That's still being chill out and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person who thinks that it's utterly laughable to hear that comment coming from you. You have a habit of sticking your nose into other people's arguments with hollow and meaningless posts that do nothing other than fueling a fire, which doesn't help anyone. This post right here is a prime example of that.
In the end the only thing I did was what the OP should have done himself, but which he vehemently refused and still refuses to do, namely critically and objectively approaching his own reasonings and conclusions. Something many people refuse to do as they rather believe their own delusions to bath in the false sense of being able to boast of their "insight" rather than being truthful. Case and point: this thread was made just to say "I told you so".
If he has the right to post baseless, random thoughts and present them as near facts, then I have the right to burst that imaginary bubble.
Let me put it this way. At this point your entire reasoning can be compared to you eating a bowl of alphabet-soup. You intentionally fished out specific letters, then arranged to form a specific word and then proclaimed 'omg, how is this possible, my soup just spelled a word, this can't be a coincidence!'. That's what you have been doing every step of the way. Calling this a theory is laughable as to be considered as such, it needs to have some objective ground to stand on, which it doesn't have.
Let me from start to finish break this down to you so that hopefully you might gain some rational insight, which I know almost certainly is never going to happen as people rather believe their own delusions than facing the cruel reality.
1 ------
Someone made the observation that there's seemingly a strawhat depicted in the original edition of the story of Montblanc Noland. However he doesn't actually say much of it, he just ask/questions what this would mean for the story. This took only a few sentences and in those few sentences he showed more critical thinking than you in everything you said combined. He didn't make a grand theory or made baseless assumptions. He asked.
2 ------
You then used that observation to say Montblanc Noland is a D and that his homeland depicted in the story, is the legendary country of the D's.
Now about Noland, it's not impossible, however there have been two major moments Oda could have revealed him as a D (Skypiea and Dressrosa), but he didn't. Secondly you used Roger's name as an example to say that the same thing might have been done with Noland's name, only this doesn't really work for him. You said yourself that his name should be Montblanc Noland, however for this to work it should have been Noland Montblanc. After all Roger's name was Gol D Roger, which almost naturally can be transformed into Gold Roger, which is not the case for Roger D Gol. So making Montblanc D Nolan into Montblanc Noland doesn't make much sense, now does it?
But fair is fair, even though it's more likely that he isn't a D, it's not the first time a character was revealed being a D after a long time. In the end there isn't anything in particular that proves he isn't one, after all it's not too hard to see him as being a D, however the same applies to the opposite: there isn't anything in particular either that indicates he is a D. So this is just an assumption. Not disproven, but certainly not proven either.
Now let's assume this assumption would be correct, this doesn't mean it says anything about his home country. D's have been found all over the world: East Blue, North Blue, South Blue...it's not because a D lives in a country, that there's anything special about that country. Luffy and Garp come from the Goa Kingdom. Do we need to consider them also as a candidate for being the mythical homeland of the D's? More importantly however we can objectively say with 99.9% certainty that Noland's homeland is not the country of the D's.
Either you're being intentionally oblivious to this or your knowledge about OP is incredibly lacking, but the Void Century happened between 900 and 800 years ago, Noland lived 400 years ago. Now they went to excruciating lengths to remove any trace of these 100 years and everyone who dared researching it, got silenced. What's more the most likely place this legendary lost kingdom of the Void Century would have been located, is the Grand Line. Yet somehow according to you it should still exist as a kingdom in plain sight in North Blue for some reason as apparently that region is supposed to be special? From what we have seen the king and the kingdom as a whole arent that different from any other kingdom and its royalty.
So you made two assumptions. The first one was baseless and you then used an incorrect reasoning to go from that baseless assumption to a 2nd assumption, which was completely false. This is quite important as it's this last assumption where you based the entire hat-connection on as you used a picture from Noland's book where you see some people wearing hats, only that picture was depicting people from his home country, which is not the country of the D's.
As a result everything you said afterwards comes tumbling down. If there's no foundation, a house will collapse. You have nothing to support your hat-claims on.
3 ------
Now even if we would just forget everything I said so far, pure reason can invalidate all that stuff you said about hats. I've said this two times by now, but it really boils down to you merely saying "look, they are wearing hats, there must be a very good reason for this". The reality that you contradict yourself multiple times, doesn't help either.
FACT: There are hell of a lot of characters who wear headgear, not just D's.
