How Zelda Lore Explains that Sonia and Rauru DID NOT Have a Child | Tears of the Kingdom Theory
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 พ.ค. 2024
- In the Ancient Past as described by Tears of the Kingdom, the founding King and Queen rule over Hyrule. However, after certain events transpire, the Kingdom was vacated. Many fans within the Zelda community assumed Sonia and Rauru's child took the throne, but the problem with that, is they never had a child.
I hope you enjoy this theory which dives deep into Zelda lore to explain how the Goddess Hylia is the bridge between the founders of Hyrule, and the final Princess of Hyrule, Zelda.
Thanks for Watching! If you enjoy(ed) this type of content, and want more Zelda and Nintendo content from me, I hope you'll consider Subscribing!
Give the video a thumbs up if you liked the video, even if you didn't agree with my conclusion. It's okay to have differing opinions! It's just fun to talk about
0:00 Introduction
1:22 Where was the Child?
4:57 Skyword Sword's Lore (and why it matters)
7:54 Quick Timeline Discussion
8:34 Ancestors, Relatives, and Legends
9:41 Messages from the Ancient Past
11:03 The Blood of the Goddess
14:33 Thanks for Watching! But wait, there's more - เกม
Hello! Thanks for watching! Just wanted to put it out there, I use the Ancient Hero image as a depiction of the child because it was the closest model we had to a half-Zonai half Hylian child, NOT because I think the Ancient Hero is the child, a descendant, or anyway shape or form related to Rauru and/or Sonia. Maybe he is. Maybe he isn’t. I don’t know. But that’s not a message I am trying to convey. Thanks!
[Edit/Update]: I also want to address one other sentiment, that either Nintendo didn’t care enough to include it or the lore is irrelevant. On my channel, I do not take this approach. For my theories, I take the information we have from across the series, assess its relevance, and put a story together. If that’s not your perspective, I understand and can respect that you may feel slighted by TotK and how the story was handled. But I appreciate your time and thoughts and hope you respect mine too.
I admire your theory-crafting and while what you suggest is plausible, I disagree that it is likely the case. I am almost certain that Rauru and Sonia having a child is the intent and they unfortunate truth is they just didn’t want to include an extraneous character into the story that was already written. This theory seems to be twisting around pretty clear wordings- though Occam's Razor was never popular with Zelda theorists, I suppose.
To use another example, Daruk and Urbosa must have had children at the time of the Calamity since Yunobo and Riju are their descendants, and we don’t see or hear of them at all in the memories or even Age of Calamity. The easiest explanation is that the children were infants, and as the children of Champions, royalty or both, they _would_ likely be in the care of retainers while they were very young. You'd also think we'd know at least something about Paya's parents, but they virtually don't exist.
The game is basically a small window into their lives
I agree. Rauru and Sonia both make a ton of allusions to the fact they have a kid, logically that would make the most sense.
They don't have a kid. They're not even the same species. So far only the Gerudo are known to breed with one outside of their own and it's always a Hylian.
@OnlyTwoShoes Fun fact, humans irl bred with and had viable babies with other humanoids that were not our species, so that actually doesn't negate the possibility of them having a kid. Humans historically (and with lasting evidence) bred with the Neanderthals and the Denisovans. We get red hair from the Neanderthals, and the bright blue eyes specific to Melanesia from the Denisovans.
@@OnlyTwoShoes Which literarly means that Hylians ARE capabel to have children with other species.
By native american definition of an ancestor every incarnation of Link is the ancestor of the Link of skyward sword. Ancestors aren't only related by blood but by shared goals or habitats.
The Definition of yours sounds more fitting for Predecesor, the one who came before, and Successor, the one who came after to continue the legacy of his Successor
@@Chris-gx1ei well its not mine but those by natives... there were big fights between scientists and natives because fossils were found in America that predate modern native populations. The white people argued they aren't their ancestors while not understanding that according to native definition they definitely are. You are free to use whatever definition you want, but you have to accept that others don't 😅
@@deecyp64 what he meant is that you used the wrong word, your definition of what an ancestor may mean could be accepted but any future links would be de DESCENDANTS of Skyward Sword's as they came after him
SS is the original ancestor
@@VGInterviews true! But I don't think that's what he meang
No Indian calls themself a Native American
There is literally a side quest in this game a child of two parents is sent to live with the mother’s people in their village on the other side of Hyrule. Who is to say something similar didn’t happen with the half zonai descendant of Sonia and rauru.
What if the lack of recordings of a child by the chamberlain as a deliberate attempt to hide said child? Maybe because Rauru and Sonia were cautious or afraid of its power? Its just something I picked up replaying the game with the Ganondorf memory where he puts a pretty malicious emphasis on Rauru's "Sister..." like he believed they were hiding an heir who would have been part Zonai.
I really like this idea! It makes the passing of the queen and king more heart wrenching. I still find it out that the child goes on to live a life we never hear anything about, but what you're suggesting makes the story more emotional
@@hchatnation It's not specifically related to the Zelda series, but I'm a HUGE historical fiction fan and that's almost always a common trope (hidden heirs etc). I even had the thought that what if Midna was the child of Rauru and Sonia- she would have had the power of Light and Time and if we're talking about figures that would be able to hold the powers of the Triforce it could easily be Zelda (Wisdom), Link (Courage) and Midna (Power)- still doesn't explain the Zelda bloodline- buuuuut also (that could have been the Hylia bloodline theory or *and I hate to suggest this* a simple throwaway line that Sonia specifically said out loud for Zelda's protection)
@@hchatnation Sounds like to me the same or similar to Luke and Leie being hidden from Vader lol
That and then in the final battle of the Imprisoning War, in the memory Mineru gives us we can see Ganondorf seems to be specifically targeting her and slowly torturing her to death with Gloom. Neither Rauru or any of the other sages are anywhere near badly wounded as she is
The crest is the same in Rauru and Sonia's time. We see it at the top of the mural where Rauru and Sonia are holding hands. We see it on the door to their castle. We see it on the stonework around the castle, too.
It seems that only Sonia's personal crest differs; the one on her clothes. And she likely shared her clothes with Zelda, who was introduced as a “distant relative”.
Can you point me to where the mural is you’re referencing? I don’t recall seeing the crest with the Triforce on any Zonai structure, including the castle. And I would contend it’s tough to line up the castle door with the Hyrulean crest. I see the similarity though.
I can get on board with the crest being more Hylian than Zonai, although I still believe Rauru adopted it for his kingdom in good faith. I could be wrong, just my theory
Just checked the cutscene at the start of the game. When the camera cuts to the mural depicting Sonia and rauru holding hands, the camera zooms out, and at the top, you can see the hylian crest, in between some humans.
@@hchatnation
You are just confused about the lore. Sonia is literally the ancestor of Zelda with Rauru. They both had children who passed down their powers and the goddess Hylia have NOT reincarnated since skyward sword, that was the ONLY time she reincarnated as a human and the rest of the Zelda’s are her descendant that share her bloodline and powers. What part of that is sooo confusing for you?
@@incomments2864 That's basically what he said. He said that the royal family didn't necessarily have *one* single child. Sonia may have had a cousin or a sibling that had the same powers as her. And Zelda's light powers stems from the triforce, not from rauru.
