130 replies to this topic

[LionHarted]

We are told of a wise king who ruled with the Triforce (whole) in the AoL manual. He sealed the piece of Courage in the Great Palace, and Zelda has Wisdom. Since the Prince inherited the Triforce "in part," he got Power.

Bolded is an assumption.

We don't know if that particular prince inherited the Triforce in part for that reason; although with AoL's limited backstory, it would suffice to explain it, and be a simple explanation at that. Daphnes, too, is a wise king who ruled with the Triforce, and seems to have inherited his Triforce fragment (the Triforce "in part"). What becomes of the Triforce after his wish is a big unknown. It could have been hidden; it could have returned to the Sacred Realm.

We only have two games in which the Triforce is united, ALttP and OoX.

And TWW.

I place TMC before OoT because it describes a fledgling kingdom and acts as an "origin story" for the Four Sword, Vaati, the hat, the Light Force, etc. Its backstory also does not mention a flood. It mentions wars, which the OoT backstory also references.

Actually, the OoT backstory mentions a "bloody history of greed and hatred", which TP elaborates upon as struggles over the Sacred Realm; not a hero's struggle against monsters.

[Person]

TWW takes place in a separate timeline from the rest of the series as per Aonuma. Daphnes cannot be the Prince who inherited the Triforce because we have Link with the ToC in that game. When the old king from the AoL manual died, he placed the ToC in the Great Palace. Since most games pre-LoZ feature the ToC, the Sleeping Zelda story must have happened shortly before LoZ.

The OoT backstory does mention a "bloody history of greed and hatred," that could've included TMC. In TMC, we have monsters invading Hyrule searching for the Light Force. In OoT, we have monsters invading Hyrule searching for the Triforce. It seems that the era before OoT was filled with wars and violence over any number of things until the kingdom was finally united by the OoT king. The TMC-era Hyrule is a fledgling fragmented kingdom that is at war with Vaati and his monsters.

It seems that the theme of pre-OoT Hyrule is bloody wars with monsters over magicky things.

[LionHarted]

TWW takes place in a separate timeline from the rest of the series as per Aonuma.

TWW takes place in a separate timeline as TP and MM, as per Aonuma.

Daphnes cannot be the Prince who inherited the Triforce because we have Link with the ToC in that game.

Unless the part he inherited is the fragment of the Triforce of Wisdom.

When the old king from the AoL manual died, he placed the ToC in the Great Palace.

Before the king (who left the scroll) died, he left Power and Wisdom in the kingdom, and hid Courage. For all we know, this could have been what Daphnes did before his death in TWW.

It seems that the theme of pre-OoT Hyrule is bloody wars with monsters over magicky things.

Or the theme of the entire series.

[Person]

Hyrule is completely destroyed at the end of TWW, as per Daphnes Nohansen Hyrule's wish.

Unless the part he inherited is the fragment of the Triforce of Wisdom.

Unless the fact that Zelda has the Triforce of Wisdom in LoZ and AoL means anything. Plus, the ToC has to be in the Great Palace if it is to be dated after the Sleeping Zelda story.

Before the king (who left the scroll) died, he left Power and Wisdom in the kingdom, and hid Courage. For all we know, this could have been what Daphnes did before his death in TWW.

So you're saying that Daphnes is both the Prince who inherited the Triforce in part, and the wise king who hid ToC in the Great Palace? The only time the ToC is unaccounted for is in LoZ. Therefore, every game that features a ToC could not happen between the Sleeping Zelda story and LoZ. Plus, how could the Sleeping Zelda story happen in the 30 seconds between the destruction of Hyrule and the end credits of TWW?

Your theory is muddled and self-contradictory. There is no reason to put the Sleeping Zelda story early in the timeline, and there is no reason to suggest that the King's wish to destroy Hyrule did not come true.

[LionHarted]

Hyrule is completely destroyed at the end of TWW, as per Daphnes Nohansen Hyrule's wish.

The Earth is completely destroyed in the Biblical flood, as per the wishes of the God of Jerusalem.

Interestingly, it is a wind that causes the earth to unflood.

