Earl And Countess Of Ulster and Family - Page 3

morhange · #41 04-02-2007, 02:14 PM

I hope that Alexander will at least get to stay to see his first baby come into the world. I agree, I don't like when troops are sent off when their wives are pregnant, royal or not. I would hate for this new little baby to come into the world without a father.

Skydragon · #42 04-02-2007, 03:21 PM

It won't be the first time he has been in a danger zone, besides, that's what being a member of the armed services is about.

Royal Fan · #43 04-03-2007, 12:06 PM

I Wish him the best of luck :)

Emily · #44 04-03-2007, 12:42 PM

Elspeth -- is a GP the same as an internist in the US? Here we have General, or Family, Practitioners which mean they see people from birth through death. By definition, an internist only sees adult patients but for that age group they treat them the same way as a GP does. Internists do not see anyone under 18.

Skydragon · #45 04-03-2007, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emily

Elspeth -- is a GP the same as an internist in the US? Here we have General, or Family, Practitioners which mean they see people from birth through death. By definition, an internist only sees adult patients but for that age group they treat them the same way as a GP does. Internists do not see anyone under 18.

Hi Emily, I'm not Elspeth but.... here in the UK a General Practitioner is your family doctor. You can register with whichever GP you want, as long as you live within his area. If he needs to, he can refer you to a specialist, dealing with childbirth, cancer, orthopedics, diabetes etc but, you can only see them at a clinic or hospital after a GP's referral. A GP deals with you from birth through to death, we do not have an equivalent to an internist.

Emily · #46 04-03-2007, 03:12 PM

Thank you for clearing that up, Skydragon!

Suonymona · #47 04-04-2007, 02:02 AM

Emily, Elspeth has taken a break from TRF. Real life and all that. Skydragon gave the UK perspective. I'll share a USA perspective. I was treated in the UK and their system can be almost as frustrating as in the USA!

A GP in the UK is comparable to a USA General/Family Practitioner. But with the NHS--(National Health Service, the UK national health plan), there are requirements to be followed before seeing someone more specialized. Whereas in the USA, you can walk right in and see anyone--providing you can afford them and/or your insurance is willing to cover your visits to them. In the UK, there is more red-tape to avoid spending everyone's money on just you. In the USA, there is red-tape to avoid spending the insurance company's money OR the government's money (if you're on some form of government health care like Medicare, Medicaid or the PPO plan offered to government workers).

An internist in the UK would be an elderly specialist. They are not yet "in vogue" over there. From what I've seen, if you have an age-connected disease, your GP refers you to a doctor that deals with that. For example, if you have arthritis that develops in your 60s, your GP would treat the rest of you and work in tandem with the person (rheumologist in this case) treating the "special disease".

This often happens in the USA, but if you don't want the doctors knowing about each other the HIPPA (health insurance patient privacy act) legally prevents someone from automatically checking your file--unlike in the UK where its part of "the program protocol".

Unfortunately there just aren't enough specialists around because just getting to see a GP is such a hassle and the docs can end up waiting years for clearance and payment--again like the American system of health insurance!!

Skydragon · #48 04-04-2007, 05:43 AM

Anyone can go and see a UK GP, but if you are not a resident (with a National Insurance Number), you or your insurer have to pay in advance for any non urgent treatment. Having said that the NHS will not turn anyone away just because they cannot pay.
A specialist will treat young or old with the same disease and keep the GP informed of the treatment he/she has prescribed, we do not have any 'specialists' in age related illnesses as yet. They are 'merely' medical specialists who will cover a range of diseases, a doctor dealing with senile dementia/alzheimer's may also deal with patients with diabetes or patients with neurological damage.

Quote:

Unfortunately there just aren't enough specialists around because just getting to see a GP is such a hassle and the docs can end up waiting years for clearance and payment--again like the American system of health insurance!!

