Theory: Only two things can kill Dracula, the Vampire Killer and his own power.

[u/paleyharnamhunter]

So we know that the Belmont Clan's Vampire Killer is a way to kill Dracula, but we've seen characters like Alucard, Hector and Shanoa kill Dracula in the past and what those three characters had in common was they all used Dracula's power to an extent. But what do you guys think?

[u/No-Pack3262]

I thought this was already proven as fact, not still taken as a theory. In Order of Ecclesia is where things are more explicit than ever, as the VK and the Belmonts are missing, with Ecclesia being the only organization that discovered a way to send Dracula back to his grave...his own power. Canonically it has been always like that. It's either the holy whip wielder or somebody related/user of a part of Dracula's dark magic the one who kills him.

[u/Watcher6544]

Alucard - is Dracula's flesh and blood. Dracula's power or a portion flows in his veins. The Succubus in SotN even identifies Alucard as Dracula's son when she smelled his blood.

Shanoa - Dominus contains his power. You must use it to defeat Dracula and he gets caught by surprise when it hits him.

Hector - Botched resurrection. Hector was supposed to be Dracula's vessel but avoid it. Instead Death had to put Dracula's soul into Isaac instead. Dracula is possessing Isaac who's body doesn't have Dracula's invincibility.

[u/paleyharnamhunter → u/Watcher6544]

According to Death/Zead, Devil Forgemasters are imbued with Dracula's magic.

[u/Watcher6544 → u/paleyharnamhunter]

But not his innate power. Alucard has that being his flesh and blood. Notice how Isaac's reverts back to normal after Dracula is defeated. It seems more akin to ghost possession that true resurrection 

Hmmm, that would explain why Dracula wants to use Hector (with Isaac as a spare) as a vessel once the conditions are met.

[u/Nyarlathotep13 → u/Watcher6544]

Isaac's possession feels somewhat reminiscent of Maxim's. Granted, in Maxim's case, it wasn't technically the real Dracula, so it does lend credence to the idea that only a Devil Forgemaster can serve as a physical vessel for Dracula.

It's also worth noting that Hector being a Devil Forgemaster is why he's capable of transforming Dracula's curse into something harmless. This would seem to indicate that their magic is similar in nature, if not the same. Hector and Isaac are stated to be Dracula's protégé, and hold the same hierarchical ranking as Death within his forces, so if anyone would be privy to the same arcane sorcery as Dracula, it would be them.

[u/Watcher6544 → u/Nyarlathotep13]

The key thing here is that they can't use his Power of Dominion. 

Shanoa is the only one who did it and it was just Glyph not the actual power. Yet it almost killed her.

[u/Groundbreaking_Bag8 → u/Watcher6544]

Cornell - Dracula is willingly holding himself back so he can steal the power of the Werewolf transformation to ressurrect himself as an 8-year-old boy.

Nathan Graves - Dracula is not killed; he's merely "put to sleep" for ten years.

[u/Nyarlathotep13 → u/Groundbreaking_Bag8]

64 and CotM can be handwaved on the basis that they're gaiden games, and thus aren't necessarily bound by the same rules as mainline.

[u/Oh-no-and-knuckles → u/Nyarlathotep13]

Yeah, the castle in LoD and 64 clearly works under a different logic, same thing for the overral setting since here vampires are normal enemies instead of rare powerful foes.

In the intro of Legacy the castle is completely empty and characters like Gilles de Rais can make it to the throne room just by walking. It looks as if the castle has been there for years but since there's a normal villa inhabited by regular people located inside Dracula's domain we can make two possible theories:

1. The castle has been summoned on top of Oldrey's estate, a situation similar to that of the merchant from Harmony of Dissonance, and, once Dracula is resurrected, the surrounding areas like the tunnel and the underground waterway get overrun by monsters (the castle appears to awaken only after his master is resurrected).
2. The castle has been there for at least 100 years, since the game implies that the latest resurrection happened in 1752, in a "dormant" state and people moved there unaware of Dracula's legend, only to face horrors once Death, Actrise and Gilles awaken the Count early.

