

    • michael

      Interesting that every mammel from a mouse to a whale has a foreskin. They go their whole life with no problems. Only the most intelligent (man) is perceived to be incapable of taking proper care of it. Cut the foreskin off a dog or other animal and you’ll go to jail for abuse, but somehow not with a human. Maybe we are not so intelligent afterall.

  • Rebecca

    The large majority of American boys are still circumcised. It remains a very common practice.

    • LA

      The majority of Egyptian females are circumcised as well. And your point is?

    • michael

      Still doesn’t make it right or acceptable. US is nearing the 50% mark for routine circumcision. Soon it will join the majority of the world and not do it. Every body part serves a purpose. Now there are some findings that the appendix helps in the immune system. How many people have had their appendix removed when having internal surgery? From what I am finding, quite a few.

      Do you know there are publilshed papers that show cutting off femal parts reduces infection, prevents disease and might even reduce HIV chances. But wait, females are protected by law. Why not males, too? Probably the Jewish lobby gives too much money to the politicians.

      Did you know the hospitals sell the infant foreskins, thereby making additional money on your loss? They used in cosmetic testing and to grow artificial skin.

      • There are published medical findings on both sides of the circumcision issue. Some say it is on balance beneficial and others say it is harmful. BUT, it is common that those who argue against circumcision drop in references to “the Jewish lobby” . That raises strong suspicions that their argument is not based on medical values, but on bigotry.

        In fact, of course, Jews represent a very small percentage of males who are circumcised.

  • The jew was expelled from England in 1290. They shouldn’t even be here today. The Dutch Jew, financed Oliver Cromwell during the Civil War who allowed them back in Blighty post 1655. In 1694, the private jewish Bank of England was founded. Later, the jew wipes out the French Royal Family and much of the Aristocracy. Meanwhile, the Rothschilds consolidate their bankers’ grip on the rapidly industrializing British economy. After 1815, the Rothschilds with the aid of a pigeon, go onto expand their World Wide Slave Trade and in cahoots with the Mizhari Sassoons force the Chinese into profitable opium addiction. Gaining confidence and blood money, they worm their way into the German British Royal Family. Victoria’s children (Alexandrina) are by now being circumcised post 1840. Now ensconced in Parliament and with the aid of fellow jewish New York Bankers; the Bolshevik jew finishes off the Romanovs in 1917 and later the German Royal Family. Their next target for almighty ruination-is the United States of America.

    • A social critic

      Dear Michael,

      Who are you? What gibberish nonsense…Sad to think that some people still hold these flagrantly untrue myths which are part of the ant-semitic ideology played upon so successfully by the Nazis and now carried forward by Muslim anti-Jewish ideology.

      I feel sorry for you.

      Best regards

      • nate roth

        Agree – was about to write something similar.

      • Fay Menzies

        Thank goodness some people know the truth, well said .

    • Yosef

      Let me guess, you are a muslim and want sharia law in America instead right?

  • Shyguy

    It could be worse. Was it the French who said, “off with their heads”

  • Michael

    The heinous and barbaric tradition of circumcision of baby boys needs to end. Do you think God is so shallow as to really care whether the person has a foreskin or not? Come on, really? Rabbi’s are very intellectual people and should realize this. Non medically indicated amputation of any healthy body part is against all medical credos: First, do not harm! It is the ultimate violation of basic human rights. Only the owner of the penis should be able to make such a life altering decision. Not the parents; Not the religion.

    • Elliot J. Stamler

      You are a crackpot, an anti-religious fanatic and a complete ignoramus concerning the medical benefits of circumcision. Your brain has been circumcised.

      • michael

        Really? Have you ever had direct experience with a foreskin? Experienced its funcition? Realized just how much more pleasure is recieved with it? Do you know the physiology of its function? Have you even seen the difference in skin tissue in the glans covered by the foreskin: smooth, shiny, moist not dried out and calloused. It is a shameful travesty and has nothing to do with being anti-religous.