Only in some areas where the local trust misunderstood the government directives is it difficult to get an appointment within the 3 days advised, however GP's do not have to wait for clearance or payments before providing treatment if you are a UK resident. The only delays they may face is getting the operation they may need within the recommended 6 months, these delays can be caused by 'emergencies' being put in front of non urgent cases. I haven't heard of anyone waiting years for payment, one of my friends is a cancer 'specialist' and I'm sure we would never have heard the end of it, if she hadn't received her salary!

**Warren** · #49 04-04-2007, 06:05 AM

Now that we've established what the Countess of Ulster does as a GP, we don't need to delve any further into the inner workings of the NHS.

thanks.

Roslyn · #50 04-04-2007, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warren

Now that we've established what the Countess of Ulster does as a GP, we don't need to delve any further into the inner workings of the NHS.

thanks.

Well I think I might now know why the talk diverted to the English NHS. I had no idea the Countess was a doctor.

foiegrass · #51 04-05-2007, 01:16 AM

Well has the Countess given birth yet! hahha.

sjetajiem · #52 04-05-2007, 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by morhange

I hope that Alexander will at least get to stay to see his first baby come into the world. I agree, I don't like when troops are sent off when their wives are pregnant, royal or not. I would hate for this new little baby to come into the world without a father.

Nope, he will be sent to Iraq in May and the baby is due half June.

Charlotte1 · #53 04-05-2007, 05:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sjetajiem

Nope, he will be sent to Iraq in May and the baby is due half June.

According to a birth notice in today's Daily Telegraph the baby was born on March 12th. It's a boy and his name is Xan (maybe from Alexander, his father's name) Richard Anders Colloden His title is Lord Culloden.

morhange · #54 04-05-2007, 11:45 AM

Wow, that's strange that the baby was born so long ago and his birth is just now being announced. I hope we get some pictures of the future Duke of Gloucester. I like his name, a little different from what you'd except. I hoped they'd call him Henry or something, but I like it none the less :)

I'm wondering if maybe he was premature, since someone mentioned earlier that the baby wasn't due until May or June, and he arrived in March.

iowabelle · #55 04-05-2007, 03:44 PM

I think the correct spelling is Culloden. I think it's rather an unfortunate title, and the Scots can't be too happy about it.

magnik · #56 04-05-2007, 04:15 PM

Culloden Battlefield Memorial Project
Culloden (from Scottish Gaelic Cul lodan, "back of the small pond"; modern Gaelic Cuil Lodair) is the name of a village three miles east of Inverness, Scotland and the surrounding area. Three miles south of the village is Drummossie Moor (often called Culloden Moor[1]), site of the Battle of Culloden (April 16, 1746).

A Barony of Culloden was conferred in 1801 along with the Dukedom of Cambridge on PRINCE ADOLPHUS FREDERICK, GEORGE III's seventh son, and expired with it on the death in 1904 of the grantee's son, the 2nd DUKE, who was uncle of QUEEN MARY, GEORGE V's wife.
Burke's Peerage - Article Library

No matter when the child was born, all the best to the parents and to their boy.

TLLK · #57 04-05-2007, 04:36 PM

Congratulations to the Earl and Countess on the birth of their son.

Charlotte1 · #58 04-05-2007, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by morhange

Wow, that's strange that the baby was born so long ago and his birth is just now being announced. I hope we get some pictures of the future Duke of Gloucester. I like his name, a little different from what you'd except. I hoped they'd call him Henry or something, but I like it none the less :)

I'm wondering if maybe he was premature, since someone mentioned earlier that the baby wasn't due until May or June, and he arrived in March.

The Earl and Countess are very private people and not royal. The birth was announced in a newspaper births column rather than the Court Circular. Wanting to keep things private would mean that there was a delay in the announcement of the birth as that would stir some interest in them. They are rarely photographed and the Countess doesn't use her title, she works under her maiden name.

When the pregnancy announcement came there was no date given for when the baby would be born. It was just they were expecting a baby, the dates were added by the media or internet commentators. Therefore he wasn't necessarily premature.

Apologies to the Scots for the misspelling of Culloden!