Question about Zelda's Lineage. Plothole? [spoilers]

[Tycho]

This may have come up before, if so I apologize, but I've not seen the explanation for it.

I find a glaring plot hole with Zelda's lineage as it unfolds in TOTK.

In the flashback memories: Sonia, and Rauru are the founders of Hyrule, and supposedly Zelda's ancestors, the first of the Hylian Royal line.

In the flashback memories: Mineru states that she feels both of the powers Sonia, and Rauru respectively command present in Zelda. Reinforcing the image that the Royal couple are indeed related to Zelda.

My confusion with this bit of information and the issue that I can't latch onto is, how are they related? During the cutscene memories both Sonia, and Rauru die. There was no mention of them having children, not even a child unobtrusively visible in the memories, or a brief story inscribed on one of the tablets.

While both Sonia and Rauru are indeed the founders of the Hylian Royal line, they seemingly died without leaving prodigy. How can they be related (as the cut scenes imply) to the modern Royal bloodline of Hyrule, and hence Zelda?
For that matter, how can they be related to the modern Royal bloodline anywhere beyond the Imprisoning War? Hylian Royalty may have been continued by another couple being corinated but that would have created a separate bloodline unrelated to Sonia, and Rauru.

It seems to be lazy writing to just impose something as important as direct lineage while leaving out such a small, but all important detail as a child. Especially as children are often utilized in storylines throughout both BOTW, and TOTK.

 

[Azure Sage]

I think the implication is that they had a child but the child themselves was not important enough to the plot to bring up. They also didn't really mention how Hyrule got back on its feet after losing both the King and Queen, but as we know, BotW and TotK can't exist if it didn't, so we know that Hyrule had to endure. So yeah. There had to have been a child, they just didn't really bother to state the obvious.

 

[Tycho]

Yeah there's an implication they had a kid, but while it's perhaps not particularly important to the plot of TOTK game play, I think it should have been very important to spell out for the sake that in a general since the game is trying to establish the backstory for the entire franchise.
Going by basic RPG rules, if you don't say something happens, it didn't happen.

 

[Azure Sage]

It's not the backstory for the entire franchise, though. This hyrule isn't the same hyrule we've seen in past games; there are a multitude of things pointing to this that I don't have the source for on-hand, so I'm just gonna pull a "source: dude trust me" for now. WW shows us that Hyrule as an established kingdom can disappear and still leave Hylia's bloodline behind. Rauru simply restarted the kingdom with the remnants of Hylia's bloodline aka Sonia after it faded away in the long march of time. That's the the theory I subscribe to for this; its a second hyrule on the same land. Even TotK's backstory is still far removed from the timeline we know pre-botw. Maybe at some point I'll come back with the sources to back up my claim, but yeah. Dude trust me.

 

[Moblinking5000]

It's not the backstory for the entire franchise, though. This hyrule isn't the same hyrule we've seen in past games; there are a multitude of things pointing to this that I don't have the source for on-hand, so I'm just gonna pull a "source: dude trust me" for now. WW shows us that Hyrule as an established kingdom can disappear and still leave Hylia's bloodline behind. Rauru simply restarted the kingdom with the remnants of Hylia's bloodline aka Sonia after it faded away in the long march of time. That's the the theory I subscribe to for this; its a second hyrule on the same land. Even TotK's backstory is still far removed from the timeline we know pre-botw. Maybe at some point I'll come back with the sources to back up my claim, but yeah. Dude trust me.

There's more evidence for it being the founding between SS-TMC:

-There's a smoke ring around Death Mountain like in OoT, unlike in BotW or the present day of TotK.

-Rauru is said in Historia to have built the ToT, ending the Era of Chaos and leading to the founding of Hyrule Kingdom, and he also happens to be the first king.

-Hyrule is heavily forested, like in earlier games such as FS and OoT.

-The Zonai are said to be a part of ''earliest legend''; this means that it has to refer to the Hyrule we know, because they also have historical accounts of the Era of the Hero of Time(the Zora Monuments referring to Ruto, Urbosa mentioning Nabooru). If this is a new Hyrule founding, this means that based on what was said about the Zonai being at the forefront of ''earliest legend'', it should be impossible to have legends from ANY other game in the series.

The fact that this game also REALLY hammers in the fact that this is the founding of Hyrule, and never once says or implies that its a refounding is very telling.

