Pieter-Steph du Toit - according to Mozart a flop as a lock

 It seems pretty obvious that the entity we know as the United Kingdom was established in 1801, replacing the Kingdom of Great Britain which previously formalized the hegemony England enjoyed over Scotland for centuries. 

If you want to point to the first combination you have to go much further back to when Wales came under English rule.

What's the confusion.

This has nothing to do with rugby - so I will not try and teach  the dofdoos 2 English.  Union - noun - United - adjective.  So the Union of Scotland lead to the United Kingdom.   Go and study when the UK came into being ad how it evolved.   Go just google "United Kingdom" and see where the real process started.   It was in 1707 - so you are considered by yourself is correct and historians are wrong.  
Anyway -just explain your qualifications as to interpretation of law.   Also explain how - dofdoos 2 - you managed to bugger up so badly in the release of players during the test window period - at least that is a real rugby issue.           

Pablum.  

 BS

 Nope here's the history:
The relationships among the countries of the United Kingdom have changed over time. Wales was annexed by the Kingdom of England under the Acts of Union of 1536 and 1542. A treaty between England and Scotland resulted in 1707 in a unified Kingdom of Great Britain, which merged in 1801 with the Kingdom of Ireland to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. 

And here's a picture

• Great Britain(geographical)

 

• • The United Kingdom

   
 
•    

• 
  

Dofdoos 1 coming to support Dofdoos 2 - admirable  

 Totally successfully as it turns out, not that Vlag needed any help dealing with you. ....but I see you are back to using the female body as your insult of choice. It figures.

 Mozart
You go along with what happened historically - but like Doffies ignore the fact that neither Wales nor Ireland had a Parliament who had to approve the Union.   It was the Acts of Union passed by the English and Scottish Parliament in 1706 and 1707 respectively that resulted in uniting the two Kingdoms of England and Scotland.
Wales was taken over centuries before and became part of the Kingdom of England - not a separate entity as was the case applicable to England and Scotland.  That is why whenever historians deal with the concept of the UK the roots is traced back to 1707 and not to later changes made iro of Ireland.   Doffies tried to state that the term United Kingdom only came into being in 1801 - which is technically and historically flawed and my suggestion to him was to go to the UK Government and get clarity since he is a fool when it comes to Interpretation of Law.
Even in the Scottish referendum last year - reference was made to the "Union" created in 1707 by Cameron and the Labour leaders in their campaigns to support the continuance of the Union - not to anything happening subsequently.               

Oh for heaven sake, you are referring to "a'' union, not "the" union. This from Project Britain:

When was the UK formed (made)?

The United Kingdom (UK) was formed in on January 1, 1801 and constitutes the greater part of the British Isles.

 What next? The Republic of South Africa came about on 31 May 1910? That Union of South Africa BS from 31 May 1910 until 30May 1961 was just semantics?

"You go along with what happened historically - but like Doffies ignore the fact that neither Wales nor Ireland had a Parliament who had to approve the Union." 
So, Ireland had no Parliament, who could approve the union, then? Why did they then require an Act of Union to become part of the UK? Why didn't "the UK" then just step in and take it in 1800? Oh wait. 
They couldn't because the UK didn't exist then. It was the Kingdom of Great Britain. "But..", the Comrade says, "..the UK did exist" and there was no Irish Parliament that could agree to the union. 
But wait a minute. What about this:
 A treaty between England and Scotland resulted in 1707 in a unified Kingdom of Great Britain, which merged in 1801 with the Kingdom of Ireland to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

Have you noticed that, Comrade? The Kingdom of Ireland. Should I repeat that for you? The Kingdom of Ireland. Yes, it was The Kingdom of Ireland that signed the treaty. That is why there were two Acts of Unity in 1801. One passed by the Kingdom of Great Britain and one by the Kingdom of Ireland. Virsta' djy?
Oops, and then there was this, and you better read it carefully:
The Kingdom of Ireland (Classical Irish: Ríoghacht Éireann; Modern Irish: Ríocht Éireann) was a client state of theKingdom of England that existed on Ireland from 1542 until 1800. It came into being when the Parliament of Ireland passed the Crown of Ireland Act 1542 and proclaimed King Henry VIII of England as King of Ireland. The territory of the Kingdom had previously had the status of a lordship of the crown. The Parliament of Ireland passed the Acts of Union 1800 by which it abolished itself and the Kingdom.[2] The act was also passed by the Parliament of Great Britain. The act also had the effect of establishing the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland on the first day of 1801 by uniting the crowns of Ireland and of Great Britain.

