The Legend of Zelda. A realm of magic, monarchy, and evil, power hungry demon kings who wish to conquer the world. Many fans can say that scientifically, there are a lot of things wrong, but this can be proven most of the time with magic. However, there are things that can be proven wrong without the use of science or magic. These are what I’m referring to as the things that are wrong in the government of Hyrule.
For starters, I can instantly think up of all the times Zelda has been a princess, those being just about every game. But, there are some times where the title “princess” can be inappropriate. There are times in which she should rather be Queen Zelda, rather than Princess Zelda. Typically, whenever a king or a queen dies, the successor is usually their son or daughter. There are several games, such as Legend of Zelda, Zelda II: Adventure of Link, Ocarina of Time, Twilight Princess, and Spirit Tracks, in which she would have rather be a queen, considering there is no King of Hyrule (When I’m talking about Ocarina of Time, I’m talking as in the 2nd half of the game, despite the fact she’s missing most of the time).
Another thing I question is in the newest Zelda: Spirit Tracks. The issue I bring up would have to be Chancellor Cole and how he managed to get his position. It is decided that they have a monarch Queen, rather than a chancellor. In Spirit Tracks, he rather watches Zelda’s back in her actions and is treated more like an advisor. By definition, a chancellor is someone who is either head of a government, one who is in charge of foreign affairs, or one who is in charge of a judicial system. Considering the size of the kingdom, I would not see much a reason as to Cole being head of a judicial system. I would instead see Zelda hearing cases and issuing sentences. As for being in charge of foreign affairs, I don’t see Cole as to being much of a people-person. As for being head of government, I somewhat doubt that.
However, if you care to take a step into ancient China, you will learn that Chancellor was the second highest ranking one could get in their system of government, the first being the Emperor of China. Essentially, being chancellor was the equivalent of being prime minister in China, which is what Cole seems more like. If you pay attention as to how Cole acts, he is defiantly nothing more than an advisor who has the ability to control the guards, rather than do things like calm down the other realms in their problems, hear court cases, or be King of Hyrule. He seems to not be a lot like a Prime Minister, considering there is little to no cabinet (Then again, has there ever been one?).
With that said, I bring up another thing. In most of the games, there is no cabinet. It is just the monarch and the Castle Guards. There’s no treasury system, there’s no center of foreign affairs, there’s no league that Hyrule and all of its kingdoms (Zora, Goron, Gerudo, etc.) are a part of. However, then again, we can only assume that there are urgent meetings that ensue when disaster strikes and treaties are to be met. See, the thing I don’t like about Hyrule is that everything revolves around the King or princess. Despite the fact the citizens of Hyrule are happy and all, there has to be a checks and balances.
If there wasn’t a checks and balances, then we wouldn’t have had the problem with Chancellor Cole in the first place. The legislature could’ve determined that there was a problem with the guy and fire him from his job (unless he would have decided to take off his hats (You think a guy with two hats, which seems a bit suspicious ― considering they’re positioned where horns would be ― would get hired.) and destroy everyone in that legislature). Having a legislature would actually be very interesting, indeed. A Congress or Parliament would actually be a nice addition to lift some of the burden off of King of Hyrule or the multitude of Princess Zeldas throughout the ages.
So, there are a lot of things that Hyrule needs. I thought of a few things, and one final thing I can think of is that they need a constitution that can explain all of the laws, rather than just legends that are passed down from word of mouth and texts. However, besides all that, the system is alright. I just wish they didn’t have everyone rely on the Princess or King of Hyrule.
First!
This is a nice investigation into the incomplete world that is Hyrule, thank you Petman.
I think Nintendo, to their and our detriment, has decided to concoct a goofy explanation for the plot of Zelda games and the structure of Hyrule to try and preserve a perceived perfect formula they got tied to in the early (i.e. 2D) games. This atavistic approach is a mistake. For an immersive game–and Zelda is best when it is immersive!–we need a more complete and plausible plot and world. They should craft a realistic government and economy for Hyrule: king, queen, princess, lords, barons, imports, exports, industries, and trade with other kingdoms and tribes. We want a full and complete world that we can imagine is a real place.
How would Barons and the economy affect how Link travels through dungeons and fights monsters. Gameplay 1st, Story 2nd.
Zelda needs no story other than saving Zelda and fighting Ganon
I can't stop to say that this is the Legend Of Zelda, not the story of Zelda. The name already says that not everything is 100%as it is. And who says that the terms do mean 100% the same in Hyrule as they mean here? I mean in Twilight Princess it is 100%clear that Zelda rules. She surrenders for whole Hyrule all by herself. She couldn't have done that if there are more people who could have anything to say.
