Talk:William Joyce/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comment on his Accent

Is this comment really needed: "because of a nasal drawl this sounded like: Jairmany calling, Jairmany calling, Jairmany calling". His accent was pretty normal for the time, I have a feeling this has been added by someone unacquainted with British/Irish accents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.121.215 (talk) 03:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Irish civil war?

Though the family were Roman Catholic, they were strongly unionist and during the Irish civil war of 1921 they supported the British forces. This doesn't make sense. The Irish civil began in 1922 and didn't involve British forces. I'll change to just being unionist. Mintguy (T)

The author undoubtedly meant the Anglo-Irish War. RodCrosby 00:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Daughters

I have been trying to verify the information regarding Joyce's daughters. My digging suggests that he had two daughters in an earlier relationship and the correct spelling his daughter's surname is Iandolo. CustardJack 11:45, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Charges

"He was tried on three counts of high treason. These were as follows:

• William Joyce, on September 18 1939, and on numerous other days between 18 September 1939 and 29 May 1945 did aid and assist the enemies of the King by broadcasting to the King's subjects propaganda on behalf of the King's enemies.
• William Joyce, on 26 September 1940, did aid and comfort the King's enemies by purporting to be naturalised as a German citizen.
• William Joyce, on 18 September 1939 and on numerous other days between 18 September 1939 and 2 July 1940 did aid and assist the enemies of the King by broadcasting to the King's subjects propaganda on behalf of the King's enemies."

Counts one and three are remarkably similar. This is surely an error - otherwise, it merits further explanation.

The difference is the date: on July 2, 1940 Joyce's British passport expired. At the trial, Joyce was found not guilty on counts one and two because of his United States nationality. He was convicted on count three because he had a British passport for the whole of the time (even though it had been issued through his having lied about his nationality, he was able to use it to call on British consular services and therefore was under the protection of the King). David | Talk 13:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Counts 1 & 2 were predicated on the assumption that at the material times Joyce was a British subject. So for a British subject to assist the "King's enemies" at any time during the war would be treason(Count 1). Likewise for a British subject to take the nationality of the enemy(Count 2).

Evidence was adduced at trial which could lead to no other conclusion than that Joyce was born an American citizen, had legally adopted German citizenship, and had never been a British subject. Mr. Justice Tucker then quite properly directed the jury to find Joyce not-guilty on the first two counts.

Count 3 was the Crown's fall-back position, which hinged entirely on the passport. Without explicitly stating so, in essence the question was:- Notwithstanding that Joyce was NOT a British subject, did his possession of a British passport(albeit wrongfully-obtained) afford him the King's protection, and, if so, was there a corresponding duty of allegiance from Joyce, which, by assisting the "King's enemies" during the currency of the passport, amounted to Treason? The answer was an uncertain Yes.... RodCrosby 21:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Three crucial points

1. It is questionable that Joyce "lied" about his nationality in obtaining the passport. It is quite possible that Joyce genuinely belived he was British. Whether this alters his alleged culpability as a traitor is a moot point. There is no evidence that he was aware of his father's naturalization as an American in the 1890s, nor under English Law was he capable of giving evidence to this fact one way or the other, nor either to the circumstances of his own birth. Had that naturalization not taken place, Joyce would probably have had joint British-American citizenship at the time of his birth, and later probably joint Irish Free State-American citizenship.

2. There is no evidence that Joyce intended to use his passport beyond travelling to Germany in late August 1939 which, although quixotic, was a perfectly legal thing to do. He simply applied to renew his passport in order to travel, and war had not yet broken out. The noose was put around his neck because the passport was renewed for the standard 12 months, and before its expiry Joyce had started working for the Germans. At the trial, a bod from the Passport Office was produced to say that Joyce could have stipulated that the passport was to last for a much shorter period. That was the dubious point that hanged him. If he had had the foresight to ask that his passport was to last only for a week or two, he would have been legally untouchable. Personally, I've often wondered if anyone really ever has tried to renew a passport for less than 12 months. Also, is there a mechanism for the holder to annul a passport before its expiry?

