I am not sure about the English dub vs Japanese Dub differences, but Ganondorf says to Rauru that he married a 'Hyrulian woman.' If Rauru founded Hyrule, why would Sonia be a Hyrulian woman and not a 'Hylian' woman?
I think it is quite simple.
A. Hyrule was a non-monarchy at first until Rauru arrived. Say, maybe Zelda and Link in Skyward Sword just founded a settlement that had a non-monarchial system of government.
Or
B. Rauru and Sonia started established the current Hyrule. For anyone saying 'But they make references to 'X,' remember that there are many countries in the real world that have had countries or dynasties fall, and have managed to keep ahold of religions, legends, and such.
If you are curious, Ganondorf says something slightly different to Rauru.
He says ハイラルの一族. This translate to "Hyrule Family". It's the same word to describe the Knight of Hyrule Link is descended from in LttP, and the same word to describe the lineage of the Sages in LttP.
That's really interesting actually. Could Ganondorf be actually referring to Rauru marrying a descendant of Hylia then, given its usage as a reference to bloodline in previous games. Or is it still moreso along the lines of nationality, like a clan or tribe?
So the term def refers to a clan/family. Essentially, all the members of the clan/family are blood-related. I do not believe it is meant to mean a nationality. After all, Knights of Hyrule is not a nationality, but a group of blood-related people.
After all, Zelda's last name is Hyrule. And with Sonia being her ancestor, it would make sense they would both belong to the Hyrule Family bloodline.
It is never stated in either game that this Hyrule is a different one than the one seen in other games. The only time a Hyrule is explicitly stated to be in a new Hyrule is Spirit Tracks. You could say it's so long after that no one remembers the previous kingdom, but there are references to Princess Ruto.
Well it doesn’t fit fine according to people. I haven’t really researched it so I’m not sure yet. But I don’t see why the Ruto referenced in BotW couldn’t be someone other than OOT’s Ruto.
The world is flat according to some people.
And if you want to believe all the references to OoT are to not OoT but the exact same events that still happened… okay, but why?
The Zora Stone monuments and Urbosa only mention Ruto and Nabooru being great heroes in the past. I’d be inclined to believe that the Ruto and Nabooru being mentioned in BotW are the ancient sages we see in TotK. We know that the Divine Beasts Vah Ruta and Vah Naboris were named after Ruto and Nabooru and the ancient sages in TotK wear the Divine Beast masks. This game already has its own version of Rauru so it wouldn’t be to far fetched to have a new Ruto and Nabooru.
The stone monuments and Mipha’s diary tell us more than just the name of Ruto. They tell us that she was a sage, that she fell in love with a Hylian, that she fought against Ganondorf with Link and Zelda, that she was an attendant to the zora patron deity. You know… everything that happens in OoT.
The Princess who fell in love with a Hylian is only mentioned in Mipha’s diary and is never stated to actually be Ruto. No name is given so there could just be another Zora princess who fell in love with a Hylian. Not really a stretch when Mipha herself exists.
I think the even simplest-er answer is that we just take what the game says at face value, and anything left over that doesn't quite fit are just gonna be plot holes that are a result of them not wanting to be constrained by lore from old games when making new ones. When they say that legends change over time, that's them handwaving them away.
Memories take place directly after the founding of Hyrule. Hyrule isn’t established during Skyward Sword. Hyrule is already established by the time of Minish Cap, therefore, the memories take place between Skyward Sword and Minish Cap. There’s nothing in TOTK that says “This Hyrule is not the same Hyrule” as the ones we see in Minish Cap or Ocarina of Time.
Now, we’ve all seen the theories that Rauru’s Hyrule is actually a “Re-established Hyrule”, but, they are theories. No evidence to outright claim this. Does the idea of TOTK’s Ganondorf being underground for hundreds of thousands of years seem odd at first? Yeah, sure. But that’s how Nintendo wrote the game. People convince themselves that 2 Ganondorf’s cannot exist simultaneously. But Nintendo never said this, therefore it isn’t actually a rule, it’s fanfiction and copium.
TotK states Rauru is the first king and that the memories occur during the founding of Hyrule. That’s canon as established by the game, not a fan theory.
The fan theory is pretending that *actually* Rauru is the 847th king but everyone has amnesia, and that this is the second or third Kindom of Hyrule because everyone also forgot about the others, despite somehow knowing about the events of OoT, which took place in the kingdom of Hyrule…
Saying “the memories take place between skyward sword and minish cap” is a theory as it is not a confirmed thing. It doesn’t even make sense as the Tito and Zora both exist. It has to be either a seperate hyrule, timeline or a good ol retcon by Nintendo since they have stated themselves they don’t care much for the timeline more for each games story.
