The Castlevania Dungeon Forums => General Castlevania Discussion => Topic started by: Belmont legacy on October 28, 2017, 05:31:47 PM
Title: The Belmonts are missing
Post by: Belmont legacy on October 28, 2017, 05:31:47 PM
I'm not totally sure if it is ever explained where the Belmont's disappear to after symphony of the night, (I know they have other descendants such as the Morris family and the order of ecclesia holding down the fort as far as vampire hunting) but where and why did the Belmont clan just vanish? The only conclusions I can come up with would be that a. They got spooked from Ritcher getting possessed by Shaft b. They got tired of giving the count a beat down (I don't know how anyone could tire of that c. They lost or someone stole the vampire killer from them and the Morris family claimed it. I don't think it's ever been totally confirmed, but its just something I've always wondered.
Title: Re: The Belmonts are missing
Post by: DarkPrinceAlucard on October 28, 2017, 07:14:36 PM
I'm not totally sure if it is ever explained where the Belmont's disappear to after symphony of the night, (I know they have other descendants such as the Morris family and the order of ecclesia holding down the fort as far as vampire hunting) but where and why did the Belmont clan just vanish? The only conclusions I can come up with would be that a. They got spooked from Ritcher getting possessed by Shaft b. They got tired of giving the count a beat down (I don't know how anyone could tire of that c. They lost or someone stole the vampire killer from them and the Morris family claimed it. I don't think it's ever been totally confirmed, but its just something I've always wondered.
I think it was explained that it was because Richter gave in to the forces of evil during Symphony of the Night and that instance either a.Affected the Vampire Killer's power and no longer letting the belmonts use it until the final battle or b.The clan out of shame refused to use it until the final battle with Dracula, it has to be either of the 2.
But if your interested in a fanmade story set after symphony of the night and features me and my friends take on the instance in gameplay format you can play my Dawn of Symphony hack here,
Title: Re: The Belmonts are missing
Post by: zangetsu468 on October 28, 2017, 10:53:07 PM
It's not conclusively got anything to do with Richter succumbing to Shaft's power. It is stated that Shaft's spirit was only able to enter Richter after the battle with Dracula, where presumably he could've been considerably weakened and worse for wear, injured etc.
Wind in POR states that Dracula is supposed to resurrect in 1999 and he's heard the true Belmonts can't use the VK until then. From what I've heard on previous topics on CVD, Richter was ashamed after SOTN on the Radio Drama. (However, this doesn't mean they necessarily "left" their land straight away). There seem to be a few factors at play here:
- At some stage, whether it was during SOTN in 1797 or after, it was known Dracula would resurrect in 1999. Not 100 years from x date, specifically 1999. Perhaps the Belmonts had some knowledge about this "final resurrection" taking place. Although we can't say for sure, we know prophecy does exist in the CV universe through AoS - with Nostradamus having foreseen 2035. - Richter's shame. This could explain why Richter would leave or pass on the VK, does it explain why a whole team of hunters would leave their land? Maybe... Here's the issue, in POR Jonathan has to fight the Vampire Killer's memory of the previous Belmont to have wielded it. The Memory is a manifestation of Richter Belmont. So while it's easy to say that Richter and/ or his direct bloodline could have moved away, it doesn't explain why he never passed on the VK to another Belmont, and why Jonathan now has it in the 1900's. - The Belmonts would not allow their prized weapon that has been passed on for 700+ years to randomly go alternate offshoots of their bloodline and why would they not be allowed to touch the VK? Perhaps there are two reasons, one of the Belmonts not touching the VK for 200 years (until Julius) may have been ritualistic in nature. We know that a Shinto priest and ritual was involved in sealing CV into the Solar Eclipse in 1999, so it's not that far-fetched to assume there could be another ritual(s) involving the Belmonts reuniting their heir with the VK. (Years ago on CVD I published a theory regarding Julius' amnesia and how it was linked to being separated from the VK, which imo is corroborated and supported by the game's text, specifically to losing the VK after the fight with Dracula.. I'll post the link if I can find it.), which brings me to the final point - Preserving the Belmont Bloodline: Whether or not the above points are considered, I believe that after SOTN, the Belmonts (Richter) realised their bloodline was not exempt from danger or even extinction, and this was part of the decision to temporarily move into hiding. The second part of this would be they still continued as they were, without the VK and they still continued to train, which is supported by OOE's Daniela stating that she used to fight monsters with her Grandfather (it's debatable but this figure could've been Richter). We don't know what the Belmonts did in their absence, but taking the above points into consideration, given Julius defeated Dracula while using the VK and given they kept the true bloodline of first male heirs going in secret for approximately 200 years only to reclaim the VK and defeat Dracula for the last time, the training aspect is a safe bet. If I had to put money on it, I'd say the direct descendants were trained with standard weaponry to get to the point where they were so powerful they didn't need the VK to defeat powerful creatures of the night. This is alluded to by Julius in DoS, being able to defeat some of the monsters without using "the seal" like Soma has to, while it's known that after AoS the VK's rage (full power) has faded. (Which would make Julius' task of destroying monsters more difficult in general).