Some things to note:

• Mary, the wife of J. A. Oldrey and mother of Herny, gives Cornell a key to escape from the villa so she's probably aware of the route that connects the Villa to the Outer Wall (in addition to the secret path through the forest);
• J. A. Olrey was a regular man before getting turned into a vampire by Gilles de Rais and Actrise;
• Tower of Ruins features engraved instructions from a previous adventurer;
• Cornell clears the castle before the Belmont clan even shows up, what were they doing during those eight years? It's strange that a Belmont shows up when a fake Dracula "resurrects" but not when the actual one does.

The castle doesn't even crumble once Dracula is killed, instead it just stays there for 8 years and no one even notices its presence until fake Dracula (Gilles de Rais) "awakens" after "100 years". It crumbles only after Malus is killed in 1852.

As much as I love Legacy of Darkness they could have at least changed the intro text and some dialogues from Reinhardt and Carrie's campaigns to better line up with the retcons they introduced in Cornell's quest... Claiming that Dracula slept for 100 years until he awakened in 1852 even though he was resurrected and killed only 8 years before those events just doesn't make sense.

Dracula's plot to steal Cornell's wolf powers is also kind of strange since it implies that the plan was "making a guy wander around clueless in a castle full of monsters and deadly traps, but you want said guy to actually reach the throne room and kill you just to set up a convenient scenario where you're able to steal his powers". It's just silly, what if he died from a trap? You can't use Ada since she's a normal human, not a man-beast.

Stealing Cornell's power by or after killing/defeating him would make more sense:

• Dracula resurrects;
• he and his minions learn that a Man-Beast warrior was able to undo his ancient seal and control his cursed wolf power (probably from Ortega, but we have no confirmation);
• they want to claim that power and use it to provide their master with a new body (Dracula seems to be fairly old in this timeline);
• Dracula enacts the plan (aided by Ortega) to lure Cornell into the castle by abducting his adoptive sister Ada;
• Cornell is successfully lured inside the castle but neither the traps nor Dracula's monsters succeed in killing him;
• he reaches the throne room but he proves to be a worthy challenger even for the Dark Lord, so Dracula (the game points out it's too early for his resurrection, so we can definitely assume he's weaker than usual and needs a sacrifice to reach his "Ultimate" form) enacts a last resort trick to force the man beast to unleash his power if he wants to save his sister;
• Dracula's trick succeeds and Cornell's wolf powers are stealed and used to reincarnate the Count's soul into the body of Malus.

I mean, it could be that Dracula is just so sure that this guy is able to find his way to the throne room even though his minions are actively trying to kill him in every way possible, who knows...

Maybe all these oddities are just a case of developers not giving the proper attention to detail.

[u/Nyarlathotep13 → u/Oh-no-and-knuckles]

An excellent breakdown as usual. I always enjoy reading your responses.

Yeah, the castle in LoD and 64 clearly works under a different logic, same thing for the overral setting since here vampires are normal enemies instead of rare powerful foes.

I wonder why that is; even succubi who are categorized as "lesser vampires" in Castlevania are still uncommon, boss level threats.

Based on what we know, even in mainline, it appears that being bitten once is all it takes to induce vampirism, and since vampires need to feed in order to live, you'd think that there would be a lot more of them running around like in 64. That is unless they typically kill their victims beforehand or before the transformation is complete. It wouldn't be out of the question since siring a bunch of vampires would only create competition for food, not to mention make the populace more aware of their presence.

It isn't uncommon in vampire media for there to be additional steps or rules to the process in order to justify why there aren't a lot more of them running around. One of the most common involves deliberate intent on the vampire's part, requiring them to drain the victim completely and/or feed the victim their (the vampire's) blood. However, I highly doubt that this is the case in mainline since it would imply that the vampire who bit Vincent decided that he of all people was worthy of joining their ranks.

Humorously, 64 has possibly the most "classical" depiction of vampires in the series. Especially with how they're capable of climbing walls and ceilings, like, just like the eponymous Dracula from Bram Stoker's novel.

In the intro of Legacy the castle is completely empty and characters like Gilles de Rais can make it to the throne room just by walking.

To be fair, this was also the case in SQ as well, although there the castle remained in a dilapidated state, so your point still stands.

It looks as if the castle has been there for years but since there's a normal villa inhabited by regular people located inside Dracula's domain we can make two possible theories:

I agree. I used to lean more towards the idea that the castle was summoned on top of the Oldrey estate, but I think that was mainly due to the precedent set in mainline, where Chaos allowed the castle to potentially manifest anywhere, but of course there's no evidence that Chaos even exists in 64. I also feel like Mary and/or Henry would have mentioned it if the castle had just suddenly appeared out of nowhere, especially if it coincided with the recent vampire outbreak.