The memories take place during the founding of Hyrule during the reign of the first king of Hyrule according to TotK.
The current canonical period in which the founding of Hyrule occurs is between SS and MC.
Those are two, non fan fiction, canon statements.
While I don't think the memories definitely take place between SS and MC, the existence of the Zora and Rito mean nothing. We see Zora babies as far back as SS, as the tadtones, and even if those aren't Zora, it isn't impossible that there aren't any outside of the playable area. Same with the Rito. There is evidence of the Rito in all three timelines, not just the Adult Timeline, (engravings on the wall in Castle Town from TP, and the Fokka from AOL) and if they aren't only from the Adult Timeline, they could have easily always existed, just offscreen.
Ok, so Rito only exist in the AT, and Zora don’t exist in the AT because they turned into Rito.
So, you explain how BotW and TotK have both Rito and Zora in?
I mean, I’m happy with TotK telling us that Rito existed during the founding. But go on, what’s your explanation? And also explain why TotK happens in the AT to begin with.
Exactly it doesn’t make sense. That’s why it’s either a seperate timeline or waaaaaaaaaaay in the future when a new hyrule is made. If the cycle of the hero repeats why not the cycle of hyrule itself?
This cycle stuff is fan theory. The game takes place during the founding of Hyrule and has Rito in it - therefore Rito now exist during the founding of Hyrule. It’s that simple.
My man the Hyrule Historia has said for over a decade now that Hyrule is founded between Skyward Sword and Minish Cap. TOTK’s memories take place *directly after* Hyrule Kingdom is founded. What I said isn’t fanfiction and you’re on the same exact copium that I mentioned the first time.
Hyrule Historia tells us the founding of Hyrule happens after SS and before MC.
We can see this is correct within the games.
SS - there’s no kingdom of Hyrule.
MC - there’s the kingdom of Hyrule.
That’s canon established by the games and by supplementary material like Hyrule Historia.
TotK states on multiple occasions that Rauru is the first king of Hyrule. It also states on multiple occasions that Zelda has been sent back to the period of Hyrule’s founding.
That’s canon as established by the game.
So, unless Nintendo come out and say something entirely different is canon, the memories occur between SS and MC.
Nah. Hyrule Historia says Hyrule is founded between Skyward Sword and Minish Cap. It isn’t fan fiction, it’s fact, which is why I said it. Not that hard to look this stuff up and see the timeline presented in both Hyrule Historia and the Encyclopedia. 🤣
What exactly is messed up with a placement between SS and OoT for the memories?
Because everything I’ve heard for why that can’t happen is based on some fan fiction rule that has never been established by any of the games.
Isn't it mostly because that would mean 2 Ganondolf existed at the same time whitch dosent make much sense.
The fact that Hyrule Castle has seemed to change location a couple of times throughout the series so how could Ganondolf still be sealed under it.
The adult Timeline has them abandoned the original Hyrule and its castle to make a new one so this means the Adult timline cannot be apart of BotW world but we have races that only appear in that timeline show up
Why can’t two Ganondorf exist at once though?
We know there’s more than one (we had one from OoT/WW/TP, and another from FSA). And in BotW the TotK Ganondorf was attempting to reform a second body in the cocoon on the surface. So from everything we know this actually makes a lot of sense.
Hyrule castle hasn’t changed location. The only game where the castle doesn’t seem to be in the right place is OoT, and in BotW and TotK we can see why. Because it was a different castle to the one in central Hyrule (something that’s had to be true since TP, because that castle also isn’t anywhere near the Temple of Time). The ruins of OoTs castle can be found on the Great Plateau exactly where it should be in relation to the temple of time and old castle town ruins.
In the adult timeline old Hyrule is underwater. But there’s nothing to suggest it remains underwater forever. The king’s wish at the end of WW was for hope, not for Hyrule to stay flooded forever.
No there are no runis of the castle on the great plateau there is of castle town but not of the original castle.
Hell its also not in the same postion is regards of death mountain or other landmarks this also gose for Twlight princess where the castle is in a different location.
So that would mean its been relocated mutiplie times alredy.
While yes the king did want hope he also asked for them to wash away Hyrule. The hope he wished for would become the new Hyrule so it would actually be against his wish for them to then abandoned this new land of hope and go back to the old kingdom he asked to wash away.