@@amanimagra1114Hylia herself had some kind of evil repelling sacred power and even moreso over time. She had time shift stones and gates in her temples. She planned and communicated messages to Link via Fi's memory and folk songs in Skyloft that were clues to a present puzzle of raising the tower that points a beacon through the thunderhead and to the Isle of Songs. In messages at the Isle of Songs she refers to guiding Link from "the edge of time." She must have a perception of time that is different from mortals.
The whole thing about time and light powers makes sense from Hylia alone. Any reference and deliberate connection to Rauru's light powers was totally unnecessary. When I first watched the opening scenes Zelda's reference to her family being descended from sky gods made sense with that being Hylia and the people of Skyloft. I was really disappointed with them shoehorning in the Zonai and confusing past lore. Even moreso them leaving the Zonai very much a mystery with little explanation of their civilization.
The major problem with this that I see is that Zelda in botw claims that her mother would teach her how to use her powers, and that her grandma also had a form of the power. It's an interesting idea, but I think it may be more likely that sonia had some other family, and they had children, which passed down the godly blood line? Unless there's an explanation for zelda's mother and grandmom
To be honest i don't see why it's not plausible that Rauru and Sonia birthed a prince/princess and he/she simply wasn't relevant to the events of the story. ¿Do we ever get to see Link's dad or mom in any Zelda game? ¿Or Zelda's mother for that matter? ¿What of Ganondorf's parents, have they ever been relevant in his story to the point of needing to appear in the games? Just because Zelda happens to be a descendant of Rauru and Sonia doesn't mean their children must appear to further aknowledge that fact.
no, the main big reveal is that, zelda by going back in time took sonias place as the one to use the blood of the godess trifoce power, as thats what would have been the point zero timeline, the first time zelda went back in time
@@DonutSwordsman _"...the first time zelda went back in time"_
So i take it Skyward Sword never happened?
@@javiervasquez625 the first time BotW/TotK Zelda went back in time, not a previous incarnation of Zelda
@@Sarah_H So i understood yet even then it doesn't make sense as BotW/TotK Zelda only ever travels to the past _once_ making their statement innaccurate from the get go.
Not seeing a child =/= no child.
I don’t think you’re wrong, but I would like to point out that it was incredibly common for the “last surviving heir” to be hidden away instead of sent into existential battles for the country. I can’t think of a good reason why, if Sonia and Rauru had a child, they would be brought along to the battle where it was all but certain everyone in the royal bloodline would be annihilated by a usurper.
There could have been a sister or cousin to Sonia that would be considered a blood connection. Maybe its blood of spirit and not physical as well.
Came to the comments to say this. Glad someone else thought the same. Occam's Razor.
That was my thought also. I never thought Sonia and rauru had a child, though that would’ve awesome, I just assumed Sonia had family that took over when they passed.
Plus, even if there is only one, we do know of an instance where there was more than one child in game, in the royal family, looking at Zelda 2, with the prince, AKA, Zelda's brother, the one who established that whole "naming the princesses Zelda" tradition. Which, I think is only done on the first born daughter, because otherwise, it would be a mess.
Plus, it does mean that the Zelda from Zelda 1 is the descendant of the prince and that the sleeping Zelda is her (great something) aunt, so once again, we have an instance.
Also even without it, we already had one time where enough time passed that this tradition faded away, with Wind Waker and Tetra.
So, yeah, thinking that there may be more children in the royal family doesn't seem weird. For those where no siblings were mentioned, either that child has yet to be born (looking at Ocarina of Time, where Zelda is still kind of young), the queen had died before there could be another one (Breath of the Wild queen had died when Zelda was 6, if I remember right, so maybe), a possible combo (The adult timeline in general. Both Tetra and her future grand daughter Zelda. I mean, we don't see a mention of a king or queen in Spirit tracks, so they may be dead, but Zelda, being about 12 is deemed too young to properly take the throne, hence why she is still the "princess").
Sonia doesn't have to be a great great grandmother. She could be a great great aunt.
Another theory is the light she sensed that was like rauru’s is because zonai are ‘gods’; and if the goddess blessed the Zelda and her ancestors with her sacred light, it stands to reason another god would have a similar light power as well.
There is such a character.
Zelda, Mineru Sonia, and Rauru had a handmaiden, the unnamed Impa to Queen Sonia.
Zelda has traditionally been entrusted to Impa for raising.Thus the Impa recording on the sky monuments, with the aide of Mineru, simply has to omit her duties to the child like they omit their name.
My question is, if Rauru and Sonya are the founders of this Hyrule that carries on through the events of BotW and TotK, and they died childless, who continued ruling the kingdom after their ends that also had the blood of the Goddess? There has to be at least one individual that is a blood descendant of the Goddess that carried on ruling the kingdom afterwards. That Zelda has inherited her sealing powers through blood connections proves that there had to have been someone to carry on after Rauru and Sonya died and that the bloodline of the Goddess continued uninterrupted all the way to Zelda in the far distant future.
in the ancient Hylian tablets, a maid claims that "she has to do something" to continue the legacy of those that died. Considering Sonia is described as nothing more than a "priestess", I hold the theory that the first Hylians, if a woman studies the religion of Hylia enough and becomes "purified" they can hold Light Powers. After all, even if it was Rauru's first element, it is shown that Sonia also holds light powers yet her base power is Time.
@@hylianevalink that doesn’t make sense they have to be blood connected just studying the tradition doesn’t automatically make you in the blood line lmao 🤣
@@thatjrpganimefanplayerjusi8003 even when we consider it's the blood of a Goddess or in more brutal terms, magic blood?
@@hylianevalink It's not "magic blood." It's holy blood. Goddess blood. That isn't something you can just magick up.
@@AmirPrinceling Depends on the setting.
We also need to remember that they may have other relatives, at least in Sonia’s case. So they technically can be related, but mainly from Sonia’s bloodline and only Sonia‘s bloodline.
One reason the child might not have been mentioned in those stories is that of protecting the child from outsiders that could harm him/her.
The blood of the goddess refers to the bloodline itself, ST Zelda is the only suitable vessel for Malladus because her bloodline carries sacred power. Its not like the blood is normal until the goddess makes it special at some point, it's always special. The royal family has mystical powers because of it.
I'll level with you and agree that it is a little weird that the royal child wasnt mentioned in the ancient hyrulean monuments, but i think it's just that the child wasnt relevant to the story being told. They didn't need to reaffirm it's existence because prior to you finding *any* of the ancient hyrulean monuments you already saw the first dragon tear where Sonia says Zelda is blood related to her and that she has both powers within her. Given how we see all the other sages' powers are passed down by bloodline, as they all confirm when meeting their descendants, this means Zelda isn't just blood related to Sonia, but also Rauru. That paired with Zelda's line in front of the murals paints a clear picture, along with Sonia, one of the very two the murals are depicting, stating that they're blood related. It's hard for me to look at all that and be like "but the baby isnt mentioned or shown elsewhere". It was alluded to enough prior, it exists just by logic.
Let's look at another instance of this in BOTW. In that, we're told that Link's father was a knight when Zelda says that Link has "chosen to follow in his father's footsteps". We then never see his father in any of the memories or any record of him left in modern time. Does it then make sense to think Zelda was wrong that Link's father was a knight? Or more accurately to the comparison, does it make sense to doubt the existence of his father?
