Age: The original speech in question was given in 1939, making it 71.
And the film? The film came out this month.
So it's . . . It's a one-week-old, yes, but a one-week-old doing shockingly well for itself. The film, which charts the rise of George VI from a nervous, stammering second-in-line to the rabble-rousing king of England, has led to long queues at the box office and could yet bag a sackful of little gold men.
Not another film about the monarchy. What good are they to anyone? Well, they're a godsend for the British film industry, that's for sure. Lead man Colin Firth probably isn't complaining either, after picking up the Golden Globe for Best Actor at the weekend. In fact his performance was so impressive that a newly created Facebook group is campaigning to have him ascend to the throne.
And the parts of the film that aren't Colin Firth? They've been nominated for 14 Baftas and 11 Oscars, including best picture, best director, best supporting actor and actress, best screenplay, best editing, plummiest consonants, loveliest vowels and best medicinal use of swearing.
You made those last three up. True, but the film would be a shoo-in for all three. As it is, it's hotly tipped to sweep the board at the Baftas and potentially the Oscars as well.
Looks set to be a right royal success story then. Perhaps, although an anonymous email doing the rounds in Hollywood could injure its chances at the Oscars. The message, from an "Academy insider", claims the film glosses over evidence that its hero George VI was an anti-semite who sought to "stymie" attempts by Jewish people to flee Germany in 1939.
And is this insider right? Not really. Historian Andrew Roberts has described the anti-semite claim as "ludicrous". Then again, as the film points out, in a world of mass media, appearance is everything.
Do say: "Bring on the king's Oscar acceptance speech."
Don't say: "Bring on King Colin the Firth's coronation speech."