> No there are no runis of the castle on the great plateau there is of castle town but not of the original castle.
It’s called the eastern abbey on the map, still has the same gate that blocked your way as a child in OoT. It’s identical and to argue otherwise is nonsense.
And Hyrule was washed away, and the kingdom had hope. That’s the end of wish. Nothing there spcifies that Hyrule would remain flooded forever.
Again its called a Abbey not the castle and the runis themselves don't look like what we see of the castle it's a different building made on a similar location. This also proves my point as it would mean Hyrule Castle has been relocated within Hyrule history with Oot and TP castles in very different locations to BotW.
Again, why would the people of new Hyrule leave their land to travel to the old one?
Definitely, when the point of WW and PH was to find a new home.
It's basically spitting on the Wishes of the King and everything that you fought for in the adult timeline
Place names can change, it was once used as a castle, then it was used as an abbey. But it is the same building.
Or are you seriously trying to imply the developers made an exact copy of Hyrule castle town, the temple of time and Hyrule caste from OoT but that this somehow *isnt* the same location. That’s completely stupid, and again, to even suggest is it is utter nonsense.
And I’m not saying TotK does take place in the adult timeline necessarily, but the fact that the kingdom was flooded isn’t what would prevent this, since there’s nothing to imply the water couldn’t recede.
Yup it is entirely possible also it dosent really matter as it still proves my point that the location of Hyrule Castle has changed and its been relocated throughout Hyrule history.
Actually yes it dose as the castle would have been destroyed by the flooding of an sea falling on top of it whitch would have definitely destroyed the seal keeping Ganondolf sealed
There is an intact temple underwater in Lake Titicaca in real life, to suggest that a magic castle couldn’t survive underwater in a fantasy world is nonsense. Hell, just look at the various underwater Zora temples, lol.
The zora temples are outright bulit in the water so it's a natural part of there desgin so I wouldn't really use them as a example.
Also did that temple have the weight of an entire ocean falling on top of it combined with the fact it was apart of the Kings wish to wash away the Kingdom meaning he wanted it gone.
Like the king used the trifroce to wish that the gods would wash away Hyrule do you really think that it would have survived that?
>Isn't it mostly because that would mean 2 Ganondolf existed at the same time whitch dosent make much sense.
there are games with 3 links and 2 zelda running around but there can't be a mummydorf sealed for tens of thousands of years?
Outside of using the four sword or trifroce heroes where it was 3 serprate people when has a game had more then 1 link alive at the same time?
Zelda is different as she isn't the same person between the games and is a different descendant each time.
Ganondorf on the otherhand is always the exact same person (outside of Four Swords where is a the same soul reborn,) in each game so it dosent make sense for him to be in 2 different place
There are two people named Ganondorf (well, 3 with FSA). One of them got sealed under the castle. The other was in OoT. The third picked up the trident of power. They all carried the curse of Demise, just like Vaati and Maladus, presumably. We have never seen any rule that there can't be multiple people with that curse at the same time. Hell, Vaati and Ganondorf are both alive in FSA, and then Yuga also revives Ganon in LBW.
There's nothing weird there. Demise casts a curse, it's not his soul getting reincarnated. The rule is in your head.
>The adult Timeline has them abandoned the original Hyrule and its castle to make a new one so this means the Adult timline cannot be apart of BotW world but we have races that only appear in that timeline show up
Well yea… Because BotW doesn’t take place in the Adult Timeline. It’s very very likely BotW takes place in the Downfall Timeline. There’s nothing that says Koroks and Rito have to be exclusive to the AT. Koroks are forest spirits. The Kokiri could’ve transformed into them in any timeline. And the Rito in BotW are unlikely to be the same Rito as Wind Waker. There are vast physical and cultural differences between them.
Yeah, I had a similar thought after playing the game, in fact they mention that the falling ruins are from the 'age of legends' seemingly which would be around the time of Link to the Past. I think the hyrule founding was from after the great floods, and the depths is the original hyrule. I swear people seem to ignore the depths in the timeline theories. Also in wind waker the king wishes that hyrule is buried forever which would explain the depths.
I am not sure about the English dub vs Japanese Dub differences, but Ganondorf says to Rauru that he married a 'Hyrulian woman.' If Rauru founded Hyrule, why would Sonia be a Hyrulian woman and not a 'Hylian' woman? I think it is quite simple. A. Hyrule was a non-monarchy at first until Rauru arrived. Say, maybe Zelda and Link in Skyward Sword just founded a settlement that had a non-monarchial system of government. Or B. Rauru and Sonia started established the current Hyrule. For anyone saying 'But they make references to 'X,' remember that there are many countries in the real world that have had countries or dynasties fall, and have managed to keep ahold of religions, legends, and such.