 

[Azure Sage]

-Rauru is said in Historia to have built the ToT, ending the Era of Chaos and leading to the founding of Hyrule Kingdom, and he also happens to be the first king.

I only really have a comeback for this one offhand; the Rauru who built the temple of time is the one from OoT, an entirely different person than the one in TotK. The ToT is also not the same building from OoT because it didnt exist until after the events of TotK's backstory where the ToT that used to be there on the Great Plateau is now the one on the Great Sky Island, meaning the one on the Great Plateau had to have been built after this happened. But the fact that there are two different Raurus is more damning for this point, I think. Also I don't trust anything from the "lore" books since the Zelda team didn't write them, only gave them an "OK to sell" stamp.

 

[Moblinking5000]

I only really have a comeback for this one offhand; the Rauru who built the temple of time is the one from OoT, an entirely different person than the one in TotK.

Says who?

While we know that there's different characters with the same name throughout the series, this doesn't seem to be the same for sages aside from Impa and Zelda, who were already legacy characters of their own in previous games before. There's only been one known Ruto, Saria, Darunia, etc. Even in other games, such as TWW and ALBW, the Zora sages from both games have different names from eachother and the one in OoT, for example. Furthermore, Rauru is already said to be ancient; he exists long before OoT, meaning that despite him taking a human form in OoT, he's most likely not a human. We know that he's capable of transformation(see: Kaepora Gaebora), so that doesn't contradict the idea that his Zonai form is his original form. The fact that we know that someone named Rauru had something to do with the founding of Hyrule AND that someone named Rauru was also the first king is a pretty big coincidence, no? They could've named him anything else, but they didn't.

The ToT is also not the same building from OoT because it didnt exist until after the events of TotK's backstory where the ToT that used to be there on the Great Plateau is now the one on the Great Sky Island,

The ToT on the Plateau and the one on the GSI are two different ToTs.

Also, the timeline introduced in the Historia is still used by Nintendo to this day, so...

 

[Azure Sage]

Says who?

While we know that there's different characters with the same name throughout the series, this doesn't seem to be the same for sages aside from Impa and Zelda, who were already legacy characters of their own in previous games before. There's only been one known Ruto, Saria, Darunia, etc. Even in other games, such as TWW and ALBW, the Zora sages from both games have different names from eachother and the one in OoT, for example. Furthermore, Rauru is already said to be ancient; he exists long before OoT, meaning that despite him taking a human form in OoT, he's most likely not a human. We know that he's capable of transformation(see: Kaepora Gaebora), so that doesn't contradict the idea that his Zonai form is his original form. The fact that we know that someone named Rauru had something to do with the founding of Hyrule AND that someone named Rauru was also the first king is a pretty big coincidence, no? They could've named him anything else, but they didn't.


The ToT on the Plateau and the one on the GSI are two different ToTs.

Nah I definitely do not buy that they're the same person, not even remotely. Especially because Rauru from TotK can't possibly play this role in OoT if he's stuck sealing Ganon currently. Which then also means there can't be another Ganon yet because TotK's Ganondorf didn't die yet. There'd have to be two different Ganondorfs at the same time. That's extremely unlikely and also literally impossible without the same time travel shenanigans Zelda in TotK had, and we know there's not.

Yes, they are different, but the one in the sky used to be on the surface in the same spot as the present day one. Ergo, the present day one was only built after the one in the sky was raised up there.

 

[Moblinking5000]

Nah I definitely do not buy that they're the same person, not even remotely. Especially because Rauru from TotK can't possibly play this role in OoT if he's stuck sealing Ganon currently.

He's not ''stuck'' sealing Ganon, he sacrifices his life to seal him. Meaning that he's still around as a spirit, and we know that spirits can do many things that living people can do(Daphnes uses the Triforce as a spirit in TWW to eradicate Hyrule and Ganon, and Vaati is still able to attack Link as a spirit in TMC after he's killed). Performing sage duties isn't much of a stretch compared to those.

Which then also means there can't be another Ganon yet because TotK's Ganondorf didn't die yet.

Ganon's spirit and/or malice has leaked out of his seals before to create seperate people; look at Agahnim in ALttP, for one example. It makes sense based on precedence throughout the series that a part of TotK Ganon's malice/spirit would leak out and lead to the birth of another Gerudo child (OoT Ganon).

