Hello, looks like you're the first one to post something in my forum! It certainly took long enough. Anyway, on to your question...

To recap Zelda Fanatic's point of view, he believed that instead of the Zelda in "Ocarina of Time" being Zelda I, there was a Zelda before her. This Zelda would have been the "Sleeping Princess," not the Zelda in Ocarina of Time. As proof, he noted that the Zelda in OoT does not have an older brother, and that she looks entirely different from the "Sleeping Princess" in the "Zelda II: Adventure of Link" manual.

Zeldagirl agreed with all of the above, and added that since a Zelda and Link are born every 100 years, my timeline didn't make sense. She refers to a line in the comic book based on A Link to the Past (see the Sources section for complete information on this book), in which Princess Zelda says: "Link, I feel that you are... you must be... the Legendary Hero who appears in Hyrule once every hundred years... you are the lone protector of this land!" This quote is not to be taken as proof of anything. The comic book this quote is taken from was not written by anyone employed by Nintendo, so it should not be considered canon (official). Nothing on this site tries to conform to anything contained within this book, or to any non-canon source.

Zelda Fanatic, however, raises legitimate concerns. As I will show, however, his "proofs" are shaky, and I have a proof of my own that proves him wrong. I will first address Fanatic's proofs. Sure, the Zelda in the "Zelda II" manual has red hair and a dowdy outfit, while the Zelda in OoT is blond and wears fancy clothes. However, it is entirely possible for hair color to change as one ages. My own mother's hair went from blond to brown as she grew up. Fanatic also says that the Zelda in OoT doesn't have a brother. How do we know this? We don't. Recall that OoT never showed any other members of the royal family, not even the king (it just talked about him). Zelda's brother was such an unimportant character in the game that he was never even mentioned. Only Zelda and Impa show up in the game because they are the only important characters. Zelda's brother doesn't become important until much later...

Now for my proof. Remember that before the events in OoT ever occurred, nobody had ever found their way to the Golden Land and/or touched the Triforce. In the early history of Hyrule great sages built temples to guard the Triforce, and years later civil wars were fought over the golden triangle, but no one ever possessed and controlled it. This is where Zelda Fanatic's argument falls apart. According to the facts, the "Sleeping Princess" could NOT have come before the Zelda in OoT, as Zelda Fanatic claims! The "Zelda II" manual says that a great king used the Triforce to keep the peace. When he died part of the Triforce went to his son, and only Princess Zelda knew about the other pieces.

My way is the only way that makes sense. The Sleeping Princess was either the Zelda in OoT, or she came after her, but common sense shows that it could only have been Zelda in OoT. The "Zelda II" manual says that every Princess Zelda was named after the Sleeping Princess. This makes it very unlikely that the Sleeping Princess came after the Zelda in OoT or LttP. I find it improbable that two princesses of Hyrule or more just "happened" to be named Zelda before the Sleeping Zelda came along. One could say that another Zelda could have been born in between  OoT and Lttp. However, according to Sahasrahla in "Zelda II: A Link to the Past," only three generations, or little over 100 years, came between the events in OoT and LttP. There wasn't very much time for these events to occur between OoT and Lttp.

Thanks for bearing with me. Hopefully I haven't made you even more confused. It might help to read my essay in the Essays section called "The Sleeping Zelda," re-read the Zelda II manual (look in the Games section for the text version), and read "Interim: The Legend of Zelda" in the Legends section.