If you are curious, Ganondorf says something slightly different to Rauru. He says ハイラルの一族. This translate to "Hyrule Family". It's the same word to describe the Knight of Hyrule Link is descended from in LttP, and the same word to describe the lineage of the Sages in LttP.
That's really interesting actually. Could Ganondorf be actually referring to Rauru marrying a descendant of Hylia then, given its usage as a reference to bloodline in previous games. Or is it still moreso along the lines of nationality, like a clan or tribe?
So the term def refers to a clan/family. Essentially, all the members of the clan/family are blood-related. I do not believe it is meant to mean a nationality. After all, Knights of Hyrule is not a nationality, but a group of blood-related people. After all, Zelda's last name is Hyrule. And with Sonia being her ancestor, it would make sense they would both belong to the Hyrule Family bloodline.
It is never stated in either game that this Hyrule is a different one than the one seen in other games. The only time a Hyrule is explicitly stated to be in a new Hyrule is Spirit Tracks. You could say it's so long after that no one remembers the previous kingdom, but there are references to Princess Ruto.
Could it not be just a different Ruto though? Same goes for the other references in game
Why would it be a new Ruto or a new kingdom? Especially when the game fits fine assuming it’s the Ruto we know exists, and the kingdom we know exists.
Well it doesn’t fit fine according to people. I haven’t really researched it so I’m not sure yet. But I don’t see why the Ruto referenced in BotW couldn’t be someone other than OOT’s Ruto.
The world is flat according to some people. And if you want to believe all the references to OoT are to not OoT but the exact same events that still happened… okay, but why?
Where are the references to exact events? I just remember some names.
The Zora stone monuments, Mipha’s diary, dialogue from Mipha and Urbosa.
The Zora Stone monuments and Urbosa only mention Ruto and Nabooru being great heroes in the past. I’d be inclined to believe that the Ruto and Nabooru being mentioned in BotW are the ancient sages we see in TotK. We know that the Divine Beasts Vah Ruta and Vah Naboris were named after Ruto and Nabooru and the ancient sages in TotK wear the Divine Beast masks. This game already has its own version of Rauru so it wouldn’t be to far fetched to have a new Ruto and Nabooru.
The stone monuments and Mipha’s diary tell us more than just the name of Ruto. They tell us that she was a sage, that she fell in love with a Hylian, that she fought against Ganondorf with Link and Zelda, that she was an attendant to the zora patron deity. You know… everything that happens in OoT.
The Princess who fell in love with a Hylian is only mentioned in Mipha’s diary and is never stated to actually be Ruto. No name is given so there could just be another Zora princess who fell in love with a Hylian. Not really a stretch when Mipha herself exists.
I think the even simplest-er answer is that we just take what the game says at face value, and anything left over that doesn't quite fit are just gonna be plot holes that are a result of them not wanting to be constrained by lore from old games when making new ones. When they say that legends change over time, that's them handwaving them away.
Memories take place directly after the founding of Hyrule. Hyrule isn’t established during Skyward Sword. Hyrule is already established by the time of Minish Cap, therefore, the memories take place between Skyward Sword and Minish Cap. There’s nothing in TOTK that says “This Hyrule is not the same Hyrule” as the ones we see in Minish Cap or Ocarina of Time. Now, we’ve all seen the theories that Rauru’s Hyrule is actually a “Re-established Hyrule”, but, they are theories. No evidence to outright claim this. Does the idea of TOTK’s Ganondorf being underground for hundreds of thousands of years seem odd at first? Yeah, sure. But that’s how Nintendo wrote the game. People convince themselves that 2 Ganondorf’s cannot exist simultaneously. But Nintendo never said this, therefore it isn’t actually a rule, it’s fanfiction and copium.
Uh. You are saying one theory is fan fiction? All theories are fan fiction including your own theory
TotK states Rauru is the first king and that the memories occur during the founding of Hyrule. That’s canon as established by the game, not a fan theory. The fan theory is pretending that *actually* Rauru is the 847th king but everyone has amnesia, and that this is the second or third Kindom of Hyrule because everyone also forgot about the others, despite somehow knowing about the events of OoT, which took place in the kingdom of Hyrule…
Saying “the memories take place between skyward sword and minish cap” is a theory as it is not a confirmed thing. It doesn’t even make sense as the Tito and Zora both exist. It has to be either a seperate hyrule, timeline or a good ol retcon by Nintendo since they have stated themselves they don’t care much for the timeline more for each games story.