Yes, they are different, but the one in the sky used to be on the surface in the same spot as the present day one. Ergo, the present day one was only built after the one in the sky was raised up there.

There's been, how many ToT's throughout the series? Its purpose is as, well, a temple; a place of worship and ceremony. There's multiple temples, churches, mosques, etc. so why aassume there's only one, or a few ToTs? Since you and I agree that the this Hyrule is on the same land regardless of whether it's a new founding or not, the OoT ToT would have to exist offscreen somewhere anyway based on what we canonically know from HH about the founding of Hyrule Kingdom on the surface.

 

[Azure Sage]

He's not ''stuck'' sealing Ganon, he sacrifices his life to seal him. Meaning that he's still around as a spirit, and we know that spirits can do many things that living people can do(Daphnes uses the Triforce as a spirit in TWW to eradicate Hyrule and Ganon, and Vaati is still able to attack Link as a spirit in TMC after he's killed). Performing sage duties isn't much of a stretch compared to those.


Ganon's spirit and/or malice has leaked out of his seals before to create seperate people; look at Agahnim in ALttP, for one example. It makes sense based on precedence throughout the series that a part of TotK Ganon's malice/spirit would leak out and lead to the birth of another Gerudo child (OoT Ganon).


There's been, how many ToT's throughout the series? Its purpose is as, well, a temple; a place of worship and ceremony. There's multiple temples, churches, mosques, etc. so why aassume there's only one, or a few ToTs? Since you and I agree that the this Hyrule is on the same land regardless of whether it's a new founding or not, the OoT ToT would have to exist offscreen somewhere anyway based on what we canonically know from HH about the founding of Hyrule Kingdom on the surface.

I just can't agree at all. Rauru in TotK very clearly has done nothing else. He tells Link that it's a pleasure to finally meet him and he's heard so much about him from Zelda. Would he say that if he'd met OoT Link previously? Wouldn't OoT Rauru mention the Demon King or the seal if it was the same person? Besides, Rauru in TotK was very confused by how different his surroundings were. It was clearly the first time he'd woken up. It's way too much of a stretch to me to assume hed woken up as a spirit previously. Same goes for Ganondorf's malice creating a second Ganondorf. His malice leaked out and created Calamity Ganon, yeah, but that was still him. It wasn't a whole other person with different upbringing and memories. And wasn't Aganhim basically just a puppet? It just doesn't add up. I also think it's a stretch to assume the BotW and OoT temples can coexist. I remember that even being a point of contention back when BotW first released, lol. I didn't buy it then and I still don't buy it now.

 

[GZ Zelda]

It seems to be lazy writing to just impose something as important as direct lineage while leaving out such a small, but all important detail as a child. Especially as children are often utilized in storylines throughout both BOTW, and TOTK.

This is so correct. There's another heated thread somewhere on the forums about whether or not Zelda gets her powers from spirit like Link or just from blood. Nintendo has consistently gone with the sloppiest possible method of having all Zeldas be descendants of each other, without ever including parents or children.

My confusion with this bit of information and the issue that I can't latch onto is, how are they related? During the cutscene memories both Sonia, and Rauru die. There was no mention of them having children, not even a child unobtrusively visible in the memories, or a brief story inscribed on one of the tablets.

While both Sonia and Rauru are indeed the founders of the Hylian Royal line, they seemingly died without leaving prodigy. How can they be related (as the cut scenes imply) to the modern Royal bloodline of Hyrule, and hence Zelda?

That being said, they did likely have a kid. It could have been that the kid was just traveling to distant lands during TotK's plot (which is the only one that really works). Not only was the kid not seen, they weren't even mentioned, meaning they were so out-of-sight, out-of-mind, they could not have possibly been involved, they were thousands of miles away. But you're super right about RPG rules yadayada, this is Nintendo being very sloppy with world-building (in a way that they were not in BotW).

That's the the theory I subscribe to for this; its a second hyrule on the same land.

Post-Z2, post-FSA, or post-WW? Or some weird timey-wimey merge? Cuz I think for a split timeline, it has to be the "founding" for DT or CT, but it could be a post-flood AT Hyrule. Either way, the likelihood that Rauru and Sonia's bloodline survives the entire chain is so unlikely that the "blood connection" that Sonia refers to could just be the "power of the Goddess Hylia" or something, and that is what Sonia is sensing.

