169 replies to this topic

[jman]

Two other snags with the AOL scenario is that - The manual actually tells us that the King told Zelda something, while many people argue that the wizard had made that up.
-and, many say that the King is the little guy at the end of AOL who casts a spell to make dark Link appear, when the manual states that the King died. But then who is this midget? possibly a wizard that the King created like he did the other guardians, if anyone.

The problem with Zelda is that we always two games which seem to be set next to each other and then Nintendo forgets about their continuity ie we got LOZ and AOL, which Nintendo have barely worked into the back-stories of previous games besides a mentione of Ganon and the fact that the names of the towns in AOL refer to the sages in OOT. Then ALTTP and LA, where the former obviously relates to OOT and WW, yet some people are still not convinced there is a strong enough correlation for OOT to be the imprisoning war. Then OOT and MM where like LA MM is a side quest, and the Oracles which are set in different places but seem to be able to be set anywhere.
Nintendo always does this and this is part of the reason thta I have lost interest in recent Zelda games because they're drifting from things like the AOL backstory which were absolute gold to work with. Now granted it's a legend, but when you drift off track and split your timeline etc. things get messy. If they're going to maker split timelines and alternate universes, then they should do what Marvel did; having Earth 616(the Earth we live in) as the main timeline and then have all your "What ifs" and Buts" in other timelines.
I fear that they have really just confused the Zelda timeline to the point where there are so many games that nobody is going to care in a few years, and when they decide to relate the games together there will be too many options, so they'll just keep doing what they're doing now. Frankly I don't know why, I think this sleeping Zelda scenario amongst others is a golden opportunity for them.

[CID Farwin]

There's not that many stories about it. It's just a superstition to explain doppleganger phenomena.

What IS the doppleganger phenomena?

ALttP might have even been planned as a prequel to LoZ+AoL that would've explained AoL's backstory, just like OoT did for ALttP. How wonderful that could've been, don't you think?

ALttP WAS planned to be a prequel to LoZ and AoL. It was released with this assumption.

I fear that they have really just confused the Zelda timeline to the point where there are so many games that nobody is going to care in a few years, and when they decide to relate the games together there will be too many options, so they'll just keep doing what they're doing now. Frankly I don't know why, I think this sleeping Zelda scenario amongst others is a golden opportunity for them.

Nintendo is getting better at tying their games together. I can only hope that in the near future Nintendo will try to clear up issues like these.

[MikePetersSucks]

Two other snags with the AOL scenario is that - The manual actually tells us that the King told Zelda something, while many people argue that the wizard had made that up.
-and, many say that the King is the little guy at the end of AOL who casts a spell to make dark Link appear, when the manual states that the King died. But then who is this midget? possibly a wizard that the King created like he did the other guardians, if anyone.

Have you considered that it might be a ghost?

What IS the doppleganger phenomena?

There are claims throughout history of people meetings ghosts of people who are still alive in order to give warnings or dangerous omens.

[Jumbie]

ALttP WAS planned to be a prequel to LoZ and AoL. It was released with this assumption.

Yea, of course it was. But what I meant is, a *true* prequel, one that connects to AoL's backstory or even retells it.

Edited by Jumbie, 11 October 2006 - 05:45 PM.

[Duke Serkol]

I know that's exactly what happened to Morrigan, but I didn't realize it was not something Capcom had come up with

Funny quoting myself but... I also just realized Capcom used that plot twice and in two distinct fighting games. One is Vampire Savior of course, the other is Street Fighter Alpha3.
Just thought it could be of interest.

[jman]

The problem with the AOL backstory is that things can be taken in so many different ways. One could also read the part where it says "The Prince could inherit the triforce only in part" to mean that the triforce was actually whole, and he could only inherit Power (or maybe wisdom) like what happened to Ganondorf. This doesn't not make sense though, because then courage would go to another person. That line sounds so much like what happened to Ganon though... Oh well, I'm sticking to my previous theory, anyone else care to comment on that?