3. It is notable that the 600 year-old law of treason had to be changed retroactively to put Joyce on the gallows. Prior to 1945, treason was considered the most heinous crime(an attracted the harshest penalties). The English sense of fair play demanded that it consequently required a higher standard of proof than common capital crimes. Either two separate acts of treason witnessed by the same person, or one act witnessed by two different people were required to secure a conviction. In 1945, in anticipation of Joyce's case, the Labour government quietly changed the law, then applied it retrospectively. Although millions had heard Joyce's voice over the airwaves in the latter part of the war, the only witness the Crown could produce was a retired copper who knew Joyce before the war, and had heard his voice on a date he couldn't remember, on a wavelength he couldn't recall, sometime in late 1939...

To sum-up: On the flimsiest evidence, a retroactive law was applied to hang a foreigner for possession of a document he was not entitled to posses, and only continued to possess due to an administrative oversight. Not the English legal system's finest hour, but let's not forget, it was under a Labour government... RodCrosby 12:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

A counter summing up: There has never been any question that Joyce broadcast propaganda for the Nazis from beginning to the end of the war. He was a raging anti-semite before the war as well. He hoped to convince British people to give in to Hitler. He acquired a British passport when it suited him. He fully deserved to come unstuck on that one. Political Umpire http://cricketandcivilisation.blogspot.com

As the Guardian noted at the time, killing people is not the way to root out false opinions. The "crime" Joyce committed, in wrongfully obtaining a passport is usually punished by a small fine....RodCrosby 12:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

So on that basis Joseph Goebbels should have been off the hook. Expression of opinion is one thing in peacetime, although we know what sort of freedom of speech would have existed in Britain had Joyce had his way and the Nazis prevailed. Try telling the victims of the Blitz that a person encouraging them to surrender, revelling in their misery and predicting their doom on a daily basis was just offering an opinion a la Comment is Free. If he didn't want to risk his life at the hands of the British he shouldn't have tried to assist the Nazis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.144.132.66 (talk) 10:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Goebbels qute possibly would have been off the hook, had he lived. The substitute the Allies arraigned in his place, Hans Fritzsche, was one of the three defendants acquitted at Nuremberg... The question that you beg is that Joyce was in fact very POPULAR with his audience, much to the consternation of the British authorities! Also, a vast myth has arisen regarding the content of his broadcasts, most of the words attributed to him were never said. The man's last words, written in the death cell, minutes before the hangman came, are testament to his true beliefs "I am sorry for the sons of Britain who have died without knowing why." Could apply equally today, viz-a-viz Iraq and Afghanistan. RodCrosby 11:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Not convinced that WWII is in any way comparable to the misguided adventure in Iraq. Nor that that statement (whatever it means) represents Joyce's 'true beliefs'. Are you suggesting that he wasn't a Nazi supporter or raging anti-semite? Or a member of the fascist party? Or that he had some special insight into WWII that the 'sons of Britain' did not (possibly, he'd have known more about Jewish persecution in Germany than those in Britain would have . . .). How popular he was is open to question, but I doubt he was popular because his listeners concurred that Britain should abandon the struggle against Germany and join them, as Joyce was arguing. More likely they found him humourous. Perhaps that means his broadcasts did no harm. But those at the time might have had a better idea of that than people sixty odd years later.

Times have changed and the death penalty is no longer in force here. But it was then, for better or for worse, and there was also an offence then as now called treason. I have already said why I've no sympathy for Joyce being caught by his passport-of-convenience. Given that he was British when it suited him, he can't complain that he was British when it suited them either. If he simply didn't like the British he could have chosen other paths in life which didn't involve apologising for the Nazis. http://cricketandcivilisation.blogspot.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.144.132.66 (talk) 12:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Joyce was hanged because at times in his life previously he had relied upon his bogus-British nationality for legal protection, i.e, he had obtained the support of The Crown that every British Subject was entitled to - 'enjoyed the protection of the King's peace'. This, in the eyes of the Prosecution, made him a 'de-facto' British Subject, and hence able to be tried for treason.

In other words, Joyce had relied on being treated as a Briton when it suited him, but had then gone on to commit acts that were intended to cause harm to The Crown. This made his actions treasonable. A case of Joyce trying both to have his cake and to eat it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 10:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Three further points

1. Under the humane application of capital punishment in the UK, it was the convention that prisoners held for an inordinate time in the death cell, while appeals on novel points of law were being considered, almost invariably had their sentences commuted. AFAIK, Joyce was the only person in modern times to whom this mercy was not shown. He spent almost 4 months in the death cell, again a modern record.