Title: Re: The Belmonts are missing
Post by: Belmont legacy on October 29, 2017, 02:55:38 PM
See that's what I thought too was that it was a shame kind of thing or that the VK lost it's power. For peace of mind I'm gonna go with the factor of shaming and the vampire killer losing it's power. I mean it does make sense as to why it would drain John's life. Perhaps it needed another soul like a vessel needing charge and that's why it was functional again after it took John's life force in bloodlines. Perhaps it was corrupted when Ritcher was possessed and acted like a failsafe to lose it's power and fused to John after being passed down to him in an attempt to kill Dracula without having to risk another Belmont getting possessed. Kind of like how it was created when Sara fused her soul to it. It needed a pure of heart and soul to power it again. This would make sense as to why Johnathan has to partake in the ritual in portrait of ruin to use it.
Title: Re: The Belmonts are missing
Post by: gallandryal on October 29, 2017, 08:28:54 PM
Richter was ashamed, and and by circumstance the Belmonts had just daughters as descendant in the main line and/or disinterested sons in carrying forward the legacy of being vampire hunter.
Title: Re: The Belmonts are missing
Post by: zangetsu468 on October 30, 2017, 03:20:23 AM
Richter was ashamed, and and by circumstance the Belmonts had just daughters as descendant in the main line and/or disinterested sons in carrying forward the legacy of being vampire hunter.
Except there's nothing in infer they had daughters and no sons (or lost interest). Firstly, their bloodline included a male heir for 700+ years. In addition to which Sonia was written out of the official canon. Further to this, Julius Belmont's existence means a male heir has existed in every Belmont generation - even the few that were missing between 1797 - 1999. Julius is a Belmont by name and blood, meaning he's carried the name and bloodline from his ancestors.
Title: Re: The Belmonts are missing
Post by: X on October 30, 2017, 05:14:20 AM
It does not matter whom the eldest child's sex is, male or female, the Belmont blood is still the Belmont blood. No less potent then it was at the beginning. Names change over time depending on marriages etc, but that's not to say someone in the main family line couldn't simply change it back to Belmont. It was IGA who had decided that every first-born child of the main family line had to be male since that was his way of keeping the the name Belmont intact, and bloodline strong and pure. However genetics do not work that way. A child's sex is not determined by sacred tradition, or any other method. The child will either be a boy or a girl. And there is no such thing as a weakened bloodline depending on the sex of the child. That's just human arrogance thinking aloud. The Morris clan (as an example) are not of the Belmont name, however they are of Belmont blood and that blood is no weaker then the blood of the Belmont main family line.
Title: Re: The Belmonts are missing
Post by: DarkPrinceAlucard on October 30, 2017, 06:13:45 AM
The Morris clan (as an example) are not of the Belmont name, however they are of Belmont blood and that blood is no weaker then the blood of the Belmont main family line.