Unless the fact that Zelda has the Triforce of Wisdom in LoZ and AoL means anything.

Of course she does. He left Power and Wisdom in the kingdom, remember?

Plus, the ToC has to be in the Great Palace if it is to be dated after the Sleeping Zelda story.

In the theory, he (Daphnes) hid Courage after he died (in TWW).

So you're saying that Daphnes is both the Prince who inherited the Triforce in part, and the wise king who hid ToC in the Great Palace?

Give me a factual reason why this absolutely cannot be.

Plus, how could the Sleeping Zelda story happen in the 30 seconds between the destruction of Hyrule and the end credits of TWW?

Never said it did.

There is no reason to put the Sleeping Zelda story early in the timeline

Except that the story tells us about the "first generation Princess Zelda".

and there is no reason to suggest that the King's wish to destroy Hyrule did not come true.

It did destroy the "ancient land" of Hyrule. But remember that the goddesses left those on the mountaintops who would build a "new kingdom".

Edited by LionHarted, 05 June 2007 - 05:27 PM.

[Person]

Daphnes wished for the ancient land to be washed away. He then admonishes Link and Tetra to found a new land that will not be Hyrule. This means that the Kingdom of Hyrule as we know it is gone forever. This part of the story does not parallel the flood story from the Bible at all, because we have no indication that the world will un-flood in TWW.

Okay, on to the Sleeping Zelda story.

The ancient king ruled with the Triforce.
He died, and his son should have inherited it. He did not. He only got part (We are not told what this part is, but it is implied that he got Power, because Zelda has Wisdom).
The Prince is counseled by the evil wizard and interrogates his sister.
Wizard casts spell on Zelda, wizard dies.
Prince (aparently repentant) decrees that every female born into the house must be named Zelda to honor the tragedy.

Link finds scroll written by the king.
The King had hid the ToC in the Great Palace and left the pieces of Power and Wisdom in his kingdom (to his children).
Link needs to go find the ToC and wake up the old Zelda.

Where does King Daphnes fit this bill? He has a shard of the ToW, not the whole thing. He was by no means a wise ruler. He could not have put the ToC in the Great Palace because the Hero of Time split it up when he went back to his childhood.

Here's the state of the Triforce in TWW:
ToP:Ganon
ToW:Part with Daphnes, part with Tetra.
ToC: Scattered around the Great Sea.

Here's the state of the Triforce in the Sleeping Zelda story:
ToP: In the Kingdom.
ToW: In the Kingdom.
ToC: In the Great Palace.

At the end of TWW, we do not know what happened to the Triforce. But the kingdom is washed away and Daphnes dies. No time for the whole "Sleeping Zelda" story to happen. Also, Daphnes cannot simultaneously be the Prince with the Triforce part and the King who gives it to the Prince. It's just not logical.

The story is also not meant to explain the "first generation" of Princess Zelda. Yes, it could fit that bill when it was originally released, but not now, since we have other games with the ToC in them. Rather, the decree was meant to honor the tragedy, and was a legislative act affirming an already-in-place naming tradition. The only place the ToC can be between Sleeping Zelda and AoL is in the Great Palace.

Edited by Person, 05 June 2007 - 05:44 PM.

[LionHarted]

Daphnes wished for the ancient land to be washed away. He then admonishes Link and Tetra to found a new land that will not be Hyrule. This means that the Kingdom of Hyrule as we know it is gone forever. This part of the story does not parallel the flood story from the Bible at all, because we have no indication that the world will un-flood in TWW.

No; he doesn't admonish Link and Tetra to do anything but have hope. They come up with the "find a new land" plan on their own, and he simply remarks that any other land would not be Hyrule, but their land. We don't know if there even is a new land to be found.

And there is plenty of indication that the world will unflood; it just involves a little deduction. The Deku Tree says that he will use trees to make the islands larger and eventually connect them all together. A similar phenomenon happens on a much smaller scale in the real world known as the "tree island" phenomenon, and it involves trees draining water to increase land area. It would not be unreasonable to assume that the Deku Tree's plan is inspired by this phenomenon, and that that is what it entails. That would basically result in Hyrule being unflooded.

