His Royal Highness, Prince George Alexander Louis of Cambridge is third in line for the throne behind his grandpa, Prince Charles, and his father Prince William. The fascinating royal heir revived public interest in the royal family, just as Ben and Jerry’s revived our interest in “Schweddy Balls” with the limited edition ice cream flavor. Now that baby George is tucked safely away from the media, and likely leached to Kate Middelton’s chest, Brits wonder if baby prince would follow the tradition of his ancestors, and be circumcised.
According to Algemeiner
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.
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.
This is a decision all parents with a newborn baby boy have to make. Supporters of the circumcision procedure feel it promotes cleanliness and prevents diseases, but some disagree and feel it’s harmful and unnecessary. Do we want the our future to be a ‘Pulled Back Jack’? Should a boy match his father? Should Royal Highness Prince George Alexander Louis of Cambridge be a ‘Headless Horsemen’? It could be roughly 60 or 70 years before he’s actually monarch, so maybe he should wait until then. Yikes!