And then you are also p1ssing in the wind with Wales as well and you are forgetting that there were actually a fifth entity apart from England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. What about Cornwall? Did you know that there are a few people in Cornwall who also have the silly idea that they could survive as a separate independent state again? But, before I confuse you even more, let's stay with the Welsh.
This is your version:"Wales was taken over centuries before and became part of the Kingdom of England"

This form Encyclopaedia Britannica:"England had absorbed Wales and Cornwall by 1543, through parliamentary incorporation, political and cultural integration of the ruling elites, and administrative cohesion across church and state."

And then, finally. "Even in the Scottish referendum last year - reference was made to the "Union" created in 1707 by Cameron and the Labour leaders in their campaigns to support the continuance of the Union - not to anything happening subsequently. "
Yes, I was here. I know what was said in the time leading up to the referendum, during the referendum and thereafter. Of course they would have been talking about the Union. The union of the British Nations, i.e. the English, the Scotish, the Welsh and the Northern Irish (and the Cornish ). That was the union that they were referring to. The Scots wanted to break out of this union and the others wanted them to remain part of the union. As simple as that.

 And the lies about Du Toit is buried in a discussion of an immaterial issue with nothing to do with rugby.  Typical BS from the Dofdose.  

 According to what I've just read, The United Kingdom of Great Britain was founded on the 1st Of May 1707.
This was the union of two kingdoms ... namely Scotland and England, as per the 1706 Treaty of Union.
From my understanding Wales was already part of the English Kingdom and so were included in this treaty.
This was when the United Kingdom of Great Britain was founded ... 1 May 1707. 
The union of the Kingdom of Ireland and the Kingdom of Great Britain only came into being in 1801. 
Note ... The Kingdom of Great Britain (England, Scotland & Wales) ... not England ... so in other words the Kingdom of Irel and joined the established Kingdom of Great Britain.
Does that sound about right?
 

 Not 100%, CC. 
In 1707, The Kingdom of Great Britain came about after the unification of the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland.
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (UK) came about after the unification of The Kingdom of Great Britain and The Kingdom of Ireland in 1801.
In short, the (present day) United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland came about in 1922 after Northern Ireland exercised its right, under the Constitution of the Irish Free State, to leave and return to the United Kingdom. It was actually a bit more complicated than that but that is it in a nutshell.

 Ceradyne ... the island of Ireland wasn't a part of Britain. It was Ireland ... and only once they decided to join did they become a part of Britain. 
The United Kingdom of Britain incorporated England, Scotland and Wales ... whilst Ireland remained a separate entity ... a separate kingdom.
It's like the Roman Empire taking Gaul into their fold ... Gaul wasn't a part of the Roman Kingdom, so to speak, till they were conquered.
Any way ... silly word games ...     

"Ceradyne ... the island of Ireland wasn't a part of Britain. It was Ireland ... and only once they decided to join did they become a part of Britain." 

Correct. That is why I said that it was a bit more complicated. Basically it was a separate country on an island, called Ireland, as you said. Before 1801, it was known as the Kingdom of Ireland. In 1801, the Irish Parliament abolished itself, and the Kingdom, by an Act of Union. An act was also passed in the Parliament of The Kingdom of Great Britain, which established the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. That was the first time that the term "United Kingdom" came about.
In 1922, after a treaty was signed in 1921 following the War of Independence, the Parliaments of the Kingdom of Great Britain and that of The Kingdom of Ireland ratified the treaty by passing the two acts and Ireland became the Irish Free State. The counties of Northern Ireland then exercised their right to go back to the UK. 
That led to Ireland becoming the Republic of Ireland, with a president, and the UK changing from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

So....
I'm guessing this is how Manchester United got it's name then......