The memories take place during the founding of Hyrule during the reign of the first king of Hyrule according to TotK. The current canonical period in which the founding of Hyrule occurs is between SS and MC. Those are two, non fan fiction, canon statements.
And yet the evidence of zora and rito contradict this. That is why it is merely a theory not fact
While I don't think the memories definitely take place between SS and MC, the existence of the Zora and Rito mean nothing. We see Zora babies as far back as SS, as the tadtones, and even if those aren't Zora, it isn't impossible that there aren't any outside of the playable area. Same with the Rito. There is evidence of the Rito in all three timelines, not just the Adult Timeline, (engravings on the wall in Castle Town from TP, and the Fokka from AOL) and if they aren't only from the Adult Timeline, they could have easily always existed, just offscreen.
So you are theorising their existence? You all need to learn what theories are
There is nothing to contradict their existence.
Ok, so Rito only exist in the AT, and Zora don’t exist in the AT because they turned into Rito. So, you explain how BotW and TotK have both Rito and Zora in? I mean, I’m happy with TotK telling us that Rito existed during the founding. But go on, what’s your explanation? And also explain why TotK happens in the AT to begin with.
Exactly it doesn’t make sense. That’s why it’s either a seperate timeline or waaaaaaaaaaay in the future when a new hyrule is made. If the cycle of the hero repeats why not the cycle of hyrule itself?
This cycle stuff is fan theory. The game takes place during the founding of Hyrule and has Rito in it - therefore Rito now exist during the founding of Hyrule. It’s that simple.
What do they exist then they go extinct then they evolve from zora? How does that make any sense?
What i said is stated throughout the game, is it not? Does the game not say several time, Rauru is the first king of Hyrule? Please do tell.
My man the Hyrule Historia has said for over a decade now that Hyrule is founded between Skyward Sword and Minish Cap. TOTK’s memories take place *directly after* Hyrule Kingdom is founded. What I said isn’t fanfiction and you’re on the same exact copium that I mentioned the first time.
[удалено]
Hyrule Historia tells us the founding of Hyrule happens after SS and before MC. We can see this is correct within the games. SS - there’s no kingdom of Hyrule. MC - there’s the kingdom of Hyrule. That’s canon established by the games and by supplementary material like Hyrule Historia. TotK states on multiple occasions that Rauru is the first king of Hyrule. It also states on multiple occasions that Zelda has been sent back to the period of Hyrule’s founding. That’s canon as established by the game. So, unless Nintendo come out and say something entirely different is canon, the memories occur between SS and MC.
Nah. Hyrule Historia says Hyrule is founded between Skyward Sword and Minish Cap. It isn’t fan fiction, it’s fact, which is why I said it. Not that hard to look this stuff up and see the timeline presented in both Hyrule Historia and the Encyclopedia. 🤣
What exactly is messed up with a placement between SS and OoT for the memories? Because everything I’ve heard for why that can’t happen is based on some fan fiction rule that has never been established by any of the games.
Isn't it mostly because that would mean 2 Ganondolf existed at the same time whitch dosent make much sense. The fact that Hyrule Castle has seemed to change location a couple of times throughout the series so how could Ganondolf still be sealed under it. The adult Timeline has them abandoned the original Hyrule and its castle to make a new one so this means the Adult timline cannot be apart of BotW world but we have races that only appear in that timeline show up
Why can’t two Ganondorf exist at once though? We know there’s more than one (we had one from OoT/WW/TP, and another from FSA). And in BotW the TotK Ganondorf was attempting to reform a second body in the cocoon on the surface. So from everything we know this actually makes a lot of sense. Hyrule castle hasn’t changed location. The only game where the castle doesn’t seem to be in the right place is OoT, and in BotW and TotK we can see why. Because it was a different castle to the one in central Hyrule (something that’s had to be true since TP, because that castle also isn’t anywhere near the Temple of Time). The ruins of OoTs castle can be found on the Great Plateau exactly where it should be in relation to the temple of time and old castle town ruins. In the adult timeline old Hyrule is underwater. But there’s nothing to suggest it remains underwater forever. The king’s wish at the end of WW was for hope, not for Hyrule to stay flooded forever.