The ancient king ruled with the Triforce.
Some king before Daphnes rules with the Triforce of Wisdom.

He died, and his son should have inherited it. He did not. He only got part (We are not told what this part is, but it is implied that he got Power, because Zelda has Wisdom).
His son should have inherited it, but only received the Triforce in part (the Triforce fragment owned by Daphnes).

The Prince is counseled by the evil wizard and interrogates his sister.
Wizard casts spell on Zelda, wizard dies.
Prince (aparently repentant) decrees that every female born into the house must be named Zelda to honor the tragedy.
It's more complicated, to be sure, but this picture bears no direct contradiction.

Link finds scroll written by the king.
The King had hid the ToC in the Great Palace and left the pieces of Power and Wisdom in his kingdom (to his children).
Link needs to go find the ToC and wake up the old Zelda.
Part in parenthesis is assumed, so it's not absolute fact. (Not claiming, of course, that my theory is fact, either.)

Where does King Daphnes fit this bill? He has a shard of the ToW, not the whole thing. He was by no means a wise ruler. He could not have put the ToC in the Great Palace because the Hero of Time split it up when he went back to his childhood.

You forget that Daphnes gets the entire Triforce at the end of TWW.

No time for the whole "Sleeping Zelda" story to happen.

I'm saying that part of the story happened before the flood.

Also, Daphnes cannot simultaneously be the Prince with the Triforce part and the King who gives it to the Prince. It's just not logical.

Unless the King never gave the Triforce of Power to the Prince, and instead gave him the Triforce shard Daphnes had in TWW. Remember, either interpretation involves speculation.

The story is also not meant to explain the "first generation" of Princess Zelda.

The Japanese prologue says it explicitly.

The only place the ToC can be between Sleeping Zelda and AoL is in the Great Palace.

Unless the ToC wasn't in the Great Palace at the time of Sleeping Zelda, but was instead put there later.

Edited by LionHarted, 05 June 2007 - 06:26 PM.

[Fyxe]

Unless the ToC wasn't in the Great Palace at the time of Sleeping Zelda, but was instead put there later.

The king was already dead by then. He'd written the note about the secret of the Triforce, the secret which Zelda knew and was put to sleep for not telling. Thus it HAD to be in the Great Palace.

[Person]

The "first generation" quote is arguably retconned by about every game that features the ToC.

The ToC has to be in the Great Palace after the Sleeping Zelda story.

The King had left Power and Wisdom in his kingdom, but had hidden courage...
Because the king had not found such a person during his reign, he cast a spell on Hyrule so that the crest would appear on the chosen one.

The reason the Prince couldn't find the ToC was because it was in the Great Palace. It was hidden in the Great Palace because no one worthy of it was born yet. Naturally, AoL Link came later and was chosen by the spell.

The "sleeping Zelda" story could not have happened before the flood, because we know what happened to the ToC. After OoT, The ToC split up and was scattered around. Zelda had the ToW and Ganon had the ToP. Now how does this give the king a Triforce to rule with? You argue that Daphnes is both the Prince who got the shard of the ToW and the king who hid the ToC in the Great Palace. How could Daphnes be two people at once? Your theory just tries to shoehorn a meaning into an unrelated story. The Sleeping Zelda was meant to happen just before LoZ, and that's where it makes the most sense.

Putting games featuring Old Hyrule after TWW diminishes the intended impact of its ending. That is, the old Hyrule was destroyed. The Deku Tree's plan was to unite the islands with his trees, not raise the old land. And we still don't know what happened to the Triforce after TWW. Daphnes cannot have it, nor can Ganon, because they are both dead. Plus, Daphnes never ruled with the Triforce and kept the peace. He united it once and made a wish to destroy Hyrule.

[LionHarted]

The king was already dead by then. He'd written the note about the secret of the Triforce, the secret which Zelda knew and was put to sleep for not telling. Thus it HAD to be in the Great Palace.

