Princes' circumcision

rusty__

Cherished Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
May 7, 2007
Posts
655
Media
17
Likes
457
Points
383
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Verification
View
Sexuality
69% Gay, 31% Straight
Gender
Male
>It was shortly after Diana's death and about the timew when William would be
>getting constant erections and masturbating which can be painful with
>phlimosis. I have heard nothing about Harry.



Yeah, as if the royal family would ever reveal that William of Harry had phimosis or erection or had pain while masturbating.

I had heard that Diana had fought against Circumcision and had won.

What happened after Diana's death has not been made public.

However, those who have seen William in a speedo would/should know his circumcision status.

But I have yet to see any authoritative/beleivable information on the fate of Willian and Harry's foreskins once they are grown up.

I just wish they would speak out about it to kill rumours once and for all !

And if they do get it done, it shoudl be filmed and posted on the WEB :) :) :) (Imagine how the stuffy old royals would react to that one !)

yeah come on everyone gather around the laptop to see the future king of england get his cock mutliated!! That will make for interesting viewing..NOT.:smile:
 

apmjv

Just Browsing
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Posts
2
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
146
Gender
Male
The whole circumcision and AIDS thing is a complete red herring. Frankly it doesn't matter if being uncut makes it 0.5% or 50% more likely to catch AIDS while having unprotected sex with a person with AIDS. The only way to avoid getting AIDS is to avoid unprotected sex! period, end of discussion.

Therefore, it should not even enter the mind of the parent making the decision to have their son cut.
 
S

SirConcis

Guest
>What's all this about their circumcisions anyway? Who on earth cares one way >or the other. The royal family have apparently decided that circumcision is a ROYAL tradition. One can argue that unless the royals are called upon to display their wedding tackle during official royal duties, they have no business making that operation a "royal" thing. It might be a family thing, but not "royal". There has been a lot of speculation on the william/harry circumcision status because of reports that Diana had fought against Charles on the circumcision decision. Also discussion on Charles possibly having convinced the sons to get the deed done to re-instate the tradition after their mother died. This is no worse than all the speculation on the angelina jolie, brad pitt and jennifer aniston love triangle except the prince's circ status discussions can't be openly displayed on the front page of the supermarket checkout magazines.
 
S

SirConcis

Guest
Just ou of gut, I'd speculate (without any supporting information) that Harry was still young enough at time of Diana's death that he may have been circumcised on his father's orders, but that William was old enough to decide for himself and say "no".
<p><br>
Another possibility is that either of them may have had peer pressure to get the snip while in their upper class colleges.
<p><br>
But I doubt that both of them are circumcised.
 

eggcrate

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2006
Posts
32
Media
0
Likes
12
Points
228
had peer pressure to get the snip while in their upper class colleges.
>>>

I don't get this ...wouldn't their peers give them pressure to stay intact?
 

RobinSF

Cherished Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2007
Posts
312
Media
0
Likes
493
Points
293
Age
61
Location
San Francisco
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
When I first heard about this, I was quite doubtful. I recall doing some research and while I do not recall the details (it has all been layed out in various posts on this board regarding the subject -- so I'm not being lazy for not citing, okay a bit lazy) and as I recall I came to the conclusion that it is not a matter of if, but a matter of when.

Given the heated debate all over the web on the issue, I finally made up my mind because the person who performed it stating that yes indeed he had. I cannot remember the man's name, but he is quite prominent in society and there was no reason to doubt his statement as a fabrication. Additionally, I found no credible persons willing to refute that statement or call him a liar.

Anyway, I really don't care either way how the package is wrapped. If I were to somehow miraculously have a child, I probably would not. I am cut, but would have preferred to make the decision myself. However, my ex-hubby, a non-practicing Jew (who is still quite dear to me) did not have his two sons (from his hetero days) cut, and they really resented it. So I guess it depends on the situation.
 
S

SirConcis

Guest
>It would most likely be the opposite actually... living in the UK, circumcision is >just seen as something Jews do.