FACT: Not all known D's wear headgear.
FACT: What's supposed to be considered "unique" headgear is quite subjective, especially in a world like OP that has no shortage of eccentric characters. That doesn't take away though you can rather objectively say that several of the hats worn by D's you used as an example, are common and that the only thing that sets them apart from other characters, is that they're worn by D's.
FACT: There doesn't seem to be any consistency among D's in regards to their hats. Blackbeard wore a cap when he was a kid, then wore for the majority of his adult life a bandana and after he became a captain, he started to wear a rather traditional captain's hat. Garp only wore his dog-hat when we didn't know who he was and the moment that was revealed, we haven't seen it anymore. Ace didn't wear a hat when he as kid, he just suddenly had one when he left for his voyage. Saul wore a standard marine cap and then changed to a rather bland cowboyhat when he left the marines.
FACT: There doesn't seem to be any awareness or intention from the different D-lines to distinguish their lines by their hats nor any particular feelings towards those hats. Only Garp wore the dog-hat. Not his son, not his grandson. His son, Dragon, hasn't even worn any hat so far, while his grandson, Luffy, wore a hat he got from a none-D, who got it from another D, Roger. The latter's son then had a completely different kind of hat. Law is one of rare exceptions that actually has been wearing the same hat from when he was small and seemed to be rather attached it. Nonetheless he changed it for a similar model during the time skip and neither his parents nor his sister wore any hats.
CONCLUSION: The only rational conclusion that can be made from this, is that all of this is complete randomness. There is no pattern to be be found here, just like letters in the alphabet-soup. You just forcibly tried to create one. To make what you say possible, you would have to prove that all D's are clearly distinguished as a group by their hats from all the other characters. You would have to prove that there's conformity between the different D-lines what concerns their hats and it has to be proven they themselves are aware of this. As it stands now you failed completely at that, which is not surprising as it's impossible as it stands now.
4 ------
There is however one exception: Luffy and his strawhat. It's his treasure and he doesn't separate from it. It can be traced back to a young Roger via Shanks, who isn't a D. It's also a near identical copy of this hat that can be found in Marie Geoise and to make the circle round it's a picture of this hat that was observed in Noland's book. From this you can conclude there is something special about that strawhat. What that is no one can know at the moment, but whatever it is, it doesn't say anything about other D's and their hats. This doesn't say anything about D-clans and hat-traditions and whatnot.
Refute? I merely pointed out the obvious flaws anyone who bothered thinking for a few minutes could have spotted, flaws which you completely failed to cover up, but you tried to pretend you did. After all it's rather embarrassing to admit in a thread you made purposefully to say "look how right I was", that you actually missed the mark completely. Now this sorry excuse for a theory has been raised to the ground.
Judging? You started to laugh at a comment that summed your entire thread perfectly up. Then you are essentially laughing at yourself and the fact that you completely ignored all these major flaws and rather unsightly tried to brush them away, shows you have zero sense of self-criticism and objectivism. By now from this exchange that is pretty much an establish fact. That's not a judgement, that's an objective observation.
I can easily double this post just to point out the ridiculousness of things like your non-sensical comparison with historic bathing elites which is messed up on so many levels, but if you can't even spot these ridiculous flaws and contradictions in your own statements, the complexities of history are beyond your comprehension. So I'm not even going to bother with that.
I didn't divide in D's and non D's, in fact I completely disregarded that difference. If you have a series of characters that wear hats and you can't see any objective difference, then you can't objectively say that D's try to be different with their hats as you can't distinguish them from non D-characters. Yet that is exactly what you do. Seriously this is not hard to understand. It's not me who has a weird way of looking at a theory, it's you.
You're an archetypical example of someone who thinks he knows how to make a "theory", but in the end what you do is just trying to get kudos from people by posting a random concoction you made where very selective and subjective in your "proof", while completely ignoring everything that is wrong with it.
To make a good theory you first need a basis to fall back on. Then you need to formulate objective arguments that support that theory. If that's not the case than either at this point there's too little information to support the theory or it's wrong. You had no basis, objectively proven. You then forcefully tried to prove your "theory" with highly subjective and selective arguments, again objectively proven. This on top of completely ignoring the major flaws it has.
People have been clamoring for over a decade that Luffy's hat is special, it's rather pitiful that you tried to put that feather on your hat as a last-ditch attempt to save this sinking wreck of a thread.