I might add that the game doesn't actually tell us this, but, to be fair, this would have been the only possible conclusion at the time of AoL's release. Of course, we were also to assume that there was no hero involved in the Imprisoning War, but OoT dashed that picture upon release (although the split may reinstate it), so it's possible similar holes were filled in with not-quite-originally-intended plot information. Of course, it's either this, or we presume a full-on retcon of the Sleeping Zelda being the first generation Princess Zelda.

The "first generation" quote is arguably retconned by about every game that features the ToC.

The ToC has to be in the Great Palace after the Sleeping Zelda story.

Similarly, the Imprisoning War story has to take place while the Triforce still rests in the Sacred Realm after creation (the prologue tells us so), and yet many still assert that it also has to be directly connected to ALttP, even though TP and TWW makes these two facts rather irreconcilable.

The reason the Prince couldn't find the ToC was because it was in the Great Palace. It was hidden in the Great Palace because no one worthy of it was born yet. Naturally, AoL Link came later and was chosen by the spell.

1) That the part of the Triforce that the prince did not inherit is never concretely established.
2) That the Triforce of Courage itself is the thing no one is worthy of is not established, either. (The prologue is not specific on this, as I recall).

The "sleeping Zelda" story could not have happened before the flood, because we know what happened to the ToC.

The king could not have hidden the Triforce of Courage before the flood.

Now how does this give the king a Triforce to rule with?

Wisdom.

You argue that Daphnes is both the Prince who got the shard of the ToW and the king who hid the ToC in the Great Palace. How could Daphnes be two people at once?

He's not. I argue that Daphnes is either the prince, or a later descendant of the prince, and that he hides the ToC at the end of TWW.

Putting games featuring Old Hyrule after TWW diminishes the intended impact of its ending.

Old Hyrule is dead; the kingdom long-gone.

Edited by LionHarted, 05 June 2007 - 06:55 PM.

[Person]

Yet again, it is explicity stated in the manual that the king hid the ToC in the Great Palace.

The King had left Power and Wisdom in his kingdom, but had hidden courage...
Because the king had not found such a person during his reign, he cast a spell on Hyrule so that the crest would appear on the chosen one.

[LionHarted]

Yet again, it is explicity stated in the manual that the king hid the ToC in the Great Palace.

The King had left Power and Wisdom in his kingdom, but had hidden courage...
Because the king had not found such a person during his reign, he cast a spell on Hyrule so that the crest would appear on the chosen one.

How do you know that this is the very same king?

[Person]

This is the same king. This is the king mentioned on the previous page of the freaking manual. The manual isn't likely to be talking about one king on page 7 and then go on to talk about some other king on page 8. The Sleeping Zelda story involves Zelda hiding the secret of the Triforce. After this, Link reads the scroll which tells him the secret of the Triforce: It's in the Great Palace.

This story simply does not make sense if it does not take place slightly prior to LoZ. Besides, the atmosphere and characters of TWW have no parallels to the story of the Sleeping Zelda. You are trying to shoehorn a theory that does not fit into the mileu of TWW, and create two kings where there was one.

[LionHarted]

And the Imprisoning War makes no sense if it doesn't take place while the Triforce is still resting in the golden land after being placed there by the gods (since this is what the prologue tells us), but I don't see anyone being called on defying this with non-OoT IW theories.

[Person]

I have a non-OoT IW theory. I propose that the IW is a mix of the OoT war and the FSA war. Read my sig. Plus, the IW is a legend, not history. The Sleeping Zelda is a first-hand account of the story written on a scroll and a second-hand account by a reliable storyteller (Impa). There is little room for the "telephone effect."

Besides, OoT itself does not satisfy the IW. It doesn't have Ganon get the whole Triforce and it doesn't involve the slaughter of the knights.

The sleeping Zelda story takes place prior to LoZ, but after pretty much every other game in the series. You are simply grasping for answers when you can find none. Let's not bring this discussion to the IW because it's entirely irrelevant here.

Edited by Person, 05 June 2007 - 08:29 PM.

[LionHarted]

I have a non-OoT IW theory. I propose that the IW is a mix of the OoT war and the FSA war.

