ES News email The latest headlines in your inbox twice a day Monday - Friday plus breaking news updates Enter your email address Continue Please enter an email address Email address is invalid Fill out this field Email address is invalid You already have an account. Please log in Register with your social account or click here to log in I would like to receive lunchtime headlines Monday - Friday plus breaking news alerts, by email Update newsletter preferences

“With no word yet on whether the royal infant will be a boy or a girl,” blogged Jennifer Lipman, comment editor of the Jewish Chronicle yesterday, “it’s perhaps too premature to engage in a ‘will-they-won’t-they’ debate over whether they will choose to circumcise their offspring, as was once a royal tradition.”

Clearly not premature enough, as she goes on to speculate whether the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s impending baby will be snipped.

The so-called “tradition” only dates back to George I, who imported the custom from his native Hanover.

Queen Victoria, convinced that the British royal family was descended from King David, had all her male offspring circumcised. The tradition continued through Edward VII, the Duke of Windsor and Prince Charles, who was circumcised by Rabbi Jacob Snowman at Buckingham Palace in 1948. His brothers Andrew and Edward were also circumcised.

According to Anthony Holden’s biography of Prince Charles, Snowman was summoned to the palace five days after his christening. The rabbi was the official mohel of the London Jewish community and, even though he was in his eighties, he was chosen rather than the royal physician to perform the ritual.

Charles’s wife Princess Diana was said to be opposed to the idea, and most royal observers believe she broke with 150 years of royal tradition by not having Princes William and Harry circumcised at birth.