[mohammedali]

The problem with the AOL backstory is that things can be taken in so many different ways. One could also read the part where it says "The Prince could inherit the triforce only in part" to mean that the triforce was actually whole, and he could only inherit Power (or maybe wisdom) like what happened to Ganondorf. This doesn't not make sense though, because then courage would go to another person. That line sounds so much like what happened to Ganon though... Oh well, I'm sticking to my previous theory, anyone else care to comment on that?

OMG, Ganon is the Prince (of Darkness)!!!
Seriously though, there are a lot of similarities between AoL and aLttP. Some are very subtle. I'll post a few when I get a chance, but right now my laptop is about to die of battery.

Mohammed Ali

[Duke Serkol]

I believe ALttP was very likely meant, at first, to enact AoL's backstory, just like OoT does for ALttP.
I mean, there's a wizard who looks remarkably like that of AoL's manual, that at first appears to be trustworthy then reveals himself to be a fiend and he casts a nasty magic on Princess Zelda. The King too resembles that of AoL's manual (though for some reason both characters have green clothes in the game while Agahnim clearly wears red in the manual... odd) and he dies.
However Nintendo must have decided AoL had not been played by nearly enough people to make the dramatic story of Zelda being put to eternal slumber acceptable by the audience, or something along those lines, and went for a happy ending instead.

After playing OoT, I too thought the Triforce splitting up when one's heart is unbalanced could tie in to AoL's legend, but then I realized (as you too have) that the other two parts would have gone to people worthy of them. This clearly isn't the case, as Courage was already hidden away by the recently deceased king.

[jman]

I still am on the side that the King from AOL's backstory wrote the script, but what if he didn't what if the sleeping Zelda was the first Zelda (so when the Prince touched the triforce pieces they really went to other people) and the ALTTP king new of the legend (and after the events of ALTTP was given the triforce by Link) and wrote the script himself.
In that case sleeping zelda could possibly be the first and Courage could still be hidden before LOZ and AOL.
Why didn't anyone do this before? Ganon had the triforce of powe and the triforce was never united until the end of AOL.
I think this could also work. We must keep in mind that Impa says this is "the Legend of Zelda handed down in Hyrule". This has to be something big that I think Nintendo will probably make a game out of in 2011(Zelda's 20th anniversary).
Does anyone have a japanese translation of the AOL manual? Because one thing that bugs me about the backstory is that Impa claims that the scrolls and crystals have been handed down in her family for generations (ie. hundreds of years possibly), yet ALTTP states that Link and Zelda are the predecessors to Link and Zelda of LOZ(and hence the Link of AOL). Now we all know that the TOC was not hidden from before ALTTP, because in ALTTP Ganon had obtained the entire triforce and it was in the Pyramid of Power. So if the scroll was written generations before AOL, would this then not be before ALTTP aswell?
Sometimes this just drives me insane and I wonder if Zelda games can ever exist in a single timeline....

Edited by jman, 14 October 2006 - 02:45 AM.

[Jumbie]

This has to be something big that I think Nintendo will probably make a game out of in 2011(Zelda's 20th anniversary).

The Zelda series didn't start in 1991. That must have been when ALttP was released, rather.

Does anyone have a japanese translation of the AOL manual?

Of course, here you are!

So if the scroll was written generations before AOL, would this then not be before ALTTP aswell?
Sometimes this just drives me insane and I wonder if Zelda games can ever exist in a single timeline....

I see no reason why the scroll would have to be written before ALttP. The games fit wonderfully after each other if you only put enough centuries in between Every single Zelda game speaks about centuries and centuries having passed, so it's a fact.
But in fact, I seriously wonder if Zelda games can exist in a Single Timeline, too!

[jman]

After reading the Japanese translation of AOl's manual, I am starting to be convinced that Sleeping Zelda is infact first (assuming the literal translations are correct). Why? because the translation of who she is, is literally "first generation Zelda". [Also funny how the Japanese manual says "she was determined not to say anything" when the prince and wizard hassled her. This makes it seem [img]http://forums.legendsalliance.com/public/ALOT.png[/img] more likley that the King did tell her something (for all you people who believe that the wizard made that up).]
I had a theory a few yrs ago which I recorded and will try to find. It had something to do with the wizard being one of the original sages before OOT.

