First of all, let me say to all you “nice” refounders: this post really isn’t about you. You are mostly collateral damage. Most refounders I run into are not nice. Regardless, it needs to be said that the refounding theory might go down as the dumbest Zelda theory of all time. The word “incoherent” was invented just so we could use it to describe the refounding theory.

The Timeline as We Know It

For this to make sense, let’s start at the beginning. All Zelda games take place in the same universe. Don’t believe the anti-timeline mfs. Those people don’t have functioning brains. They are like a bad cold we can’t shake. Like Calamity Ganon, they keep coming back no matter what we do.

Moving on. All Zelda games take place in the same world. They have a shared history. This is the rough outline of the timeline before TotK came out. The three golden goddesses created everything. They left behind a powerful artifact called the Triforce. They entrusted the Triforce to another, lesser goddess called Hylia.

Now, we don’t know what happens after this. This is still a blank period for us. The next thing we know is that Hylia allegedly lived on the surface with the humans. One day, demons started pouring out from the ground and attacked everything. Long story short, there was a big battle, and Hylia gave up her divinity and became human. The Master Sword was created, and the Triforce was left with the humans since Hylia was no longer there to protect it.

Word of the Triforce spread, leading to an era of chaos in which numerous wars over the Triforce were fought. The era of chaos ended when the sage Rauru sealed away the Triforce in the Sacred Realm. Hylia’s bloodline established the Kingdom of Hyrule.

A long ass time later, a man named Ganondorf attempted to steal the Triforce. He was stopped by the Hero of Time and the seven sages. For some unexplained reason, Ganondorf kept returning over and over again in the form of Ganon. This happened so much that the ancient Sheikah built Divine Beasts and spawn camped him. They won.

A long-ass time passed. The people of Hyrule were expecting the return of Ganon. They decided to use the same plan again, but this time, Ganon took over the Divine Beasts and almost won. He was stopped yet again by another hero and the princess. That, more or less, is the entire timeline as we know it.

Enter TotK

Zelda and Link find someone sealed deep beneath Hyrule Castle. That someone is revealed to be Ganondorf, who was sealed away by the first king of Hyrule. The first king of Hyrule was named Rauru. Zelda picks up Rauru’s secret stone and travels back in time to the founding era of Hyrule, where she helps Rauru seal away Ganondorf. Ganondorf remained sealed there the whole time.

Now, on the surface, this seems impossible. Ganondorf was not around during the founding era. He was defeated by the Hero of Time, and that happened much later, after Hyrule was already long established. Also, Rauru was the name of the Hylian sage who sealed away the Triforce in the Sacred Realm. Yet in TotK, Rauru is the name of a Zonai who was the first king of Hyrule. The Triforce was also nowhere to be found.

The Hylian Rauru used the Temple of Time to hide the entrance to the Sacred Realm. In the time period Zelda travels to, there is a different, Zonai-built Temple of Time, and it is most certainly not hiding the entrance to the Sacred Realm. Not only that, but the Triforce is completely absent. So clearly, the math ain’t mathing here. WTF is going on? TotK poses several questions: Who is Ganondorf? Who is Rauru? And, more importantly, what era does Zelda travel to?

Enter the Worst Theory of All Time

This is where refounding comes in. The refounding theory attempts to answer these questions in the dumbest way possible. I cannot stress this enough: the refounding theory is evidently stupid. It takes zero effort to see the many, many, many flaws and contradictions that it has. Why the refounding theory is the most popular theory in the community is something I will never understand. The only way someone can actually believe this theory is if they are either ignorant of Zelda lore and TotK, or incapable of any kind of critical thinking. Hey, don’t take my word for it. Let’s break it down.

The refounding theory posits that Rauru is not actually the first king of Hyrule. He is actually the first king of a different Hyrule. For simplicity’s sake, going forward, Rauru’s Hyrule will be referred to as Hyrule 2. All the other games take place in Hyrule 1. For some unexplained reason, Hyrule 1 collapsed sometime in the past. Rauru came after this point and founded another Hyrule in the same place.

Now, on the extreme surface, this doesn’t sound too bad. As long as you don’t play TotK or any other Zelda game, then it could make sense if you were drunk enough. Unfortunately for the refounders, some of us played TotK and the other Zelda games and are sober enough to understand why this theory is trash. Let’s start with the first problem.

Memories 3 and 4 in TotK show us the moment Zelda arrived in the past. To make sure there isn’t any wiggle room, here is a transcript of the full conversation Zelda had with Rauru and Sonia, starting with Memory 3.

>Zelda: “Where am I?”

>Sonia: “We didn’t mean to startle you. I’m sorry. It’s OK. My name is Sonia.”