I propose that the Sleeping Zelda story is a mix of the pre and post-TWW actions by Daphnes regarding the Triforce. What's the difference?

Plus, the IW is a legend, not history. The Sleeping Zelda is a first-hand account of the story written on a scroll and a second-hand account by a reliable storyteller (Impa). There is little room for the "telephone effect."

Sleeping Zelda isn't written on a scroll; the location of the Triforce of Courage is.
Impa is a descendant of the Impa family just like the sage descendants are descendants of the sages. There is just as much room for distortion of the legends in each.

[Chaltab]

I have a non-OoT IW theory. I propose that the IW is a mix of the OoT war and the FSA war.

I propose that the Sleeping Zelda story is a mix of the pre and post-TWW actions by Daphnes regarding the Triforce. What's the difference?

The fact that Sleeping Zelda actually exists whereas the Seal on the Sacred Realm is the only evidence that the Imprisoning War happened excactly as ALTTP said it did.

Sleeping Zelda isn't written on a scroll; the location of the Triforce of Courage is.
Impa is a descendant of the Impa family just like the sage descendants are descendants of the sages. There is just as much room for distortion of the legends in each.

But again, Sleeping Zelda exists, and without here, there is no reason for all Zeldas to be named Zelda, so that Legend has to be at least mostly true. And unlike the IW backstory, the sleeping Zelda story has yet to have a direct in-game details-alteration the way the IW has.

[Person]

Lion Harted:The IW legend was messed up by OoT and all of its sequels. Plus, we have a much more simplified version in ALttP GBA that dispenses with all of the legendary gobbledygook. I see FSA as the primary imprisoning war. You on the other hand, try to separate a unified account in the AoL manual that tells of a king and his children, and then try to shove it into TWW, something that TWW does not imply. Also, if you are so adamant about proving that the Zelda in the Sleeping Zelda story is the same as the OoT Zelda, I must cry foul.

OoT Zelda's father did not have the Triforce. Only she did. How could this "first" Zelda inherit the Triforce from her father if her father did not have the Triforce to begin with?

Your theory is still a piece of crap, and there is nothing you can do to defend it besides point to obvious inconsistencies in the IW story that the fandom has been arguing about for almost 10 years. The point is that the AoL manual blatantly contradicts your theory in the ways I have outlined earlier, and there is no need to elaborate further. Since the only obvious inconsistency in the Sleeping Zelda story is the naming tradition, I see no reason to go around messing with the timeline in order to split up this account. The naming tradition has obviously been retconned by about every Zelda game that's been released since 1988, so I need no reason to argue about it here. Other than that, the AoL story stands intact, with one king, and the ToC in the Great Palace.

Sure, mess with the canon all you want, but you still aren't going to prove your point.

Edited by Person, 05 June 2007 - 08:53 PM.

[LionHarted]

The fact that Sleeping Zelda actually exists whereas the Seal on the Sacred Realm is the only evidence that the Imprisoning War happened excactly as ALTTP said it did.

Which really has nothing to do with my theory.

But again, Sleeping Zelda exists, and without here, there is no reason for all Zeldas to be named Zelda, so that Legend has to be at least mostly true. And unlike the IW backstory, the sleeping Zelda story has yet to have a direct in-game details-alteration the way the IW has.

The IW has one minor details alteration surrounding the Knights of Hyrule, which may not be a details alteration at all.

The IW legend was messed up by OoT and all of its sequels.

Not really.

Plus, we have a much more simplified version in ALttP GBA that dispenses with all of the legendary gobbledygook. I see FSA as the primary imprisoning war.

The version in the ALttP GBA manual is the one I cite when I say it took place while the Triforce was still resting in the Sacred Realm, mind you. Which is not the case in most FSA placements, which are mostly after TP.

OoT Zelda's father did not have the Triforce. Only she did. How could this "first" Zelda inherit the Triforce from her father if her father did not have the Triforce to begin with?