The thing is however the events of Portrait of Ruin lend to the the contrary with the whole Morris Clan being drained of their life force thing if they use the VK to long, if their bloodline was no weaker than I fail to see why this would happen, it seems to imply that although they share the bloodline with the Belmonts that they still do not possess the full power over the whip that comes with being of the true full fledged Belmont line.
Title: Re: The Belmonts are missing
Post by: theplottwist on October 30, 2017, 06:17:06 AM
It does not matter whom the eldest child's sex is, male or female, the Belmont blood is still the Belmont blood. No less potent then it was at the beginning. [...] And there is no such thing as a weakened bloodline depending on the sex of the child. That's just human arrogance thinking aloud. The Morris clan (as an example) are not of the Belmont name, however they are of Belmont blood and that blood is no weaker then the blood of the Belmont main family line.
Apparently, this is a thing for mammals and the best evidence at the moment to make inferences about humans.
So yeah, if we are to understand "Belmont bloodline" as "how genetically close a child is to their Belmont father", if a Belmont woman marries a non-Belmont man, their children will pretty much be "less Belmont" due to above.
Also, I think there is a misunderstanding of the CV lore here: The Morris cannot wield the whip because they're not true successors, and not because they're "less blood Belmonts". As Jonathan explains, they cannot wield it because the whip wasn't passed down through their family. So, it's more a matter of family tradition than of blood relations (which the plot of PoR is about).
Defeating the Whip's Memory causes the whip to recognize someone as its "rightful owner", meaning that even though a Morris "inherits" it from a previous Morris, they're still not the whip's "owner". So, John defeated the Memory and became the rightful owner, but EVEN STILL his son is not a true successor after receiving the whip from a previous "rightful owner". What gives? Well, it does appear that being "a rightful owner" and being "a true successor" are different things.
Now, do this regression enough, from Morris to Morris until Richter Belmont, the last "true successor" Belmont and rightful owner. If Richter had recognized the Morris as true successors, no unlocking ritual would be necessary for the next Morris who, as the true successor, would make the following line of Morris into subsequent "true successors".
So, it's likely that Richter did NOT intent the Morris to become "true successors" of the Belmonts, but instead act as something else. Possibly guardians. The fact that the Lecardes have a fully powered weapon at their disposal and have the unlocking knowledge while the Morris must keep a powerless weapon WITHOUT the unlocking knowledge does support the idea that they were meant only as guardians, not as wielders.
Title: Re: The Belmonts are missing
Post by: zangetsu468 on October 30, 2017, 08:07:18 AM
Sorry X but I'm sticking to my guns and Plottwist pretty much has the nail in the coffin. If a "non-Belmont" by name or whatever else could inherit the VK, then there's no need for fighting the VK's memory, nor is there a requirement for the Lecarde to have their specific bloodline which can perform the required ritual.
Sonia is written out of canon, Leon is the first Belmont, Approximately 400 years pass, CVIII happens and the Belmont name, bloodline and VK successor is still in existence. By Richter's time, they disappear for 200 years and a male heir by blood, and name is still in existence. The common theme is the males always inherit the VK, and in the gaps in time which are not filled in, the family name and bloodline are carried.
There is no evidence to state the true bloodline did not include daughters, there is however evidence that every Belmont generation had a true pure-blooded male successor. I don't buy the whole Julius changed his name, if that was the case Iga could've taken poetic license and given him a different last name.
Title: Re: The Belmonts are missing
Post by: X on October 30, 2017, 03:00:27 PM
Nothing wrong with sticking to your guns. In fact I would highly recommend it to anyone. That is what makes us all individuals after all. However I feel that it is simply a matter of sexism on the part of the writer to have no female Belmont eldest child in the main family line. In the 700+ years there would be women born first born somewhere. That is unavoidable in terms of genetics. The argument could be made that the main family line has a tradition whereas anyone who marries into the Belmont clan, regardless if they are men or women, must take the Belmont family's namesake. This easily solves the problem of the Belmont's losing their sir name. In terms of the mystical properties of the Belmont blood (I should have been specific with this in my earlier post) it doesn't matter if the child is male or female. It is magic and that is something that doesn't dilute with genetics. Sure the Morris clan are not the true successors of the whip, but that does not automatically mean they have any less magic in their blood then the main family line. And since this mystical energy is God-based (unlike the whip) there is no way it can dilute over time from anyone whether or not they are of direct decent.