Uh-oh . . . the tedious and attention-seeking DumbAss is back. Things must be a bit slow at Kamp SS again!

DA, this was eventually the case but first (back on 1707) they were called United Manchester & at that stage they did not include all the celtic tribes as the Brigants were being a pain in the a*ss it was only subsequently that it became Manchester United. All of this helps explain how PSDT had a gre at game last week & is not a flop.

Just_win, thank you for that excellent explanation
Shows you how wrong I was
I was under the impression it was because back in 1707, Newcastle United played West Ham United in a Kingdom Of Great Britain final, but because Newcastle United called foul and stopped the game short because the Leeds United ref refused to allow Newcastle United players to go to the bathroom during the game, the attending Sheffield United spectators called for a referendum on the laws and pushed to have them abolished completely.
It's interesting to note that the Scunthorpe United fans who attended this game actually sided with the Newcastle fans on this particular issue..... but I digress.
Their reasoning was because the Newcastle players dietary requirements were different to all the other players because of their environment they lived in, and this resulted in them needing to release their pent up energies more times a day on the porcelain throne.
Then, in 1801, apparently this happened again, but with players from Colchester United, and they decided that there is no way this can happen twice within such a small amount of time like 94 years.
Thus began the earnest efforts again to call for a referendum, which was duly done, and all teams combined together to form the Manchester United.
Since 1801 till now, nothing much has changed as Manchester United does not have a single player from the city of Manchester in their team, but they have sourced players from all over the world to represent Manchester, thereby Uniting the worlds best players into one expensive United team, who coincidentally cannot produce good results and get beaten by a 5000-1 outsider to take the league. 

Rooinek
 
Status: Senior player 
Posts: 3562RE: Pieter-Steph du Toit - according to Mozart a flop as a lock 
May 19, 2016, 13:13:21

Uh-oh . . . the tedious and attention-seeking DumbAss is back. Things must be a bit slow at Kamp SS again!

 Rooi Rooi
It took you less than 15 minutes after my first post to acknowledge my return after so long
Clearly you missed me, as per usual
You must have been looking out for my return 

And within 15 minutes of DumbAss returning, he's already screwed up the margins on one thread.

I know you are a bit of an attention-wh0 re but why can't you just copy and paste the text, chump? That way you don't screw the thread up for everyone else. Is it seriously too much to ask that you have a tiny bit of consideration for other posters? Huh?

Consideration.......
Posters..........
Rooi Rooi........

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha !!!!!!!!!!!!!

 1707, 1801, what does it really matter. Semantics really. Both Mike and Cera are right and both are equally wrong too. Pride is s trong in these 2. Beware of the Dark Side they should.

 He's the best lock in the world at the moment. 

Not even the best small lock in the world, that would be Itoje who unlike Stephanie made an immediate impact at test level. Stephanie is making a much better fist of it with the Stormers. But he still has to show he can perform against the top locks in test match conditions. Let's save the world's best labels.

Watch the pre match player introductions before the games tomorrow and you will see the players weights listed.....there you will see PSDT listed as 120kg.
PSDT is a big guy.....obvious to the eye.......he is a similar size to the likes of RG Snyman (120kg), Ruan Botha (120kg), Lewies (118kg), Carl Wegner (118kg), Lourens Erasmus (117kg), Mostert (115kg) and JD Schickerling (117kg)......the more athletic type.......versus the bulk of the likes of Etzebeth (130kg), Willemse (135kg), Lood (125kg), Jean Kleyn (122kg), Ettienne Oosthuizen (120kg) and Jason Jenkins (125kg).
The first better suited to 5, the others to 4......although Lood, PSDT and Eben span both.....as I suspect Jenkins will be able to.