This would be the view in mainstreak UK, and would have been for a number of decades now.

But I have heard many times that circumcision might still be popular in the upper classes. And since the princes went to very upper class schools, if circumcision was popular in those schools, there may have been some peer pressure to get the snip.

Now, if their mother had had the opportunity to explain to them why they had not been cut at birth (breaking "royal" tradition), it is likely that they would valued that decision and fended off any suggestion that they get cut.
 

SpoiledPrincess

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Posts
7,868
Media
0
Likes
121
Points
193
Location
england
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
No circumcision isn't popular among the upper classes, both my ex husband and ex bf went to 'upper class schools' and weren't circumcised and considered circumcision a rarity.
 

Christiaan

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Posts
191
Media
0
Likes
39
Points
163
Location
Donegal, Ireland
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Just a few thoughts from a Jan Kaas from across the Channel.

The Brit Royal Family weren't a bit shy about letting it be known that they'd had the UK's best mohel in to cut part of Charles' penis off, and it's common knowledge that all his brothers have been done too. So we can see that the Palace isn't a bit shy, or thinks it unseemly to discuss, making their boys' circumcisions public knowledge.

But there's not so much as a peep from the Royal Family about Harry's or William's bits. I remember reading that both boys, whilst at school, had rooms with their own private loo and shower, so the chance of them being seen by their mates was minimized.

Yet you've got to know that their bits have been seen, i.e William when he was on his break year and down in South America (one loo for everyone), Harry when he was out in the wilds of Africa, both of the boys whilst at Sandringham for military training, etc. There is this distinct possibility... you only comment on what is different. If both boys are regular sized and also uncut, like all or most of the lads they're around, then there's a good chance no one would think it a subject of interest to make a comment. After all, it has been widely thought they were left uncut - it's already known, given that point of view. I know in the Netherlands, a cut lad caught everyone's attention because he was different. No one ever talked about a bloke because he looked like all the rest of us.

Plus there's one other possibility. Say the boys are uncut. Most boys in the EU are horrified to think of having part of their willy cut off. How would one have a proper wank? Say it was suggested they get cut and they said no. Given the fact that the Royal Family is so damn keen on clipping all their boys, they may be right embarrassed to admit that both boys broke Royal tradition and have refused to be cut. Kind of a slap in the face for the Queen who wanted them done, and a silent statement to Charles and Prince Phillip that the boys don't like their dicks and what was done to them and aren't about to have any part of it.

Thus an explanation for the silence from the Palace when they were positively chatty about it when they had Charles done and the silence of any of their mates who may have seen the Royal bits.
 

sweatyblackballs

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2007
Posts
298
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
161
Sexuality
No Response
Its not just a crown thing( if that`s true) its an English thing. circumcision is usually only performed for medical or religious rewsons in the UK rather than as the norm like in the States

Speaking as an Englishman ... what a complete load of bollocks (no pun intended) ... stupid generalisations merely promote ignorance
 

ShowOff

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Posts
289
Media
0
Likes
5
Points
163
Location
Midwest
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
This might be the most dumbest topic I have ever seen on LPSG. We are talking about the useless skin on the penises of two guys who are famous for no other reason than be born?....its that about right?
 

Adam875

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2004
Posts
646
Media
0
Likes
12
Points
238
Location
UK
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
This might be the most dumbest topic I have ever seen on LPSG. We are talking about the useless skin on the penises of two guys who are famous for no other reason than be born?....its that about right?

EXACTLY.
 
S

SirConcis

Guest
This might be the most dumbest topic I have ever seen on LPSG. We are talking about the useless skin on the penises of two guys who are famous for no other reason than be born?....its that about right?

Yep about right. It is called GOSSIP. No worse that than people who wonder wherther Brad Pitt is sleeping with Angelina Jolie of Jennifer Aniston this week.

It is the royal family who apparently made public their "tradition" to circumcise their boys and made it a "Royal" tradition instead of a "its none of your business" tradition.