Title: Re: The Belmonts are missing
Post by: Dracula9 on October 30, 2017, 05:37:51 PM
medieval gender politics probably factor in somewhere
also if it doesn't matter whether or not a child is male or female, then why does it need to be blown into an argument of sexism
it's entirely possible the belmonts just naturally draw the genetic lottery and produce predomnantly male heirs, in fact i'd be willing to bank on it considering it's a fifty-fifty chance of either gender in a new belmont child
and we get plenty of female belmonts--in OOE, that is
it's just then a question of whether or not said female belmonts can go on whipping adventures for various reasons, and the wygol belmonts didn't have this luxury (or rather curse, curse seems more appropriate a word choice) due to the VK being on hiatus for maintenance and bugfixing and albus trying to preserve the bloodline and keep them all safe and together
so this then become a case of the following:
-we have many canon female belmonts -we have many that are prominent enough in OOE's plot that, while little more than sidequest stations, are worth consideration -we have a magic alchemy god whip that can somehow sense minute genetic information as to whether someone's a pureblood and proper belmont -we have a major belmont who got fucked up and tainted the whip and bloodline in the process -we have a whip that's now tainted and in need of sealing and an unsealing test-of-worthiness ritual thing to actually use the thing proper -we have a bloodline in some measure of peril thanks to richter's fuckup that eventually requires survivors to be rounded up and kept safe
so all things considered, i don't see how a family with a special magic blood and genetic configuration or something predominantly producing male heirs prior to the bloodline/weapon being tainted by shaft (giggity) is automatically an exercise in sexism
in-universe, there're enough details for it to line up reasonably well and make enough sense to not have to worry too hard over it--magic clan bloodline, magic whip that senses bloodline purity/specifics, bloodline as a result seems to produce entirely male heirs able to use the whip
hell i could probably even make a case wherein since leon was a male belmont when the whip was first made and inexorably linked to the clan bloodline, a sort of magic recessive gene came into being which ensured a similar male belmont to be born as the next generation so the whip could continue being used normally
i mean, we've got dominant and recessive genetic configurations and conditions that pass to gender-specific offspring all the time and those aren't a problem--are we suddenly gonna call genetics and DNA sexist because mothers can only pass colorblindness to their sons and not daughters?
but that's another case entirely and i'd likely need a whole thread to formulate it in detail
the simple fact is--in-universe, enough sense is made to not be an issue
if there's any measure of sexism to be found over this, then point the finger at social gender politics of the 80s--big hulking he-men in action flicks killing monsters and enemies with the power of muscle and mankini armor
we had arnie and stallone and ventura and sonny and all the other big B-flick action hero badasses which largely influenced CV's early designs (that earlier belmonts looked straight-up like characters out of conan is proof enough of this)
if anything's to blame for a lack of female belmont leads in the series, i'd place bets on the social norms of the time rather than any specific developers
and as an aside, why does it HAVE to be a belmont? we have strong female leads and co-leads in the franchise all over the place (canon or not)--sonia was a beast despite her retconning, shanoa's a badass, maria was pretty fucking involved in SOTN's plot arc despite being a teenager (not to mention helping kill a demon king with cute animals and not stereotypical he-man toughguy action when she was twelve, we have the various women in CV64 (again, despite retconning), we have charlotte who again helped co-destroy a demon king as a teenager, we have the lecarde sisters who posed major antagonistic threat as villains and then were directly responsible for unlocking the VK's latent power, we have yoko doing snoopy political church shit in aria and acting as both weaponsmith and major player in dawn, etc. etc. etc.
