Posted in: Europe

Royal Baby Circumcision? We’re Just Better Off Not Knowing Some Things

royal baby circumcision

The Royal Baby’s circumcision is a hot topic of debate online right now. While not as popular as baby name speculation, circumcision is a close and uncomfortable second and strangely, there’s actually a lot of history to it.

The debate was raised by Jennifer Lipman, a comment editor of London’s Jewish Chronicle before the baby was even born (and revealed to be a boy). You see, Queen Victoria actually believed herself to be a descendant of the Biblical King David, and therefore sanctioned circumcision.

Therefore, all male royalty were “cut,” starting with King Edward VII. Prince Charles was even circumcised by a mohel (a rabbi who specializes in the practice) instead of the royal physician.

Though Lipman called it a “royal tradition,” there has been some controversy over Royal Baby circumcision over the past couple decades. Even though it has been a royal practice since the 1840s, Diana apparently didn’t care for it much.

When Prince William and Prince Harry were born, they were left uncircumcised on Diana’s command. There have been rumors that the two finally got cut after their mother’s death, but first of all bleaugh, and second of all, there’s no proof to the claim.

In any case, it has become something of a minor obsession since the announcement of the new prince’s birth, and MSN is even keeping an eye out for trending hashtags like #RoyalMohel and #RoyalBris.

Our take? Let’s get a name before we start talking genital mutilation. Priorities, people. Also, I really don’t want to know anything more about the Royal Baby circumcision. So there’s that.

[Image: Shutterstock]

Articles And Offers From The Web


22 Responses to “Royal Baby Circumcision? We’re Just Better Off Not Knowing Some Things”

  1. Anonymous

    Queen Victoria did it to her kids, probably out of superstition or to reduce male sexual pleasure. It was pushed as a way to have boys enjoy masturbation less and be less (see also Kellogg). This was a Victorian age thing that continued until about the 1950s. The ideas was to lower male sexual urges and sexual pleasure. In the UK the doctors realized that this WOUNDING of babies was really a BAD thing and it was ended.

    The youngest generation of royals did not have penis parts cut off. Diana knew that this practice is very harmful to the man the baby will become. People are becoming aware that the penis 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 of the penis 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.

  2. Les Brown

    If you were concerned with the public's health, you would demand the banning of tabacco and alcohol which kill many thousand times more people than circumcisions.
    If you were concerned with body mutilation, you would also demand the banning of tattooing, nipple and navel piercing, the removal of decayed teeth, the banning of appendectomies and tonsillectomies and cosmetic surgery.
    If you were concerned with carrying out medical procedures against the child’s will, you would be against childhood immunisation. You would not send a child to a kindergarten and you would delay their education until they decided where and when they wanted to go – if at all. In fact you probably wouldn’t even vote lest you fear that a child might have to live under a government they wouldn’t approve of.
    How silly do you want this to get? Just let the parents decide on what's right for their child and don't interfere. Who cares more for the child – you or the parent? Circumcision barely rates as a health risk compared to other publicly accepted higher health risk practices which produce far fewer benefits if any at all.

  3. Rebecca Fine

    Boys have been circumcised for thousands of years. It is up to the parents to decide whether their son will be circumcised. They don't need all this attention from anti-circumcision groups.

  4. Ron Low

    Medical ethics dictate that a proxy (parental) consent for a surgical intervention is ethical only if waiting for the patient's own rational informed consent would lead to harm, and when less destructive options are exhausted. Circumcision of a healthy normal child fails this test decidedly.

  5. Joseph Lewis

    The same is true for girls, but I bet you don't think THAT's a "parental decision," eh Rebecca? If that's even your real name?

  6. Joseph Lewis

    What a hodgepodge of straw man accusations. Are males born sick? So why are we talking about public health? Are parents allowed to tattoo their children? Is the foreskin a medical condition like a burst appendix? Unless there is a medical problem, how is circumcision a medical procedure? How on earth is permanently cutting off a child's foreskin like sending him to school? You grasp at strings and straws, and your analogies are piss poor. Shows how desperate circumcision advocates are to be calling to the corners of the compass for vindication.