Harry and William, it is sad to say, are like cattle in barn. They are born "owned" by the public, forced to participate in royal activities and have the world media monitor their every bowel movements. Their fate is pre-determined just like a farmer decides what will happen to a cow he owns.

If everyone stopped buying tabloids, you wouldn't read about them just by standing in line at the grocery store check out lines. But in the end, their fate would remain pre-determined by their royal "duties". The "Windsors" may survive from their real-estate revenus, but the "Royals" survive from their presence in society, and that means exposing part of their lives to the public.

Granted, exposing one's circumcision status is perhaps way out of what one would expect fo a royal. But what is wrong with speculating about it ?

Re a previous poster. I agree with you. Enough people have seen princes naked that if there had been something different we might know about it.

HOWEVER: Say you are a friend of William at school and you see him naked in locker room and notice he lost his foreksin during school break. YOu have the choice of keeping it to yourself and remaining friends with William, or going to the press and probably losing your friendship with William.

And the people who are close/friends enough to see their dicks probably have enough respect for them (and knowledge of how the media treats them) that they will willingly stay quiet even if they see that one prince has a very ugly syphilis wart on his penis.

So even if they did get circumcised, I am not so sure that it would become public knowledge.

And frankly, during a swimming competition with many spectators, do you really think you'll see spectators with binauculars focused on his crotch *AND* wanting to discern any signs of circumcision through his speedo ?

Most sane people might want a glimpse at his crotch, but wouldn't think about circumcision at all. In countries where 50% of men are cut, there is an increased curiosity because people know that a male can be either, so they can wonder about whether cut or uncut.

But in a country where circumcision is very rare (or omnipresent), people just don't wonder about circumcision status since they assume everyone is the same.

Furthermore, consider a potentially even much bigger story: The fact that Harry looks nothing like his father but more like that equestrian teacher Diana admitted having an affair with. This just isn't discussed at all. The ramifications would be huge since Harry would not have any royal blood in him.

Imagine is Diana's plans were to marry with Dodi Al Fayed and declare Harry was not Charles' and then be able to take Harry with her to save him from the royal family. NOW, that would get the tabloids going into overdrive.
 

Christiaan

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2006
Posts
191
Media
0
Likes
39
Points
163
Location
Donegal, Ireland
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
It is the royal family who apparently made public their "tradition" to circumcise their boys and made it a "Royal" tradition instead of a "its none of your business" tradition.

Re a previous poster. I agree with you. Enough people have seen princes naked that if there had been something different we might know about it.

HOWEVER: Say you are a friend of William at school and you see him naked in locker room and notice he lost his foreksin during school break. YOu have the choice of keeping it to yourself and remaining friends with William, or going to the press and probably losing your friendship with William.

And the people who are close/friends enough to see their dicks probably have enough respect for them (and knowledge of how the media treats them) that they will willingly stay quiet even if they see that one prince has a very ugly syphilis wart on his penis.

So even if they did get circumcised, I am not so sure that it would become public knowledge.

Furthermore, consider a potentially even much bigger story: The fact that Harry looks nothing like his father but more like that equestrian teacher Diana admitted having an affair with. This just isn't discussed at all. The ramifications would be huge since Harry would not have any royal blood in him.

Imagine is Diana's plans were to marry with Dodi Al Fayed and declare Harry was not Charles' and then be able to take Harry with her to save him from the royal family. NOW, that would get the tabloids going into overdrive.

Exactly, mate, but you also made a very valid point. The Princes don't run with the foxes, they're on horse back surrounded by their pack of hounds. Proximity to the Royals is a coveted social trophy, more so in the UK than in the rest of the EU, and a faux pas of speaking out of turn could quickly reduce one's social status to persona non grata, for both the lad who talked, but also for his parents.

Now your thought about Harry is truly wicked. For Harry's sake, I hope there's no basis to it. Bad enough for one's whole life calling to stand quietly in the wings, but never get on stage. I for one think he's by far the cuter of the two and seemingly has a delicious wit and personality. William seems ever the cautious one, but Harry strikes me as a bloke who would be great fun to be out with.