As far as Rauru possibly having "Triforce power", to our knowledge that's never been a thing. The Triforce supplies power to wielders of it's pieces and it is the source of ultimate power, but theres no such thing as "Triforce power". There is power of different aspects for sure, such as sacred, evil, light and dark. How do you suppose it works then? Because Ganondorf has had both individual pieces of the Triforce and the full triforce in his possession before and we know he's weak to sacred power. If the Triforce specifically gives off sacred power (since the light power is a sacred power) then how does he get stronger? Ganondorf got stronger by getting sacred power? It seems to work more like a battery in the sense that it supplies general power to its wielder. Ganondorf's evil power becomes stronger when he gets his Triforce in OOT and radiates from the temples, turning the world into a world of monsters.
I think its exactly what it looks like, Zelda is a blood descendant of both Sonia and Rauru as she says. The sealing power is a sacred power comprised of both the time (blood of the goddess) and light (Rauru's sage power) powers, these two powers together synergize well and produce enough sacred power that using the sealing power makes a Triforce mark appear. In SS, Zelda directly states that "the mark on the back of your hand is proof that within you dwells sacred power". Link gets the mark when filled with sacred power, like his blade, at the sacred flames. The two powers synergize so well that the power of the royal family reaches another level of power entirely, as shown in the Molduga cutscene when it goes out of it's way to show Zelda's power burst out of her in rays that shock even Sonia, who was the one urging Zelda to help Rauru in the first place. It's why the Calamity was able to be fought back time and again, the royal ladies are much stronger now because of that union. Not even the amalgamation of Ganondorf's spilling hatred from within the seal, even over huge swathes of time (assuming 10,000 years between each Calamity for the hatred and grudge to accumulate), was able to just walk over them. The Triforce mark appears because of how powerful Zelda's sacred power is, that's why it only appeared prior to her holding the Calamity for 100 years straight, before she says her power has waned and when she swallows the thing that boosts her powers and starts exploding in sacred power and transforming into a dragon of sacred power. In both cases, power level is tied to the mark it seems. It appears on her again when shes pouring her power into the sword.
I too agree that Zelda's And Rauru's Light Powers have nothing really to do with the Triforce except on her hand where the Symbol appepars on. It doesnt really has anything else to do with that Object.
They just posess Light that Repells Evil.
And also if they had the Triforce, this means they are technically unstoppable, otherwise why did Zelda struggle in BOTH Breath of the wild and Age of Calamity to hold back the Calamity if she had the full Triforce?
This is potentially Allmighty Power we are talking about, how does a Being made of Sludge surpass the Triforce?
This is only possible if:
A: Ganon is Allmighty himself - which... obviously isnt the case, he does have immense Powers yet it doesn't surpass the Potential of what the Triforce could do.
Or B:
Ganondorf is embued with some power of all three of the Creator Gods already, the only weapon that can even destroy Entities posessing the Triforce is the Master Sword, A Weapon that repells any Evil even if it comes from the Triforce, and lorewise this makes sense since this Sword is not only fueled with Hylia's Divine Light to fight Evil but also with the Flames of the Creator Goddesses, yet unless Ganondorf took a shower in these flames there is no way that he would resist the Allmighty Power.
And speaking of Hylia's Divine Light, I also think Rauru is more likely to be the Descendant of Skyward Sword Zelda, I mean I see why Sonia fits for that, she is a blond woman who everyone simps for.
But her powers of Time doesnt really speak for it with Zelda's Light Powers which she has in every game since Skyward Sword apparently.
I think it is more likely that Rauru is in some way related to Skyward Sword Zelda/Hylia - Not only Because of his Light Powers but also Because of the fact that Zonai are "Descendants of the Gods"
Just like in Greek Mythology where Gods came from Titans, we have here ab entirely new race comming directly from Gods.
The Japanese Text goes even so far to say that the Zonai are Kami.
I don't know how exacty he could be Hylia's Descendant but either he is a Descendant of Skyward Sword Zelda or he is a Descendant of Hylia herself even
I have to agree that, while we never see Rauru and Sonia’s kid, that it doesn’t mean that the child doesn’t exist. It’s likely that the kid is never directly mentioned and only implied because the child as a character simply isn’t important to the story of totk. Nintendo simply felt that Sonia directly stating that Zelda is a blood descendant of herself and Rauru was a sufficient explanation as to their connection and didn’t feel the need to elaborate any further than that.
TLDR : Their child being directly mentioned doesn’t matter cuz the child didn’t matter to the overarching story of totk.
In history Royal children ESPECIALLY if they are the direct heir are not raised by the King and Queen for multiple reasons, it's only in more modern times do we see Royals taking an active and hands-on approach to raising their children. Royal children are granted their own household, staff, guards and budget granted by the Crown almost from birth, only being presented to the court and interacting with their parents at set times or special events.
It's also not common for there to be a special permanent throne for the heir, if they were granted permission to sit in the presence of the ruler (in a none dining setting) it would have been rare and even then it would just be very nice chair and pillow that would be brought in and placed on a lower step or off to the side.
@@LadyLocket Makes sense that there'd be no third throne, they'll eventually either leave or inherit the one already there. I think usually the children stand to the side like Zelda did, with only the rulers sitting
Zelda has the Tri-force in her in Botw/Totk that is why the Tri-force mark appear, in SS Zelda the sacred power she mention is the Tri-force which is inside Link at that time.
It's much more likely that Nintendo didn't like the idea of explicitly telling children that play their games that they had a child that was left motherless and fatherless cause that's pretty tragic given all the tragedies leading up to it, stacking that on too would be pretty dark
This is the same company that exposed 10 year olds to Dead Hands and Majora's Mask is literally "impending doom, the game".
@@amandaslough125 i mean, those were scary, but not "dark" in the same way. It's more likely they just didn't want to invest the time in creating a different character, personality and design for something that was implied to be necessary for the lineage to continue
Then again its weird that they couple some furry oc with a human. Nintendo's ways are indeed mysterious or just stupid and ignorant.
Zelda was also orphaned before reaching adulthood though, as well as having her entire kingdom and everyone in it burn to the ground due to something she believed was her own fault. Even in this game they've touched on darker subjects, so my theory on why there is no child is that they simply didn't feel the need to spend all that time and effort designing what a hybrid would look like only for them to serve no narrative purpose
Some food for thought: As long as Hylias bloodline remains unbroken (and not necessarily in a straight line) then it can serve as a direct connection across not only distant eras but also between timelines.
No matter what theory one considers about when and how the Zelda timelines split and converged or what have you, that detail is *probably* important.
8:27 to your point about the tradition of Princess’s being named Zelda stopping… who’s to say that Zelda going back in time didn’t reignite the tradition with any potential children between Rauru and Sonya? Maybe Zelda going back was a necessary step in order to somewhat reset events going forward, being her namesake and the crest? It seems possible if this is the same series where Link learned the song of storms from a man as an adult only so he could teach that same man the song as a child.
I think it's possible that you're right, but I still lean towards the idea that there was a small child perhaps under the care of others during the events of Rauru and Sonya.
