I am trying to find lines that refer to the meaning of the family crest besides what it actually is 
. Had kinzo ever made a speech about it? I have been going through chiru and have not come across it again, and just reread the English manga. So I am thinking I might have dreamed it up. Any local Natsuhi out there to remind me?
I’m always incredibly impressed by the long theories I see in other threads. While I do enjoy reading the theories, it also makes me feel a little bit left out, because I don’t theorize so deeply. I want to believe in the magic side of things, because it’s something that’s familiar to me. The fantasies, the concept of fragments, ect. It’s familiar to me, it feels home. I honestly take the idea of forgeries to mean that anyone can create a new fragment, and despite knowing the forgeries are stories, I accept each one as its own valid universe. I believe in the magic and fantasies too much to try to theorize and figure out the symbolic meaning behind the existence of each character (such as Will, for example), so it makes me feel sorta like the odd one out here on Rokkejima. 
4 Likes
Trust me fam, you don’t wanna think about Umineko as much as I do-it actively ruins your life.
2 Likes
What if there really is only 1 gun in the real Rokkenjima?
I feel the obvious solution is that Yasu hid the other guns beforehand. The servants wouldn’t mention the lack of guns because they’re part of the conspiracy and Natsuhi wouldn’t be familiar with how many guns exist because though she runs the household I don’t get the impression she’d be in charge of maintaining Kinzo’s gun collection in a traditionally male-dominated household. This theory follows into Episode 2 where both Krauss and Natsuhi are dead from the first twilight and Rosa is only able to acquire a weapon with the approval of Yasu after becoming their accomplice. It’s just another reason why it makes sense to kill Krauss early on, he knows the most about the resources on the island including weapons.
The only other character who might know about the collection in episodes one and two is Eva (she grew up on the island after all) but as we know she is an accomplice in episode one and beyond that believes the murders were faked. There are plenty of characters who would know about the existence of the extra guns (Kinzo’s gun collection is mentioned in Episode One but never shown) but none of them are in a position where they would want to use them.
EDIT: A Seasoned Veteran and a Sherlock-in-Training Try to Make Sense of Umineko No Naku Koro Ni
More things I’m noticing in my reread, now that I can freely research the magic circles without fear of spoilers. According to this site the circle is required to be drawn in Gold for it to have effect, something which we obviously associate with a) the Ushiromiya inheritance and b) the Golden truth, a truth which an individual believes in their heart to be true. I think that this research is further hinting that the ‘magic’ explanation doesn’t rely on supernatural rituals and spells and also that the circles drawn have a different purpose than to free from physical bonds of iron.
I’m also reminded of a pair of fan illustrations of the One-Winged Eagle, one with Beatrice drawing in glittering gold and the other depicting Yasu drawing in blood. I’ll see if I can link them when I get the chance.
2 Likes
Moving a conversation about the question of whether Yasu even exists in the first place here. To quote the original post:
My reasoning is simple.
Knox’s 1st. It is forbidden for the culprit to be anyone not mentioned in the early part of the STORY!
No where is Yasu until EP7. Hence Yasu must be dead at the beginning of all games.
2 Likes
It does mention Sayo though, and it’s revealed in EP7 that Yasu is Sayo.
So even if Yasu is dead at the beginning of all games, does that mean Sayo is, as well?
If you can produce the actual line where Sayo is introduced as a separate character (from all other introduced characters) in EP1 then you can dispel my truth.
As Aspirety put in his reply, the death of Kanon or Shannon could be shown in red independently.
Ohhh, I see your meaning. That’s an interesting theory, but it can only work in the fantasy interpretation where Yasu can exist as Beatrice, Kanon, and Shannon. From what I gather, you mean that this is a matter of names. Sayo is dead because she’s only operating under the names of Shannon, Kanon, and Beatrice at the start of every game.
I think I can push back on this…
Yasu is just a nickname of Yasuda Sayo, the real name of Shannon. Sayo reveals her name to George, so doesn’t that disprove your theory…? She is introduced to us in EP 1 by way of Shannon and Kanon (and the teaser of Beatrice at the very end). At least, from the mystery perspective, she has to be alive.
But by the twisted logic of the board game? Yeah, you could say “Yasu” is dead.
That definitely shows that Shannon also has ownership of the name Sayo. However it does not show the existence of Yasu.
My other pieces of evidence are less direct:
The only one who can claim Kanon’s name is the person himself!
A different person cannot claim his name!
Kanon was killed in this room
If you use your roleplaying theory, then whoever roleplays Kanon is dead and anybody else they are roleplaying is automatically dead too. Hence Yasu cannot be roleplaying Shannon and Kanon, they must be individuals that can die seperately.