>Rauru: “And could we ask what your name is?”

>Zelda: “I-I am... the daughter of King Rhoam of Hyrule. Zelda.”

>Rauru: “What an unexpected answer. We are the king and queen who founded Hyrule, after all. Or at least we were the last time I checked.”

>Zelda: “You two founded Hyrule? And you’re the king?”

>Rauru: “My name is Rauru. King Rauru of Hyrule.”

>Zelda: “King Rauru... and Queen Sonia? But that must mean—”

This conversation continues in Memory 4:

>Zelda: “As I thought... This is not the world I know. A time so far back in the past, it’s become legend... So it’s true. This is really the era of Hyrule’s founding?”

>Rauru: “Your presence here is just as strange to us, Zelda. But if you, like Sonia, have a secret stone and are able to manipulate time, then your story makes sense.”

>Sonia: “Oh? I believed her right away. You needed the secret stone as proof, Rauru? I can feel your light power within her. As well as my time power. Additionally, I sense that we share a blood connection.”

Rauru Is Ignorant of Hyrule 1

This conversation alone is all you need to completely kill the refounding theory. We can infer a few basic things. First, when Zelda says she is the daughter of King Rhoam of Hyrule, Rauru pushes back. If Rauru were aware of the existence of a previous Kingdom of Hyrule, he would have considered the possibility that Zelda might have been referring to the old Kingdom of Hyrule. Instead, he points out the fact that he is the first king of Hyrule. By pointing that out, he is communicating to Zelda that she can’t be the daughter of a king of Hyrule when he alone is the only king Hyrule has ever had. That’s what it means to be first.

Already, the refounding theory is on life support, but it gets worse. Neither Rauru nor Sonia recognizes the name Zelda. Sonia identifies Zelda by sensing their powers within her, and Rauru verifies Zelda’s story through her secret stone. Neither of them uses Zelda’s name as proof of her identity. The name Zelda isn’t just some throwaway name. The royal family of Hyrule has a tradition of calling their girls Zelda. This is from King Rhoam’s diary:

>“Today, as the sun rose and a new day was born, my daughter, too, joined this sweet world. In keeping with the traditions of the royal family, I have decided to name her... Zelda. I am not a man accustomed to frivolous musings, but now seems as good a time as any to begin my royal memorandum.”

There have also been countless Zeldas in Hyrule’s history. It’s probably the most famous name in Hyrule. It’s next to impossible for someone to know about the existence of Hyrule and not recognize the name Zelda. This is made worse when you consider that Sonia should have countless ancestors named Zelda. So the only thing we can conclude here is that Rauru and Sonia do not know about Hyrule 1. To really drive this point home, let’s look at one more example. Age of Imprisonment spoiler, although the same information could easily be inferred from TotK.

>Zelda: “I understand, but please listen. Our protector here contains a shard of the Master Sword. As far as I can tell, the sword that seals the darkness is serving as its core.”

>Rauru: “The same blade wielded by your royal guard—Link, you said his name was.”

>Zelda: “Yes. With its divine power, I’m certain we have nothing to be afraid of. This construct could never possibly hurt us. Even as a fragment, the Master Sword won’t fail us.”

>Calamo: “Yep. I don’t know what any of that meant, but I promised my buds a stand-up guy. Not so great at following orders, but at least he never talks back.”

>Rauru: “Mineru, please.”

>Mineru: “They speak the truth. He presents no danger. You’ve seen it, too. How willingly he fights for our cause.”

>Rauru: “A fair point. And yet, I suggest we keep him under careful watch.”

>Mineru: “Zelda, when we have a spare moment, could you tell me more about this Master Sword?”

>Zelda: “Gladly.”

These people don’t even know what the Master Sword is. The most famous blade in all of Hyrule, and yet they don’t know what it is. Remember, if you don’t know what the Master Sword is, then by extension, you can’t possibly know what the Hero is. So, to conclude, these people don’t know what the name “Zelda” means, what the Master Sword is, or who the Hero is. These people do not know anything about Hyrule 1.

Refounders can cope all they want. It is the height of stupidity to suggest at this stage that the people in the ancient past were aware of the existence of a previous Hyrule. Now, refounders have an almost infinite supply of copium. They are huffing it 24/7 so they can justify all sorts of things. Refounders would say, “So what? Knowledge of Hyrule 1 was lost due to the cataclysmic event that wiped out Hyrule 1.” Unfortunately for refounders, they can’t say this either, because you naturally have to ask:

How Did Rauru Come Up with the Name Hyrule?

This is the problem when you work backwards from a conclusion. You end up making nonsensical arguments. If Rauru didn’t know anything about Hyrule 1, why did he name his kingdom Hyrule? Where did he get the name from? Again, we already established that he does not know about the existence of a previous Kingdom of Hyrule.