2. The House of Lords decision to uphold the conviction was a split decision, with one Lord dissenting. Again, this would have indicated that commutation was in order. In fact, Joyce went to his death without even hearing their reasons. Following on from point 1, it was felt that any further delay in his execution would be unsustainable.

3. AFAIK, William Joyce was the only person in modern times to pay the supreme penalty for his words alone....

All in all, I would have thought an urgent case for the Criminal Cases Review Commission. RodCrosby 12:44, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Only on the basis that the CCRC usually spends its days wasting public time and resources reviving long dead cases for the overworked Court of Appeal, fully in line with the usual modern fashion for thinking we know better than our forefathers. Those who had lived through the London Blitz would have a different view of some individual who thought it a good idea to run to Nazi Germany and spend six years taunting them and apologising for Hitler. Political Umpire http://cricketandcivilisation.blogspot.com

... for his words alone.... - erm no. Joyce willingly served a State with-which his 'own' country was at war. That was treason.

Unlike the case of P. G. Wodehouse, where there was an element of political naivety, as well as a certain amount of coercion by the Nazi's involved - Wodehouse was interrogated by Eric Blair after the war to see if Wodehouse had done anything that could be classed as treasonable. Blair concluded that he had not, Joyce willingly co-operated with the German authorities while 'his' country was at war with them. It comes under the terms of something like 'assisting an enemy power in time of war' and it usually carried the charge of 'treason'. It's a question of allegiance see. Just as citizenship of various countries brings benefits, it also bring with it obligations, and one of these is usually that you don't help the other side when your country is at war with them. This is regarded as very bad.

Unfortunately for Joyce, no-one forced him to do what he did, which would have been a defence later on when he was in court, instead he voluntarily offered his services to the Nazis at a time when his country was at war with them. No only this, but he did his work for them with great enthusiasm, which was evident to anyone listening to his wartime broadcasts against Britain. The glee with which he announced every setback for the British after the Fall of France when they and their Empire were standing alone, was probably enough to ensure that he would eventually hang. People with their backs to the wall don't forget things like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 11:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

One final point

It's always intrigued me why the defence did not claim that Joyce had destroyed his passport on arrival in Germany, once it had served its purpose. After all, AFAIR, the passport itself was never found, and surely the wording of the document "the bearer of this document" means ipso facto that without the physical passport there can be no protection, and hence no allegiance. By analogy, in English law, physical destruction of one's last will and testament revokes the said will. RodCrosby 13:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Just refreshed my memory. This was precisely the point raised in Lord Porter's dissenting opinion. Joyce's Appeal to the HoL RodCrosby 14:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Further information from the BBC

I was reading this earlier: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4132578.stm.

It provides clarification on the reason that his wife was given clemency and also a photograph. I'm not clear on the correct way to source journalistic articles like this so I'm putting it in this discussion.

Joyce and Dev

The British hanged Joyce but spared de Valera on nationality. Both Americans guilty of treason. confused. Palx 18:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, in fairness, by the British definition of "treason" every Irish person on earth is guilty because apparently it is treason, in the British imperialist mentality, for the Irish to want freedom from the oldest form of fascism, imperialism. The men and women of Easter 1916 are heroes to the Irish people, but treasonous to the British. And that says far more about the British and their fanatical culture with regard to the natives than anything else.

In fairness, that's one of the more disgusting and 'fanatical' opinions I've ever read on WP. Hakluyt bean (talk) 23:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

In fairness, we should also note the pro Nazi stance of the IRA and the pro Nazi stance of the Irish Republic. Let's not forget that Britain offered to reunify Ireland if the Republic declared war on Germany. Ireland refused to take up arms against the most vile regime of the 20th Century. Kentish 14 June 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.78.18 (talk) 20:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Joyce was American-born and not a British citizen. He had also taken up German citizenship. He was in fact no more guilty than any other functionary in Goebbels' ministry. He was probably executed because of his high profile in Britain, even though there was no logical basis for this. He may have also been seen as a source of embarrassment to the British Government due to his apparent "omniscience".--Jack Upland 08:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

RodCrosby 00:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC) perhaps the only real treason he committed was against Ireland, and the matter could have been settled by the Irish in the usual way, without the necessity of a trial. qv Denis Donaldson

He could not have committed treason against Ireland during the War, because Ireland - unique among English speaking nations - remained neutral during WWII. The Irish head of state signed the book of condolences at the German embassy on hearing of Hitler's death. Subsequent apologists suggest this was just being a stickler for protocol. They did not do so, however, for FDR's death.