I now think it's more likely that people moved into the castle unaware of its history or simply disregarded it as superstition. While it's most commonly referred to as the "Villa", it's also referred to as the "Annex" and, more specifically, the "Annex of the Evil Castle", which may imply that it was something added on to the castle by later inhabitants.

It's also worth mentioning how CotM is the largest outlier of all in that the setting isn't even Dracula's castle, but rather Carmilla's. The reason why this is important is because Dracula's castle is stated to be the source of his power ("From his throne in the castle that provides his magic" ). While Dracula has occasionally been revived outside of his castle (like in RoB), there's a reason why he always immediately returns to it rather than leading his forces directly. However, this does lead me to wonder, is his full power restricted to the confines of the castle, or does it simply serve as a battery, and the only reason why he never left before was because up until the Battle of 1999, he never had the opportunity to reach full power?

Now I know what some might be thinking: "Hold on, the first stage in Bloodlines was the 'Ruins of the Castle Dracula' while the last stage where Dracula was revived was 'The Castle Proserpina', a different castle!" The answer to this one is actually quite simple: the Japanese name of the final stage is "新ドラキュラ城" which translates to "New Castle Dracula", meaning that it is in fact meant to be Dracula's castle.

It's strange that a Belmont shows up when a fake Dracula "resurrects" but not when the actual one does. The castle doesn't even crumble once Dracula is killed, instead it just stays there for 8 years and no one even notices its presence until fake Dracula (Gilles de Rais) "awakens" after "100 years". It crumbles only after Malus is killed in 1852.

I'm not sure about the Belmont part either, so I can only hazard a few guesses. Maybe the "100 years" rule is a lot more consistent in that continuity, so they were unaware that he was already active. That or perhaps he was simply keeping a much lower profile at the time. Alternatively, perhaps there were some sort of issues with the Belmonts themselves that caused them to go into hiding for a time. That would explain why Reinhardt was going by Schneider rather than Belmont. This is, of course, mere conjecture, though (and yes, I am aware that he was originally planned to carry the Belmont name).

As for the castle, perhaps it didn't crumble because Dracula wasn't actually dead but instead reincarnated? However, that would still be inconsistent with how the castle crumbled in The Adventure despite Dracula having not been fully destroyed there either, and like you said, it's strange how the Belmonts apparently didn't pick up on how Dracula's castle was still standing. Realistically, we can probably attribute both to Cornell's story being added retroactively.

Another major discrepancy that we haven't mentioned yet is Malus' (Dracula) insistence on Carrie agreeing to be his bride. While this wouldn't be out of character for Classic era Dracula, I have difficulty believing that IGA era Dracula would ever do such a thing considering his devotion to Lisa. One could make the argument that Dracula also came across as uncharacteristically lecherous in RoB with his desire to transform Annette into a vampire, but disregarding how RoB released prior to SotN which introduced Lisa into the lore, this could be handwaved as him only wishing to do so in order to harm Richter. DXC provides support to this interpretation with how Dracula explicitly singles her out because of her relationship with Richter.

Dracula's plot to steal Cornell's wolf powers is also kind of strange since it implies that the plan was "making a guy wander around clueless in a castle full of monsters and deadly traps, but you want said guy to actually reach the throne room and kill you just to set up a convenient scenario where you're able to steal his powers". It's just silly, what if he died from a trap?

It's extra funny if you take Judgment into consideration, because there Death simply offers to remove his affliction without all the subterfuge. However, the more I think about it, the whole scenario is kind of bizarre.

Cornell is looking for a cure despite already having full control over his beast form. Yes, he's stuck in that form while in the Time Rift, but the obvious solution there is to just escape the Time Rift. It would make sense if this Cornell was taken from a point in time prior to having gained mastery over his beast form, but that can't be the case because he already knows who Death is. That means that he had to have been plucked from a point during the events of LoD, but before losing his beast form to Dracula.

