“the kings speech” from

George VI analysis
Francisco Fiocchi
  George VI (Albert Frederick Arthur George; 14 December
1895 – 6 February 1952) was King of the United Kingdom and
the Dominions of the British Commonwealth from 11
December 1936 until his death.
 He was the second son and not expected to inherit the
throne.George's elder brother ascended the throne as Edward
VIII upon the death of their father in 1936. However, Edward
was forced to choose between the crown and marriage to
divorced American socialite Wallis Simpson. With the election
Biography of Edward to marry Simpson, George ascended the throne as
the third monarch of the House of Windsor.
 In September 1939, the British Empire and Commonwealth –
except Ireland – declared war on Nazi Germany. War with
the Kingdom of Italy and the Empire of Japan followed in 1940
and 1941, respectively. He was seen as sharing the hardships
of the common people and his popularity soared. George
became known as a symbol of British determination to win the
war. 
  The start of WWII can be headed back to
Mussolini’s immigration to Switzerland but it I
think it is not really needed
 Nazi Germany, Italy and Japan had Fascist
dictatorships in common that were looking to
expand
Historical  On the first of September of 1939 Germany
context decided to invade Poland, this was the one that
caused a reaction to France and Britain declared
war on Germany, This period is called “the phony
war” because of the lack of military activity.
 There were two previous invasions from Germany
but there was no involvement
  It is the declaration of war to Germany
broadcasted via radio
 The problem is that George VI has dysphemia, a
The speech problem that hinders speak and makes it difficult
itself to do public speeches
 To cope with it he uses the assistance of Lionel
Logue, a speech therapist
 Topic: It revolves around the lack of
empathy and principles of the
dictatorships, and implies war is
needed even though peace is
preferred and dark times will come
Purpose:
ahead.
Communicate the
declaration of war to
Germany
Speaker: George VI, King of the The speech is transmitted via radio so
united kingdom. everyone within the range can join and
He has dysphemia Which makes listen, the problem is that there is a
it difficult for him to speak language barrier with people from other
fluently. nationalities so it can be said that most of
the audience is constituted by people from
the united kingdom.

It feels like it’s not alarming in a way,

calm when taking into account it is a
declaration of war even though he
mentions it´s sacrifices. God is
mentioned yet there is no violence yet
aggression present in the speech, he
also criticizes the dictatorships abuse of
force and violation of treaties and lack of
Circumstances: Nazi Germany is on it’s third
invasion and there has been no conflict
present with the kingdom whatsoever.
It is the moment to start a war, the second
world war.
  Genre: Political informative speech
 Forms of appeal: Uses mainly pathos with emotionally charged
words like “selfish pursuit of power", "primitive doctrine” or
“forced into conflict”. He also uses Ethos in the sense he
represents the United Kingdom and prefers peace but war is the
only option

Analysis
 Structure:
-In the introduction he mentions that he has an important message
to give

-the body is composed by a reprovation of the dictator regiments

and a declaration of war against them

-He concludes the speech by asking the people to stay calm and
commit their cause to god
  He repeats the phrase “call my people at home and my
peoples across the seas” to emphazice the importance of
the message he is trying to spread

Stylistical  He Does a contrast between them as being “good”

respecting treaties and rights and committing to god and
devices the dictatorships as being “bad” by invading and forcing
an ethnicity.He also contrasts them by the freedon each
one has, being the British commonwealth Nations the
“better”
  The way the speech is written gives soothing
Selection of vibes, he does not use any kind of technical or
advanced vocabulary, the intention being making
words it easy to understand to the listeners.
  His writing feels playful, he goes back and forth between
short and long sentences with an emphasis on the
second, and interchanging hypotaxis with parataxis
between the paragraphs.
“For the second time in the lives of most of us we are at war. Over and over
again we have tried to find a peaceful way out of the differences between

Syntax ourselves and those who are now our enemies. But it has been in vain. We
have been forced into a conflict.”

Example of parataxis

“it is the principle which permits a state, in the selfish pursuit of power, to
disregard its treaties and its solemn pledges” and “For the sake of all that we
ourselves hold dear, and of the world’s order and peace, it is unthinkable that
we should refuse to meet the challenge.” are examples of hypotaxis
  The speech is coherent in the fact that the

Coherence declaration looks justified and is directed to his

people.
  He ties most of the paragraphs together by
referencing the last idea written behind, for
example, he introduces a “principle” on the
second paragraph, develops it in the third and
then criticizes and explains it dangers in the
fourth.
 It may have more to do with structure, but he
always starts its paragraphs indicating at
cohesion something
-”in this grave hour”
-”for the second time in our lives”
-”this is the ultimate issue”

-”it is to high purpose”

Are examples of this.
  He is broadcasting via radio, so the listeners are
not able to see him, the most they can do is hear
Text- his sudden pauses and stutters. Besides that, he

external looks calm, without involving much movement

which may be related to the technology of the
factors microphone that may worsen the audio quality of
the broadcast.
  Is it a good speech?
That is subjective, but the fact that he volunteered to do it while being aware of his condition
makes it a good speech.
 Does it communicate its intended message?
I wouldn’t say so, without the historical events present I wouldn’t even guess what is
happening.
 Does it hit its target audience?
As potrayed by the movie, yes.
 Does it fit the occasion?
More details would been welcomed but it would ruin the overall calm aesthetic of the speech.

Evaluation  Is it convincing?
To me it is a little lackluster because of the fact that he does not even mention the word
“Germany” ,“Nazi” or “fascist” so I’ve got mixed opinions about it.
 Is the argumentation solid?
It lacks facts and is based around feelings, to me it does not feel like it has arguments per se,
rather general ideas.
 Is the use of logos, ethos and pathos balanced?
You may identify the people as a testimony of the WWI but to me this speech lacks logos.
 Is language and the use of stylistical devices balanced?
This speech lacks literary devices like irony, sarcasm and Onomatopoeias but they do not
belong in this context so I would that it is.