i really could go on
complaining that the lack of (canon) female belmonts as some sort of sexist smear on the franchise is silly, because there are a TON of strong female leads and co-leads and characters in the series
the only "deciding" factor is that they're not belmonts, which to me seems a bit ridiculous as the prerequisite factor
so they're all awesome and strong characters, but because they're not belmonts it doesn't matter and the series is sexist? i just can't wrap my head around this logic, i'm sorry--i'm really trying to, though
at this point trying to force a female belmont in with the same lead character strength as, say, shanoa would be an exercise in futility and probably just a bad idea
have a character who is strong first, female second, and belmont last--a strong character outweighs their gender, and their gender should only have relevance accordingly and not just because someone thinks there's a lack of this or that gender, and lastly their surname/clan/familial importance should come last because it's ultimately a minor contrivance of a detail
when the priorities shift so that character gender and role are given more importance than the actual strength and personalization of the character within the narrative...
...well, we get the fucking ghostbusters remake, where quality characters and writing play second fiddle to "hey look everyone! we have a main female lead and cast! look at how progressive we are!"
and we really don't need any more of that mentality in the arts, IMO
Title: Re: The Belmonts are missing
Post by: zangetsu468 on October 30, 2017, 08:51:23 PM
D9's analogy of 50/50 is also correct, whether a couple has a son or daughter is completely random. There are plenty of families that still have several boys or girls and not the other. As well as in the dark ages that carrying on your name and title was stressed moreso than the contemporary age whereby people change names Willy nilly.
The last thing I'll clinch back to the fact that Leon's bloodline being magical/ mystical. See the fundamental difference with Leon and Mathias is that Leon remains a man of God, while Mathias rejects God. The feud goes on sporadically over 1000 years, so the Belmonts live via their descendants (true in name and bloodline) while Mathias is in constant need to be stopped. It's all very poetic in this way.
Title: Re: The Belmonts are missing
Post by: gallandryal on October 30, 2017, 10:46:40 PM
Except there's nothing in infer they had daughters and no sons (or lost interest). Firstly, their bloodline included a male heir for 700+ years. In addition to which Sonia was written out of the official canon. Further to this, Julius Belmont's existence means a male heir has existed in every Belmont generation - even the few that were missing between 1797 - 1999. Julius is a Belmont by name and blood, meaning he's carried the name and bloodline from his ancestors.
Well... By conjucture i think those are the possible scenarios:
Richter had just daughters/grandaughters and the older married a Morris, so that’s why the whip is with them. Julius randomly changed his name to Belmont again by honor or whatever.
Is it ever stated that Julius is a direct descendant of Richter and that him and Annette had offspring at all? Maybe Julius is descendant of a random Richter’s brother or uncle, that’s why he kept the surname
Following one of the previous theories , the Belmonts dispersed around the world and there’s no more “main line”, Julius is a “random” Belmont that was interested in his family story, rediscovered the whip, and wanted to fight Dracula
Richter is an idiot that threw away or locked the whip in a random place, and kept his offspring in the dark about the Belmont’s history. The whip was eventually found by a Morris and later they returned to the Belmont main line, that in modern times were almost clueless or indiferent about the family traditions
The Belmonts can't just disappear in the literal sense, especially because Julius exists and other Belmonts canonically existed before Julius.
Title: Re: The Belmonts are missing
Post by: theplottwist on October 30, 2017, 11:02:14 PM
Well... By conjucture i think those are the possible scenarios:
Richter had just daughters/grandaughters and the older married a Morris, so that’s why the whip is with them. Julius randomly changed his name to Belmont again by honor or whatever.
It's stated that Richter lent the Vampire Killer to the Morris himself "shortly after SotN". Also, I might be misunderstanting you here (and sorry if I am), but you seem to imply that the Morris came after Richter. In fact, the Morris exist ever since Trevor Belmont. It's more likely that he lent them the whip simply because they are a hella frikkin' old branch of the Belmonts themselves.
Quote
Is it ever stated that Julius is a direct descendant of Richter and that him and Annette had offspring at all? Maybe Julius is descendant of a random Richter’s brother or uncle, that’s why he kept the surname
It's confirmed Richter "disappeared with Annette", so the offspring are implied I guess.
