"Whether it's the City of Gold or Sky Island, there's never been a person who's proven they don't exist!"
-Montblanc Cricket
Foreword: This theory ended up being a lot longer than I originally intended it to be, a little over 50,000 words in fact. To put that into perspective, that's generally considered to be novel length. There are enough topics covered here that I could have made at least ten different theories, and while I may have gone into a bit more detail on them here than maybe was necessary, I do feel that including those theories here contributes to the overall strength of this theory, as not only does it not require one to jump back and forth between outside readings to understand the content of this one, they also serve one of the greater themes behind this theory: the connection of loose threads. Given that no character or event in One Piece exists in isolation, I feel that discussing only one is near impossible without connecting it to other characters or events. That said, because of how much information I ended up cramming into this one theory, it ended up taking me nearly a month to write, and may be somewhat difficult to read through. I have divided this theory into its relevant chunks and provided summaries where appropriate. Please do not feel obligated to read everything at once, and feel free to read the summaries if you just want to see the conclusions with a small bit of the evidence. Do note though that the majority of the evidence, as well as alternatives and counterarguments that I suggest or eliminate, will only be in the main body and not the summaries. Take your time, be respectful, and above all, please enjoy yourself.
- Chapter 1: 13 Reasons Why (The Evidence)
- 1.01: Monet’s Heart is Shown Intact
- 1.02: Monet’s Backstory and Relationships
- 1.03: Monet’s Interest in Astronomy
- 1.04: Monet’s Tattoo
- 1.05: Monet’s Wings (and Other Bird Parts)
- 1.06: The Shinokuni Search Team
- 1.07: Monet’s Personality
- 1.08: Luffy’s Love of Snow
- 1.09: The Sea Rabbits
- 1.10: The Note Thrown to Chopper
- 1.11: Big Mom’s Collection
- 1.12: The Snowman Color Spread
- 1.13: Miscellaneous Patterns
- 1.14: Chapter 1 Summary
- Chapter 2: The Vegapunk Saga (Monet's Return)
- 2.01: Filling in the Blanks (Where She’s Been)
- 2.02: Monet the Straw Hat (Monet’s Role)
- 2.03: The Major Players (The Vegapunk Saga’s Setup)
- 2.04: The Space Race (Evidence for the Moon Arc)
- 2.05: History Repeating (Sky Island Saga Parallels)
- 2.05.01: Proof of a World in the Sky
- 2.05.02: Unexpected Passenger
- 2.05.03: Skill Demonstration
- 2.05.04: Expert Help
- 2.05.05: The Saboteur
- 2.05.06: Guiding Bird
- 2.05.07: First Encounter
- 2.05.08: God’s Army
- 2.05.09: War for the Land
- 2.05.10: Klabautermann
- 2.05.11: Investigation
- 2.05.12: Object of Desire
- 2.05.13: Hint to the Void Century
- 2.05.14: The True Story
- 2.05.15: The Final Battle
- 2.05.16: Return and Enemy Retreat
- 2.06: Post-Moon Arc (Monet’s Recruitment)
- 2.07: Chapter 2 Summary
- Chapter 3: The Monet Retrieval Arc (Monet's Backstory)
- 3.01: What We Know
- 3.02: The Missing Races
- 3.02.01: The Winged Race
- 3.02.02: Trimming the Possibilities
- 3.02.03: The Reptilian Race
- 3.03: Monet and the Medusa Pirates
- 3.04: The Minoa Arc (Monet’s Departure)
- 3.05: Chapter 3 Summary
- Chapter 4: Conclusions
- 4.01: Going Forward
- 4.02: Executive Summary
- 4.03: Final Thoughts
Hello, everyone!
I was actually planning to hold off on this one for a while, but since I've started talking about Monet again, I've been getting questions about how she may return, what connection she has to the rest of the story, and what role she would play going forward if she did, so I've decided to go ahead and address all of those questions at once. I've also been getting a lot of naysayers who aren't already familiar with a lot of the background information of Monet theories, so rather than explain it from scratch every single time, I want to have a summary of all of the most important details available to me at any given time.
