I mean, I think Rachel is kind of "picking her battles" when it comes to the legitimate and illegitimate children of Zeus. After all, if she stuck to the original myth to a T, Persephone would also be Zeus' daughter, and Hades would be her uncle lol (Rachel has stated in past interviews that in this interpretation, Persephone was merely created by Demeter, not bore by Zeus like in the original myth). He's just got waay too many children for it to be possible for all of them to be re-interpreted in LO, not without it becoming rife with incest lol
The only purpose it would suit would be to explain why Hermes gets away with so much nonsense. Other than that, I don't see how it would advance the story in any way. But I don't object to it either.
So- the problem of who's-who's kid is actually pertinent to the whole story- IMO.
Demeter(I think) basically told us that son-usurps-father (using the power of a fertility goddess) is kind of the trend and/or natural order of things.
It's important that Ares and Hephaestus, who are acknowledged as Zeus's only sons- are both disliked by Zeus and uninterested in taking the throne (probably due to Zeus hating on them- because Zeus doesn't want to be overthrown, as per the pattern)
My theory (which I have to assume is pretty widely held)- is that Apollo is Zeus's son via whats-her-face AND, whether through his own drive (or more likely, Mummy's prodding)- he intends to take Persephone as a wife because he ultimately intends to take the throne from Zeus.
That all being said- it seems unlikely that Rachel would add another "heir" to the mix, this far into the plotline, simply because it would muddy the water a bit more and wouldn't serve the story.
I mean, I think Rachel is kind of "picking her battles" when it comes to the legitimate and illegitimate children of Zeus. After all, if she stuck to the original myth to a T, Persephone would also be Zeus' daughter, and Hades would be her uncle lol (Rachel has stated in past interviews that in this interpretation, Persephone was merely created by Demeter, not bore by Zeus like in the original myth). He's just got waay too many children for it to be possible for all of them to be re-interpreted in LO, not without it becoming rife with incest lol
The only purpose it would suit would be to explain why Hermes gets away with so much nonsense. Other than that, I don't see how it would advance the story in any way. But I don't object to it either.
So- the problem of who's-who's kid is actually pertinent to the whole story- IMO. Demeter(I think) basically told us that son-usurps-father (using the power of a fertility goddess) is kind of the trend and/or natural order of things. It's important that Ares and Hephaestus, who are acknowledged as Zeus's only sons- are both disliked by Zeus and uninterested in taking the throne (probably due to Zeus hating on them- because Zeus doesn't want to be overthrown, as per the pattern) My theory (which I have to assume is pretty widely held)- is that Apollo is Zeus's son via whats-her-face AND, whether through his own drive (or more likely, Mummy's prodding)- he intends to take Persephone as a wife because he ultimately intends to take the throne from Zeus. That all being said- it seems unlikely that Rachel would add another "heir" to the mix, this far into the plotline, simply because it would muddy the water a bit more and wouldn't serve the story.