-The Zonai are said to be a part of ''earliest legend''; this means that it has to refer to the Hyrule we know, because they also have historical accounts of the Era of the Hero of Time(the Zora Monuments referring to Ruto, Urbosa mentioning Nabooru). If this is a new Hyrule founding, this means that based on what was said about the Zonai being at the forefront of ''earliest legend'', it should be impossible to have legends from ANY other game in the series.

But they aren't mentioned in the backstory of any other games, unless we take the source of the Minish and the Wind Tribe to be Zonai-related. I agree with you that for a DT placement, it needs to be the founding-founding, but we are stretching here to make this work.

I just can't agree at all. Rauru in TotK very clearly has done nothing else. He tells Link that it's a pleasure to finally meet him and he's heard so much about him from Zelda. Would he say that if he'd met OoT Link previously? Wouldn't OoT Rauru mention the Demon King or the seal if it was the same person? Besides, Rauru in TotK was very confused by how different his surroundings were. It was clearly the first time he'd woken up. It's way too much of a stretch to me to assume hed woken up as a spirit previously. Same goes for Ganondorf's malice creating a second Ganondorf. His malice leaked out and created Calamity Ganon, yeah, but that was still him. It wasn't a whole other person with different upbringing and memories. And wasn't Aganhim basically just a puppet? It just doesn't add up. I also think it's a stretch to assume the BotW and OoT temples can coexist. I remember that even being a point of contention back when BotW first released, lol. I didn't buy it then and I still don't buy it now.

I thought I agreed with you, and I do if the TotK backstory is a refounding beyond memory, but the more I think about it, the less likely it seems that the Rauru who built the Temple of Time...and the Rauru who built the Temple of Time...are two different Raurus. It is possible that TotK Rauru's spirit lived in the Sacred Realm, the "place with Sacred Light" mentioned by Rauru in TotK's opening (where the shines are located), guised as a Hylian; while his spirit-animal Owl roamed the world, like a Satori. King Rauru has an owl pendant in the middle of his chest, probably as a reference, but maybe as an in-universe explanation. Owls are also one of the three Zonai symbols, idk, not a ton of evidence.

Maybe OoT Rauru doesn't mention TotK Ganondorf cuz OoT Rauru doesn't want to tamper with his seal before TotK Zelda's era.

 

[Bowsette Plus-Ultra]

It's a plot hole so big that you could fly a giant green dragon through it.

I wish I could say it's unexpected for TotK's plot, but it just feels like business as usual in a game where Zelda forgets the name of the big bad she (sort of) helped fight in BotW. Since one of the golden rules of storytelling tends me to be show it or it didn't happen, it leaves an awkward hole where Zelda's theoretical lineage should be.

While I've seen some folks point to that hole and say that Rauru and Sonia must have had a child, that idea is never hinted at in game. It's just as feasible that Rauru's identical twin brother Tingle showed up, asssumed the crown, and carried on the bloodline. It doesn't exist until it's shown.

 

[GZ Zelda]

I wish I could say it's unexpected for TotK's plot, but it just feels like business as usual in a game where Zelda forgets the name of the big bad she (sort of) helped fight in BotW. Since one of the golden rules of storytelling tends me to be show it or it didn't happen, it leaves an awkward hole where Zelda's theoretical lineage should be.

While I've seen some folks point to that hole and say that Rauru and Sonia must have had a child, that idea is never hinted at in game. It's just as feasible that Rauru's identical twin brother Tingle showed up, asssumed the crown, and carried on the bloodline. It doesn't exist until it's shown.

For the crowd that insists on the Oracle games not being A Link to the Past sequel because Zelda introduces herself to Link, Tears of the Kingdom shouldn't be a sequel to BotW for this reason.

Maybe Sonia had a sister? Rauru never says he shares a blood connection with her.

 

[Bowsette Plus-Ultra]

For the crowd that insists on the Oracle games not being A Link to the Past sequel because Zelda introduces herself to Link, Tears of the Kingdom shouldn't be a sequel to BotW for this reason.

Maybe Sonia had a sister? Rauru never says he shares a blood connection with her.

I would also insist on the Oracle games not being a sequel to ALTTP. They have no strong ties outside of having characters named Link and Impa. TotK does its best to pretend that BotW didn't happen. It's more of a weird quasi-reboot than anything.