Refounders, of course, would argue that it was a coincidence. What choice do they have? They will also say that the fact that his name is Rauru is also a coincidence. For those who don’t know, in OoT, we are introduced to Rauru, the light sage, who was one of the ancient sages who sealed away the Sacred Realm. Interestingly enough, Rauru was also a sage of light.

Refounders will say that it’s all one big coincidence. The more incoherent refounders will try to argue that some information survived from Hyrule 1. Just not anything about Zelda, the Master Sword, the Hero, or the existence of a previous kingdom called Hyrule. In other words, the people from Rauru’s era are suffering from selective amnesia. Who determines what they know and what they don’t? Refounders do. They just make it up as they go along. Complete ass pull.

Yet somehow, the refounding theory is even dumber than this. Refounders fail to understand that...

TotK Is a Sequel to BotW

These people don't consider the fact that BotW exists. When you get to modern-day BotW/TotK, the entire history of Hyrule is known. During the first memory of BotW, Zelda says:

>“Hero of Hyrule... Chosen by the Sword That Seals the Darkness. You have shown unflinching bravery and skill in the face of darkness and adversity, and have proven yourself worthy of the blessings of the Goddess Hylia. Whether skyward bound, adrift in time, or steeped in the glowing embers of twilight, the sacred blade is forever bound to the soul of the hero. We pray for your protection, and we hope that... we hope that the two of you will grow stronger together as one.

>Forged in the long-distant past, the Sword That Seals the Darkness. Guardian of Hyrule, ancient steel, forever bound to the hero. In the name of the Goddess Hylia, I bless you and your chosen hero. Over the seas of time and distance, when we need the golden power of the Goddess, our hope rests in you, to be forever by the hero’s side. Again, we pray that the two of you will be stronger together as one.”

Zelda here references Skyward Sword, Ocarina of Time, and Twilight Princess. That’s not all. Impa in BotW says:

>“The history of the royal family of Hyrule is also the history of Calamity Ganon, a primal evil that has endured over the ages. This evil has been turned back time and time again by a warrior wielding the soul of a hero and a princess who carries the blood of the Goddess... and when the hero wielding the sword that seals the darkness delivered his final blow...”

So, as you can see, the people of the modern day know all about the blood of the Goddess. They know about the Hero and the Master Sword, and they even know about Ganon. They know the entire history of Hyrule and even the time period before it was founded. The people in modern-day Hyrule are more than 10,000 years separated from Rauru’s era. Yet they know more about their history than the people who lived closer to the events that were referenced. How is that possible?

Well, refounders know no bounds and know no retreat. They simply argue that the information about Hyrule 1 was rediscovered. Not only that, but Rauru’s second Hyrule used different symbols from Hyrule 1. Well, when you get to modern-day BotW/TotK, the symbols Hyrule uses all changed back to the symbols Hyrule 1 used. Now, why would they do that? Does that make sense? Additionally, all of this happened in such a way that a third-party observer would not know a refounding ever took place. I mean, come on. Olympic-class mental gymnastics.

We also have to consider that Rauru just so happened to marry someone who was a descendant of the royal family of old Hyrule, because the blood of the Goddess has to be passed down somehow. Of course, Rauru could not have known that, so it’s yet again another coincidence. Once again, this is more than enough to declare the refounding theory dead. But it gets worse.

Enter Ganondorf

Ganondorf is when this theory stops being merely incoherent and starts actively contradicting stated facts. Here is what is stated on page 401 of Creating a Champion:

>“It is a long-held belief that men only bring disaster. However, long ago it is said that a boy was born to the Gerudo tribe every one hundred years and, per tradition, became king of the Gerudo. It is written that Calamity Ganon once adopted the form of a Gerudo and, since he was the rare male born to the Gerudo, was made king. But that wasn’t enough for the man known as Ganondorf. He plotted to seize control of all of Hyrule and become the Great King of Evil. The only person standing in the way of his machinations was a young man with the soul of the hero who wielded the Master Sword. His plans shattered, Ganondorf lost control, and his powers consumed him, transforming him into the Dark Beast Ganon. After being defeated by the hero, he was sealed away by Princess Zelda and the other sages. His hatred of the hero and the princess is legendary. He revived again and again, only to be sealed many times over. Eventually, the Demon King Ganon became hatred and malice incarnate, holding a deep grudge against Hyrule itself. According to Gerudo records, there has not been another male Gerudo leader since the king who became the Calamity. Though Ganondorf was a member of the Gerudo, one of the sages who sealed him away was also a Gerudo. Her name was Nabooru. The Divine Beast Vah Naboris is named in her honor, and her legend is still passed down with reverence. The Champion Urbosa and Chief Riju both greatly admire her.”

