Castlevania Dungeon Forums

The Castlevania Dungeon Forums => General Castlevania Discussion => Topic started by: Intersection on August 26, 2013, 11:36:02 AM

Title: The "Era of no Belmont"
Post by: Intersection on August 26, 2013, 11:36:02 AM
You all know what happened: desperate to reunite Castlevania with its literary inspiration, Konami had chosen to name Bloodlines’ next whip-wielding hero ‘John Morris’, in honor of his famed father, Quincey Morris, from Bram Stoker’s Dracula.

Yet by doing so Konami created one of Castlevania’s most glaring plot holes: what was a “Morris” doing in a world so dominated by the Belmont lineage? And why would this complete stranger be the inheritor of Leon’s legendary whip?

“Well, explained Konami, the Morris family actually has some vague ties with the Belmonts, that we don’t really care to specify.”
But then why, asked fans, didn’t the era’s actual Belmont use the whip? Why would he accept for its power to be delegated? Was it true, like some conspiracy theorists advanced, that the Belmont bloodline had finally died off?

Enter the prophecy: “Until 1999, no Belmont Shall Touch the Whip,” quoth Nostradamus, or some other foolish augur. Ergo, Shanoa, ergo Morris and Lecarde.
"But why, might again have asked Jonathan in a different life, why couldn't any Belmont use the whip? For what reason were humanity’s greatest champions barred from the weapon they so cherished?” Eric Lecarde, somber, would have turned his head and remained silent, for this answer yet remains a mystery...

And yet it is to you I now turn, loyal fans, to solve it once and for all.
Between Richter and Julius, what devilish device, what malignant curse had kept the Belmonts away? What happened during the "Era of no Belmont"?
Title: Re: The "Era of no Belmont"
Post by: Pfil on August 26, 2013, 01:08:41 PM
I always thought that it was just a last name change because some female Belmont girl got married with a male Morris, and that's how the lineage wasn't interrupted but the last name changed.
Title: Re: The "Era of no Belmont"
Post by: jestercolony on August 26, 2013, 01:30:52 PM
You all know what happened: desperate to reunite Castlevania with its literary inspiration, Konami had chosen to name Bloodlines’ next whip-wielding hero ‘John Morris’, in honor of his famed father, Quincey Morris, from Bram Stoker’s Dracula.

Yet by doing so Konami created one of Castlevania’s most glaring plot holes: what was a “Morris” doing in a world so dominated by the Belmont lineage? And why would this complete stranger be the inheritor of Leon’s legendary whip?

“Well, explained Konami, the Morris family actually has some vague ties with the Belmonts, that we don’t really care to specify.”
But then why, asked fans, didn’t the era’s actual Belmont use the whip? Why would he accept for its power to be delegated? Was it true, like some conspiracy theorists advanced, that the Belmont bloodline had finally died off?

Enter the prophecy: “Until 1999, no Belmont Shall Touch the Whip,” quoth Nostradamus, or some other foolish augur. Ergo, Shanoa, ergo Morris and Lecarde.
"But why, might again have asked Jonathan in a different life, why couldn't any Belmont use the whip? For what reason were humanity’s greatest champions barred from the weapon they so cherished?” Eric Lecarde, somber, would have turned his head and remained silent, for this answer yet remains a mystery...

And yet it is to you I now turn, loyal fans, to solve it once and for all.
Between Richter and Julius, what devilish device, what malignant curse had kept the Belmonts away? What happened during the "Era of no Belmont"?


Allow me to elaborate. The reason why the Morris' family was chosen to heir the whip was due to the fact that Richter Belmont became tainted by evil and controlled by the dark priest Shaft (i.e SoTN.) This tainted the Belmont bloodline with darkness. As the story progresses with OoE, we begin to understand that Dracula's magic can be separated from him by the use of very special runes (known as Glyphs), we also begin to understand that the blood of a Belmont has a very interesting tie against Dracula. Eventually the events of Bloodlines took place, and then we find the events of PoR, in this we find out, again that Dracula's power can be separated from him and leave him a weakened state (hence the paintings)

