#I just have thoughts about the persistence of monarchy in this game when they've been able to live without one for a century.

[tea-paint]

Okay I need to yeet this into the void: there should NOT be a 'Princess' Zelda in totk.

It doesn't make sense to me. Those still living can finally shed some of the kingdom's hundred-year grief with the ousting of Calamity Ganon. Zelda is free. Link has completed the mission of the century. It's a new start for the these two people, displaced in time, and another realm of possibility for those that built a life in the meantime.

Why are they trying to rebuild a kingdom in that way. Why is Zelda "Princess Zelda," when she clearly has a passion for learning and teaching. She should be at Hateno, helping cultivate its beloved seedlings, the next generation! Why does it look like they're trying to reinstate the Hyrule dynasty?

Breath of the Wild, to me, is a story about saving your friend and learning to live with the earth. It's about living in pockets of the world, and putting in the effort to cross nature's boundaries for the sake of helping others. Tears of the Kingdom going in this direction, emphasizing that they fall under Princess Zelda's banner, just feels wrong to me, instinctually and thematically.

Maybe I have this point of view because I haven't finished the game. And I'm happy to change my mind if I come across new information and insights from playing. But right now, as I see people say "Princess Zelda" this, "Her Highness" that, about the girl who only ever wanted to learn about the world and be free, I can't say I agree.