1) The Sleeping Zelda story never says Zelda (sister of the prince) had any part of the Triforce.
2) How would Sleeping Zelda pass on the Triforce herself if she was under a sleeping spell?
3) What other king in Zelda mythology has any part of the Triforce, besides Daphnes, much less the Triforce of Courage?

Since the only obvious inconsistency in the Sleeping Zelda story is the naming tradition, I see no reason to go around messing with the timeline in order to split up this account.

Yet this is perfectly acceptable with the IW?

Edited by LionHarted, 05 June 2007 - 08:58 PM.

[Person]

You forget to notice that FSA has the slaughter of the knights in it, while OoT does not. OoT involves the Triforce, while FSA does not. These things point to a separated account. However, in the Sleeping Zelda story, we have absolutely no reason to believe that the "telephone effect" has taken place, since only the Royal Family has kept the legend. The details of the story are not changed much when only a few people know it. The IW story was known by the general poplace, so distortions took place.

Besides, why on this green earth would you want the Sleeping Zelda story to be TWW? TWW has nothing to do with the Sleeping Zelda!

[LionHarted]

You forget to notice that FSA has the slaughter of the knights in it, while OoT does not. OoT involves the Triforce, while FSA does not.

OoT also happens to have a seven-year gap that we know very little about.

These things point to a separated account. However, in the Sleeping Zelda story, we have absolutely no reason to believe that the "telephone effect" has taken place, since only the Royal Family has kept the legend. The details of the story are not changed much when only a few people know it. The IW story was known by the general poplace, so distortions took place.

The IW story is only told to you in the prologue, and in small bits by the maidens and Sahasrahla.

[Person]

This is not the place for an IW discussion, because apparently you cannot defend your messed-up Sleeping Zelda theory.
And yes, it has a 7-year gap, but the IW story has an assault on the castle, followed by the sealing of Ganon. The OoT account has Ganon taking over and ruling for 7 years. We cannot argue from silence when we have another canonical game that explains the slaughter of the knights. The story is known by the maidens, by the elders, and in the prologue. It has several versions. The Sleeping Zelda story is a history, not legend. It has one version, told by one person, and even has a first-hand account of where the ToC is! It has tangible evidence. The fact that the Sleeping Zelda is there, the fact that her father wrote on a scroll and cast a spell, and the fact that Impa was charged with the story. In my theory, it took place not more than a couple of centuries before AoL, so the Impa family would have rigorously guarded the secret until the hero came. No details were to be lost or changed.

There still is no reason to doubt the sleeping Zelda story just because the IW story is messed up. By that logic, let's just pretend that all games except the 3D ones count. Heck, let's just throw out the GB ones, too! In fact, let's retcon the backstory of TP to include a chocolate bunny war! My point is, because one legend is messed up doesn't mean all of the other ones have to be.

Your "alternative theory" to the sleeping Zelda is unwarranted and noncanonical. Good day, sir!

Edited by Person, 05 June 2007 - 09:14 PM.

[LionHarted]

There still is no reason to doubt the sleeping Zelda story just because the IW story is messed up.

Except where you warrant it be so, as in the "first generation" line.

Or did you not forget that?

[Person]

Except that the "first generation" line has been retconned by OoT and about every game released since then. You, however, see fit to shoehorn Daphnes into both the king that gave the Triforce, and the Prince. The story is not fragmented that way. It has one king and one ToC. The ToC was put into the Great Palace by the king of the Sleeping Zelda story. No amount of BS is going to change that.

You postulate that the king of the story ruled with the ToW. How is this possible if the first Zelda already had the ToW? You say that he gave Daphnes and Zelda each a piece. But then why would the Prince interrogate Zelda as to the location of the last piece when there were only two to begin with? You then say that the king who hid the Triforce in the Great Palace was Daphnes. That's just bull. He never ruled with the thing. He had it for 2 minutes.

Besides, if I recall correctly, the "first generation" line was removed from all subsequent versions of the manual (GBA, VC). Hence, a retcon.

[MikePetersSucks]

To basically sum up the point: Lionharted, your theory sucks, it really doesn't work.