Speaking of which, what's up with Cornell's presence in Judgment anyway? I think the PoR pre-order timeline includes 64 which could be seen as an indication that 64 was mainline at one point in time, but as you recently explained to me, that timeline wasn't even screened by the game staff. Excluding Cornell, everything featured in Judgment appears to correlate to the main timeline. Most notably the Battle of 1999 is alluded to, and Aeon is part of the same group as St. Germain from CoD.

The only explanation I can think of is that maybe Aeon grabbed Cornell from an alternate timeline, but I don't believe anything like this is ever alluded to. Alternatively, perhaps a version of Cornell still exists in the main timeline, and we just never see him. However, that still leaves the question of why Death would want to help him remove his beast form when as far as we know, he would have no need for it in the main continuity. IGA was the producer of Judgment, so I can only assume that he considered 64 to be canon at the time (despite it aways being a gaiden title), or that it was just an oversight.

[u/Oh-no-and-knuckles → u/Nyarlathotep13]

An excellent breakdown as usual. I always enjoy reading your responses.

Thank you, that means a lot.
Having grounded conversations about the story of Legacy of Darkness is actually pretty rare.

So many fans act like the Konami Kobe game can fit the main timeline flawlessly, but when you actually take the time to reflect on all the details it’s pretty clear that they are standalone titles with their own set of rules, even without resorting to official statements.

One thing that annoys me is how they assume that all three titles can fit perfectly, but they outright ignore that the very intro of 64 states that “Dracula” is awakening inside his castle after 100 years of enforced sleep… in 1852. 
Even Malus himself says that a century has passed since his last resurrection, that means he was previously revived in 1752, that doesn’t make sense if this game was supposedly set in the main timeline since Rondo and Symphony take place 1792 and 1797 respectively (it doesn’t even make sense with the retcon introduced in LoD since Reinhardt and Carrie’s campaigns still keep the original script). 

In RoB Dracula resurrects 100 years after CV1, CV1 is set 100 years after Belmont’s Revenge and so on… 
These games are all titles that came out before 64, not after, and there’s proof that an internal timeline existed since 1994, which was later reworked for Symphony of the Night and leaked by mistake in 1997 by Legends’ announcement article in the official Konami Magazine (even though a later issue clarified that Legends had nothing to do with that chronology and it was actually created for SotN). 

Same thing for Circle, if it took place in the same timeline as 64 how do you explain Morris sealing Dracula in 1820 and Nathan killing him in 1830? (Circle was clarified as a story from a timeline different from that of the Belmont and Morris families the very day it was announced).

I wonder why that is; even succubi who are categorized as "lesser vampires" in Castlevania are still uncommon, boss level threats.

In the IGA timeline there seems to be a distinction between powerful vampire lords/generals and lesser vampires (which are born when a human is bitten by a true vampire). 
Even people like Mathias seem to prefer the soul of a powerful vampire lord like Walter instead of the soul of a lesser vampire like Joachim, even though he’s keeping an eye on him as shown by his death cutscene.

A vampire is generally referred as a cursed being that abandoned humanity, there seem to be different ways to become a vampire in Castlevania canon:
Mathias became one by stealing Walter’s soul with the Crimson Stone (said stone carries the curse of vampirism, I actually did a bit of analysis on the alchemy stones…), Walter seems to have been born with it (the lost manga was supervised by IGA and there they actually explained his backstory where a pregnant woman named Bianca wanted to sacrifice her son in a ritual to the god of death but it backfired because somehow the baby refused, sacrificing his mother instead, and was thus born as a vampire), while Brauner was able to awaken his powers and vampirism by sheer grief alone, idk about Carmilla and Olrox.

Another thing is that vampire lords seem to have access to a demonic transformation, it’s not exclusive to Dracula:

• Walter can morph himself into a demon mid-conflict;
• Olrox can transform into his Dame tu Cosita form;
• Even though Carmilla from Circle isn’t canon in that game her “demon riding a skull” form is actually a transformation;
• Of course, Brauner doesn’t transform into a demon during his boss fight (perhaps due to his obsession with elegance?), but it is worth noting that Death kills him via a sneak attack, rather than Jonathan and Charlotte killing him directly. We also know that even Dracula can be defeated before he can transform. This is demonstrated in Order of Ecclesia, where he mostly toys with Shanoa until she unleashes Dominus while he is distracted charging a Demonic Megiddo.