This is yet again another kill shot for the refounding theory. How this dumb theory survived this long is truly astonishing. It is stated in plain text that the people of Hyrule believe OoT Ganondorf is the man responsible for the Calamity Ganon phenomenon that plagued Hyrule for generations. They also state that he was the last male leader of the Gerudo. Placing TotK Ganondorf after OoT Ganondorf straight-up contradicts this fact. Do refounders care? No. The way refounders handle this is to just say that Creating a Champion and BotW were retconned. Again, this is a perfect example of working backwards from your conclusion. To make the refounding theory work, they have to rewrite the story and change facts, and they do so without batting an eye. Crazy stuff. They even tried saying the divine beasts were named after the sages from Rauru's era. Lol. Lmao, even. The sages' names have since been revealed. Do you think that changed anything? No. They doubled down. Insane stuff. I wish I were this confident in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence

That’s not all, either, because under the refounding theory, Ganondorf is just back again for no reason. He looks the same. He even has the same name. He has the same goals. He even has two twin Gerudo witches under him. They also have the same names as the old twin witches, Kotake and Koume. Ganondorf has the same backstory. He even uses the same plan: swearing fake fealty to the king of Hyrule, just like the old Ganondorf. How do refounders justify this? It’s simple. They just use one word: “reincarnation.” They won’t explain it past that. They expect you to be satisfied with that one word, even though this is not how reincarnation works at all. This is closer to resurrection than reincarnation, but they don’t care. These are people who are not bound by common sense and logic. Reason is a foreign concept to these people. Remember, they want us to believe that Ganondorf 1 existed in Hyrule 1. Ganondorf 1 was defeated by the Hero, and he kept returning as Ganon. Hyrule fell. People from Rauru's era all suffer from selective asspull amnesia. Another man named Ganondorf does the same things. Time passes. The people of Hyurle all forget about Ganondorf 2 and go back to remembering Ganondorf 1, who everyone forgot about. Holy hell, man, what happened to this community?

Fujibayashi’s Statement

This next one is pretty straightforward. Sometime after the release of TotK, Fujibayashi was asked about TotK’s placement in the timeline. Here is the full thing:

>“--As is customary, I’d like to ask this every time, but where does Tears of the Kingdom fit into the timeline of The Legend of Zelda? The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword depicted the origins of Zelda, and Breath of the Wild depicted the end, but Tears of the Kingdom is a sequel to Breath of the Wild, and it also tells the story of the founding of Hyrule, so could it also be considered the origin of Zelda...?

>Fujibayashi: It’s definitely a story that takes place after Breath of the Wild. And, basically, the Legend of Zelda series is designed so that the story and world don’t fall apart. Those are the only two things I can say at this point.

>If we assume that the story won’t fall apart, I think it will give fans room to think about various possibilities, such as, ‘So, does that mean there’s also this possibility?’ If we’re just talking about possibilities, even if there is a story about the founding of Hyrule, there’s also the possibility that it was destroyed once before. We didn’t just make it up haphazardly with the idea of, ‘Wouldn’t it be interesting if we did it this way?’ So I hope you’ll enjoy imagining things, including the parts that are deliberately left unsaid.”

Refounders are not only incoherent, but they also seem to lack reading comprehension. The first thing Fujibayashi says is that he can’t give us the answer. The second thing he says is that the Zelda series is not designed to contradict itself. Third, he poses the possibility that any time you have a story about the founding of Hyrule, you have to consider that it may actually be a refounding instead. Refounders only seem to focus on Rauru’s Hyrule. Have they not considered that the founding that occurred between SS and OoT could itself be a refounding? No, they didn’t consider that, even though that is what Fujibayashi says here. That would require critical thinking.

There’s more, but this post is already long enough. Honestly, I don’t think more would even change things. Refounders are not approaching theorizing in good faith. As I said before, most of them are working backwards from their conclusion. Hence, the incoherent nature of the refounding theory. They are not letting facts and evidence lead them to their natural conclusions.

The majority of refounders want to isolate the Wild games from the other Zelda games. So they cope their way into the refounding theory just so they can quarantine the Wild games from the rest of the series. This is the actual reason why so many of these people cling to this dumb theory. This is also the reason they keep insisting that BotW is a reboot, even though nothing in-universe or out-of-universe supports that claim. Therefore, it’s a waste of time to try to reason with these people. I don’t plan on changing anyone’s mind with this post. As the saying goes, you can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into. This post exists only to deal with the revisionism that will come later after Nintendo debunks this asinine theory. Let no person ever claim that there was any logical basis to even entertain the refounding theory. This theory was always dumb.