        • LA

          As the owner of a foreskin, I can attest to this. It’s not “just skin”. It has sensations of its own, and I know my glans would not receive as much pleasure during sex if it did not have a foreskin covering it, keeping it moist and sensitive (much like the natural, uncircumcised female genitalia). Sorry, but removing any part of normal male or female genitalia diminishes pleasure, and its practice on non-consenting minors should be banned for this reason alone. Wake up, America.

          Note: people will justify their mutilations at all costs. An American woman, Dr. Fuambai Ahmadu, voluntarily underwent clitoral excision as an adult in her ancestral village and yet could not bring herself to say she experienced any sexual loss. I say this not to shame this woman, but to point out that it is a psychologically devastating thing to admit you have been damaged “down there”–and hence the cutting continues, generation after generation, father upon the son and mother upon the daughter.

    • Foreskins are attributed to the ridiculously high rates of HIV in Africa.

      Cut that kid!

      • LA

        Sorry to burst your bubble, but America has both the highest circumcision rate and the highest HIV rate in the developed world.

  • Jack Perry

    Diana knew that this practice is very harmful to the man the baby will become. People are becoming aware that the parts that are amputated contain over 3 feet of arteries, veins and capillaries and thousands of nerve endings (well above 10,000). Even Americans are getting the word that the parts that are cut off are some of the most highly innervated parts of the human. To take this away from another person without their consent is heinous. To do this to a newborn baby is creepy, child abuse and a human rights VIOLATION.

    • Carl

      Nonsense!! There are no ill effects whatsoever.

      • LA

        Do you have a foreskin, Carl?

      • Michael

        You need to do some research. There are many ill effects, especially reduced sensitivity. Wait until you are in your fifties. You’ll wish you had every last nerve ending that was stolen. Ever notice that the procedure left you with a noticeable scar? Did you ever notice that the sensation forward of the scar is quite pleasant? Ever notice that there is no such sensation back from the scar? So more skin with more nerve endings does it for me. I hate the fact that this was done to me. Ever see the texture of the glans of an intact person versus a cut one? Huge difference.

  • What a wonderful news. G-d bless the prince!

  • Gerald Chernicoff

    The Royal snip is also a good step in health awareness, hopefully avoiding any future vaginal diseases.

    • Jack Perry

      What primitive notions. In real populations the data clearly shows that circumcision does not result in less HIV or STDs.

      Of course there has been a real world study that has been ongoing for more than 50 years. The results are in. Cut men get HIV and STDS at a higher rate than natural men — natural (intact) EU has much lower HIV and STD rate than cut US. Isn’t it strange that cut men from the US are the pushers of this MUTILATION?


      GERALD, since there is some possiblity that your family came from Ykaterinoslav, who knows, we might be somehow related. Do you really believe that Hakadoshbaruchhu, gave humans a body part that would could cause illness? bifnei atsmo? Bodily mutiliation in Judaism is asur (forbidden) this includes tattoos, and should include ear piercing, however it seems that most frum women have pierced ears. hey, the rabbis can always argue that it is not permanent, since, given time the hole will seal.
      Hey, given time the foreskin does not grow back.
      As appropriate to all body parts, keeping them clean is pre-requisite to good health, do you brush your teeth, or have them all extracted, so that they will not rot?
      I am a traditional Jew, and I prayed to whoever, that i would not give birth to boys, so as not to have the conflict of mutilating my sons or folowing Jewish tradition. The only time he ever listened, i had two girls….. todah la’el or whoever.
      Men who keep themselves clean do not spread any vaginal diseases. Cleaning the genitals is comparable to brushing one’s teeth. The Orthodox can do as they please, but Hashem gave us a dangerous body part, hey of no use, hey, what about the appenedix and the tonsils, they have no know use, shoudl teyy all coe out. People with tonsils are far far more likely to get tonsilllitis than those who have no tonsils.