[Arturo]

But the problems is that, for storyline's sake, it's impossible for her to be the first. Read my article to know why.

[jman]

But the problems is that, for storyline's sake, it's impossible for her to be the first. Read my article to know why.

I read your article and have been on this forum for about 3 weeks, and you do make some good points but that doesn't mean I take your article word for word. In addition, I know your article was obviously well-created by the use of zeldas canon but your are only proposing a theory. I don't know of anyone who has managed to propose a sleeping Zelda theory (let alone most zelda theories for that matter) without loopholes or assumptions. Even though there are plausible assumptions, and not so plausible assumptions, that is what they are at the end of the day, assumptions.

I really hope Nintendo release a game with this explained in it... But I won't hold my breath.

[Arturo]

I thought you hadn't read the article because I included the Japanese translation in it; and you didn't seem to have read that translation.

Edited by Arturo, 15 October 2006 - 10:12 AM.

[mohammedali]

But the problems is that, for storyline's sake, it's impossible for her to be the first. Read my article to know why.

I've read you're article Arturo, and although a good read, you are making a lot of assumptions. If you make those assumptions then you're right - it would indeed be impossible for her to be the first Princess. However, if you stick very strictly with only what we definately know to be true, then you'll find that there are ways to make Sleeping Zelda the very first.

Mohammed Ali

[Arturo]

Thanks

Making Zelda first would require either contradicting much of the canon or making unsensible theories like the one that says that she was cursed first and after a long time, the scroll was written.

[jman]

Thanks

Making Zelda first would require either contradicting much of the canon or making unsensible theories like the one that says that she was cursed first and after a long time, the scroll was written.

The fact that she is the first Zelda may seem unsensible to you, but to others it may seem unsensible that seeing as the original Japanese translation states that she is the first generation Princess Zelda it is unreasonable to put her anywhere else. If you're going to put a theory out like this one about the sleeping Zelda, you have to be able to view the situation from different perspectives.
Some people think a split timeline is unreasonable, yet others can deal with it.

Making Zelda first would require either contradicting much of the canon

Arturo, this IS the canon! The canon states she is the first generation Princess Zelda! Since this was taken from the original creator's intention, making Sleeping Zelda the very first is the canon. The very fact that you dismiss the canon without attempting to integrate it into your theory denotes that you are afraid. Perhaps afraid your theory will not work if you follow the canon.
Well my friend if you want to talk about canon, go no further than the Japanese translation of the AOL manual. You simply can not destroy elements of the canon to formulate a theory whose worth relies on the canon.

unsensible theories like the one that says that she was cursed first and after a long time, the scroll was written.

Unsensible theories? It is more sensible to say that Sleeping Zelda, being the first generation Zelda was cursed and a later king wrote the scroll rather than formulating a theory using the Canon and then deleting that part of the canon which does not comply with your theory. Give me absolute proof that for instance Sleeping Zelda was not the first generation Zelda and that another king (ALTTP's for instance) did not write the scroll...

Why is this not plausible? After the events of ALTTP, the king could have used the triforce of Wisdom to see into the past and learn what had happened (while Link was away in LA). Or the ghost of sleeping Zelda's father could have informed him of past events and told him that it was best to hide the triforce of Courage for a time when a new king could break the curse on Zelda and bring peace to Hyrule.
I don't understand the reasoning to call this theory unsensible, Hyrule is a land filled with prophecy, ghosts and supernatural events. I don't recall anything canon stating that the same king in the AOL backstory actually wrote the scroll, infact I don't recall it even saying that a King wrote it... These are simply assumptions people make to attempt to create a theory.
It is fine to assume things, but do not then break the canon to aid your explanations.

Edited by jman, 16 October 2006 - 09:43 AM.

