system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
[The Legend of Zelda] Second princess from Adventures of Link

In Zelda 2: The Adventures of Link, the manual states that, while the Link we're playing as is the same one as in The Legend of Zelda, the Zelda we're rescuing is different. She's a princess of Hyrule from long ago, kept in a slumber by a witch's curse. At the end of the game, Link assembles the Triforce of Courage and revives her with its power.

My question is, would this cause any secessionist issues? If an older heir to the throne suddenly appeared out of nowhere, would their claim be more legitimate? Also, how come we never hear about the two princesses again, or any split in the royal bloodline this may have started?
gpt
Regarding the rules of succession, probably not. If that elder Zelda was truly incapacitated, she would have been relieved of her royal duties, and a successor would have taken her place. Forced abdication, more or less. Also, it's possible she never rose to the throne; we don't know anything about her father the King, and its possible that the current Zelda is simply the "correct" heir.

But regardless, there wouldn't be much for the two Zeldas to fight over. Hyrule in the original two *Zelda* games was a kingdom in ruin; it was the end of the "bad timeline" where Ganon gained the Triforce and the Hero of Time wasn't around to stop him.

And the reason we never hear about her again is that there are no games which take place after *Adventure of Link*. Every game released since then has been a prequel, starting with *Link to the Past* and going on from there.

There could be a civil war raging in Hyrule, for all we know, but we haven't been around to see it.