Eventually these studies and concepts lay out the lines to the Demon Castle War and how it formulates on how they actually separated Dracula from the Demon Castle; and able to destroy him once and for all, while being able to seal his castle in to an Eclipse. Then of course the events of AoS and DoS play out. There is really no plot hole here, you just really need to be able to pay attention to the following games for it to make sense

 - SoTN
 - OoE
 - PoR
 - AoS
 - DOS

Title: Re: The "Era of no Belmont"
Post by: Lelygax on August 26, 2013, 02:16:28 PM

Allow me to elaborate. The reason why the Morris' family was chosen to heir the whip was due to the fact that Richter Belmont became tainted by evil and controlled by the dark priest Shaft (i.e SoTN.) This tainted the Belmont bloodline with darkness.

I think this part is wrong, Soleiyu says hello.
Title: Re: The "Era of no Belmont"
Post by: jestercolony on August 26, 2013, 03:24:23 PM
I think this part is wrong, Soleiyu says hello.

Hah! I forgot about that one! :P
Title: Re: The "Era of no Belmont"
Post by: KaZudra on August 26, 2013, 05:01:41 PM
Reinhardt Schneider was originally intended to be a Belmont, but changed to a distant relative, for awhile these game weren't canon until CoTM...
Ironically, John Morris had no ties to the Belmont family until PoR, which was unnecessary because Nathan Graves can wield the VK without any blood ties to Belmonts.

In reality: IGA took advantage of the situation and made the non-Belmont era, for awhile it was interesting until the constant phoning in on the 1999 thing...

In Games: Somehow Ritcher cursed the Bloodline from using the Whip in SoTN, thus Creating the Era.

It would have made more sense if the Vampire Killer was exhausted of its power either by Richter outputting so much power or by that concentrated era of resurrections, or something else that makes more sense....
Title: Re: The "Era of no Belmont"
Post by: TheouAegis on August 26, 2013, 05:09:59 PM
I think it was just a girl got married. That's the most plausible and doesn't require any metaphysical hokey malarkey to explain. Madame Belmond was wed to Monsieur Morris and the bloodline was kept strong giggity.
Title: Re: The "Era of no Belmont"
Post by: DragonSlayr81 on August 26, 2013, 05:43:10 PM
I always tend to believe whatever happened with Richter, it happened after SotN. That's just my belief. My concept(idea based on fanfiction) is that Dracula's minions want to prevent a Belmont from wielding the VK for a century or two(close to two centuries, if this occurs late 18th century/early 19th century), so that there will be no one of that caliber around when Dracula eventually is resurrected(until 1999). Of course, they don't know about the Morris clan. It would've been an interesting follow up, or perhaps a TRUE sequel to SotN. Richter was 19 in 1792, 24 in 1797, meaning he was in his late 20s-early 30s in the early 1800s.

I remember tha old Japanese family tree of the Belmonts(came out around LoI or CoD) that said the Morris clan branched out of the Belmont lineage after Trevor, but before Christopher(meaning they only have Leon and Trevor's blood in them, but aren't descended from Christopher(and Soleiyou), Simon, Juste and Richter. You can use that to somewhat justify why they aren't as strong(if with each generation, the vampire hunters grow stronger, and each generation are basically trained as vampire hunters). Maybe, within all that time, the Morris clan moved away and for generations, unlike the Belmonts, who kept active as vampire hunters, the Morris clan lived a peaceful existence away from all that. They eventually are brought back into the clan's business because they hold the blood of Leon, but lack the skill that comes with generation after generation of fighting evil.
Title: Re: The "Era of no Belmont"
Post by: Lelygax on August 26, 2013, 05:45:06 PM
Ironically, John Morris had no ties to the Belmont family until PoR, which was unnecessary because Nathan Graves can wield the VK without any blood ties to Belmonts.

No, its named Hunter Whip in CotM.

I always tend to believe whatever happened with Richter, it happened after SotN. That's just my belief.

Its shown in Radio Drama that Richter is doing well and using the whip without problems after SotN, so it must be something else other than this brainwash thing.