  • Joseph E

    IF the Jewish ‘religious’ & ritual aspect of the aspect of the circumcision is omitted in the case of the Royal Family when the operation is carried out,
    the New Baby born is not a Jew.

    It anyway takes more than a circumcision to be a Jew.
    It takes normally 613 mitzvot plus those included when observing Hanukah, Purim & Tisha B’Av etc… minus those included had the Temple Mount been operational etc…

    The Circumcision will still be valid as an alliance w/ God & will bestow upon the New Baby the grace that comes thru such show of Alliance.

    Such “grace” is not the case where it concerns the Islam circumcision ritual since pagan Muslims believe in the arabian pagan Allah Stone.

    Where the biblical Patriarch Abraham destroyed all of his Terah’s father business idols,
    The War Criminal Mohamed destroyed all of those in placed in the Ka’aba But the Allah Stone that Mohamed worshipped as well as his today followers.

    The arabian pagan Allah Stone is represented up to this day by a black meteorite within the Saudia Arabia Ka’aba walls.

    The arabian pagan Allah Stone is not to be confused with the God of Jacob, Moses, David…

    The Islam/Muslims shouts of Allah Akbar mean Allah is greater. The arabian pagan Allah Stone cannot be greater than the God of Jacob, Moses, David…

    The Islam/Muslims shouts of Allah Akbar sounds very similar to those of Heil Hitler.

  • Russell Pendergraft

    If William and Harry ARE UNCUT Why Would They Put The New Prince Through The PAIN AND TOURCHER????
    Britten Is AGINST MUTULATYING Baby boy’s, An Unnecessary Operation That Causes HARM,NOT GOOD!!!!

  • William and Harry are circumcised. While Diana might have initially been opposed the consensus view is that she accepted the Royal tradition so they did get circumcised. In Britain, circumcision is the ‘mark’ of the upper classes. It would be quite extraordinary if Prince George did not follow the Royal tradition and the class in society to which he was born. Apart from that issue, these days the enormous lifetime health benefits and proven safety of medical circumcision, confirmed be the latest evidence-based policy statements in 2012, make neonatal circumcision a ‘no-brainer’ (despite what opponents with an agenda might say). See authoritative article in BMC Pediatrics:

    • Steve Lieblich

      Thank you for your informative comment. The referenced paper is very useful.

    • Jami Ortiz

      Prince William and Prince Harry are NOT circumcised. There are no benefits to circumcision, and the rest of the world sees leaving infants as they were born to be the “no brainer”. There is a load of evidence that Kate and William will protect their son and leave him whole.

      • Jami Ortiz

        Please note that the paper Mr. Morris linked is one penned by himself as well as others who are of questionable character when it comes to the discussion over circumcision. Men with links to such groups as Acorn and the Gilgal Society which are known circumfetish groups. I would take anything posted by Mr. Morris as nothing less than propaganda to promote his own agenda.


      With all due respect, whether or not you are an MD, just about every medical dictum as changed over the years. Flu vaccine, recommended, and then not, someitmes due to contamination sometimes due to other reasoning, The food pyramid changes constantly. The medicall establishment is a disgrace, they change their recommendations frequently on just about every part of the human body. Sometimes, perhaps, it is due to new “knowledge” , most studies are flawed, and sooner or later are proven as such, and sometimes the changed recommendations are due to monetary considerations and big Pharma. Most Md’s have zero analytical skills. They read can read the blood test results, and see which numbers are out of the normal range. That is in the printout. None of them can think. None.
      And every year, recommendations re every medical issue are changed. I do not care if it from NIMH or NIH or Mayo clinic, there are not gods. Give it a year or two or three at the most, and the medical recommendataions will be reversed. There are no “authoritative articles” they are all flawed, and sooner or later, that is proven. The medical profession doewss not even earn the faint praise of “an art”. Take away the computer printouts, and they are all helpless. recommendations change frequently. you can circumsize if you wish, medically a huge mistake, because uncircumcized men wash really really well after intercourse, as opposed to their circumcized brethren. and you can extract all of their teeth, so that they do not need to brush them.

