Super Theorizing Brothers Brawl! (MUST READ!)

Originally Posted by Daphnes

1) That is a possibility, but how would he give it to his predecesor if he's at the bottom of the Sea?

2)The king on the AoL backstory has a son, and his daughter becomes the sleeping Zelda after the ToP is hidden. He'd have to marry and have kids after TWW, which he can't because he's a dead king stuck at the bottom of the Sea.

1) It's a better scenario than any other in setting up a king with the Triforce than ALttP due to there actually being a king with the Triforce.

2) The theory supposes that Sleeping Zelda happens a long time before the hiding of the ToC, featuring OoT Zelda and possibly a king who is not Daphnes, in order to preserve the original meaning of the naming tradition. Both this theory and the late- Sleeping Zelda theory presume retcons.

Originally Posted by Mr. Lexxi Aileron

1) It's a better scenario than any other in setting up a king with the Triforce than ALttP due to there actually being a king with the Triforce.

2) The theory supposes that Sleeping Zelda happens a long time before the hiding of the ToC, featuring OoT Zelda and possibly a king who is not Daphnes, in order to preserve the original meaning of the naming tradition. Both this theory and the late- Sleeping Zelda theory presume retcons.

How can the sleeping spell be cast before the ToC was hidden? From what I heard, a king hid the ToC and only told Zelda about it. Her brother wanted to know where it was hidden, so he asked her. She didn't tell, so he got the help of a magician who wound up casting a sleeping spell on her. It may have been meant for the prince originally to get him out of the way, but that's besides the point.

The magician was supposed to help the prince, who needed to know where the ToC was, but knew that Zelda alone knew where it was. The ToC was hidden before the sleeping spell was cast.

I don't believe the sleeping Zelda predates all other Zeldas anyway, because it couldn't happen before OoT. The Triforce rested in the SR until the events of OoT, and Ganondorf was the first to touch it. If the sleeping Zelda predates all Zeldas, then that means the Triforce would have to exit and reenter the SR before OoT.

The AoL backstory doesn't really fit.

Just to say, we don't know what the King told Zelda. We only know it was about the triforce. If the sleeping Zelda was before the ToC was hidden, he could have told her how to get into the sacred realm to get it. OoT Zelda seems to know a bit about getting to the triforce. Not saying it is her( I dont think it is) but it allows for a Zelda pre-oot to fit the requirements.

Originally Posted by Daphnes

How can the sleeping spell be cast before the ToC was hidden? From what I heard, a king hid the ToC and only told Zelda about it. Her brother wanted to know where it was hidden, so he asked her. She didn't tell, so he got the help of a magician who wound up casting a sleeping spell on her. It may have been meant for the prince originally to get him out of the way, but that's besides the point.

The magician was supposed to help the prince, who needed to know where the ToC was, but knew that Zelda alone knew where it was. The ToC was hidden before the sleeping spell was cast.

I don't believe the sleeping Zelda predates all other Zeldas anyway, because it couldn't happen before OoT. The Triforce rested in the SR until the events of OoT, and Ganondorf was the first to touch it. If the sleeping Zelda predates all Zeldas, then that means the Triforce would have to exit and reenter the SR before OoT.

The AoL backstory doesn't really fit.

Sleeping Zelda could be OoT Zelda, though, and indeed that is what the theory suggests.

The story itself does not state anything regarding 1) the prince's inheritance of the Triforce or 2) what Zelda was told about the Triforce before the king died. If we use the reference to the naming of Zelda in TWW as proof of a pre-TWW (and therefore post-OoT) naming tradition, we can concoct the following as filling in these details:

1) The prince, assuming he inherited the same part of the Triforce that Daphnes did, only inherited part of the Triforce [of Wisdom] held by the legendary king.
2) Assuming, then, that OoT Zelda is this "first generation Zelda" of the naming tradition, the secret that Zelda was told about the Triforce is more than likely the "secret to unlocking its power" that we hear of in both OoT and AoL--that one must unite the aspects of the Triforce in order to unlock its full power. I say this because it is the "secret of the Triforce" (rough quote) spoken of in the AoL scroll.

The king who ruled with the Triforce and the king who later hid the Triforce because he had no one to pass its full power on to need not necessarily be the same king. What we need for the scenario to work, however, is a situation in which a prince/king has only part of the Triforce, and a situation that arises later that gives us a king with the entire Triforce, and TWW gives us both.

Daphnes could be both the prince of the AoL backstory and the king who inevitably hides the Triforce.

Originally Posted by Mr. Lexxi Aileron

Sleeping Zelda could be OoT Zelda, though, and indeed that is what the theory suggests.

The story itself does not state anything regarding 1) the prince's inheritance of the Triforce or 2) what Zelda was told about the Triforce before the king died. If we use the reference to the naming of Zelda in TWW as proof of a pre-TWW (and therefore post-OoT) naming tradition, we can concoct the following as filling in these details:

1) The prince, assuming he inherited the same part of the Triforce that Daphnes did, only inherited part of the Triforce [of Wisdom] held by the legendary king.
2) Assuming, then, that OoT Zelda is this "first generation Zelda" of the naming tradition, the secret that Zelda was told about the Triforce is more than likely the "secret to unlocking its power" that we hear of in both OoT and AoL--that one must unite the aspects of the Triforce in order to unlock its full power. I say this because it is the "secret of the Triforce" (rough quote) spoken of in the AoL scroll.

The king who ruled with the Triforce and the king who later hid the Triforce because he had no one to pass its full power on to need not necessarily be the same king. What we need for the scenario to work, however, is a situation in which a prince/king has only part of the Triforce, and a situation that arises later that gives us a king with the entire Triforce, and TWW gives us both.

Daphnes could be both the prince of the AoL backstory and the king who inevitably hides the Triforce.