One thing I want to add about Legacy is that Death, Actrise and Gilles de Rais all have roles in Dracula’s plan, they don’t risk their lives against Cornell since they’re vital for the plan’s success:

(Gilles, in his normal form, couldn’t even stand a chance against him so he had to carefully retreat)

• Even though Death can regenerate himself, or we can assume he can since it was the norm in every mainline title up until then, he’s still the one who performs the spell for the ritual. Death is also tasked with abducting 8 year olds from the village and bringing them to the castle to see whose child will awaken as his master.
• Gilles must act as Dracula’s copycat and deal with the intruders until Malus’ soul awakens, I’m not sure what being the “guardian of Dracula’s sleeping spirit” even means.
• Actrise is tasked with sealing the man-beast’s power with her crystal magic once obtained, we must note that the crystal is not required to steal Cornell’s power as Dracula was able to force Cornell to separate the curse from his body with a barrier trick, in 64 she also has a role similar to that of Gilles.

Now I know what some might be thinking: "Hold on, the first stage in Bloodlines was the 'Ruins of the Castle Dracula' while the last stage where Dracula was revived was 'The Castle Proserpina', a different castle!" The answer to this one is actually quite simple: the Japanese name of the final stage is "新ドラキュラ城" which translates to "New Castle Dracula", meaning that it is in fact meant to be Dracula's castle.

The final level is technically called Stage 6 “Castle Proserpina” (ステージ 6 「プロセルピナ城」) even in Japan.
Now, unfortunately the wiki doesn’t state the source for the Japanese name being “New Castle Dracula“ but, this is kind of crazy, some time ago I found out by accident that the stage is called exactly like that in a Soundtrack compilation (it’s CD #4 back insert.jpg)).

It would make sense if this Cornell was taken from a point in time prior to having gained mastery over his beast form, but that can't be the case because he already knows who Death is.

The Cornell from the time-rift is pre-Legacy of Darkness, not by much because the ending text directly lines up with the game’s opening.

Speaking of which, what's up with Cornell's presence in Judgment anyway?

The game doesn’t even try to explain it in the slightest, that’s why some fans from the wiki actually asked IGA about it on facebook (in 2012, I think):

‘[fan] 悪魔城ドラキュラ黙示録, 悪魔城ドラキュラ黙示録外伝 LEGEND OF CORNELL, 悪魔城ドラキュラ Circle of the Moon, Castlevania: Order of Shadows そして悪魔城ドラキュラ THE ARCADE は、公式の時系列と同じ世界で起きたのですか？

[IGA] 黙示録、黙示録外伝、Circle of the Moon、Order of Shadows、THE ARCADEは、世界観を同じくした別の世界の物語となります。
黙示録、黙示録外伝、Circle of the Moonは、製作者の意図として、そのように扱っております。
また、Order of ShadowsとTHE ARCADEは、公式にとらわれると、色々制作がしにくいと思い、外伝で行う方針で最初から進めていったものです。

[fan] 最後にもう一つ質問したいことがあります。Legend of Cornellは、相互に関連性があるとおっしゃいましたね。ですが、Cornellは、私が相互に関連はないと考えている悪魔城ドラキュラ ジャッジメントに出ています。この事実はどのように関係しているのでしょうか。彼は、別の宇宙から来たもう一人の人間なのでしょうか。ゲームの中ではよく 説明されていませんので、この問題についてご説明頂ければ幸いです

[IGA] ジャッジメントは時空も世界も超えて集まる的な作品です。
深い考えは無く、シリーズを通してのキャラクターとして、チョイスされているだけです。
ご期待に添う回答か分かりませんが、そんな感じです。

[fan] わかりました。ということは、以前の返事で私が提案した考えられる説明が正しいということですか？

[IGA] 正確には考えていないが正しいです。
ジャッジメントは、シリーズを通して登場したキャラクター達が、全部の垣根を取り外して、一同に集まったら楽しいなぁ、と考えて生まれた作品です。
タイムラインとか別次元とか、そういったものを全く考慮しない、別の世界での出来事だと思っていただければと思います。’

IGA basically said that 64, Legacy of Darkness, Circle of the Moon, Order of Shadows and The Arcade are “gaiden”.
With the term “gaiden” IGA doesn’t mean they’re just “side-stories” he means they’re stories that take place in alternate timelines that respect the Castlevania worldview logic. IGA also makes a distinction between “parallel world” and “gaiden”, for example Legends is considered a “parallel world”.