Title: Re: The "Era of no Belmont"
Post by: X on August 26, 2013, 06:27:01 PM
I think the most unconfused explanation as to why the Morris clan had the whip and not the Belmonts was due to the developers of CV: Bloodines. They wanted to fit Bram Stoker's Dracula into the CV universe and did so by making bloodlines. And since Quincy Morris was the one to deliver the fatal blow to Dracula they made him into a belmont by blood relation. They stated that the Morris clan were decedents of the house of Belmont. Not directly descended though. As to why they ended up with the whip was not mentioned until many games later, and not in full detail either; It's all guesswork at this point. All we have is the '1999 battle' which is mentioned throughout the latter half of the series in bits and pieces. If there ever was to be a 1999 Demon Castle War, then we might have a full-on explanation about the Belmonts being unable to wield the vampirekiller, and other things that manages to tie everything else together. But IGA has been very reluctant about it and instead, made other CV games that only added to the confusion rather then outright explaining things clearly. Personally if I were him, the 1999 game would have been done after it was mentioned in AoS. Nobody back then had any real expectations of what it was to be like. His problem was that he waited too long and generated all this hype; essentially creating a monster that's too big for him to tackle now. Even more-so since he's no longer producing CV games.
Title: Re: The "Era of no Belmont"
Post by: Reinhart77 on August 26, 2013, 09:14:04 PM
One of my theories involves memory loss.  The Belmont remnants in Order of Ecclesia forgot about their monster hunting past.  Julius forgot he was a Belmont before Aria of Sorrow, why not before the Battle of 1999 as well?  I also suspect it might have been an intentional memory loss, perhaps figuring that the only way the family could follow the rules of that prophesy and "never touch the whip" until 1999 (why, I don't have any theories on) would be to forget who they were.  It is also "nice" that after so many centuries, the Belmonts "get a break" and let someone else do the heavy lifting, while they live out their lives in obscurity for a while. 
Title: Re: The "Era of no Belmont"
Post by: Lelygax on August 26, 2013, 09:35:06 PM
That makes a LOT of sense to me, they even hint at it using a "Whip Memory" in PoR. What if its not a common trait of the whip, but truly Richter combat memories and will to fight in it? If that is right, maybe a Lecard or even Alucard is needed to lock and unlock a Belmont memory.
Title: Re: The "Era of no Belmont"
Post by: Pfil on August 26, 2013, 10:25:16 PM
I think it was just a girl got married. That's the most plausible and doesn't require any metaphysical hokey malarkey to explain. Madame Belmond was wed to Monsieur Morris and the bloodline was kept strong giggity.
That's exactly my point, we don't need more explanations than just that simple fact.
Title: Re: The "Era of no Belmont"
Post by: Inccubus on August 26, 2013, 11:12:25 PM
I think they were pretty clear about what the Whip's Memory is. Like the description says it's nothing more than a manifestation of the whip's memory of it's last wielder. Now the fact that both John and possibly Quincy used the whip before Jonathan infers that the last wielder means the last Belmont wielder. This is further evidenced by the need of a ritual for Jonathan to be able to use the whip at any measure of it's full potential without it outright killing him.

At any rate the only things we know for sure is that SOMETHING happened after SotN that causes the the situation. Anything else is no more theory and conjecture.
Title: Re: The "Era of no Belmont"
Post by: Pfil on August 26, 2013, 11:13:56 PM
That's a perfect opportunity to have a game explaining that.
What are you waiting, stupid lazy Konami? >:(
Title: Re: The "Era of no Belmont"
Post by: DragonSlayr81 on August 26, 2013, 11:43:44 PM
Its shown in Radio Drama that Richter is doing well and using the whip without problems after SotN, so it must be something else other than this brainwash thing.
It would have to be something AFTER that. There could've been something that took place after the radio drama(perhaps that cancelled IGA Alucard game).
Title: Re: The "Era of no Belmont"
Post by: X on August 27, 2013, 12:20:13 AM
Quote
What are you waiting, stupid lazy Konami? >:(

Lords of Shadow 2.
Title: Re: The "Era of no Belmont"
Post by: Pfil on August 27, 2013, 01:15:13 AM
It would have to be something AFTER that. There could've been something that took place after the radio drama(perhaps that cancelled IGA Alucard game).

Lords of Shadow 2.