That does make a little sense. I can't really think of anything solid to debunk it, so I'll agree your idea could work.

Originally Posted by Hombre de Mundo

If Ganon got the whole Triforce in OoT or WW, I'm pretty sure Link would be ****ed. In ALttP, Ganon didn't seem all too powerful even though he had the power to grant all his wishes. Hmm... Seems to me they buffed the Triforce for OoT and forward, of course, I can't prove it.

He's not holding the Triforce in aLttP. He touched it, and it granted his wishes.
In games like OoT and WW, he's physically holding it, or has it inside him. Neither is the case in aLttP.

Yes, there is a certain amount that could be cut due to relevance. However some things like Ganon being defeated (in your timeline) at least five times before ending up in the SR again seems highly unlikely.

It's not the same Ganon. FSA Ganon=/=OoT Ganon in my timeline.
OoT Ganon's deaths/revivals are not relevant to aLttP because it's not the same person. Only the seal is relevant, which is why Ganon was removed from the GBA manual and only the seal is talked about.

That wasn't the point. The point was that just because you see yourself on the map at one location, dosn't mean you're actually there. You get me, or does it all appear as jibberish?

I realize that, but I'm saying they made no effort to put the two points anywhere near each other in the least bit.
One commonly used argument is that aLttP uses a lot of winding paths to make the map feel bigger and such. You may be heading, say, southwest, but the way the path winds makes you generally feel like you're going west for example.
However, nothing was done whatsoever to give the location of the Sacred Grove and Lost Woods similar feeling.

EDIT:
A quick note to Lex, I see nothing implying a naming tradition post-OoT/Pre-WW.
Zelda seems unaware that she bares this name, no reference is made to her mother baring that name, and the only people who know that's her "identity" are Ganondorf and Daphnes, who frequently relate things in WW to things in OoT.

However, nothing was done whatsoever to give the location of the Sacred Grove and Lost Woods similar feeling.

I'll play devil's advocate and say that they gave it Saria's Song.

Although the Lost Woods of ALttP aren't the same ones from OoT to begin with, are they? ;D

A quick note to Lex, I see nothing implying a naming tradition post-OoT/Pre-WW.

1) The princess of Hyrule is prematurely labeled "Zelda." Why?
2) When Tetra is actually bestowed this name, it is done in accordance with the "laws of the past." Why?
3) Given that they are "laws of the past," there is no real need for us to assume that all the predecessors of Tetra bore that name.

There is no reason for 1 or 2 to be the case unless it is traditional for the princess to be referred to as Zelda. Indeed, 2 essentially spells this out.

Aside from the Hero of Time, which presumably was the only hero whose deeds are relevant to the fight against Ganon that appeared thus far in history, I can't think of any other relations people in TWW make to OoT.

-She's only labeled Zelda by Ganondorf and Daphnes. Once again, they also both associated Link with the Hero of Time. They have a habit of bringing up the good ol' days.
-"Laws of the past" is said directly prior to him telling her she's a princess, not directly before he calls her Zelda.

Originally Posted by Ankiseth

BEHOLD! Bow down mortal fools at the awesomeness of my first ever timeline.

..../WW- TBFDS- PH--LoZ-AoL--OoX--[FPTRR]--MC--FS-FSA--aLttP-LA
OoT
....\MM-TP

Notes: TBFDS stands for Tingles balloon fight DS. The other Tingle game. It is placed after WW for it's inclusion of Tingle tower and Tingle's brothers.

Tingle's Balloon Fight DS - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My arguments for the placement of other games just so happen to be the exact ones Erimgard uses.

One more thing.

Since obviously no one has the guts to challenge my incredible timeline I must be the one to make the challenge. ERIMGARD! Now that you're back I want YOU to be my opponent in my first timeline debate.

-Why do you not count TBFDS as canon?

Originally Posted by Erimgard

-She's only labeled Zelda by Ganondorf and Daphnes. Once again, they also both associated Link with the Hero of Time. They have a habit of bringing up the good ol' days.
-"Laws of the past" is said directly prior to him telling her she's a princess, not directly before he calls her Zelda.

1) And Jabun. But the fact that they "bring up the good ol' days" does not make their designations any less true.
2) He calls her "princess" and "Zelda" in the same breath, good sir.

I think the context is more like:
The ancient laws state that you're the princess. You are Zelda.
It's in the same breath, yes, but it's not the same statement.

Originally Posted by Ankiseth

Since obviously no one has the guts to challenge my incredible timeline I must be the one to make the challenge. ERIMGARD! Now that you're back I want YOU to be my opponent in my first timeline debate.

-Why do you not count TBFDS as canon?

Haha, they won't let two people with the same timeline debate...for obvious reasons xD However, we can argue about the little stuff, like Lex and I are doing.

I don't discount TBFDS...I just don't know enough about to include it.
I include FPTRR and AST because I believe they are at least semi-canon and include timeline-relevant info.

Originally Posted by Erimgard

Haha, they won't let two people with the same timeline debate...for obvious reasons xD However, we can argue about the little stuff, like Lex and I are doing.

Just because I just HAPPEN to use the same reasons as you do for most placements doesn't mean our timeline is the same. It just means we are both smart.

I don't discount TBFDS...I just don't know enough about to include it.

That's why I posted a wiki page.

I include FPTRR and AST because I believe they are at least semi-canon and include timeline-relevant info.

FPTRR is canon in my eyes but AST is not. The fact that it was a BS game makes me think Nintendo would avoid making it part of the actual timeline because most people will never play or hear of it.

Haha, I shall check the Wiki soon. But if it doesn't affect the rest of the timeline, I doubt I'll include it.
I was hesitant to put AST in, but I decided to. It just puts a little more evidence towards aLttP-LA as opposed to, say, OoX-LA.