As for Julius' heritage, yes, it's confirmed he is a legitimate Belmont. This is stated on DoS' Library Mode, but also on the official bios across other media (website, official guide), and of course, dropped casually through the games itself, such as when Yoko reminds Julius that her family fought Dracula alongside Julius' ancestors, referencing Sypha.
But, as for him being a direct descendant of Richter (and not from a brother or another equally close Belmont relative), that is not confirmed... Though I don't really think Richter had a bro or something.
Quote
The Belmonts can't just disappear in the literal sense, especially because Julius exists and other Belmonts canonically existed before Julius.
They most certainly did hide somewhere, as is the implication with official statements on the matter. Just, of course, not disappeared literally, as you said.
Title: Re: The Belmonts are missing
Post by: gallandryal on October 30, 2017, 11:30:30 PM
It's stated that Richter lent the Vampire Killer to the Morris himself "shortly after SotN". Also, I might be misunderstanting you here (and sorry if I am), but you seem to imply that the Morris came after Richter. In fact, the Morris exist ever since Trevor Belmont. It's more likely that he lent them the whip simply because they are a hella frikkin' old branch of the Belmonts themselves.
It's confirmed Richter "disappeared with Annette", so the offspring are implied I guess.
As for Julius' heritage, yes, it's confirmed he is a legitimate Belmont. This is stated on DoS' Library Mode, but also on the official bios across other media (website, official guide), and of course, dropped casually through the games itself, such as when Yoko reminds Julius that her family fought Dracula alongside Julius' ancestors, referencing Sypha.
But, as for him being a direct descendant of Richter, that is not confirmed.
They most certainly did hide somewhere, as is the implication with official statements on the matter. Just, of course, not disappeared literally, as you said.
aww thanks ;D.
I always interpreted that Ricther disappearing with Annette implied they traveled around the world or just moved to another village or country to start a new life. At that time, with no technology like internet to keep contact, it was almost the same as "disappearing"
lol sorry, I may sound confusing because english is not my first language, but I was suggesting just that the Morris could have turned a Belmont branch and consequently inherited the vampire killer because a Morris possibly married Richter's offspring - more likely a Richter's daughter
Also it's pretty clear that Julius is Trevor's descendant, but this doesn't implies necessarily that he is Richter direct descendant. Btw if he is, it implies that Richter just gave away the whip to the Morris and kept the Belmont's in the dark because he was ashamed/depressed, whatever.
Title: Re: The Belmonts are missing
Post by: zangetsu468 on October 31, 2017, 05:48:22 AM
Re: Julius being "random Belmont", he inherited the VK, so it has to have been passed to him or attained by him at some stage. If he wasn't true heir to the VK then he would've required the ritual to unlock its power, which would have never faded after the Dark Lord was no longer an issue. There's also no indication Julius' life force is being drained by the VK, which it does to non-direct-heir Belmonts.
Title: Re: The Belmonts are missing
Post by: X on October 31, 2017, 05:01:48 PM
Quote
...well, we get the fucking ghostbusters remake, where quality characters and writing play second fiddle to "hey look everyone! we have a main female lead and cast! look at how progressive we are!"
and we really don't need any more of that mentality in the arts, IMO
That we do not. I never did see the film. And nether did the AVGN for that matter lol. And there is definitely nothing progressive of a Neo-feminist for whom the director/writer is apparently. In fact it's kinda a step backwards, and to the far left..or right..? somewhere around there anyways.
But anyways to have a female lead who is a Belmont by both blood and name, wielding the vampirekiller against Dracula, wouldn't hurt the series. And putting Sonia aside it is something that should have happened a long, long time ago.
Title: Re: The Belmonts are missing
Post by: Dracula9 on October 31, 2017, 06:54:44 PM
that's precisely what i mean
it wouldn't hurt at all...provided it wasn't shoehorned in, which is a recurring problem in pop culture nowadays
have a fembelmont, by all means, just prioritize their characterization and strength of character over "hey this one has a vagina"
female, male, gay, nonbinary, whatever else--these things don't even matter if the character themselves is flat