The rant above about the British definition of "treason", even if not a poisonous load of tosh, doesn't apply to Joyce since he was a UNIONIST - who left Ireland because he was afraid of the IRA! ! ! ! ! !

http://cricketandcivilisation.blogspot.com

Dev was a Jew, and the Jews were involved in Ireland's secession from the Union, therefore Dev was spared. 89.100.123.242 (talk) 23:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Citizenship of any country has obligations as well as benefits. Joyce was hanged because for a time when it suited him he wanted the benefits of British citizenship while ignoring the obligations that came with it. One of these is that you do not provide aid or succour to an enemy. Joyce's cavalier attitude is what was responsible - in all areas - for his downfall. If anything, he should have asked a lawyer where he stood before destroying his British Passport, as simply destroying it (which in itself was an offence, as British passports are not the bearer's property to destroy) did not change his nationality.

Through all this Joyce's behaviour was governed by thinking the Nazi Germany was going to win - as did pretty much everyone else other than the British - so he didn't bother with such 'niceties' as formally revoking his British nationality. That omission eventually got him hanged for treason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.135.170 (talk) 10:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

De Valera publicly denied being Jewish in 1934. (5.81.223.177 (talk) 23:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)) Block evasion by banned editor HarveyCarter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Criticism

I removed the "controversy" section because it merely repeated and extended the caveats pointed out already above, but it went further and basically amounted to uncited speculation about the legality of the conviction, which is POV. The paragraph at the end of the conviction section covers that fairly well. Daniel Quinlan 07:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It is enirely legal for governments to kill people because of the things they have said.Bdell555 (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

controversy

Returning the controversy section. The fact that Joyce's execution was controversial is talked about in depth in all his biographies. The fact that his wife, who was guilty of the same charges was not also executed is part of the controversy. Therefore this does not constitute POV and does not justify the wholesale censorship of this section. However, I agree that citation is needed.

(Redzen 13:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC))

The controversy should be mentioned. If a citation is not available, it should still be mentioned.--Jack Upland 08:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Feel that the controversy statements are a bit woolly. The Crown could offer protection, via the protecting power, Switzerland. See my above points for real reasons for disquiet. RodCrosby 00:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

centenary of Joyce's birth 24 April, 2006

RodCrosby 17:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Friesack Camp

Hello, I have just added some detail on all the major G2 suspected "collaborators" with Nazi Germany at the Friesack Camp article. There is also a standalone article on John Codd- another collaborator.

Please add in any information you can, or if you think an article on Irish collaborators with the nazis deserves an article on its own away from the details concerning Friesack Camp please leave some notes on the discussion page etc.

I would like to do an article on Irland-Redaktion in Luxembourg and will perhaps make that standalone as there is a lot of information about it. Thanks for your attention. Fluffy999 20:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Added Audio link

Listen to his boozed-up final speech- 12 minutes. Not sure he "warns that the war would now leave Britain poor and barren" though, nor does he sign off with "Heil Hitler". Can someone else have a listen to confirm and change the article? thanks. Fluffy999 05:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

While he didnt state "the war would now leave Britain poor and barren" he certainly implied it and he definitely uses the words "Heil Hitler" towards the end 87.113.26.196 18:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

(because of a nasal drawl this sounded like: Jairmany calling, Jairmany calling, Jairmany calling). - great content. Well worth keeping. Sakes! Garrick92 11:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No certificate

Joyce falsely claimed to have been born in Ireland to get a British passport.

As he was born in America, he must have known that there was no birth certificate referring to

his alleged birth in Ireland.

It seems that a bank official counter-signed the passport application, without asking for any birth certificate.

William Joyce left America when he was about two and had no American accent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.119.12 (talk) 09:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

He is said to have left America when 2, 3 or 4, by various parties.

Claim

William Joyce claimed to have acted for the British Army in his OTC application, made in England. He said that he had acted in an "irregular capacity" for the British Army. At

this point, he admitted that he was born in America. His mother was born in Lancashire, in

England. Both parents renounced British citizenship when they acquired American citizenship.

Assassination attempt in early life?