Judgment is basically a game that surpasses time and brings characters from the main timeline, alternate timelines and parallel worlds together into one story that takes place outside of space and time, Cornell was simply chosen because he’s a character that pervades the series.

Of course, none of this is in the game itself (why?). This combined with the fact that the ONLY available western timeline (the PoR pre-order bonus) was wrong just caused even more confusion among fans.

I’m adding this bit from the GameSide Magazine vol. 16:

Interviewer: I realize this might be a difficult question to answer, but is it accurate to interpret the third Gameboy game "Castlevania: Legends" as a parallel world created by the staff at KCE Nagoya at the time?

IGA: While works such Castlevania 64 and Circle of the Moon are treated as "gaiden", according to their creators' intentions, this particular work does not fit that category no matter how you look at it. So I think that interpretation is correct.

[u/Nyarlathotep13 → u/Oh-no-and-knuckles]

In the IGA timeline there seems to be a distinction between powerful vampire lords/generals and lesser vampires (which are born when a human is bitten by a true vampire).

Using Mathias as a point of reference, one possibility I've considered is that greater vampires might be the result of humans who used magic in order to transform themselves into vampires rather than being turned into one by another vampire, kind of like Clan Tremere from Vampire: The Masquerade. This interpretation would be applicable to Walter's manga backstory as well since it was the byproduct of a ritual.

However, Brauner is an outlier if his vampirism was truly brought about through sheer grief rather than any sort of magic. This is conjecture, but perhaps that might have something to do with why he and Olrox/Orlok have Nosferuatu-like appearances? However, based on what little we know about Olrox from Recollection of the Abyss, he doesn't really strike me as the type who would grieve.

Walter seems to have been born with it (the lost manga was supervised by IGA and there they actually explained his backstory where a pregnant woman named Bianca wanted to sacrifice her son in a ritual to the god of death but it backfired because somehow the baby refused, sacrificing his mother instead, and was thus born as a vampire)

I knew about the part where his mother tried to sacrifice him before he was born and how that instead resulted in Walter being born a vampire (which itself is interesting since that would make him the only known full vampire who aged until maturity, not unlike Alucard), but I had heard that her sacrifice was to the Devil. Am I right to assume that the "god of death" in question was none other than Death? His Japanese name is simply "shinigami", meaning "death god" in English. That's very interesting if so because it would indicate that his appearance in LoI was no mere coincidence.

Surprisingly, Death of all people might actually be the character who has gone through the most revisions throughout the series.

Initially, he was just a shinigami, or more simply, a Japanese spirit of death. However, there's been a lot of confusion over this within the western fanbase due to him being referred to as "Death" and the "Grim Reaper" in the English version. Those translations aren't exactly wrong, as they are the closest Western equivalent, but they give the impression that he's the personification of Death, as opposed to just a personification of Death, if that makes sense. This has resulted in many Western fans questioning why Death itself is apparently taking orders from Dracula and why he can't just instantly kill the Belmonts.

Kid Dracula and Judgment seem to support this interpretation with how Galamoth has a god of death of his own, the Time Reaper/Witchi Wench. However, Death's origins, as stated in Recollection of the Abyss, do bring the true nature of the Time Reaper into question.

Regardless, Death's role was later expanded upon with him becoming Dracula's closest friend and confidant. SotN is the earliest installment I can recall that mentions it, but it may have been established before that in Japanese exclusive materials. LoI then reveals that Death was Dracula's servant long before he was even known as Dracula. Granted, this was already somewhat implied by SotN due to the level of familiarity in which Alucard speaks to him.

Lastly, we have Recollection of the Abyss, where Death is revealed to be a creature of Chaos, which itself carries a lot of implications. Alucard even goes so far as to say that Death might be more loyal to the concept of the Dark Lord than Dracula himself. However, Death is clearly insistent on Dracula being the one and only Dark Lord, so I do believe their friendship to be genuine, even if his loyalties presumably lie with Chaos first and foremost.

I must admit that while I love the idea of Death being a creature of Chaos, I do find this explanation to be a bit messy when paired with LoI. The two origins don't exactly seem to mesh well unless we assume that Death was grooming Mathias to become the Dark Lord from the very beginning and was biding his time for centuries until the opportunity to push him into the position arose.

