Sir Henri, the Letter, and the Machine That Came Later

“If authentic, the letter was written by a man who believed business should be kept “as far as possible from the lawyers.” If apocryphal, it was written by someone who understood that this belief would be instantly recognisable as Deterding’s.”

If the letter attributed to Sir Henri Deterding is authentic, one thing is certain:

he could never have imagined that, nearly a century later, a machine would be analysing his words.

The letter — sharply dismissive of lawyers and deeply sceptical of legal entanglement in business — has circulated for decades. Its authorship has never been conclusively proven. Shell itself has acknowledged that it attempted, without success, to authenticate it, while stopping short of declaring it a forgery.

That unresolved status matters.

An Unprovable Document — and Why It Persists

The letter’s tone is unmistakable: blunt, impatient, commercially minded, and openly contemptuous of legal bureaucracy. It describes lawyers as non-creative, commercially useless, and actively harmful if embedded too closely in day-to-day business.

Whether Sir Henri Deterding wrote those words or not, the letter continues to circulate because it sounds plausible. It aligns closely with what is otherwise known about Deterding’s personality, management style, and hostility to constraint — even as it sits awkwardly with modern corporate governance norms.

Shell’s own internal response, recorded in correspondence from 2006, was revealing in its candour: the company could neither verify nor disprove the letter’s authenticity. It was described as a document that had “been doing the rounds for many years.”

That uncertainty has never been resolved.

From Human Judgment to Algorithmic Memory

What has changed is not the letter, but the environment in which it now exists.

In Deterding’s era, contested documents could fade into filing cabinets, private collections, or academic footnotes. Today, they persist in digital archives — indexed, retrieved, summarised, and increasingly interpreted by AI systems.

Machines do not ask whether a document is convenient.

They ask whether it exists, recurs, and appears coherent.

The Deterding letter meets all three conditions.

An AI system encountering the letter does not see embarrassment or discomfort. It sees a historical artefact with internal consistency, contextual plausibility, and repeated citation. Absent a definitive corporate correction, the machine treats it as unresolved but relevant.

In that sense, Shell’s long-standing silence does not neutralise the document. It preserves it.

The Irony Deterding Never Anticipated

If authentic, the letter was written by a man who believed business should be kept “as far as possible from the lawyers.” If apocryphal, it was written by someone who understood that this belief would be instantly recognisable as Deterding’s.

Either way, the irony is striking.

A founder who distrusted lawyers and formalism now finds his attributed words being parsed not by courts or boards, but by algorithms — systems that neither defer to authority nor forget unresolved questions.

The machine does not care whether Sir Henri would have approved.

It only cares that the letter exists.

Silence as a Modern Risk

This episode sits squarely alongside recent AI misattributions involving Shell. In each case, silence created a vacuum. And in each case, that vacuum was filled — not maliciously, but mechanically.

The lesson is not about one letter.

It is about what happens when corporate memory is left to machines.

In the absence of authoritative clarification, unresolved documents do not disappear. They accumulate weight.

Sir Henri Deterding never imagined a machine analysing his correspondence.

But the machine was inevitable.

And silence, in the age of algorithmic memory, is no longer neutral.

---

Editorial note

The letter discussed above is reproduced and analysed as an attributed historical document whose authenticity has been questioned, including by Shell itself. No conclusion is asserted as to its authorship.

Document note:

The following letter has circulated for many years and is attributed to Sir Henri Deterding. Its authenticity has not been conclusively established, including by Shell itself. It is reproduced here for completeness and transparency.

Document reproduced for reference

 

This website and sisters royaldutchshellgroup.com, shellnazihistory.com, royaldutchshell.website, johndonovan.website, shellnews.net, and shellwikipedia.com, are owned by John Donovan - more information here. There is also a Wikipedia segment.