Do you guys think that we will get the cancelled Alucard game developed by a new studio around a year after LoS 2 is released?
Title: Re: The "Era of no Belmont"
Post by: Shiroi Koumori on August 27, 2013, 03:19:13 AM
Do you guys think that we will get the cancelled Alucard game developed by a new studio around a year after LoS 2 is released?

I won't raise my hopes, only to let it shatter.
Title: Re: The "Era of no Belmont"
Post by: Trevorcard on August 27, 2013, 03:30:14 AM
Probably not. And I am actually hoping not. Not because I am anti Igrashi but because his strengths don't lie in the 3D realm. I think its reasonable to assume that Alucard game would have suffered from similar flaws of Curse of Darkness and Lament of Innocene. I am actually hoping Igrashi comes back with the 1999 game in 2D or some great 2D castlevania game after LOS.
Title: Re: The "Era of no Belmont"
Post by: Chernabogue on August 27, 2013, 04:36:41 AM
Do you guys think that we will get the cancelled Alucard game developed by a new studio around a year after LoS 2 is released?
Some people are still hoping for this? I'm pretty sure it's dead and burried since the development of LoS1.
Title: Re: The "Era of no Belmont"
Post by: Dark Nemesis on August 27, 2013, 05:01:08 AM
Quote
Do you guys think that we will get the cancelled Alucard game developed by a new studio around a year after LoS 2 is released?

To be honest, i think that it's resting along side resurrection, never meant to be seen the day light.
Title: Re: The "Era of no Belmont"
Post by: Nagumo on August 27, 2013, 08:50:50 AM
Konami's opinion on the matter:

(http://img547.imageshack.us/img547/341/wrii.png)

 
Title: Re: The "Era of no Belmont"
Post by: Trevorcard on August 27, 2013, 09:01:57 AM
Konami's opinion on the matter:

(http://img547.imageshack.us/img547/341/wrii.png)

 
The image made me imagine this is ending to Igrashi Castlevania or Mercury Steam Castlevania but with Castlevania characters :P.
Konami : You want an explanation. Here is your explanation!
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: The "Era of no Belmont"
Post by: Thomas Belmont on August 27, 2013, 09:15:52 AM
That's a perfect opportunity to have a game explaining that.
What are you waiting, stupid lazy Konami? >:(


Oh, come on! Iga had plenty of opportunities to explain why but decided to make a bunch of pointless sequels instead.
Title: Re: The "Era of no Belmont"
Post by: Pfil on August 27, 2013, 02:38:09 PM
But I didn't mention Iga, I even speculated about the Alucard game developed by a new studio.
I don't think he made pointless sequels, but imagine he did, OK. We still can have a game happening in that time period explaining the events which are we currently guessing about in this thread.
I think the essence of what it is can make a very compelling story.
Title: Re: The "Era of no Belmont"
Post by: Neobelmont on August 27, 2013, 03:08:12 PM
That's a perfect opportunity to have a game explaining that.
What are you waiting, stupid lazy Konami? >:(

Uhhh it's konami I don't know what to say to that uhh ugga booga?

But I didn't mention Iga, I even speculated about the Alucard game developed by a new studio.
I don't think he made pointless sequels, but imagine he did, OK. We still can have a game happening in that time period explaining the events which are we currently guessing about in this thread.
I think the essence of what it is can make a very compelling story.

True but that was an iga made game so that's his project if I'm wrong tell me but as for the Alucard game all of you probably all ready know my answer to this but I'll pass but I would be interested in it if Troy Baker voiced Richter that would have sold me. 
Title: Re: The "Era of no Belmont"
Post by: Lelygax on August 27, 2013, 03:28:22 PM
I think they were pretty clear about what the Whip's Memory is. Like the description says it's nothing more than a manifestation of the whip's memory of it's last wielder. Now the fact that both John and possibly Quincy used the whip before Jonathan infers that the last wielder means the last Belmont wielder. This is further evidenced by the need of a ritual for Jonathan to be able to use the whip at any measure of it's full potential without it outright killing him.