[Arturo]

The fact that she is the first Zelda may seem unsensible to you, but to others it may seem unsensible that seeing as the original Japanese translation states that she is the first generation Princess Zelda it is unreasonable to put her anywhere else. If you're going to put a theory out like this one about the sleeping Zelda, you have to be able to view the situation from different perspectives.
Some people think a split timeline is unreasonable, yet others can deal with it.
Arturo, this IS the canon! The canon states she is the first generation Princess Zelda! Since this was taken from the original creator's intention, making Sleeping Zelda the very first is the canon. The very fact that you dismiss the canon without attempting to integrate it into your theory denotes that you are afraid. Perhaps afraid your theory will not work if you follow the canon.
Well my friend if you want to talk about canon, go no further than the Japanese translation of the AOL manual. You simply can not destroy elements of the canon to formulate a theory whose worth relies on the canon.

The problem is that canon contradicts itself. I am not afraid of canon. I just say that, this game was created before I was even born. And sice then, the creators have TOTALLY forgotten about it. When it was created, AoL Zelda was the first, but with other games, like OoT and ALttP it's clear this isn't true. What is better, using this tiny piece of canon to dismiss tons of it (complete games) or dismissing this little bit to give the others much more sense? If we had AoL Zelda as first, that would require either for OoT to be after AoL, or for the scroll to be written a long time after Zelda's curse. And those are totally unsensible things.

[jman]

If we had AoL Zelda as first, that would require either for OoT to be after AoL, or for the scroll to be written a long time after Zelda's curse. And those are totally unsensible things.

You're not hearing yourself. You keep using 'unsensible' as an adjective, why are these things unsensible. They are unsensible to you, and by you saying something can't work because it's not sensible is another ASSUMPTION. Nowhere does the AOL backstory say that the writer of the scroll even knew about the sleeping Zelda. Rather, Impa says to Link that if he uses the whole triforce, 'surely the sleeping curse will be lifted from zelda' (not quoted exactly).
All the scroll says is that the writer has not found a person who can control the triforce in his/her lifetime and tells Link to go after the triforce of courage. The scroll was written and the curse was placed over Hyrule so that a mark would apper on a suitable candidate to be the prophecized 'Great King' one day. Who wrote it or when they wrote it is not the point. Why does making the scroll not being written by the king of the AOL backstory matter? It doesn't, you're letting your own logic take over what the backstory is telling you. If the scroll was indeed written by the King of the AOL backstory, do yo not think that it would have been mentioned specifically? I think it's obvious that this was left open for a reason, being games which come in between.
You stay that this canon defeats other sources of canon... Which other canon are you refering to specifically?
What is more plausible, that all of your assumptions are correct in your theory? Or that Sleeping Zelda is actually the first Zelda? Have a guess, please and let us all know.

If we had AoL Zelda as first, that would require either for OoT to be after AoL

No it wouldn't.. Think hard, it would require OOT to be before AOL's backstory , not AOL (which would happen centuries later). We know that before OOT, the Great War occurred and before that, The goddesses created Hyrule and the x number of races including the Hylia. This Great war was ended by the Hylian King using the triforce to maintain peace in Hyrule... Ring any bells??? the only other time where a king who has done this ever gets mentioned is the AOL backstory. I believe after careful deliberation and really thinking this over time and time again that these are the same kings. And yes it's my belief, but the correlation between the 2 events (great war and AOL backstory) is strong in the sense that we only ever hear about this one king that used the triforce to maintain peace in Hyrule. Even after ALTTP when the triforce was in Hyrule, people feared Ganon's return.

