King Charles III Was Circumcised by Rabbi – And Not Only He

British King Charles III was circumcised at Buckingham Palace in 1948 by Rabbi Jacob Snowman (+1958), the official mohel of London’s Jewish community, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (August 2013) wrote.

Snowman was most likely invited because of his extensive experience with circumcision which was widely performed on British middle- and upper-class male infants from the 1890s through the 1940s.

After the birth of Prince George in 2013, there were claims that a Royal Family "circumcision tradition" extends back to Queen Victoria who had all her sons circumcised, or even to George I (+1727). It was allegedly grounded in a secretive Davidic or British Israelist tradition and in the believe that the king descended directly from King David.

It is unknown whether this putative tradition was continued with the birth of William in 1982, as Princess Diana is believed to have disapproved of it.

Picture: © ukhouseoflords, CC BY-NC-ND, #newsLaqsxhkwzs
Malki Tzedek
And apparently did a lobotomy aton him the same time, as well.
V.R.S.
The High Life after the mohel's knife.
Jeffrey Ade
Shouldn't surprise us at all since they are occult and controlled by the city of london!
Sancte Teotónio
@Jeffrey Ade Exactly, also protestantism is "judaizing" religion. Its the kind of "christianism" that the sionists approve because it has no sacraments, especially the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Its a tamed christianism.
Kenjiro M. Yoshimori
Circumcision is a good health act to perform on babies, not mention for sanitary reasons...which is why the tradition began in the Jodaeo/Christian tradition anyway. Not to do it is unsanitary, and disgusting.
John A Cassani
I am not aware of any Christian tradition of circumcision, prior to the last couple of centuries. The overwhelming majority of males born to Christian parents throughout history have not been circumcised, and it is wrong to opine in such a way as to condemn the lack of circumcision. St. Paul’s opinion of circumcision still stands, and there is no general medical consensus on the benefits of it.
lancs1
Circumcision without a specific medical reason is mutilation. We condemn female circumcision unreservedly because it is primitive and unnecessary. So is male circumcision in most cases. It seems wierdly popular in the USA among gentiles... Not so in Europe or the rest of the non-Semitic world.
pmfji
Where’s the evidence?
V.R.S.
Yes, those Judaeo-Christians have become nowadays very active. Catholics know that there is no point in returning to old dead Law ceremonies.
Judaeo-Christians believe - with brand new postconciliar tradition that old Law is alive which implies that the New Law of Christ coexists with other Laws i.e. that Christ is a way, not the Way.