I was always given the assumption that after the Era of destruction the survivors of the Royal family were left to stay as priest and priestess (like their ancestors before Hyrule's establishment between the SS and Minish Cap) to a point where their family's traditions were lost which explains Sonya's name by the time of her era.
They go out of their way to say that Zelda has time and light powers, wouldn't that also suggest she's a direct descendant?
cmon, they mean spirit of the hero as in, the spirit of christmas, its something that cant be killed because there will always be a good person, a hero, to stand up and defend the people.
Agreed. Wind Waker Link is a prime example. Not a hero by birthright or chosen by the Gods to fulfill some preordained destiny, but just a kid trying to do the right thing, being courageous simply because the situation calls for it. He earned the acknowledgement of the Gods by showing heroism, and the Gods recognized and rewarded the hero's spirit. Game recognize game.
In BOTW, Zelda says "the sacred blade is forever bound to the soul of the hero" and Impa says "a warrior wielding the soul of a hero". The word used in JP is the same one Demise uses that was translated to "spirit", it translates to either spirit or soul. So in the context of the definition, it's "spirit" as in ghost; or soul.
@@LordoftheMasterSwordWW Link still counts. He just had to prove himself because the timeline still registers that OoT Link left, so everyone's assuming he's gonna return.
@@amandaslough125 Hey there, I couldn't agree more. Out of curiosity, did you interpret my previous comment as me saying I don't think he counts? Not looking for confrontation by any means, just trying to clarify if perhaps I phrased the comment in a weird way that I can fix.
@@LordoftheMasterSword I did. Probably because I've seen a few too many people say WW Link doesn't count off and on recently.
Not sure how you'd think to edit it though. The comment itself is written fine, it's just your stance on Link himself is ambiguous enough.
Its probable that Sonia had siblings and Zelda is a direct descendant of one of those siblings, making her an indirect descendant of Sonia (which, frankly, is what I assumed). The term descendant itself is a bit wider than just direct children of your children - it can also include neices, nephews, grand nephews, etc. You don't need to be a direct descendant to be a dscendant at all.
yes, I agree sometimes people forget certain single words have Multiple synonyms thus leading to different meanings and phrases.
Something that I’ve been wondering about since TOTK came out, how did the bargainer statues co-opt the statue of hylia in the temple of time?
did you notice how the tops of the head of the statues in the beginning have red hair? just like the ancient hero armor is shown to have as a zonai.
Something seemingly wrong in the context here is that Fujibayashi, the director of the game basically said that the entirety of the game, including the flashback scenes, take place after the rest of the timeline. And that Sonia and Rauru are founding a NEW Hyrule.
While, I find this less satisfying, it’s the fix they gave to rectify the timeline issues presented in the game.
That isn't what Fujibayashi said though. That part is largely taken out of context for a question about whether or not TotK retcons SS (which it doesn't). In an interview after that, both Fujibayashi and Aonuma were directly asked if the memories are the original founding of Hyrule, or a separate Hyrule far in the future of the timeline. They said: "The answer is both. Either can work depending on how the player wishes to interpret it". And they refused to give what they personally think.
Demise didn't issue the curse or was the responsible for the curse, he was just stating the karma that light and dark were cursed to clash forever and him dying would just bringh forth another demon king to continue, which was Ganon. And games where Ganon was defeated, we had other demon kings also fulfulling the role (like Malladus in Spirit Tracks)
Skyward Sword takes place before Rauru and Sonia's time, the OG Link and Zelda FOUNDED Hyrule while Rauru and Sonia are the first of the royal family. Now, Sonia could have had a cousin or something who took over after her and Rauru's passing, and that person changed the royal crest, but based on what the game tells us, Zelda IS the direct descendant of Rauru and Sonia. You answered the reason we didn't see the child yourself, it was probably too young, maybe even an infant. Regardless, it doesn't matter that we didn't see the child or why, because by the the game told us, Zelda IS their descendant, so there HAD to be a child. And BOTW/TOTK Zelda possesses BOTH Rauru and Sonia's powers in addition to the power she inherits from the bloodline of the goddess, so she IS their descendant, meaning they did have a child, even if we didn't see it. We didn't see it because it was irrelevant to the story (Link had a father and sister too in BOTW, but they never appeared), but we were told that their must have been one by Zelda saying how she was a descendant Rauru and Sonia. As for why their child changed the royal crest, possibly to try and cover-up some of Hyrule's history to make sure Ganondorf remained undisturbed, because there WAS a cover-up involved. It's also plausible to think that the Zonai costume Link can obtain was based off their child.
A little mistake SS Zelda didn´t founded the kingdom of Hyrule her Descendant did and the ancient hero aspect is more likely not based around Sonia and Rauru's child because the Calamity in the tapestry happen long after the sealing of Ganondorf.
Just because an heir/child isn’t mentioned doesn’t mean one doesn’t exist at all. It’s just not that relevant to the plot of TotK. And besides, the cutscene where Sonia says she can sense she and Zelda are related by blood is supposed to be a blatant nod that yes, someone did continue the bloodline and you can see that Zelda and Sonia share the same green eyes. There’s no way the kingdom can continue without a proper heir so of course Rauru and Sonia had to conceive at some point. But again, just not that relevant to the plot/story of TotK and best left to the assumption of the player.
They DID had a child.
Ancestors could also mean uncles and aunts so the person who took over for Rauru and Sonia could have been Sonia's sibling still giving a blood connection to generations down the line. There would be no metion of them because they were not officially apart of the royal family at that time, but filled the gap in power when Rauru and Sonia perished, thus allowing a new royal family to take over and change the crest to its current state.
Nintendo has left much up to personal interpretation with this game and its immediate predecessor. I recall the debate over Breath of the Wild's timeline placement. People would often use the presence or absence of certain monsters, people, or locations to support their theory. For example, some claimed it belonged in the downfall timeline because that is the only one in which Lynels appeared. Yet an argument one could use against that theory is that since there are no Gerudo in the downfall timeline (unless you count Ganondorf, Koume, and Kotake), it doesn't belong there.
In my opinion, that is all your theory boils down to. If a child is not seen or mentioned, it must, therefore, not exist in your point of view. However, I find that an absence of something, or someone, is not necessarily proof that it doesn't exist.
You may wonder where I'm going with this. For that, let's take a look at another missing child, one whose lineage is rather infamous. From Ocarina of Time we learn that a single male is born to the Gerudo once every hundred years. This lore is referenced in Breath of the Wild (by Rhondson), as well as restated in Tears of the Kingdom (throne room memory). In spite of this, we see no male Gerudo, of any age, in either game (Ganondorf doesn't count). Unless misfortune befell him, there should be at least one in existence given the events and passage of time in Breath of the Wild. Some theorize that Vilia is the missing person in question (his hair is the right color), but there is no confirmation of this. For story purposes I think he died young, but for the real world I think he either wasn't important enough to include or Nintendo just forgot. Either way, just because we don't see one doesn't mean he doesn't exist in this time period.
At the end of the day, this is probably one of those things that Nintendo will leave up to the player's own interpretation. The relationship between Link and Zelda is perhaps chief among these. Are they dating/married in Tears of the Kingdom, or are they still just Princess and Knight? Whatever you believe, Nintendo says you are "right". Whether Sonia and Rauru had offspring is just another thing to add to the list. We may disagree, but that's ok.