What you said doesnt contradict anything that I have said, you know that right? We are only trying to create theories here, since a lack of evidence doesnt let us create something more consistent :P

Also this ritual was not for "Jonathan to be able to use the whip at any measure of it's full potential without it outright killing him", he CAN'T use it properly without this ritual and the whip will kill him anyway if he overuse it like John did.
Title: Re: The "Era of no Belmont"
Post by: Thomas Belmont on August 27, 2013, 07:00:41 PM
But I didn't mention Iga, I even speculated about the Alucard game developed by a new studio.
I don't think he made pointless sequels, but imagine he did, OK. We still can have a game happening in that time period explaining the events which are we currently guessing about in this thread.
I think the essence of what it is can make a very compelling story.


I mentioned Iga because he is the reason why the explanation was never told. In my opinion, games like DoS, Curse of Darkness, Order of Ecclesia, etc. were pointless because they did nothing to progress the Castlevania story line. If anything, they created more questions.   
Title: Re: The "Era of no Belmont"
Post by: Pfil on August 27, 2013, 10:33:16 PM
Indeed, they created more questions, but listening to Curse of Darkness and Order of Eclessia soundtracks so frequently, I would never say those games were pointless, or any other CV game for that matter.
Not to mention that, apart from listening to CV music every day, all those are games that I love to play again from time to time.
More questions? From a point of view, that's good. It means more games, more soundtracks...
Title: Re: The "Era of no Belmont"
Post by: Shiroi Koumori on August 27, 2013, 11:07:25 PM
More questions? From a point of view, that's good. It means more games, more soundtracks...

More items for our collections!

I believe more questions are fun since it allows us to exercise our minds. If everything has an answer, then wouldn't life be boring?
Title: Re: The "Era of no Belmont"
Post by: Pfil on August 28, 2013, 12:10:30 AM
More items for our collections!

I believe more questions are fun since it allows us to exercise our minds. If everything has an answer, then wouldn't life be boring?
Playing life with Game Genie  :P
Title: Re: The "Era of no Belmont"
Post by: The Puritan on August 28, 2013, 06:43:09 AM
But I didn't mention Iga, I even speculated about the Alucard game developed by a new studio.

Sounds like something Platinum Games could do.  ;)
Title: Re: The "Era of no Belmont"
Post by: Thomas Belmont on August 28, 2013, 08:32:15 AM
Indeed, they created more questions, but listening to Curse of Darkness and Order of Eclessia soundtracks so frequently, I would never say those games were pointless, or any other CV game for that matter.
Not to mention that, apart from listening to CV music every day, all those are games that I love to play again from time to time.
More questions? From a point of view, that's good. It means more games, more soundtracks...


I meant story wise. Story wise, the games are pointless. They didn't progress the story...at all. I'm all for some mysteries in video games but something important as to why there were no Belmonts around to go up against Dracula at that time should not be a mystery. 
Title: Re: The "Era of no Belmont"
Post by: X on August 28, 2013, 09:37:19 AM
Quote
I meant story wise. Story wise, the games are pointless. They didn't progress the story...at all. I'm all for some mysteries in video games but something important as to why there were no Belmonts around to go up against Dracula at that time should not be a mystery. 

Agreed.
Title: Re: The "Era of no Belmont"
Post by: Intersection on August 28, 2013, 11:27:17 AM
Of course, Konami was making it all up as they went along. Portrait of Ruin prolonged the Morris line simply because there wasn’t enough space for another Belmont. They felt it warranted an explanation, so they came up with that poor excuse for a “prophecy” Lecarde gives us in the game, which mentioned 1999 only because they had used Julius in the previous Sorrow series.
It was the same for Order of Ecclesia; because they had banished the Belmonts from the 1800’s, they could invent whomever they wanted.

Yet I wouldn’t call these games “pointless”; on their own, their stories were quite decent and moved the game forward at a good pace. And as for the rest of what these games offered… it’s a whole different story.
The Castlevania storyline isn’t exactly known to be very stable, anyway.
As for CoD, that game has one of my favorite plots in the entire series (save maybe LoS, but that’s different).
Title: Re: The "Era of no Belmont"
Post by: Nagumo on August 28, 2013, 12:01:18 PM
Eh, I believe it when IGA said he had the entire story of 1797 - 2035 planned out. It's just the "gamplay over story" method has prevented us from learning the answer. Each game does reveal a little bit of the puzzle each time. We do know what happend to the Belmonts, we just don't know why it happend.  :-\
Title: Re: The "Era of no Belmont"
Post by: AngelicDefier on August 28, 2013, 02:41:34 PM
Reinhardt Schneider was originally intended to be a Belmont, but changed to a distant relative, for awhile these game weren't canon until CoTM...
Ironically, John Morris had no ties to the Belmont family until PoR, which was unnecessary because Nathan Graves can wield the VK without any blood ties to Belmonts.