From 'Early Life': "Following a failed assassination attempt in 1921 (which only failed due to the 16-year old Joyce taking a different route home from school) he left for England where he would briefly attend King's College School, Wimbledon, followed two years later by his family." Zuh? What assassination attempt? Who was he trying to kill at that age? Or who was trying to kill him at that age? Why? What is this? 01:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Reference to Joyce's education

Block evasion by banned editor HarveyCarter

After the so-called assassination attempt in 1921 his biography claims that he spent a brief time as a pupil at King's College School, Wimbledon. I am currently writing something about the school so was interested in this reference. I can find no reference at all in the school archives concerning Joyce as his name is absent from any lists relating to the period in question and believe the claim is in error. Does anyone have any proof to back up the information on the present Wikepedia site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.163.206 (talk) 12:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

1906

"1906" appears twice in the box on the right. It is odd that the house number is the same as the year of birth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.170.8 (talk) 11:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

William Joyce was born on 24 April 1906, at 1377 Herkimer Street, Brooklyn, New York[1] Will remedy error at infobox. RashersTierney (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

why this guy under German people of World War II Category

does this guy is from German people ???? --نسر برلين (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorted. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

the category should (arguably) stay, since Joyce took German citizenship on 26 Sep 1940, which it transpired was a perfectly legal thing to do... RodCrosby (talk) 18:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Where was he 'from'

Surely 'from' in this context means born in. (Cats; Joyce from Broklyn and Galway). If it means something else, how long must one reside somewhere to be 'from' there? RashersTierney (talk) 18:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Apparently 'from' means 'sometime resident at', Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) #Categorization of people, and nothing to do with place of birth., so he should also be 'from Germany'. RashersTierney (talk) 19:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Unionist or Fascist?

The premise of Joyce's killing by the state was arbitrary. The Wiki article has to reconcile the inconsistency of being both a unionist and a fascist. The conflation of the two terms is intellectually disingenuous. Governments are generally and historically right wing. A unionist is a leftist. 71.193.171.11 (talk) 18:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleted external link

I added an external link to the Lord Haw-Haw article from the Rotten Library, and it was immediately deleted. Despite personal objections some may have to the Rotten website proper, the Rotten Library is in fact an exhaustive resource of historical information, and its corresponding article on Joyce seems perfectly suited for inclusion. I am not in any way affiliated with Rotten, nor do I know anyone who is. I am simply a history buff and avid reader, and I appreciate the arcane articles contained on their website. Please reestablish the link. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC).

Translation Issue

Should not Rundfunkhaus be translated as Broadcasting house not radio center? I thought rundfunk which is literaly round spark is usually translated broadcasting. Haus is of course house. Any German experts care to comment and correct it if It is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.100.94.231 (talk) 20:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. See for example Reichs-Rundfunk-Gesellschaft, Westdeutscher Rundfunk etc. JenniferGovernment 00:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Religion

"In spite of pleadings from the hospital chaplain, Joyce chose to die in his mother's faith, that of the Church of Ireland.[26]"

This is a very odd statement. The chaplain was presumably Church of England; the Church of Ireland is simply the Anglican church in Ireland, in full communion with Canterbury, in exactly the same way as the CofE is the Anglican church in England. Could the author have assumed the Church of Ireland to be Roman Catholic? This would make sense when one takes into account the Catholic service performed at the repatriation of Joyce's remains. I'm reluctant to change a statement referenced to an RS, but as it stands it is, at best, confusing. Could someone with access to the original source please provide a direct quote for clarification? FrFintonStack (talk) 18:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Last words

Earlier today I added information to Joyce's last words, especially to this: "... may the standard be raised from the dust, crowned with the words – "You have conquered nevertheless". ... Other cites refer to his having said, "may the Swastika be raised from the dust"".

I added that this words are a reference to the Blood Order of the Nazi Party. I am a historian from Germany and interested in medals and orders, so I immediately recognized the resemblance of his words to the inscription of the Blood Order. Its reverse reads in German "Und ihr habt doch gesiegt". The words are above a swastika on the medal. All that can be seen in the well-referenced article about the Blood Order: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_Order

I own the british book "Ribbons and Medals" by Captain H. Taprell Dorling, 1960, George Philip & Son Limited. On page 213, the Blood Order's inscription is translated into English as "And yet you have conquered". Unfortunately, I can't quite determine whether "yet" or "nevertheless" is the more suitable translation for the German "doch", but both translations seem right to express the intended meaning of the word "doch".

The Blood Order was invented in 1934, after the Nazi's rise to power, to retroactively honor the surviving participants of the unsuccessful Beer Hall Putsch from 1923 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_Hall_Putsch). So the inscription is meant to express the point of view "In the end, you were successful/victorious after all".