  7. Joseph Lewis

    The foreskin is not a birth defect. Neither is it a congenital deformity or genetic anomaly akin to a 6th finger or a cleft. Neither is it a medical condition like a ruptured appendix or diseased gall bladder. Neither is it a dead part of the body, like the umbilical cord, hair, or fingernails.

  8. Joseph Lewis

    The foreskin is not "extra skin." The foreskin is normal, natural, healthy, functioning tissue, with which all boys are born; it is as intrinsic to male genitalia as labia are to female genitalia.

  9. Joseph Lewis

    Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, the circumcision of a healthy, non-consenting individual is a deliberate wound; it is the destruction of normal, healthy tissue, the permanent disfigurement of normal, healthy organs, and by very definition, infant genital mutilation, and a violation of the most basic of human rights.

  10. Joseph Lewis

    Without medical or clinical indication, doctors have absolutely no business performing surgery in healthy, non-consenting individual, much less be eliciting any kind of "decision" from parents.

  11. Joseph Lewis

    The thing about tobacco and alcohol is, there are laws against giving them to minors; you can go to jail for giving a minor these things. Doing them is not the problem; it is forcing others to do them which is. You see where you are side-stepping the issue here? Tattoos are not the problem; it's forcing them on others that is. Just ask holocaust survivors. Appendectomies and tonsillectomies aren't the problem; it's forcing them on children, esp. if there is no medical need. It is medical fraud to be reaping profit from performing non-medical surgery on non-consenting minors. The problem is not medical procedures against a child's will; the problem is performing medical procedures on children who do not need them. Educating a child is slightly different than permanently cutting off part of his genitals. What poor attempts at justifying the genital mutilation of minors…

  12. Joseph Lewis

    I think it's funny how you are accusing intactivists of giving William and his wife undue attention, when, if you look at all the news online, it's pro-circs like Jews and circumfetishists who are demanding to know if the child will be their posterboy.

  13. Hugh Intactive

    If Charles will only say "I'm circumcised, and look how I turned out," the baby will be safe.

  14. Hugh Intactive

    Tobacco and aclohol do have age restrictions (all we are asking for circumcision), packaging restrictions, and place recstrictions. The recent California law (AB 768) allows anyone, with no training, to circumcise anyone for whom one parent has given consent, so long as they are 1) male and 2) under 18, with a box cutter if they so choose. Tattooing and genital piercing of children are already illegal.

    Non-therapeutic infant circumcision is like no other "medical procedure" – a stone age sex-magic-fertility-blood ritual that morphed into a religious rite, then crept into medicine under the guise of "moral hygiene" – punishing masturbation – then attaching itself to disease after disease, finding a new one as each old one is debunked, a "cure" in search of a disease, an intervention looking for an excuse. The medical benefits are exaggerated (slight reductions in rare diseases of late onset that can be better prevented by other means, or treated as they occur) when they are not completely bogus.

  15. Hugh Intactive

    Boys have also died from circumcision for thousands of years (and doubtless suffered many more unreported ill-effects). Rabbis would earnestly debate how many brothers might be allowed to die of it before one might be spared.

    Sounds like you are afraid information about the risks and harms of male genital cutting will dissuade parents from wanting to do it.

  16. Amy Mayes

    Why you'd look at Charles and assume that the tip of his penis needed removal, I have no idea. If he was born into the fine institution of Crufts, he'd have been a prime candidate for ear trimming.

  17. Jonathon Conte

    Genital mutilation is precisely what the forced, unnecessary genital cutting of any individual—regardless of sex—should be called. Thank you for calling a spade a spade. Girls are protected by law from this heinous abuse and sexual battery. It is shameful that male and intersex minors continue to be denied equal protection.

  18. Dave Thompson

    "There have been rumors that the two finally got cut after their mother’s death"

    I doubt that very much. But I know the defense needed for circumcision is strong enough for groups to passionately spread rumours.

  19. Argentina Intactivist

    Girls have been circumcised for thousands of years. It is up to the parents to decide whether their daughter will be circumcised. They don't need all this attention from anti-circumcision groups.

  20. Theresa Hudson

    Rebecca. PEople like you should be exterminated. You are simply utter scum.

Around The Web