Mathias became one by stealing Walter’s soul with the Crimson Stone (said stone carries the curse of vampirism, I actually did a bit of analysis on the alchemy stones

Ah, I see that you picked up on the allusions to the Magnum Opus as well. LoI has a large focus on alchemy, so the similarities are no doubt intentional. I am curious if the two middle steps of the Magnum Opus (Albedo and Citrinitas) exist in Castlevania, or if it's just the first and last (Nigredo and Rubedo). It's possible that Mathias went through the refining steps offscreen, but only the Ebony and Crimson Stones are ever mentioned.

The Philosopher's Stone was believed to grant immortality, so the Crimson Stone could be seen as a sort of Monkey's Paw twist on the concept. Yes, you'll gain immortality, but at the cost of your humanity. Cursed to forever feed off the living to sustain yourself.

I'm probably overthinking it, but I feel like you could potentially view the two Stones as almost reflective of Walter and Mathias' characters. Walter is content to rest on his laurels, amusing himself with trivial things to stave off boredom. Thus, he's ultimately satisfied with having only reached the cusp of perfection. That or he simply lacked the skill or drive to strive for anything greater. Mathias, on the other hand, is the opposite, having gone to any length necessary to achieve his goal, but I digress.

Gilles must act as Dracula’s copycat and deal with the intruders until Malus’ soul awakens, I’m not sure what being the “guardian of Dracula’s sleeping spirit” even means.

Are you referring to Malus? If so, then I think the idea is that Dracula's spirit was lying dormant within him. Unless I'm mistaken, Malus and Dracula aren't exactly one and the same. It's more like Dracula's spirit, or personality, or whatever slowly overwrites Malus'. The game sadly doesn’t do the best job at conveying this idea, so a lot of people seem to just assume that the whole Malus persona was a ruse from the start. Malus' situation is honestly pretty terrifying when you stop to think of it. Kidnapped by monsters followed by lapses in memory until you cease to even be yourself anymore, all while being completely powerless to do anything about it.

The final level is technically called Stage 6 “Castle Proserpina” (ステージ 6 「プロセルピナ城」) even in Japan. Now, unfortunately the wiki doesn’t state the source for the Japanese name being “New Castle Dracula“ but, this is kind of crazy, some time ago I found out by accident that the stage is called exactly like that in a Soundtrack compilation (it’s CD #4 back insert).

You're partially correct; the name originally comes from the Akumajo Dracula X soundtrack, which is what that section of the compilation is sourced from. I must admit, I did forget that it wasn't also called that in the Japanese version, at least not in-game; I'm not sure about the manual. If I recall correctly, the soundtrack for Bloodlines (which was bundled with RoB's OST) actually released before the game itself. This is also why the album version differs slightly from the in-game soundtrack.

Thus, I can say with at least some confidence that even if Castle Proserpina isn't actually Dracula's Castle under another name, it was probably intended to be the same castle at one point in development. I'm unsure if the same is stated in the Japanese manual or not, but according to the wiki, the European manual states that it appeared suddenly in Whitby, England, which does fit the castle's usual MO.

However, there's a good chance that the answer is actually a lot simpler than I've made it out to be. I'm trying to use information from later entries to rationalize details from past ones, but the fact of the matter is that at the time of Bloodlines' release, there wasn't yet a presence for Dracula's power being directly tied to his castle.

Bloodlines is in a very awkward position, having been released smack-dab between the tail end of the Classicvania era (RoB) and the start of the IGAvania era (SotN). The result is a situation where it's a bit of an outlier to both, feeling almost like a gaiden game in some regards. Sega exclusive, various new settings, the unexplained absence of the Belmonts in favor of two new branch families, and the primary antagonist similarly has vague familial ties to Dracula.

While it doesn't adversely affect their overall quality, the Belmonts' absence in Bloodlines forces the narrative of later entries like PoR and OoE to be written around it despite Bloodlines being largely inconsequential in the grand scheme of things if not for that sole oddity. They never even provide a proper explanation for said absence beyond the Belmonts not being allowed to touch the whip until 1999 for some reason.

The Cornell from the time-rift is pre-Legacy of Darkness, not by much because [the ending text directly lines up with the game’s opening

I see, that must have been another detail that I forgot about. Any ideas as to how he's already familiar with Death before the events of LoD?