We know that there were sages at this time and that Rauru was one of them. These sages most likely due to building the temples would have housed or stored the triforce in the temple of light (somewhere where people wouldn't have access because it would be guarded and in the SR). The fact that the manual says that the deceased King had told Zelda something about the triforce before he died could have simply been him telling her that her brother(the Prince) would not be able to inherit the triforce because he didn't have a balanced heart and perhaps Zelda did so the King may have asked her to find the other pieces of triforce and use it to maintain peace because he knew the Prince wouldn't be able to. It is also said that the Prince searched for the other pieces but could not find them. Of course he couldn't. He didn't have the faintest idea that they would be inside the bodies or souls of other people. After the wizard heard King and Zelda talking about this, he told the prince and Zelda was put to sleep for eternity (or until AOL). And the wizard disappears or sheds his mortal skin.
[Supposedly the Northern castle was built exactly where she fell asleep. This castle is to the North of Death mountain, perhaps there was a Hyrule castle there at that time or something similar.]
What happens to the triforce pieces after that? The sages most likely take them from the Prince after explaining what happened to him only inheriting one part of it, they retrieve the other 2 pieces and seal it the SR. OOT takes place, then ALTTP
In ALTTP where the triforce is re-united, the scroll is written... But why now? The LA manual itself says that people feared Ganon's return, so what better time to be cautious with the triforce than in ALTTP? The king himself fears Ganon's return and writes the scroll and creates the crystals, guardians, casts a spell etc.
Generations pass and LOZ and AOL happen.

Why is this not plausible?
LA, LOZ and AOL

[MikePetersSucks]

It's not plausible or sensible because it took all of THAT explaination to make it work even halfway.

[Hero of Slime]

Never in OoT does it say that the King used the Triforce to unite Hyrule. OoT even gives off the impression that the Triforce has been in the sacred realm for ages. Also, the sages who built the temples lived long before the great war. Look at the temples, they are more than a decade old.

Th correlation between the events is only strong because you are making stuff up.

[Jumbie]

seeing as the original Japanese translation states that she is the first generation Princess Zelda

It does, but, first generation since which point in time? Have you ever considered that the falling asleep of Sleeping Zelda could have started an all-new generation of Princesses Zelda, emerging from the Prince's bloodline? So since Sleeping Zelda is the Prince's sister, she is the first generation Zelda of this new line of Zeldas.

deleting that part of the canon which does not comply with your theory

There you have it, canon hasn't been deleted at all by putting the first generation Zelda late in the timeline.

After the events of ALTTP, the king could have used the triforce of Wisdom to see into the past and learn what had happened (while Link was away in LA). Or the ghost of sleeping Zelda's father could have informed him of past events and told him that it was best to hide the triforce of Courage for a time when a new king could break the curse on Zelda and bring peace to Hyrule.

Way too much assumption. Your view, that Sleeping Zelda lived before OoT, can only work when you yourself give these explanations to the other fans - but not by the canon alone. Thus, this cannot be correct.

I don't recall anything canon stating that the same king in the AOL backstory actually wrote the scroll, infact I don't recall it even saying that a King wrote it... These are simply assumptions people make to attempt to create a theory.

These assumptions are actually jumping at one's face. The effort is to disprove that the King wrote the scroll, not to prove he did, as this can be proven by a little feel for story-telling already.

What is more plausible, that all of your assumptions are correct in your theory? Or that Sleeping Zelda is actually the first Zelda? Have a guess, please and let us all know.

The first.

Think hard, it would require OOT to be before AOL's backstory , not AOL (which would happen centuries later).

There shouldn't be that many games between AoL's backstory and AoL itself.

This Great war was ended by the Hylian King using the triforce to maintain peace in Hyrule...

That's just untrue. As Zol said, the Triforce never left the Sacred Realm between Hyrule's Creation and OoT.

In ALTTP where the triforce is re-united, the scroll is written... But why now? The LA manual itself says that people feared Ganon's return, so what better time to be cautious with the triforce than in ALTTP?

Um, you're not honestly trying to use LA's manual to determine the point when the scroll was written?! What a farfetched assumption

[CID Farwin]

A very large ASSUMPTION would be to think that first generation Zelda means that she is the first.

"First generation" could mean a plethora of things not limited to:

1.That she is part of the first generation of hylians.
2.That she is the first princesss named Zelda.
3.That she is the first of a line of Zeldas: Zelda I, Zelda, II, etc. not neccicarilly the first zelda.