Exactly my thoughts. Simply put the child of the union between Sonia and Rauru isn't important to the story of TotK. All that matters to the story is Zelda is a blood descendant of Sonia to keep the royal line of Hylia going.
Vilia is a Hylian, the most likely is that another Gerudo male can´t be born before the previous is dead and Link and Zelda aren´t dating/married they are just friends.
there's another, very simple option. Sonia is part of the family that ruled Hyrule sometime before the Zonai appear, though the old kingdom of Hyrule may have fallen into infighting at some point. Whilst it may have been traditional to name the princess Zelda, they may also have had a second or third child, or that tradition may have been lost at some point. The royal familes merge with Sonia marrying Raaru. Raaru and Sonia reunite the groups to form the new kingdom. With the deaths of both, the remnants of the original Hyrulian royal family ascend back to the throne and take over the new Hyrule kingdom as a continuation and combination of both the Zonai one and the former Hyrule with all the traditions, with a then direct bloodline that continues to our Zelda, and the exact story fades into legend. That way, they still share a blood connection as well as the reincarnation of Hylia and connection to the gods and the triforce.
I *have* to tell you I clicked on this mostly because the thumbnail can be read in two ways and both make sense. Idk why but that was impressive to me.
Anyway, cool video!
....Whenever they mention the Royal Bloodline, it's always referenced as an actual bloodline and not some pseudo "well, actually..." meaning something else entirely. It would feel like an absolute rug pull and should make us question everything they tell us because if they can't be honest about what a bloodline is, then everything they say should be taken with grains of salt and can't be trusted unless verified. That's pretty exhausting, even for theorists.
They didn't show the kid probably because they weren't relevant as far as the story progressed, but perhaps other reasons too like design or how to fit them naturally into the story, or even the fandom penchant of theorizing on everything and demanding answers of what happened to the child if revealed like with the Champions if they become too attached. I think the number of times they pointedly linked Zelda to Sonia and Rauru, like Zelda mentioning they were her ancestors, Sonia having powers of Time and Rauru having powers of Light while Zelda has both, are clear examples of such their intentions of being direct ancestors--regardless of whether the fandom hates how interspecies hybridization works realistically in a fantasy setting lol
Thanks for referencing a mass destruction event. It gives more substance to my theory that the Hyrule in BOTW and TOTK might actually be New Hyrule as referenced in Spirit Tracks, leftover from the world wide flood.
Eeeeeexcept it’s established that Zelda got her time powers from Sonia / Hylia’s line while she got her light powers from Rauru. Points for trying though! 😅
Off topic, I think how the shiekah tech dissapeared happened in the same way as the master cycle went inside the shiekah tower that has a module, yet there are some remaining parts that are uneffected, it sought to protect and hide itself from Ganon's magic, the same can be said with the divine beasts Vah ruta and other 3 beasts.
The original Zonai/Hyrule crest might've been split in two, with the wings being used by the Hylians and the all-seeing eye used by the Sheikah, who came after the Zonai and based their designs and technology on Zonai tech
Also in the same cutscene where Sonia says that she and Zelda "share a blood connection", she also says "I can feel *your* [Rauru's] Light power within her, as well as *my* Time power". With this theory in mind, it might be that the full Triforce equals Light, not Time; Power, Wisdom, and Courage in perfect balance creates the Light necessary to banish Evil/Darkness, Sonia only says "your" and "my" because she's speaking from her own frame of reference (like how Rauru later says to Zelda on the eve of the Imprisoning War "that was a future where you never appeared in this world. And you are here now", because he doesn't have the frame of reference that this past has always happened this way and Zelda was always going to be here). So Zelda being in possession of both the blood of the Goddess AND the Triforce means that she has both Light and Time powers, not because she's directly related to Sonia and Rauru
The Sheikah are way before the Zonai same for the all-seeing eye and Zelda 100% related to both.
@@Ahouro the ancient Sheikah who built the Divine Beats took direct inspiration for the Divine Beasts from Zonai architecture. Camels in the Lightning Temple = Naboris, elephants in the Water Temple = Ruta, lizard heads in the Fire Temple = Rudania, bow of the Stormwind Ark = Medoh, and the Guardians had lasers similar to the Zonai beam emitters. So that means the Zonai's technology existed before the ancient Sheikah we saw in BotW
@@Sarah_H The Sheikah existed long before Rauru´s Hyrule even long before the first Hyrule and before Skyloft was a thing too.
Oh brother. It says in a cutscene Sonia is “with Child.” Meaning she is pregnant. Just because we never see the birth doesn’t mean it was never born. After Sonia’s death Rauru probably had the child taken in secret to a safe place. What happens after is anyones guess.
Which cutscene?
I would have to go back and look. I remember the line was referring to Sonia was “with Chylde.”
It was such a weird way to spell child that it stuck with me.
But I can’t remember who said it.
I've played this game for over 200 hours and never seen this stated.
To simplify the theory, at some point either skywards sword Zelda or some other future descendant of SW Zelda had multiple kids, and all or at least 2 of these kids started their own linages creating two branches of the royal family that has the blood of the goddess one linage descended into Sonia and with her death ended there and the other branch descended into botw Zelda.
I definitely like your interpretation of Zelda being sent back to fulfill the curse's requirements in addition to the sword-healing. Any of the three, demon, goddess, or hero is able to die in their fight during the cycle. Sonia wasn't killed during a typical battle though, so having a replacement makes sense. I could definitely see Sonia being more like Zelda's cousin or something. Both descended from Skyward Zelda, but not a direct line. So then, would you propose that whoever takes over the new kingdom of Hyrule after Rauru, Sonia, and Zelda leave is just some schmuck with no goddess bloodline to speak of? Would that bloodline reconnect after a generation or so with some other cousin-of-Zelda goddess-blooded lady? Hylia being back in botw and totk is my biggest peeve with the lore of those games, it undercuts the story of skyward so directly with no explanation. I can't imagine you think that what happens to Zelda in Skyward (being a mortal form of a goddess who gave up her full divinity) is what happens to Zelda in totk. You can't give up your immortality more than once.
Good presentation! I'm here for the discussion.
About who took over after Sonia and Rauru, all that were left in the "inner circle" were Hylians. They served the royal family, and Sonia must have been a prominent figure before marrying Rauru and becoming royalty. I'm sure there were some other "higher-ups" who took over. Maybe it was family of Sonia's, maybe it wasn't. As for Zelda in TotK, you are right - Hylia reincarnated one time, and that resulted in Zelda from Skyward Sword being born with the Blood of the Goddess. But that blood was cursed. So I think whenever Ganondorf, or Demise's hatred incarnate, is present within the land, the next royal female is born with the Goddess's blood since, you know, it's cursed to do so. And that's the order of it, right? The hatred incarnate shows up, and the blood of the goddess and the spirit of the hero respond. So not multiple reincarnations, but rather, women being born with Hylia's cursed blood.
Maybe in this new era of the wild, all of the women were born with it because Ganondorf was technically alive, present under the castle. That would explain Zelda's mother having power, but the literal birthing of children wasn't required for the goddess' blood to be passed on.