I will say now that a lot of this has been covered in the past by other people and myself, so if you want to look over other people's interpretations or even my older ones, here are some links you may find helpful: Syphin's There's Something About Monet, Zaz's Snow White theory, Montblanc Noland's Laputa theory, Lokiz's True History of Monet, Van Reich's Home of a Harpy, Zero Zero no Mi's 325 All Known Possibilities, and my litany of theories (Straight to the Moon, To the Moon and Back, The Final Devil Fruit of the Straw Hats, What We Know and What We Assume We Know, Monet and the Birdfolk, Fight or Flight, Over the Rainbow, Who Will Tell Your Story, Piracy on a Budget, and of course all of the Female Recruitment theories I've been posting so fervently recently). I will not be referencing all of these theories within this one, as many of them are out of date or have had many of their aspects debunked, including a handful of mine, but it's nice to be able to look back on the history of Monet theories, and even the ones that have been debunked can be used to inform or inspire new conclusions. The goal for today is to build on that history, modernize the perspective on the previous evidence, possibly come to new conclusions not already suggested, and most importantly, to compile the evidence into one easily accessible place. Whatever conclusions or predictions we make today, you are absolutely free to ignore or disagree with, just please base your conclusion off of the evidence available. If somehow I miss any evidence, please do not hesitate to let me know and I may add it in.
So now, without further ado, let's begin.
To start, I'd like to review the reasons why people believe Monet is alive, and by extension, why they believe she's going to relevant to the main plot and potentially even join the Straw Hat Crew. This list may not end up being exhaustive, so again, if I miss anything let me know, but these are the most important or common bits that I could find or remember. I'll try to list them in order of relevance from greatest to least:
After being launched by Luffy, Caesar ends up on the dock behind the lab, where he musters the strength to get the last laugh by stabbing Smoker's heart with a piece of shrapnel presumably torn from the metal of the lab's walls on his flight out. Of course, as we know, it is actually Monet's heart, as she coughs up blood and examines her chest, feeling the pain of the wound, moments before collapsing. Notice, though, that the next time we see Caesar, he is completely unconscious, with the heart and the shrapnel next to him. Curiously, though, the shrapnel is not buried into the heart as we see previously, but into the dock. Did Caesar stab once and then pull the shrapnel out to try again, only to miss the second time? Perhaps, but notice how shaky his hand is in the second panel. I believe that Caesar used the last of his energy on this action, and passed out before he could confirm what had happened.
We do know for a fact that the shrapnel hit in the first place, though, as Monet coughs up blood and passes out, and the heart itself is bleeding and does appear deformed where the shrapnel is hitting it. However, that deformation is a somewhat odd detail in and of itself. If the shrapnel were simply piercing the heart, I would think that it would just go straight in, and the deformation would be a superfluous visual detail. I believe that deformation is implying a slight angle to the point of entry, which resulted in the shrapnel slipping off of it and into its final destination of the dock. The shrapnel was sharp, of course, so it did cut the heart, and there was certainly enough force for the heart to feel impact, but as we've seen with other hearts (Law's in particular), an impact is enough to cause one to cough up blood and pass out, but not necessarily kill them.
No blood on his mouth before being hit, instant knockout and bleeding when he is. Law does recover pretty quickly here, though, likely in part due to being prepared for the impact while Monet was taken completely off guard, but getting slashed across the heart probably didn't help her either. The point being that nothing we were shown with Monet was inconsistent with any other instance of damage incurred via Law's ability.
I have received many counterarguments for this over the years, most of which I don't consider to be valid, but I'll go over them now anyway just to be thorough.
"But the anime shows the shrapnel buried in the heart, and we watch it stop beating!" The anime also has Chopper eating three Rumble Balls within an hour during the Davy Back Fight with no repercussions, I don't think Toei is really too concerned with planning ahead for developments that weren't explicitly established. As far as I know, the only involvement Oda has with the production of the anime at all is when Toei wants to make original Devil Fruit users but don't want to risk stepping on Oda's toes. This one tiny panel implying that Monet is alive is super easy to miss, to the point that Toei doesn't even include the heart in that same scene in the anime. I'm not willing to put the anime's interpretation of events over the original author's. Furthermore, it'd be super easy to explain away later anyway: Caesar lost consciousness as he stabbed at the heart, and we were seeing his interpretation of events. Sure, it being a hallucination is a bit of a cop out, but that's what Toei gets for not reading closely.