In reality: IGA took advantage of the situation and made the non-Belmont era, for awhile it was interesting until the constant phoning in on the 1999 thing...

In Games: Somehow Ritcher cursed the Bloodline from using the Whip in SoTN, thus Creating the Era.

It would have made more sense if the Vampire Killer was exhausted of its power either by Richter outputting so much power or by that concentrated era of resurrections, or something else that makes more sense....

Actually the whip that Nathan wields is not Vampire Killer, it's a similar whip name the Hunter Whip, you know like the Undead Killer in PoR.
Title: Re: The "Era of no Belmont"
Post by: Lelygax on August 28, 2013, 02:47:06 PM
Actually the whip that Nathan wields is not Vampire Killer, it's a similar whip name the Hunter Whip, you know like the Undead Killer in PoR.

I've already said that, but this serves to reforce my statement, thanks and welcome to the forum :)
Title: Re: The "Era of no Belmont"
Post by: Pfil on August 28, 2013, 10:15:40 PM
Sounds like something Platinum Games could do.  ;)
And I'd totally support that if it turns out to be like Bayonetta.


I meant story wise. Story wise, the games are pointless. They didn't progress the story...at all. I'm all for some mysteries in video games but something important as to why there were no Belmonts around to go up against Dracula at that time should not be a mystery. 
Oh, I see.
I can see the beauty surrounding a mystery. I'd like an explanation, of course, but at this point, we've all had speculated so much, that (just as the 1.999 battle game) nor explanation neither game would satisfy the fanbase's majority.

Actually the whip that Nathan wields is not Vampire Killer, it's a similar whip name the Hunter Whip, you know like the Undead Killer in PoR.
Another Portrait of Ruin fan! Yay!!!  ;D
Welcome to the Dungeon! You can check in at any time, but you can never leave...
Title: Re: The "Era of no Belmont"
Post by: Oniros on October 13, 2013, 06:29:22 PM
My theory is that all protagonists are descendants of the Belmonts but they don't know it. :P
Title: Re: The "Era of no Belmont"
Post by: Inccubus on October 13, 2013, 07:48:10 PM
Aren't most of the protagonists already counted as such? I mean except for Shanoa there isn't really any question for the others since they're either partners that don't wield the Vampire Killer or they are members of families indirectly related to the Belmont line.
Title: Re: The "Era of no Belmont"
Post by: Intersection on October 14, 2013, 12:27:09 PM
Hey, my old thread has come back.

Aren't most of the protagonists already counted as such? I mean except for Shanoa there isn't really any question for the others since they're either partners that don't wield the Vampire Killer or they are members of families indirectly related to the Belmont line.
Not quite. Alucard, Eric, Nathan, Soma, Charlotte, Hector, Shanoa.... For the sake of naming a few. Unless that's what you mean by "partners that don't wield the VK".

My theory is that all protagonists are descendants of the Belmonts but they don't know it. :P
The next major CV plot twist:
(click to show/hide)

... Nah. That would make it all seem so utterly uninteresting. It's part of the fun to get to know the character you're playing as, and to understand why he was chosen in the first place.
Maybe CV's storyline isn't as pampered as in Konami's other flagship series, but we'll have to make do with what we have. If our Castlevania lore won't be handed to us in its 'official' form, we'll just have to make it up. Another reason why I consider it to be a crime that the CV fanfic site isn't more populated...

And speaking of continuities, why don't we just implement our own "Dungeon Timeline", just for the hell of it?
Title: Re: The "Era of no Belmont"
Post by: X on October 14, 2013, 05:23:48 PM
Quote
And speaking of continuities, why don't we just implement our own "Dungeon Timeline", just for the hell of it?