So it is just obvious that Joyce expressed his hopes for the futere in analogy to the participants of the unsuccessful Beer Hall Putsch (From his point of view: "They were unsuccessful at the beginning, but successful in the end. - I have failed right now, but may there be a fruitful rebirth of the nazi ideology in the future.").

It is almost impossible to find reputable sources about the meaning of last words - especially if a british man that is almost completely unknown in Germany today refers to the inscription of a nazi-Order that is just known to a few historians only.

In my opion, the information about his reference to the order is still justified for three reasons.

First, Joyce's words "may the standard/swastika be raised from the dust, crowned with the words" describe exactly the appearence of the Blood Order which shows a swastika under the words "Und ihr habt doch gesiegt".

Second, his last words are a direct translation of the inscription of the Blood Order.

Third, the Blood Order honors exactly that which he hopes for the future.

So my information is plausible and even obvious and therefore I ask you to put it back into the article.

Best regards from Germany. --84.173.164.156 (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

British?

Has he ever been a British citizen? He managed to gain a British passport (based on false statements) but an unlawful passport does not entail citizenship. Even the Attorney general just argued that he "owed allegiance to the king" while under British "diplomatic protection". If he had been a British citizen this wouldn't have been a problem at all 80.136.72.68 (talk) 08:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Both of his parents were born in the United Kingdom (his father, British-controlled Ireland and his mother England). I imagine that would make him by default a British citizen and why the British government was able to execute him for treason, Certainly his ideological adherence was to Britain, from a far-right perspective, throughout all of his life. It is bizarre to describe him in the introduction as a "American-born, Irish-German". He was only in America as an infant and when he was in Ireland he and his family saw themselves as British and beholden to the Crown. I don't think he was ever an Irish citizen and as far as I can tell he was explicitly hostile to Irish nationalism. Claíomh Solais (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

"Both of his parents were born in the United Kingdom (his father, British-controlled Ireland and his mother England). I imagine that would make him by default a British citizen and why the British government was able to execute him for treason," -- logical but apparently untrue.

See "Crucially this was at a time when his British passport was still valid (although born in New York and brought up in Ireland Joyce had lied about his nationality to obtain a British passport – complications and niceties such as proving one’s identity with a birth certificate weren’t needed at the time) ostensibly to accompany Mosley abroad in 1935." from Injustice: State Trials from Socrates to Nuremberg Quis separabit? 20:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

It was established at William Joyce's trial that his father had become a naturalised American citizen long before his birth, and his mother therefore an American citizen upon her marriage. Hence William Joyce was born a natural born citizen of the United States, and never in his life owed any natural allegiance to the King of England. He was legally never 'British'. He was legally American, and later legally German. That was why Mr. Justice Tucker directed the jury to find Joyce Not Guilty on the first two charges on the indictment, leaving the business of the alleged possession of the passport the only question to be decided. RodCrosby (talk) 02:14, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

By virtue of possessing a British Passport Joyce was entitled to the various benefits of representation by, and assistance of, any British Embassy, British Consulate, or High Commission worldwide. If he had got into any trouble in any country in the world, medical, or legal, these organisations would have attempted to assist him, as they would any other British citizen. If civil war had broken out they would have arranged for him and his dependants to be evacuated to a safe place.

That is what 'enjoyed the protection of the King's peace' meant. At the time there would have been no way for an embassy, consulate, or high commission in a foreign country to quickly check whether Joyce's passport was valid or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.180 (talk) 10:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

That is hardly relevant to question of whether he was British.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Margaret Joyce

1. Nationality/citizenship -

a. See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/3641790/Love-and-treachery.html - "Margaret Joyce was born in Old Trafford, Manchester, on July 14, 1911. She was as English as warm beer."

b. See Siân Nicholas, ‘Joyce, William Brooke [Lord Haw-Haw] (1906–1946)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, May 2009 accessed 25 April 2017 - Joyce "married Margaret Cairns White (1911–1972), another active BUF member, at Kensington register office on 13 February 1937."

c. Section 10 of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914 said that "(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, ... the wife of an alien shall be deemed to be an alien. (2) Where a woman has (... after the commencement of this Act) married an alien, and was at the time of her marriage a British subject, she shall not, by reason only of her marriage, be deemed to have ceased to be a British subject unless, by reason of her marriage, she acquired the nationality of her husband." So it appears that, when she married Joyce, she did not cease to be a British subject unless she became an American citizen by reason of her marriage.

d. Section 2 of the Cable Act 1922 (US statute) said "That any woman who marries a citizen of the United States after the passage of this Act … shall not become a citizen of the United States by reason of such marriage". So it appears that, unless she was naturalised as an American citizen (which seems unlikely, as her husband had left that country as a child), she remained a British subject after her marriage.