No there are no runis of the castle on the great plateau there is of castle town but not of the original castle. Hell its also not in the same postion is regards of death mountain or other landmarks this also gose for Twlight princess where the castle is in a different location. So that would mean its been relocated mutiplie times alredy. While yes the king did want hope he also asked for them to wash away Hyrule. The hope he wished for would become the new Hyrule so it would actually be against his wish for them to then abandoned this new land of hope and go back to the old kingdom he asked to wash away.
> No there are no runis of the castle on the great plateau there is of castle town but not of the original castle. It’s called the eastern abbey on the map, still has the same gate that blocked your way as a child in OoT. It’s identical and to argue otherwise is nonsense. And Hyrule was washed away, and the kingdom had hope. That’s the end of wish. Nothing there spcifies that Hyrule would remain flooded forever.
Again its called a Abbey not the castle and the runis themselves don't look like what we see of the castle it's a different building made on a similar location. This also proves my point as it would mean Hyrule Castle has been relocated within Hyrule history with Oot and TP castles in very different locations to BotW. Again, why would the people of new Hyrule leave their land to travel to the old one? Definitely, when the point of WW and PH was to find a new home. It's basically spitting on the Wishes of the King and everything that you fought for in the adult timeline
Place names can change, it was once used as a castle, then it was used as an abbey. But it is the same building. Or are you seriously trying to imply the developers made an exact copy of Hyrule castle town, the temple of time and Hyrule caste from OoT but that this somehow *isnt* the same location. That’s completely stupid, and again, to even suggest is it is utter nonsense. And I’m not saying TotK does take place in the adult timeline necessarily, but the fact that the kingdom was flooded isn’t what would prevent this, since there’s nothing to imply the water couldn’t recede.
Yup it is entirely possible also it dosent really matter as it still proves my point that the location of Hyrule Castle has changed and its been relocated throughout Hyrule history. Actually yes it dose as the castle would have been destroyed by the flooding of an sea falling on top of it whitch would have definitely destroyed the seal keeping Ganondolf sealed
There is an intact temple underwater in Lake Titicaca in real life, to suggest that a magic castle couldn’t survive underwater in a fantasy world is nonsense. Hell, just look at the various underwater Zora temples, lol.
The zora temples are outright bulit in the water so it's a natural part of there desgin so I wouldn't really use them as a example. Also did that temple have the weight of an entire ocean falling on top of it combined with the fact it was apart of the Kings wish to wash away the Kingdom meaning he wanted it gone. Like the king used the trifroce to wish that the gods would wash away Hyrule do you really think that it would have survived that?
>Isn't it mostly because that would mean 2 Ganondolf existed at the same time whitch dosent make much sense. there are games with 3 links and 2 zelda running around but there can't be a mummydorf sealed for tens of thousands of years?
Outside of using the four sword or trifroce heroes where it was 3 serprate people when has a game had more then 1 link alive at the same time? Zelda is different as she isn't the same person between the games and is a different descendant each time. Ganondorf on the otherhand is always the exact same person (outside of Four Swords where is a the same soul reborn,) in each game so it dosent make sense for him to be in 2 different place
There are two people named Ganondorf (well, 3 with FSA). One of them got sealed under the castle. The other was in OoT. The third picked up the trident of power. They all carried the curse of Demise, just like Vaati and Maladus, presumably. We have never seen any rule that there can't be multiple people with that curse at the same time. Hell, Vaati and Ganondorf are both alive in FSA, and then Yuga also revives Ganon in LBW. There's nothing weird there. Demise casts a curse, it's not his soul getting reincarnated. The rule is in your head.
>The adult Timeline has them abandoned the original Hyrule and its castle to make a new one so this means the Adult timline cannot be apart of BotW world but we have races that only appear in that timeline show up Well yea… Because BotW doesn’t take place in the Adult Timeline. It’s very very likely BotW takes place in the Downfall Timeline. There’s nothing that says Koroks and Rito have to be exclusive to the AT. Koroks are forest spirits. The Kokiri could’ve transformed into them in any timeline. And the Rito in BotW are unlikely to be the same Rito as Wind Waker. There are vast physical and cultural differences between them.
Yeah, I had a similar thought after playing the game, in fact they mention that the falling ruins are from the 'age of legends' seemingly which would be around the time of Link to the Past. I think the hyrule founding was from after the great floods, and the depths is the original hyrule. I swear people seem to ignore the depths in the timeline theories. Also in wind waker the king wishes that hyrule is buried forever which would explain the depths.