    • Aurora

      No William & Harry are NOT circumcised. There is a picture of Harry urinating in public & you can see his foreskin in the picture. It’s ALL OVER the net. Get your facts straight you freaking circumfetisht!

  • Henry

    What? Mutilate their son?

    • Russell Pendergraft

      As I Posted, Mutilating there New Born Prince Would Be CRAZY As William AND Harry Are UNCIRCIMCISED Thanks TO THERE WONDERFUL MOTHER!!!

  • שלם

    The choice to remove the foreskin should be reserved solely to the penis owner and nobody else. Not even his parents.

  • Jose Carp

    Technically, under Jewish law, the Royal baby is Jewish. If it were a Royal baby girl, she would naturally transmit the Jewish religion. As the Royal baby is a boy, he will only transmit his Jewish descendence if he marries a Jewish girl..

    • hadassa

      He’s NOT Jewish! End of story.

  • Diana

    I really hope Kate insists that their son be circumcised. They need to bring back the tradition!

    • LA

      And if they have a daughter, I would love to see her labia clipped!

      • Roger

        You would like to see a Royal Daughter circumcised?

        Are you Muslim?

        • LA

          No. I just believe in religious and cultural freedom. It’s the parents’ right to decide what to do with their children’s genitalia!

    • Rebecca

      I hope that William & Kate have their son circumcised, too. It’s a shame that Diana seems to have interrupted such a long-standing tradition, and I hope that it becomes re-established again here by William & Kate!

      • LA

        And if they have a daughter…off with her lips!

    • DarkKnight

      No. Its a pointless procedure. It should not be done on anyone withought a pre-existing medical condition that can’t be treated otherwise. This tradition needs to end, not just for the Royals but the world. Its inhumane and barbaric. At least it should be the individuals choice, not decided by anyone else, tradition or faith. Intact is best. Say no to mutilation

    • Audra

      Even they Royal family is Jewish though family, family of so long ago. So what, a lot of younger Jewish parents are waking up, and not circumcising their boys.
      So if they don’t circumcised so what times are changing. And I hope they change their ways for the better.

  • It’s funny that the monarchy expelled the Jews in the 15th century, but then somehow traced its lineage to King David! Hah! Rumor also has it that Princess Kate’s Maternal Grandparents were both Jewish, which makes her mom and herself Jewish by birth, and so would the new baby. How would the population there react if this was true?

    • Jaron

      Whether Queen Victoria was right or the recent rumor is true, either way the Royal Family is Jewish…How the Muslim population or the fanatical Christian population will take this, is quite an open question. Meanwhile I think it is wonderful.
      We had one of our boys, some 2000 years ago, being turned into a god, and now we have one of our agents on the throne of the British empire…

      • h

        Jews??? Who and how exactly?

      • Rachel Kuria


    • Claudia

      What is absurd is that the entire world live judaism without even noticing it and, in the same time, they are radically anti jews or atisemitics. They follow the Torah= Ancient Testament as well as the New Testament.

    • Efram Paul

      It wasn’t the 15th century. Longshanks exiled the Jews from England in 1290. It was illegal to be Jewish in England until Oliver Cromwell invited the return of the Jews in 1656.

      • Elliot J. Stamler

        This is correct. Cromwell as Lord Protector permitted Jewish immigration into England. It was not however until the 19th century that British Jews were accorded full civic rights.

    • Bathsheva Gladstone

      Kippas and knishes for all!

    • Elliot J. Stamler

      Your history, I believe, is wrong. Jews were expelled by King Edward I whom I believe ruled in the 13th century.

    • Rina

      A Yid he is indeed through Maternal; grandparents that converted when they came from Europe.