"Maybe Oda made a mistake." This one's just insulting. Oda makes mistakes, sure, like leaving out scars here and there or making Arlong's teeth smooth instead of sharp that one time, but any mistakes that actually impact the plot, he corrects by the time the collected volumes come out. Jozu losing his arm and seemingly growing it back after the Summit War? Removed again in the volume. Katakuri having a Logia Fruit? Oops, it's a Special Paramecia. Monet's heart? Never re-stabbed. Not in the collected volume, not in the official digital colored version, never. More importantly, though, how would Oda make this mistake? As far as I'm aware, Oda has always drawn traditionally, not digitally, so it's definitely not a layering error. Even if he had an assistant do that panel, which again, Oda doesn't tend to do, the assistant would also have been under the impression that Monet's heart was supposed to be pierced. It just isn't a mistake that makes any sense to be made. There's also the fact that this isn't the first time Oda's done something like this: earlier that same arc, in the cover story arc reviewing the status of the extended cast post timeskip, we see that someone has left three sake cups and an article about the Straw Hats' return on Ace's grave.
The only people who would know the significance of sharing three cups of sake with Ace are Luffy, who is obviously preoccupied at this point in the story, and Sabo, who at the time we all had been told was dead. For many people, this was the moment that convinced them that Sabo was, in fact, alive, which we found out to be the case 67 chapters later. Oda is clearly no stranger to leaving hints that a deceased character is alive, and introducing the idea of implied survival in the same arc as another example seems a bit too on the nose to be a coincidence to me. This also leads me to my next point...
"The Vivre Card Databook says that Monet is dead!" And Sabo's entry in Green said he was too. Go figure, Oda doesn't want to spoil his own series. If you must insist that the databooks are infallible and 100% truthful, I'll note that her entry doesn't actually say she's dead like any given confirmed dead character's, rather just that she was pierced through the heart, which only implies death, leaving the door open for it to be revealed later that she's alive.
"Monet still probably died from the Shinokuni gas spilling in / she bled out / she died of something else." Then why didn't Oda just commit to her being stabbed? We know her heart was wounded, but Oda reneged on that by showing us that her heart wasn't pierced as a subtle plot twist. Why would he show us that just to have it turn out that something he didn't even allude to happened to her instead when he could just have left her being stabbed? It doesn't make any narrative sense, and would be sloppy at best and mean-spirited at worst. Also, I'd like to point out that Monet's location, C Block, was explicitly shown not to have filled with Shinokuni.
Presumably it was sealed tight, protecting her from the gas, but even if it wasn't and she ended up coated in Shinokuni, that doesn't really mean anything, as we'll go over later. The point right now is that there's no good reason to assume that Monet died of some currently unexplained event when we were told she survived the stabbing that we were supposed to believe killed her.
"If Oda was going to bring Monet back, he would have done it by now!" How long was it between Jinbe's invitation and official recruitment? 328 chapters, 648-976. Heck, how long was it between the first time his name was mentioned and his first appearance? 458, 69-528, a span of over ten years of publication. How long ago was Vegapunk first mentioned, and we still haven't even seen his face yet? 547 chapters ago at the time of this writing, back in 433! Oda likes to play the long game. Oda also once said in an interview at Jump Festa 2018 that while he doesn't necessarily plan for every character to come back, he keeps characters alive for the sake of having the possibility for them to return. One may take this to mean that he isn't actually planning for Monet to come back, but given the fact that she's one of the few characters he showed being killed only to hint that she's still alive tells me that he has a specific plan for her. The latter half of this theory will be dedicated to my thoughts on what that plan may be, but for now, let's just focus on the fact that he created the opportunity for her to return, and most likely plans to use it.
"Just cus she's alive doesn't mean she's joining the crew." Yes, true, but also irrelevant, because we're talking about her being alive, which this argument acknowledges, so I'm calling that a win.