We've got a thread about that already. However it's been months (longer then six) so resurrecting it would be a not-so good idea. Unless you wanted to start a new one...
Title: Re: The "Era of no Belmont"
Post by: Shiroi Koumori on October 15, 2013, 10:48:52 PM
I like Jorge's unofficial timeline (http://castlevaniadungeon.net/forums/index.php/topic,5883.msg127853.html#msg127853)
Title: Re: The "Era of no Belmont"
Post by: zangetsu468 on October 29, 2013, 07:25:58 PM
One of my theories involves memory loss.  The Belmont remnants in Order of Ecclesia forgot about their monster hunting past.  Julius forgot he was a Belmont before Aria of Sorrow, why not before the Battle of 1999 as well?  I also suspect it might have been an intentional memory loss, perhaps figuring that the only way the family could follow the rules of that prophesy and "never touch the whip" until 1999 (why, I don't have any theories on) would be to forget who they were.  It is also "nice" that after so many centuries, the Belmonts "get a break" and let someone else do the heavy lifting, while they live out their lives in obscurity for a while.

I'm not certain I follow the reasoning why Julius would have memory loss before the battle of 1999. In AOS it's implied he lost his memory from the aftermath of the 1999 events. It's assumed the VK would have still been used by Richter after SOTN though before he could pass it to the next Belmont something changed. Think about OOE, their bloodlines were remaining in Wygol Village, yet there was no direct Belmont heir to the whip. Interestingly the Old woman Daniela is described as "An old woman with memories of fighting monsters with her grandfather." OOE is set in the 1800's, Richter defeated Dracula in the late 1700's, which probably does not leave enough time for another successor.

Edit: What I meant to add was, if all Belmonts had their memories wiped then Daniela wouldn't have memories of fighting monsters with her Grandfather.

Additionally in POR it's stated that using the VK ended up causing John Morris' (from Bloodlines) death. Hence after the events of POR Jonathan Morris will also die (after the best ending which included defeating the Whip's memory) as only the true Belmont descendants with the pure bloodline presumably could wield the VK without this happening.

For some reason the Belmonts went into hiding. Perhaps after Richter was controlled in SOTN they realised the whip's power would be used against humanity so they voluntarily lived in secret (perhaps fleeing Wallachia) until the time of Julius Belmont.

Reinhardt Schneider was originally intended to be a Belmont, but changed to a distant relative, for awhile these game weren't canon until CoTM...
Ironically, John Morris had no ties to the Belmont family until PoR, which was unnecessary because Nathan Graves can wield the VK without any blood ties to Belmonts.

John Morris in Bloodlines is the son of Quincy Morris from the Novel Dracula, that's the entire point - the Morris' came from the Belmont clan, Konami wanted to include the original Dracula Mythos in the timeline.
Title: Re: The "Era of no Belmont"
Post by: Lumi Kløvstad on October 30, 2013, 12:11:27 PM
I also note that IGA wasn't a huge fan of using the Belmonts as playable protaganists because he apparently felt the whip was a play style in danger of becoming stale, as a real world explanation for the lack of Belmont butchness.

Harmony of Dissonance had one and so did Lament, but Aria, Curse, Dawn, Portrait, and Ecclesia all dodged it. HD had several, but as a spin off entry, it doesn't really count. If a Belmont was playable at all, they were a bonus unlockable character as a reward for finishing, with only Dawn daring to give a playable Belmont an actual storyline for his mode (such as it was-- but it was freaking awesome). Worth noting that Circle of the Moon, a non-Iga game that kicked off that series of Belmont-lite games, also dodged a Belmont protaganist (but had other reasons for it).
Title: Re: The "Era of no Belmont"
Post by: chainsawmidget on October 31, 2013, 01:46:40 AM
The image made me imagine this is ending to Igrashi Castlevania or Mercury Steam Castlevania but with Castlevania characters :P.
Konami : You want an explanation. Here is your explanation!
(click to show/hide)
In that video there's a Penguin with a nametag that says "Pen." 
In Wai Wai World, there's a penguin named Pentarou that works with Simon Belmont. 

Coincidence?  I think not. 

Clearly, if we understood penguin and could understand the penguin in that video, our questions would all be answered.