@@hchatnation This is a popular misconception, Demise's curse does not force Link to reincarnate or do anything to Zelda's bloodline, that's simply not in the wording. What Demise says is that "an incarnation shall ever follow" [those with the spirit and blood], so the curse is that something evil will show up to create conflict with those with the spirit and blood.
Also, I'd like to make you aware that a recent dev interview confirms that Link and Zelda reincarnate, which explains how she is always special even in comparison to the royal family, who also share the blood of the goddess
I mean.....another explanation is either that the child was hidden, or what I feel is more likely, _very young_. Like, baby/toddler max. It would make sense then why we don't see them. Rauru and Sonia could've been on a walk to take a break from caring for their child. A throne wouldn't yet be needed for a baby. A baby can't become a sage or fight.
In all likelihood, I feel they had a baby who was being cared for by others in the castle, like most monarchies seem to do. They had their royal duties and were establishing Hyrule, they probably wouldn't have a lot of time to spend with their kid.
If this is the case though, it's even more depressing, because their kid would be young enough to likely have no recollection of their parents at all
That is exactly my opinion
My theory is we had alot of zonai hylian hybrids. which becuase their diffrence lived in the depth. and when calmity emerged first time (before the sheika tech battle) most were wiped out so by the time of the tapestry there was only one left which became the hero. i feel this can be expanded on.
It's a fun theory, but it feels like you may have overthought it.
The simplest explaination tends to be the most true; and Rauru and Sonia having children is about as simple as it gets.
Zelda probably didn't include children in her memory because she only gave Link what she felt would be helpful to him.
Chamberlain's failure to mention any children of the royal couple is a problem; and it would have been helpful to Hyrule historians if she had at least carved the children's names in the stone. But I guess she chose only to memorialize the dead (or good as dead).
The evidence of children is Hyrule Castle itself. Without a stable royal family, it gets hard to explain a magnificent castle complex, complete with dungeons, mines, and massive labrynth full of statuary and murals. The project would have taken centuries build, and that's not something that happens when the legitimacy of the crown is in doubt. The most simple explaination is that Raura and Sonia had at least one child.
Also, there's a simple explaination why we didn't see their child or children fighting in the war. You don't endanger the line of succession by having the heirs fight in war alongside the king, especially if they are young children.
My exact opinion
Im got a theory that might explain why the royal crest changed: maybe a loyal companion to the first king had taken over the kingdom after he died. Doesn't explain why the whole princess zelda thing, but helps to explain the family crest changes
13:33 That is... assuming this actually _is_ Hylia speaking, and not something else pretending to be Hylia. 🤔
I agree it's odd we don't see or hear of a child, but not so odd that it's completely implausible.
I think following the implications that Sonia and Ruaru had a child to continue the lineage seems more plausible. Otherwise we have to keep assuming that every time they hint or directly state at a direct blood lineage that Nintendo didn't actually mean to say what they are saying. Those are some heavy assumptions to make imo.
The one point that I don't think has an easy explanation for are the messages from the ancient past. That's a good solid point, but alone it can easily be an anomaly or oversight, I at least would need a few more points of similar quality.
Still a good shot at explaining your idea and why.
Occam’s Razor. The less assumptions made in a claim, the more likely it is to be true. In this case. There are far less assumptions to come to the conclusion that they just had a child that wasn’t mentioned, then there were over the course of this video.
@@pezfam Exactly right. It's not necessary to apply when theory crafting and just having fun, but this video is framed as a serious attempt to get the viewer to reconsider canon, so Occam's Razor comes into full effect.
Very plausible theory. Could be that the "present events" of Skyward Sword occurred after Sonia and Rauru's passing, and the "past events" of Skyward Sword occur prior to the Zonai's arrival in the land. This could also mean since Demise was sealed in the past, when the curse placed, resulting in the first Ganondorf, who we see in TOTK cutscenes.
Incorrect, Totk past must be after Oot because the Gerudo stopped having male leaders after Totk Ganondorf which makes it impossible for Totk past to be before Oot.
Thanks!
The golden goddesses seen what had become of their creation and how it fractured into three. They each took a strand and together woven time into a single braid.
Of all things which were the same, these would merge and all variations of its history they would retain.
Of all that were different had become reduced to the most basic energy of creation. Unable to erase this energy, the golden goddesses shaped it into the Zonie. This is why they seemed to all the other beings as something akin to gods with their technology and magics.
Can I point out something? You have an issue with a child not being mentioned or seen in the memories, yet, later on in the video, you say that the Chamberlain was always around and close with Rauru and Sonia. Ok, well, there's not a single hint or mention of this Chamberlain in the memories either. The only reason we know such a person exists is because of that one side quest. So it seems you're making an exception there. Why does the Chamberlain, who is very close with Rauru, Sonia, Mineru, and even Zelda- get a pass for not being seen or mentioned in the memories, yet, a potentially young child doesn't?
To a lesser extent, in BotW, both Daruk and Urbosa have their own descendants (Riju and Yunobo), yet, children are never mentioned or seen in memories or even their own journals. Therefore, I think it's more reasonable to say that Zelda being a descendant of Rauru and Sonia, isn't meant to be some crazy dance-around logic to how she's actually not, rather, they simply have a child off screen during the memory scenes, likely one they keep out of the public eye. I also don't think it's quite reasonable to say their child changed the crest, as that could've been done some generations later... but regardless, the crest existed before Hyrule was ever founded anyway.
Maybe it’s like Amy and Kif from Futurama and there’s a random Hylian carrying the royal child when Rauru goes to face Ganondorf.
my brain be like "royal bloodline of the child godess" nice thumbnail 👁👄👁
random lil theory I have 15:05 what if the tragedy that destroyed Hyrule before it's re-founding, was a loss of the spirit of the hero. The spirit of the hero was lost/destroyed until it was either revived/replaced with the spirit of the new hero (ancient hero).
I have no evidence or further thoughts. This is just the things your theory made me think of
Yeah I have to agree that it makes no sense for them to have had a kid. Their kid would have had historical significance. Even if the kid had been hidden from immediate historical writings like the chamberlain, he would have made it into history eventually. No way he wouldn't have been relevant to the story.
That said, I see no reason whatsoever that Skyward Sword Zelda can't be related to BotW Zelda. Hylia shed her divinity, but her divine essence entered the blood of the royal family. It's carried in that blood. It doesn't manifest only in an era's Zelda, it's always there. Tying her divinity to a bloodline like this allows her to reincarnate time and time again, always as that era's Zelda. In other family members, the divine essence is present, but mostly dormant, in the sense that they may have magic granted by that divine essence, but not every female is an incarnation of the goddess. Not every generation has or needs a Zelda or even a daughter. A Zelda appears preemptively when Hyrule is going to be in trouble. She's not called Zelda because of a family tradition, though such a tradition sometimes exists and sometimes doesn't. Rather she's called Zelda and appears in times of strife because fate conspires to make it so.