2. Does anyone know if her name appeared on her husband's passport? The point may be academic on the basis that, as set out above, she was in any event a British subject when she left the UK in August 1939.

3. Does anyone know whether (like her husband) she started broadcasting before they were both naturalised in 1940?

4. Presumably she could have been prosecuted on the basis that, being a British subject, she had been naturalised as a German citizen in 1940 when the UK and Germany were at war? Alekksandr (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Religion

What religion did he have? His father was Catholic, his mother Protestant, and he went to a Catholic school. But what about him? Was he brought up Catholic? Did he become an atheist later?--Jack Upland (talk) 23:10, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

He was nominally a Catholic, but because of his close relationship with his mother he resented the Church's "sectarian" teaching on non-believers. I don't think he ever spoke out strongly against Christianity, but at the same time doesn't appear to have placed much importance on it either (unlike say Eoin O'Duffy, for whom religion was primary and affiliation with fascism circumstantial). The category "Christian fascists" probably doesn't belong on this article. Claíomh Solais (talk) 22:10, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll remove the category.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Capture

Spotting a dishevelled figure while resting from gathering firewood, intelligence soldiers – including a Jewish German, Geoffrey Perry (born Horst Pinschewer), who had left Germany before the war – engaged him in conversation in French and English. After they asked whether he was Joyce, he reached for his pocket...

OK, so who was gathering firewood? Grammatically, this means the "intelligence soldiers" (!) were. I don't think so. Also, this gives many trivial details but skips the important stuff. There were obviously many dishevelled people in Germany at the time, so why would they approach him, why would they speak to him in French and English, and why did they ask if he was Joyce...?--Jack Upland (talk) 10:08, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, so I managed to get to the cited story. But this says: One day Geoffrey was with a fellow officer in a forest near Hamburg when they spotted a dishevelled man. Geoffrey said: "He addressed us first in French, then in English. Bertie thought he recognised his voice as Lord Haw-Haw and I said to the guy, 'You wouldn't happen to be William Joyce?'" This says it was Hamburg, not Flensburg, and doesn't mention collecting firewood. It says that Joyce initiated the conversation, which explains the French and English. It also explains why they thought he was Joyce. This from a better quality newspaper confirms it was in Flensburg, and says that Perry was in fact the one collecting firewood, and again says Joyce approached them. They didn't "spot" him... This needs to be rewritten with better sources.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Nationalities question

Block evasion by banned editor HarveyCarter

Did the US government make any comment or protest as to WJ's execution (as he technically was one of their citizens) - or was it regarded as none of the US' business (as WJ had made it clear he did not regard himself as American)? 89.197.114.132 (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC) Editor 89.197.114.132 (talk) why don't you try researching your own questions? Rwood128 (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC) It might already have been answered (or might be taken up by someone for whom it is a more central line of research). 89.197.114.132 (talk) 16:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC) At the time of his execution Joyce was legally a German citizen. This was established at trial, and was indeed the plank of the misguided second count of the indictment, which collapsed under the direction of Mr Justice Tucker. The problem for the British was it was also established that at the time of his German naturalization, on 26 September 1940, he was an American citizen and had never in fact been British at all! Joyce's expatriation of his American citizenship in 1940 was no crime under US law either, since America was neutral at that time. Therefore, in answer to the original poster's question, the US would have had no interest in the fate of William Joyce, as he was no longer a citizen. RodCrosby (talk) 11:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC) The 'US authorities' might have had a vested reversionary interest (and the UK position being that he had in effect accepted being placed within the British legal system by acquiring British citizenship even if illegally) or so decided (or decided that the net result would have been the same regardless). The situation #now# with someone going to join a group hostile to the US might be slightly different - but, as someone will say, WP has to wait for someone to write the definitive piece to refer to. 89.197.114.132 (talk) 16:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC) Joyce had been a German citizen for more than a year by the time the United States officially entered World War II. He had never been a British subject at any stage of his life. (109.153.101.76 (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC))