Finally as @Pocketyhat mentioned, Beatrice had inherited Yasu’s love for battler and this rite is shown in EP6 where chick beatrice inherits the heart that loves Battler. Thus you can infer that this inheritance can be used as indirect evidence that Yasu has passed her heart on and has died prior to game start.
But this red does not say, “The only one who can claim Kanon’s name is Kanon himself!” It says “the person.” The person is unnamed, and can still refer to Yasu. Yasu, in all technicality, is not a different person from Kanon. They are still Kanon, as Kanon is one of their personalities. In that sense, “Kanon,” in reference to the personality “Yasu” destroyed. Kanon is no longer apart of Yasu. That’s how I interpret it.
1 Like
This interpretation fulfills the red if and only if the different personalities are considered separate individuals. Otherwise if A dies then B, C…Z all die as they would be one person with many names.
You’re overextending your definition of ‘die’. It’s possible to kill things which are not human, like how I kill the power by turning off the switch.
’Kanon’ refers to a role being played. Thus, if anyone claims the name ‘Kanon’ then they are truly ‘Kanon’. This red truth is meant to be a hint towards the nature of Kanon. Otherwise, why would it be the case that a different person cannot claim his name?
Um, I’m not following on your theory @Baelzaron… What are you exactly meaning to say? If you go by Knox’s first, then yes, like somebody here said, Sayo has already revealed her name to George and it is spoken by him in the first episode. and you just need to look at all the clues presented during the four question arcs and you can figure out the hidden existence of Yasu. And yes, I do agree that the red truth about Kanon does hint at his true nature, that only the ‘person’, which is Yasu, can claim his name and ‘Kanon’ is a role being played, and when Yasu is, say, ‘Shannon’, she’s not claming Kanon’s name even though they’re the same person, she’s just playing another role that has no connection to Kanon.
@Aspirety Herein lies the catch, the definition of “die”. If following your reasoning, where “die” can represent ending a role, then you would also be able to argue no one was actually died as they could all have simply “switched off” their roles. If that is the case then, yes, I concede that my truth can be denied.
@Kennidy @Karifean Special attention to names is given multiple times. The red truths basically state that even if an individual possesses multiple names, no one else but the owner can have it (in this game). That is to say none of the sets of names held by the independent entities have any intersects (as defined by set theory A ∩ B = 0).
Of course. Three people–in other words, three bodies–went in or out. Only you and Kanon entered, and only Battler left. It has already been said in red that all people can only use their own names. Therefore, the names Erika, Battler, and Kanon can only be used by those people.
Ie Shannon can also be called Sayo, but if Kanon is considered independent (regardless of sharing a body) then he cannot be called Sayo (in this game). If Kanon can be called Sayo, then he is also Shannon, anything that happens to Shannon happens to Kanon and vice versa.
@Sapphire Sayo revealed her name, but only as an alternative name for Shannon. This does not present the existence of Yasu (a seperate persona) at that point in time. At most you could’ve solved that Kanon and Shannon share one body by the clues given in EP1-4. To disprove this you need only show that “Yasu” was presented in the question arcs separate from Kanon and Shannon, with citation and not the general gist mind you.
(clues for Beatrice I don’t think can be seen without using the answer key from EP5-8, unless you can demonstrate with citation)
If you desire my exact purpose, I mean to say that based on the clues and rules presented in this story Yasu is dead at the beginning of all games.
I know this is pretty flimsy evidence overall but this is the way I always overcome this part.
While George may think of these names interchangeably, whichever name Shannon/Kannon/Yasu/Sayo is being called is acted upon in different ways. Shannon would never refer to George in such a way where she is anything but a servant, however when she takes on Sayo or Yasu she treats George as if they were equals. While I don’t have the evidence on hand for this, (and I think it would honestly be too much to upload) as far as I know throughout all the question arcs at least Shannon never refers to herself as an equal to George. She may like George to some extent but throughout all of the arcs I never remember Shannon herself thinking George is someone she could think of as an equal.
Question, when Beatrice erases Battler at the end of EP4, would this scene imply that she knew about the baby swap or would it just mean that she was just able to trip up Battler by asking if he was adopted or not?
Also, another thing I noticed in that scene is when Battler uses the Red. For some reason, Lambda states that you can just ‘will’ yourself to use the red when we know from future episodes that witches can bestow the privileges of using certain red upon furniture/humans.
Its just a minor inconsistency I noticed. Perhaps Ryukishi just forgot to add that part about the red in.
Edit: But then again, Lambda is technically right in that anyone can will themselves to use the red, you just have to get permission by the GM to use it and whatever reds they allow you to use.
How else could she get more accomplices?
The red doesn’t exist for the human world, in the reread this looked like another glaring clue that Ryukishi was waving in our faces.
1 Like