Hylia's last act in shedding her divinity didn't only tie her divinity to royal blood, it tied the spirit of the hero to reincarnate in times of strife, and it tied both of them to appear together so as to always be there to defend the kingdom. Destiny itself was altered by Hylia's last divine act. So yes, there's been periods of calamity and decline, but it never destroyed the royal family bloodline, because the same spell that binds the blood of the goddess to reincarnate as Zelda in the royal family in times of trouble also protects the bloodline of the royal family. Even when the kingdom was destroyed well and truly in the Wind Waker, the royal bloodline survived, though it was brought so low that the heir that incarnated as the next Zelda became a pirate. But it reestablished itself by Spirit Tracks. The continuous bloodline of the royal family and even its connection to royal status has been strained, but never broken. It appears to have divine plot armor granted by Hylia's final blessing before shedding her divinity.
As such, I suspect Sonia has the blood of the goddess, by genetic descent from SS Zelda, but that she isn't an incarnation of the goddess like BotW Zelda is, and probably isn't the only Hylian from her time with the blood of the goddess. Zelda isn't a descendant of Sonia directly, but of some other royal blood that carried on the bloodline after the death of Rauru and Sonia. Such people carrying that blood weren't mentioned because they weren't relevant to the story, they were just the people related to Sonia by blood who inherited the throne after Sonia and Rauru died.
And while I say that the divine magic of the blood of the goddess is mostly dormant between Zeldas, it's quite obviously not totally dormant. The memories of BotW center around Zelda trying to awaken her divine sealing power that she's expected to have because it simply runs in the family. So the divine power of Hylia running through the blood of the royal family isn't just part of the lore established in Skyward Sword, but canonically on display in BotW.
Speaking again of the SS lore, it bears mentioning that Demise's curse isn't what makes the spirit of the hero reincarnate or the goddess incarnate in a princess of Hyrule's royal blood. Demise's curse merely curses their fates to create an incarnation of his hatred wherever they appear. Hylia had already reincarnated in Hyrule royal blood as SS Zelda by that time, and SS Link isn't the first hero, but rather the first reincarnation of the spirit of the first hero. The magic causing these reincarnations was already in place before Demise uttered his curse. Hylia's final blessing that made her incarnate as Zelda and Link repeatedly reincarnate as the hero of each era is mentioned in the official Skyward Sword manga, but even if you don't regard that manga as canon, that blessing is on full display in SS. Hylia is mentioned in game to have had a chosen hero before SS Link, and the game clearly shows Zelda is the incarnation of Hylia without Demise needing to curse to make it so. The evidence seems clear from Skyward Sword and BotW that Hylia's magic controls fate to some degree to both reincarnate Link and tie her ability to reincarnate to a specific bloodline that carries her magic, so that bloodline must be protected, no matter how many eons pass.
The thing I think about is we have no idea exactly how long Zelda is in the past. It could have been a week or multiple years. I also always thought that perhaps a sister of Sonia would be Zeldas ancestor.
I like to think it was Sonia "brother" that stepped up and their family crest is different from Raru and Sonia. But it's up to each other own interpretation to what you believe happens. Still a great no matter how you slice it.
Do you think totk takes place during the downfall timeline of the zonai hero?
The problem I have with the whole "legends get distorted over time" excuse is that Zelda physically time traveled to the distant past, so historical misconceptions are irrelevant if Zelda can clear them up with her own eyewitness account. If there's any contradictions in previous Zelda games, that would imply that those games are the historical misconceptions, and are misremembered versions of what Zelda witnessed in the past in Tears of the Kingdom. But if the other Zelda games aren't canon, then that opens the floodgates for a future game to say that Tears of the Kingdom isn't canon either.
The appearance of the Ancient Hero, based on the Hero’s Aspect, suggests someone who is part Zonai and part Hylian. It seems logical that this would be the child of Rauru and Sonia, since Rauru appears to have been the first Zonai to marry a Hylian, and the only Zonai left by that time were he and his sister.
Where this child was during the events immediately preceding and during the Imprisoning War, we can only speculate, unless Nintendo decides to give us DLC after all. But there does seem to be some kind of physical, literal offspring of Rauru and Sonia, not just a spiritual one. Perhaps he was removed from the official records and hidden away for his own protection. He was probably never a king himself, but that doesn’t mean he couldn’t have married into the Royal Family and become Zelda’s progenitor, after the first war against the Calamity 10,000 years ago.
the spoompls reference hit me in the face like a truck
"Zelda possède nos deux pouvoirs, Rauru. Celui du temps et celui de la lumière. En outre, il ne fait aucun doute que cette jeune fille est de notre sang." - Sonia
translated: "Zelda possesses our two powers, Rauru. That of time and that of light. Moreover, it is without a doubt that this young woman is of our blood."
in the french version, there is more nuance added to what sonia says about them sharing a blood connection. sonia is actually saying: i sense that we (myself and rauru) share a blood connection (with you, zelda). both of them, not just the girlies.
i'm not sure what the japanese says. but if they were trying to translate this line as sonia solely talking about herself, they would have used different phrasing in french. whereas in english it is ambiguous, so it could mean this.
I always found it odd that she said she sensed a blood connection. Maybe just Hylian blood? Maybe everyone read into it wrong? Cuz yes we do see they dont have a kid and she dies before anything happens. I have to wonder what Nintendo was thinking unless this was a translation error. Video games are no stranger to lost dialogue or communication issues due to context being lost in translation.
Because they aren't the same species... They can't probably procreate. Zonai seemed to be like aliens... Plus they're divine goats.
Religion For Breakfast has a video exploring Hylian demonology, that is very interesting because it goes into depth in what they see as Hylianism, or the religion surrounding the worship of the Goddess Hylia.
The royal Child is my absolutely favorite Character in the Zelda Series! He is so great. I love him so much! 😍💖
I’ve been thinking, not about the baby theory but I’ve been wondering if TOTK could be an alternate timeline of THIS Hyrule just like how age of calamity is. There’s probably a million things that can prove this incorrect. I thought it was weird that nobody in TOTK mentions the divine beasts or champions and that nobody knew of the underground somehow, also that ganon has almost the same throne room scene as demise in skyward sword. Like I said probably super easy to prove it’s not an alternate timeline branch but I thought I’d throw it out there.
Botw is after Oot this is confirmed by both the Zora monuments and Aonuma source for Aonuma is Game informer March 2017 page 48 and Demise never had a throne room scene anywhere.
Spoompls is also the canonical name of Skyward Sword Link for me haha
This theory does make sense considering Hylia in SS was canonically able to see through time EXCEEDINGLY far
so... here's a theory. what if hylia repeated history? was reborn as zelda 100 years ago in botw. but before she could speak to her incarnation, calamity ganon struck too early. that's why zelda couldn't unlock her power until link almost dies, because hylia made it so to save the spirit of the hero. maybe hylia knew about the time loop zelda created by going back in time, and knew what would happen with ganondorf. hence why she had both time and light powers, but instead of becoming the time dragon she became the light dragon to repair the mastersword. what if this was all constructed by hylia but things kept going horribly wrong like calamity ganon coming back too soon and sonia dying?
There is a possibility that the child grew up and went on a adventure while they died then when they came back they became the king or queen
But Zelda is actually Hylia and Zelda 9:20 ?!?!?!!!!!!
I fully wached the video and now confused is my name.
The "child" was never mentioned or shown anymore than the children of the Champions are ever shown or mentioned. How many Zelda games has the King been mentioned, but the Queen is completely left and never talked about? Parents and children that are not important to the story, never get talked about or brought up. This is something that appears alot in other Japanese story telling.