I think to suggest that the fantasy government we find in Hyrule is the same as our government, would be the same as complaining about flying cities, or tunics that make you breath under water. We don't even have the same government in different countries in our world, so why should a completely different world have the same government
Thank you for talking some sense! : )
Zelda is a medieval-style game. In the Middle Ages, there were plenty of kingdoms and "castle districts" (lol) that were ruled by a king and used no systems of checks and balances. Just because Hyrule is a monarchy, does not mean it is a *modern* monarchy, and therefore checks and balances are not mandatory.
dude it's videogame logic it doesn't have to make sense the game just has to be good.
Just to point it out to Kell, even in medieval times, they had checks and balances. It might not have been so much in the form of a parliament, but the clergy did hold a lot of power that not even the nobles held.
Like Alex said, it is a video game. people try to read to much into Zelda like Hyrule is gonna show up in our world one day.
You are looking into it far too much. Hyrule isn't real. People look into Zelda too much all the time from things such as how deeply people look into the timline to the significance of one single charecter. It is only a game, and like Flying Fisch said too much emphasis is put on the story line. If it was a game set in a realistic environment then you could question every aspect, but this is Zelda so don't. Just play the games and enjoy them.
The thing is Zelda is a classic game (one of the bests), if have reached the point of questioning the politics of Hyrule you need to stop playing it. We ALL noticed how Zelda is the princess but acts like a Queen in most games, we just don't bother questioning it.
If you want to question something Zelda related ask why there was only two shields and no magic in TP. Or why the game was far too easy. Ask about the gameplay, thats what matters. How many games do you know of that people love where the story is complex and the gameplay poor, opposed to a game where the gameplay is awesome while the story in quite simplistic?
i do agree that the gameplay comes first. but in role-playing games such as the zelda games, the story would have to come as a very important part. if you were just going around from one dungeon to the next not knowing the story, you would probably not like the game very much at all. of course, this is just my opinion. feel free to disagree.
Im pretty sure that in Ocarina of Time there was a king, because as a kid you watch ganondorf kneel before someone and then when zelda flees Ganondorf takes over as king
according to the manga ganondorf kills the king when he attackes hyrule castle right before you get the master sword
Oh, well i've never read the manga (All though I want to) so i wouldn't know
What manga?
The Ocarina of Time Manga
HYRULE'S GOVERNMENT IS NOT GOOD
F that!!! its just a game not real live!!! And the game is meant to be fun not all out real!!!
I beileve that as long as the games are good, it doesn't need to make sense it should just be enjoyable and fit into the gameplay!
How cares about the government on Zelda! If the game is fun then who cares!! Its stupid to even bring up the government in the game!!! Just have fun!!!! princess Zelda is always going to be princess Zelda!!!!!! That just how it is!!!!! She will always be princess!!!!
Most cases occur when Zelda is a kid. A lot of times when such a thing happens in a monarchy, a "regent" (fancy word for guy who isn't a royal being in charge) is there to ensure stability until the rightful heir is old enough. The prince and in this case princess isn't King or Queen by the death of their parent but by coronation. You have to put the crown on their head. What you brought up about Chancellor isn't really important as there are many names for people who come on as adviser to the crown. As for cabinets and checks and balances, that simply doesn't exist in a monarchy. Did you miss the prefix mon-? As in singular, one.
Yes, The Legend of Zelda is merely a game "and nothing more", a common thing I've seen people state. More than half of Zelda's fanbase is made up of theorists who wish too look further than the in bounds of game. The games are fun in all, but sometimes it brings better pleasure in trying to create a larger world outside of the titles themselves. Whether or not you care about theorizing, does not mean other will, and I think those sort of comments should be kept to yourself.
THANK YOU!!!!
I wouldn't say more than half are into theorizing, but still a healthy percentage. I'm not into theorizing much, but I still think there is a TON to find outside of just the actual gameplay. Zelda sites show that with sites dedicated strictly to fan fiction, artwork, comic strips, etc… Me personally, I'm into more obscure material such as old strategy guides, old publications, commercials, etc… There's always something for a Zelda fan.
well in the defense of the game designers, the drawings take a good while before the animations. the game designers probably thought that the game was good enough or even better if there wasn't an over-organized government so that way the hero would have more to do. also, if there was a large government like that, it would mean much more work for the game designers and probably a few more months of waiting before the game comes out.
I decided to just go with the notion that the King is old and nearly dead, off in his bed chambers somewhere. That would probably mean he would be out of the way in about every single game, but…
This is one of the flaws in the Zelda games, and I'm actually glad this was brought up. Another thing to add to the list of things the Zelda series needs.
Maybe the reason why she's always princess is because she's engaged, married, or seeing someone who is not in the royal family. So she has to give up her royal status.
wow i really love how people are getting into the world of zelda, and come to think about it, there really is not explanation for why the burden is always on the king or princesses shoulders!!