In the hullabaloo last week over potential names for the new royal baby (who has since been named), the most obvious choice was left out of contention, despite all the betting taking place. (”George, James: Royal Baby Boy Names are Bet On“)

Surprisingly not among the 15 names suggested by one article — including even a nod to the Brit-dreaded Jews (”David”) and a nod to the Brit-dreaded Russians (”Boris”) — was the most obvious choice for a name. The name that overtook “George” in popularity in the UK as early as 2006: Mohammed.

I’d have thought that would be a no-brainer for the royals, given not only England’s hasty submission to Islam but also Prince Charles’ always going on about the wonderfulness of Islam, even advising his countrymen to look to the religion on matters of planting and the environment.

Britain Wonders if Baby Prince Will be Circumcised; Prince Charles Snipped by Royal Mohel (Algemeiner, July 24)

…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….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 [sic] circumcised. […]

Circumcision being both a Jewish and a Muslim rite, one wouldn’t be surprised if royal circumcision proceeded these days in a more Islamic context than Jewish.