IF the magician mentioned in AoL backstory IS Aghanim(Ganon) Then it is physically impossible for the Sleeping Zelda to be the first zelda ever.

For the sake of the argument, and an attempt by me to try and solve it, would someone please clarify why Sleeping Zelda could, or could't be first(assuming ganon ISN'T the magician).

[Jumbie]

"First generation" could mean a plethora of things not limited to:
1.That she is part of the first generation of hylians.
2.That she is the first princesss named Zelda.
3.That she is the first of a line of Zeldas: Zelda I, Zelda, II, etc. not neccicarilly the first zelda.

Nice! So I'd go with number 3.

For the sake of the argument, and an attempt by me to try and solve it, would someone please clarify why Sleeping Zelda could, or could't be first(assuming ganon ISN'T the magician).

Okay, I can try to clarify why she couldn't be first.
We take it for granted that the scroll in Zelda's chamber was written by the Great King as his last will, and only after that was his daughter cursed to fall asleep. This is, as said, not a baseless assumption, but the logical conclusion since AoL's manual didn't offer any alternatives to the King having written it.
So, the Triforce was split by the King before his death, two parts going to the Prince and one part, the Triforce of Courage, being sealed in the Great Temple. There it remains until Link breaks the temple seal and takes the Triforce at the end of AoL, meaning that no games involving the Triforce of Courage can possibly happen between AoL's backstory and AoL (remember, the King's scroll is part of the backstory, and must therefore date back to the same time when the rest of the backstory happened).

[jman]

After the events of ALTTP, the king could have used the triforce of Wisdom to see into the past and learn what had happened (while Link was away in LA). Or the ghost of sleeping Zelda's father could have informed him of past events and told him that it was best to hide the triforce of Courage for a time when a new king could break the curse on Zelda and bring peace to Hyrule.

Way too much assumption. Your view, that Sleeping Zelda lived before OoT, can only work when you yourself give these explanations to the other fans - but not by the canon alone. Thus, this cannot be correct.

Yeh fine so leave using the TOW, but it's legend anyway so it would have been passed down by word of mouth through the Royal family and Impa's line of descendants. So now it's the canon alone.

Okay, I can try to clarify why she couldn't be first.
We take it for granted that the scroll in Zelda's chamber was written by the Great King as his last will, and only after that was his daughter cursed to fall asleep. This is, as said, not a baseless assumption, but the logical conclusion since AoL's manual didn't offer any alternatives to the King having written it.
So, the Triforce was split by the King before his death, two parts going to the Prince and one part, the Triforce of Courage, being sealed in the Great Temple. There it remains until Link breaks the temple seal and takes the Triforce at the end of AoL, meaning that no games involving the Triforce of Courage can possibly happen between AoL's backstory and AoL (remember, the King's scroll is part of the backstory, and must therefore date back to the same time when the rest of the backstory happened).

The TOC fact is a good point. It's just my belief that Sleeping Zelda is the first, doesn't have to be anybody elses. It's not the fact that I couldn't ever believe other theories, I am just not convinced that the same King necessarily wrote the scroll and made the crystals.

I think other theories are certainly plausible too, I just don't believe them as much as my own. The reason I had a go at Arturo is because when I said SZ being first is what I believed, he interjected and said "thats not possible". Anything is possible, more people may value his theory than mine which doesn't bother me, but as long as people make assumptions, anything is possible.

That's just untrue. As Zol said, the Triforce never left the Sacred Realm between Hyrule's Creation and OoT.

I was sure that in OOT somewhere it mentioned that the King in the Great War did use the triforce to maintain peace. I played OOT a short while ago so if I got it wrong, sorry my bad on that.

[Duke Serkol]

We take it for granted that the scroll in Zelda's chamber was written by the Great King as his last will, and only after that was his daughter cursed to fall asleep. This is, as said, not a baseless assumption, but the logical conclusion since AoL's manual didn't offer any alternatives to the King having written it.