It's also never implied that there is always one daughter born every generation, only that daughters are automatically named Zelda after a certain period. Its entirely a mandate by Fate (or Plot) that during every "Cycle" there is a Zelda and Link, hell, in Windwaker, Zelda's actual name is Tetra, and she "Becomes Zelda" when the spirit of the King says so.
Also, Link isn't tied to any specific bloodline, except in "A Link to the Past", and that was more to do with a Prophecy predicting who the next Link would be. Ocarina of Time Link likely never produced any children to continue his bloodline, as he ultimately dies in a Lost forest, and in other timelines is either dead, or no longer exists.
I think it’s okay to recognise that, although we are Zelda fans and we absolutely love tears of the kingdom, this problem in the lore is simply bad/lazy storytelling 😅😅 that doesn’t mean all the game and story is bad, it just means they were probably focusing and working hard in the gameplay and other stuff under the circumstances of the pandemic and it’s normal for this type of games to have plot holes 🤷🏻♀️🤷🏻♀️ maybe they will fill us in more with a DLC or a next game like they always do. At the end of the day, this is how this stuff works in these types of projects (or at least that’s my opinion)
I think that it is sonias brother/sister (keeping the time power while still having goddess hylia)
Man I'd hate to be Link fighting for a somewhat incompetent kingdom have little to no autonomy and being forced to fight forever even after death
idk I'm still confused on who/what the ancient hero was for the first calamity when they clearly look like a Zonai mix, but Rauru and Mineru were the last Zonai to exist on the world and the calamity was just Ganondorf's malice trying to seep out of the castle. There are so many unanswered questions that are left up to ambiguous interpretation rip
The ancient hero is a Link and most likely a descendant of a union of Zonai and Hylian.
Now when you say that whenever there is a reincarnation of Demise appears, a reincarnation of Hylia is also there. Would that apply to the Hero's soul reincarnation too? If so I wonder where that hero is during all this. In the past that is.
Unforged by skyward sword, just like the mastersword.
Sirpotatobottom said it the absolute best. But this is incorrect. Stories don’t have to literally spell out everything, they tell you just enough of what you need to know so they don’t waste time and distract from the main plot because pacing is a thing.
In law school we learn: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
And that’s why this is just a theory, GAME THEO- sorry.
Occam’s razor. The answer with the least assumptions is most likely to be correct.
They had to have. Sonia did not have the blood of the goddess. Ruaru did. He had the light power. The only way Zelda would be related to Sonia would be for her and Rauru to have a child. Not to mention that Zonai child who became the ancient hero. They had to have.
We are going to have to agree to disagree on this, I personally believe that Rauru and Sonia did have a child but we just don’t see it because Nintendo just didn’t think it was important enough to show us said child. Unless of course we DO see that child in the Ancient Hero’s Aspect, The Ancient Hero being the child of Rauru and Sonia would explain their strange appearance and the Ancient Hero may have been called such because they cleaned up the aftermath of Ganondorf being sealed as all of his monsters wouldn’t just disappear.
What if Hylia reincarnates to start each royal family?
There's no need to twist the truth that far to fit a theory, Nintendo just didn't bother wasting money in a character model of a child that wouldn't have impact on the plot.
Why would fans dismiss skyward sword and previous titles when the creators said in an interview back in 2020 that it takes place after Twilight Princess (can’t remember the timeline)???
I don't remember this interview. But I do hate the fans that assume it has to be fallen timeline because the sages somehow don't awaken in the child one. So I'll gladly take the possibility.
Aonuma said in 2017 that Botw is after Oot on the timeline, source Game informer March 2017 page 48.
This is not consistent with any of the lore or facts of this games past. this theory hold no water and ignores all other lore in the older games.
This is my wretched theory: Zelda is the sage of time, She has time traveled, become a dragon for milenia and controlled sick powers before she even 20 yo. Imagine how off the charts hers powers and knowledge are going to be when she's 40 or so. By that time, Link has already moved on with his life and eloped with Zidon, She just can go back in time and bang Sonia's hot grandpapa for what we know. That's why they share blood. Probe me wrong.
It's not Fee. It's ファイ, which sounds like Fai in english. Google translates it to Phi. It's like my with an F, or even Phillip J. Fry without the (P) (h)(i)(l)(l)(i)(p) (J) (.) And (r) between the (F) and (y). I spent the whole video separating these letters but what I realize now is I could have said it's like 'I' with an 'F' in front of it. What you're doing when you call Fi, Fee, is that you actually quite literally do the same thing that google translate does when you type in 'Fi' and translate it back to japanese. In english it's pronounced Fy, but is translated to フィ
Fi, which sounds like Fee. I'm sure it would turn into something wild if we kept reverse translating, but that would be like pointcrow's 100× reverse translated cup cakes, and nobody wants to pronounce names from their favorite games like pointcrows cupcakes...
Great video nonetheless.
It's a reference to the Greek letter Φ, whose name is usually spelt "phi" in the Latin alphabet. In English, it's often pronounced as /faj/ due to English vowels being English vowels, while in modern Greek, it's instead pronounced as /fi/, which, since it's the country the letter came from, some consider to be the "correct" pronunciation. (Amusingly, it seems the ancient Greek pronunciation was completely different from both.)
In English, in a game without voice acting, it is pretty much equally valid to pronounce "Fi" as either /faj/ or /fɪj/. It is interesting that the Japanese script would choose to transliterate the English version. Since the game is Japanese and her name in Japanese doesn't have the ambiguities of English spelling, it would suggest that /faj/ would be the most correct way to say it in English, though I also can't really fault someone who played with English text for not knowing that.
@@angeldude101 you're the man.
Maby Sonia had a relative, for instance a sister named Zelda or something…
Royal Bloodline of the Child Goddess
9:20 what?!! Raru and Sonia are the kids?!!!!!!!
I have been trying to figure this thing out for months. They are called the founders of hyrule, yet there is little to no world building that actually proves it, just as there is nothing that connects Sonia and Zelda, outside the forced dialogue. From a story telling and visual storytelling perspective, Nintendo failed to tell stories about characters. If Sonia and raaru had a child that would be highly important information as they are queen and king.
The zelda timelines is so all over the place and the time travel stuff is something I liked in earlier titles, but strongly dislike with botw and totk. If botw and totk was their attempt to retcon or remake the timeline then they failed, atleast in my opinion.
Therefore I will take the position that botw and totk has their own branch in the timeline not connected to any of the other games.
Great video. Maybe the child was actually already grown up
Omg Spoomples. The OG
Love this theory! I feel people tend to get hung up on “sharing a bloodline” and “descents” as being DIRECT. But that’s not always the case! Collateral descendants include siblings, nieces and nephews. I think it’s possible that Sonia had other family members that had children and that is how they are connected by blood. Sonia’s siblings would not be as plot relevant as a child making their inclusion in the story not mandatory.
Only Sonia was the Queen of Hyrule. Since we don’t know of any backstory for her it’s possible that she had a number of siblings who were out adventuring, fighting monsters or raising families while the events of TOTK took place. Zelda could be a DIRECT descendant of one of Sonia’s siblings thus making them share a blood line.
Why does Zelda lore now make me want cry?
Spoompls go brrrrrrrrr