If you look carefully where the horizontal and vertical folds intersect, you can see small separations that occur as stress tears. There are also small tears at the margins at some of the fold lines.
These tears are the greatest at the bottom fold line, which proves that the top third was folded downward first, with the bottom third folded up and over the first. Thus there's more stress to the paper on the bottom fold due to the slight increase of the paper's thickness (effectively, two sheet's worth) and is where the greatest separation occurs.
Furthermore, this piece of paper was folded so that the printed side remains folded inside with the non-printed side on the outside.
It would be very helpful to see the backside of the paper for any expected signs of scuffing and oxidation. It would also be good to have better image resolution to see if the paper's margins, both inside and out, have telltale oxidation; i.e., the yellowish tint that turns white as you move from the paper's margins toward the center of the paper.
Just some observations from a guy who's handled loads of old paper documents.........
I use to sign official seals when I worked at an US Embassy
It didn't oxidize the stain pattern completely since the lower half of the stain doesn't appear there, but that's likely due to the folded section of paper not quite touching the entire stain; the mirrored oxidation is at its strongest along the seam, which is to be expected.
If this is a fake, the forger really knew his stuff to cover his arse.
I agree with the folding and stress tears. I’ve taken pics of old papers and at first glance looks good to me. It’s dingy enough. The stain, maybe a bug stain, looks good. The form’s fonts and style looks like that era as does the typing... ribboned typing and font... the shading of lighter/darker ink, the heavier ink from years of use inside the “a”, “A”, and “s”. Someone should definitely check out an old Royal typewriter.