Actually the manual all but states outright that he did. All proof needed can be gathered by simply adding up two separate sentences on two different pages.
I believe no one will argue that whomever wrote the scroll affirmates that he is the one who hid the Triforce of Courage and employed the Binding Force (and guardian "deities" to protect the statues that mantain it) to keep everybody away from it.
That was from the story in the manual. Now turn a few pages to find enemies descriptions. Check out what it tells about IronKnuckles: they were put in the Palaces/Temples by the King.

In short, unless you'd like to believe that the King built the Palaces and put lesser enemies in them, while someone at a later date put the bosses in there too and only then hid away the Triforce (making these Palaces previously useless, which obviously doesn't make sense), then there we have it: the King is the one who wrote that scroll.

-Edit-
Oh and I suppose somebody might say "That could be a later King, not the father of the Prime Zelda" but come on... what other King would the manual refer to as "The King"?

Edited by Duke Serkol, 17 October 2006 - 09:49 AM.

[Jumbie]

I believe no one will argue that whomever wrote the scroll affirmates that he is the one who hid the Triforce of Courage and employed the Binding Force (and guardian "deities" to protect the statues that mantain it) to keep everybody away from it.
That was from the story in the manual. Now turn a few pages to find enemies descriptions. Check out what it tells about IronKnuckles: they were put in the Palaces/Temples by the King.

Thanks for this nice find!

I am just not convinced that the same King necessarily wrote the scroll and made the crystals.
The reason I had a go at Arturo is because when I said SZ being first is what I believed, he interjected and said "thats not possible".

So... better think again after what Duke Serkol explained.

I was sure that in OOT somewhere it mentioned that the King in the Great War did use the triforce to maintain peace. I played OOT a short while ago so if I got it wrong, sorry my bad on that.

No need to be sorry. Anyway, this was a major pillar of your theory, and now you can't use it anymore. So in essence, the Triforce never being used before OoT, together with the fact that Sleeping Zelda's father wrote the scroll, proves your placement of AoL's backstory wrong.

[Arturo]

You're not hearing yourself. You keep using 'unsensible' as an adjective, why are these things unsensible. They are unsensible to you, and by you saying something can't work because it's not sensible is another ASSUMPTION. Nowhere does the AOL backstory say that the writer of the scroll even knew about the sleeping Zelda. Rather, Impa says to Link that if he uses the whole triforce, 'surely the sleeping curse will be lifted from zelda' (not quoted exactly).
All the scroll says is that the writer has not found a person who can control the triforce in his/her lifetime and tells Link to go after the triforce of courage. The scroll was written and the curse was placed over Hyrule so that a mark would apper on a suitable candidate to be the prophecized 'Great King' one day. Who wrote it or when they wrote it is not the point. Why does making the scroll not being written by the king of the AOL backstory matter? It doesn't, you're letting your own logic take over what the backstory is telling you. If the scroll was indeed written by the King of the AOL backstory, do yo not think that it would have been mentioned specifically? I think it's obvious that this was left open for a reason, being games which come in between.
You stay that this canon defeats other sources of canon... Which other canon are you refering to specifically?
What is more plausible, that all of your assumptions are correct in your theory? Or that Sleeping Zelda is actually the first Zelda? Have a guess, please and let us all know.
No it wouldn't.. Think hard, it would require OOT to be before AOL's backstory , not AOL (which would happen centuries later). We know that before OOT, the Great War occurred and before that, The goddesses created Hyrule and the x number of races including the Hylia. This Great war was ended by the Hylian King using the triforce to maintain peace in Hyrule... Ring any bells??? the only other time where a king who has done this ever gets mentioned is the AOL backstory. I believe after careful deliberation and really thinking this over time and time again that these are the same kings. And yes it's my belief, but the correlation between the 2 events (great war and AOL backstory) is strong in the sense that we only ever hear about this one king that used the triforce to maintain peace in Hyrule. Even after ALTTP when the triforce was in Hyrule, people feared Ganon's return.