Sourcing The Sun tabloid

An IP user User:108.34.238.231 (talk) has inserted a claim about William Joyce which appears to be invention in this edit. The source he used does not contain some of the material added. Shooting him in the buttocks and leaving four holes is backed up in proper reliable sources; the flatulence claim is not in any available citation as far as I can determine. The sourse IP 108 added is no longer online, except for a capture at the Wayback machine here. The source, British tabloid The Sun, does not include the claim either. Philip Cross (talk) 07:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Clearly a joke.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:17, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

religion 2

Mention id made of his fathers but not his mothers religion. Is this deliberate or just a lack of information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobalt69 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

The article says she comes from an Anglican family.--Jack Upland (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Treason?

Block evasion by banned editor HarveyCarter
How could Joyce be tried for treason when he was German, and had never been a British subject? (109.153.101.76 (talk) 17:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)) This is covered in the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Never a British subject

Block evasion by banned editor HarveyCarter

The fact that Joyce had never been a British subject at any stage of his life should be mentioned as it has caused people to question why he was tried for treason. (86.160.101.146 (talk) 10:50, 26 January 2019 (UTC)) From the article: During the processing of the charges Joyce's American nationality came to light, and it seemed that he would have to be acquitted, based upon a lack of jurisdiction; he could not be convicted of betraying a country that was not his own. He was acquitted of the first and second charges. However, the Attorney General, Sir Hartley Shawcross, successfully argued that Joyce's possession of a British passport, even though he had misstated his nationality to get it, entitled him (until it expired) to British diplomatic protection in Germany and therefore he owed allegiance to the King at the time he commenced working for the Germans. It was on this basis that Joyce was convicted of the third charge and sentenced to death on 19 September 1945. So this subject has been adequately dealt with. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2019 (UTC) Exactly - he was never legally a British subject. (31.53.205.215 (talk) 10:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)) Not according to the AG's argument, which was accepted by the court. In any case, the topic is dealt with in the article in detail and does not merit another mention. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Merge

There appear to be 2 independent articles on Lord Haw-Haw and William Joyce. Does anyone else feel they should be merged? --Bicycle repairman 06:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Didn't other men broadcast as Lord Haw-Haw, besides Joyce? Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they did. But William Joyce is now synonomous with the title LHH Redzen 13:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay; it looks like the other Haw-Haws are already better covered at William Joyce. I don't care which is the redirect, but Lord Haw-Haw is probably the more common search term. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I will say that I first searched for William Joyce by using the search term "Lord Haw-Haw". I believe a merged page makes more sense than the current divided entries. rudyardk

• Agree to merge and redirect with Lord Haw-Haw as the primary page. There could be a section heading on the identify of Lord Haw-Haw as a place to put the detailed info on Joyce and the less detailed info on the others.

• Merge Lord Haw Haw into William Joyce. GraemeLeggett 11:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. William Joyce is commonly known as "Lord Haw-Haw.--Jack Upland 08:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Merge, the two are synonymous for most people. Jll 10:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge, but as William Joyce, because the title did not follow him his whole career.Habsfan|t 03:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

• Merge, under William Joyce, I think. It strikes me as better practice for an encyclopaedia to use a person's real name as the heading to their article, where possible. Pacey 01:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge as William Joyce. A redirection from Lord Haw Haw (which is basically just a nickname) would be appropriate, since the article is essentially going to be a biographical piece of one person. A section focused upon others associated with the nickname is the best way to handle it. JXM 20:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• Disagree with the proposed merge. Lord Haw-Haw was not Joyce alone; the fact that most people assume this in blissful ignorance is not a reason for Wikipedia to follow suit (in fact, it is a very good reason for not following suit). And Joyce's notariety, although it stems largely to his role as a propagandaist, is not limited to that. R v Joyce is still a mandatory part of English criminal law courses today for the legal principles that it raises, quite apart from the questions of nationality and treason. Legis 14:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Merge as William Joyce. Wikipedia should reflect reality, and reality is that Joyce did the vast majority of the Lord Haw-Haw broadcasts and has been synonymous with Lord Haw-Haw for nearly 70 years. Include a note in the Joyce article stating that other English subjects did a few Lord Haw-Haw broadcasts, and link to names and articles as appropriate, but there's no need for a separate Lord Haw-Haw article. Vidor 03:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)