[Person]

Aha! I was right! The GBA manual completely omits the line about the "first generation." This is obviously not OoT Zelda, then (which is what I thought all along).

[LionHarted]

Except that the "first generation" line has been retconned by OoT and about every game released since then.

Unless OoT was the first generation Zelda.

You, however, see fit to shoehorn Daphnes into both the king that gave the Triforce, and the Prince. The story is not fragmented that way. It has one king and one ToC. The ToC was put into the Great Palace by the king of the Sleeping Zelda story. No amount of BS is going to change that.

You postulate that the king of the story ruled with the ToW. How is this possible if the first Zelda already had the ToW?

I postulate that the king ruled with the fragment of the ToW. Like Daphnes.

Which other king do you propose ruled with any part of the Triforce?

You say that he gave Daphnes and Zelda each a piece. But then why would the Prince interrogate Zelda as to the location of the last piece when there were only two to begin with?

He interrogated Zelda because a magician told him that Zelda knew something about the Triforce.

You then say that the king who hid the Triforce in the Great Palace was Daphnes. That's just bull. He never ruled with the thing.

He ruled with the fragment of the Triforce of Wisdom. Ganon used the Triforce to take over Hyrule in OoT; but he never had the whole thing.

[Person]

LionHarted, your theory is needlessly complicated. The king who ruled with the Triforce was after OoX, when the kingdom was at peace and the Triforce was united. He ruled with the Triforce, and left Power and Wisdom to his children as per the manual. He hid courage in the Great Palace where it was undisturbed until Link found it.

Again, it is unnecessary to think that the Sleeping Zelda is the first Zelda. The "first generation" line was taken out of the manuals for the GBA releases in both the English and Japanese translations.

And again, OoT Zelda cannot be the sleeping Zelda.

-Her father never ruled with the Triforce.
-She was the only one to get the ToW.
-The OoT and TWW stories are essentially incompatible with the Sleeping Zelda.

Daphnes cannot be the the king.
-He never kept the peace in Hyrule.
-He did not put the ToC in the Great Palace.
-He had no children.

Daphnes cannot be the Prince
-No wizard ever counseled him.
-He only has a part of Wisdom, not the piece of Power or Wisdom that the Prince got.

Edited by Person, 06 June 2007 - 03:06 PM.

[LionHarted]

LionHarted, your theory is needlessly complicated.

OoT-FSA IW is needlessly complicated.
Split timeline is needlessly complicated.
A naming tradition being established when one existed already is needlessly complicated.

This series is needlessly complicated.

The king who ruled with the Triforce was after OoX, when the kingdom was at peace and the Triforce was united.

And when did that happen? Three golden triangles resting in a room is quite different than three golden triangles being used.

-Her father never ruled with the Triforce.
-She was the only one to get the ToW.
-The OoT and TWW stories are essentially incompatible with the Sleeping Zelda.

She was not the only one to get the ToW; Daphnes has a part of it. Daphnes further suggests that it has been "their" duty to guard it, which extends the duty to himself as well as Zelda. Tell me why other kings could not have ruled with this same fragment.

[Person]

She was not the only one to get the ToW; Daphnes has a part of it. Daphnes further suggests that it has been "their" duty to guard it, which extends the duty to himself as well as Zelda. Tell me why other kings could not have ruled with this same fragment.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
You seriously want me to believe that Bolshevik? That is struck down by the simple fact that Zelda HAS THE ToW IN OOT!!!! NOBODY ELSE HAS IT!!! How could her father rule with this fragment when she is the first one to get it. You are confusing the roles of the characters, and you still can't figure out whether Daphnes is the king or the prince of the story.

There is a simple explanation for why Daphnes has a shard of the ToW in TWW:
When the flood happened, Tetra's ancestor split her ToW into two parts and gave one to the king. Make more sense?

OoT-FSA IW is needlessly complicated.
Split timeline is needlessly complicated.
A naming tradition being established when one existed already is needlessly complicated.

This series is needlessly complicated.

Everything you mentioned above was complicated by Nintendo, not by me. You needlessly messed up the Sleeping Zelda story.