We know that there were sages at this time and that Rauru was one of them. These sages most likely due to building the temples would have housed or stored the triforce in the temple of light (somewhere where people wouldn't have access because it would be guarded and in the SR). The fact that the manual says that the deceased King had told Zelda something about the triforce before he died could have simply been him telling her that her brother(the Prince) would not be able to inherit the triforce because he didn't have a balanced heart and perhaps Zelda did so the King may have asked her to find the other pieces of triforce and use it to maintain peace because he knew the Prince wouldn't be able to. It is also said that the Prince searched for the other pieces but could not find them. Of course he couldn't. He didn't have the faintest idea that they would be inside the bodies or souls of other people. After the wizard heard King and Zelda talking about this, he told the prince and Zelda was put to sleep for eternity (or until AOL). And the wizard disappears or sheds his mortal skin.
[Supposedly the Northern castle was built exactly where she fell asleep. This castle is to the North of Death mountain, perhaps there was a Hyrule castle there at that time or something similar.]
What happens to the triforce pieces after that? The sages most likely take them from the Prince after explaining what happened to him only inheriting one part of it, they retrieve the other 2 pieces and seal it the SR. OOT takes place, then ALTTP
In ALTTP where the triforce is re-united, the scroll is written... But why now? The LA manual itself says that people feared Ganon's return, so what better time to be cautious with the triforce than in ALTTP? The king himself fears Ganon's return and writes the scroll and creates the crystals, guardians, casts a spell etc.
Generations pass and LOZ and AOL happen.

Why is this not plausible?
LA, LOZ and AOL

Well well well

First, let me say that I just said "impossible" because I didn't want to write more about this, I am too lazy. But now that I understand what you mean, it's my obligation to answer.

First, the text clearly speaks about a time when the Triforce was used to keep the peace. Not such a time existed just before OoT. The Fierce War ended with the King controlling Hyrule, but it's clearly said that the Triforce remained in its original resting place, the Light Temple.

Also, there is no proof that the writer was other than the King. First because it's implied that in the story, and arguing against it is going against its internal logic. I wil let the article speak for me:

It’s possible for someone to divide the Triforce after the second unification and put the Triforce of Courage inside of the Great Temple and put the scroll inside of the room no-one could open. This possibility, apart from being too deus ex machine for my taste, has also some flaws that make me consider it to be wrong. The person who wrote the scroll never mentions Princess Zelda and says he put the guardian deities in the temples, this suggests strongly that the writer was the King, the father of the Sleeping Zelda. He doesn’t mention Zelda because she has not been cursed yet, while someone who would write this after the curse would surely mention it. Plus, the King is acknowledged to have put the monsters in the temples (“The enemies in the Palace are those that were made and chosen by the King” AoL Manual), so it’s logical that he would have been the one who created the Guardians. Also, if Princess Zelda has been already cursed around the times of ALttP, why was she not woken? Last, it wouldn’t have much sense to put the scroll inside the room no-one can open if it didn’t have any relation with the Princess.

I think that's all.

[jman]

No need to be sorry. Anyway, this was a major pillar of your theory, and now you can't use it anymore. So in essence, the Triforce never being used before OoT, together with the fact that Sleeping Zelda's father wrote the scroll, proves your placement of AoL's backstory wrong.

Well, you're absolutely right fellaz... Oh well, I thought I had it sussed for a while. I severely underestimated your theory Arturo.

That was from the story in the manual. Now turn a few pages to find enemies descriptions. Check out what it tells about IronKnuckles: they were put in the Palaces/Temples by the King.

Fair enough Duke, fair enough. I can't believe I missed that.

[Arturo]

It's normal believing things that are different from my theory. If not, what would be the point on writing? To try to convince other people...

And also, I should apologize for my absolute lazeness at answering you. I have had lots of exams, and I couldn't answer. Oh well. And why I should the word "unsensible" so much? Blame my incredible lack of vocabulary.