After being launched by Luffy, Caesar ends up on the dock behind the lab, where he musters the strength to get the last laugh by stabbing Smoker's heart with a piece of shrapnel presumably torn from the metal of the lab's walls on his flight out. Of course, as we know, it is actually Monet's heart, as she coughs up blood and examines her chest, feeling the pain of the wound, moments before collapsing. Notice, though, that the next time we see Caesar, he is completely unconscious, with the heart and the shrapnel next to him. Curiously, though, the shrapnel is not buried into the heart as we see previously, but into the dock. Did Caesar stab once and then pull the shrapnel out to try again, only to miss the second time? Perhaps, but notice how shaky his hand is in the second panel. I believe that Caesar used the last of his energy on this action, and passed out before he could confirm what had happened.
We do know for a fact that the shrapnel hit in the first place, though, as Monet coughs up blood and passes out, and the heart itself is bleeding and does appear deformed where the shrapnel is hitting it. However, that deformation is a somewhat odd detail in and of itself. If the shrapnel were simply piercing the heart, I would think that it would just go straight in, and the deformation would be a superfluous visual detail. I believe that deformation is implying a slight angle to the point of entry, which resulted in the shrapnel slipping off of it and into its final destination of the dock. The shrapnel was sharp, of course, so it did cut the heart, and there was certainly enough force for the heart to feel impact, but as we've seen with other hearts (Law's in particular), an impact is enough to cause one to cough up blood and pass out, but not necessarily kill them.

No blood on his mouth before being hit, instant knockout and bleeding when he is. Law does recover pretty quickly here, though, likely in part due to being prepared for the impact while Monet was taken completely off guard, but getting slashed across the heart probably didn't help her either. The point being that nothing we were shown with Monet was inconsistent with any other instance of damage incurred via Law's ability.
I have received many counterarguments for this over the years, most of which I don't consider to be valid, but I'll go over them now anyway just to be thorough.
"But the anime shows the shrapnel buried in the heart, and we watch it stop beating!" The anime also has Chopper eating three Rumble Balls within an hour during the Davy Back Fight with no repercussions, I don't think Toei is really too concerned with planning ahead for developments that weren't explicitly established. As far as I know, the only involvement Oda has with the production of the anime at all is when Toei wants to make original Devil Fruit users but don't want to risk stepping on Oda's toes. This one tiny panel implying that Monet is alive is super easy to miss, to the point that Toei doesn't even include the heart in that same scene in the anime. I'm not willing to put the anime's interpretation of events over the original author's. Furthermore, it'd be super easy to explain away later anyway: Caesar lost consciousness as he stabbed at the heart, and we were seeing his interpretation of events. Sure, it being a hallucination is a bit of a cop out, but that's what Toei gets for not reading closely.
"Maybe Oda made a mistake." This one's just insulting. Oda makes mistakes, sure, like leaving out scars here and there or making Arlong's teeth smooth instead of sharp that one time, but any mistakes that actually impact the plot, he corrects by the time the collected volumes come out. Jozu losing his arm and seemingly growing it back after the Summit War? Removed again in the volume. Katakuri having a Logia Fruit? Oops, it's a Special Paramecia. Monet's heart? Never re-stabbed. Not in the collected volume, not in the official digital colored version, never. More importantly, though, how would Oda make this mistake? As far as I'm aware, Oda has always drawn traditionally, not digitally, so it's definitely not a layering error. Even if he had an assistant do that panel, which again, Oda doesn't tend to do, the assistant would also have been under the impression that Monet's heart was supposed to be pierced. It just isn't a mistake that makes any sense to be made. There's also the fact that this isn't the first time Oda's done something like this: earlier that same arc, in the cover story arc reviewing the status of the extended cast post timeskip, we see that someone has left three sake cups and an article about the Straw Hats' return on Ace's grave.

The only people who would know the significance of sharing three cups of sake with Ace are Luffy, who is obviously preoccupied at this point in the story, and Sabo, who at the time we all had been told was dead. For many people, this was the moment that convinced them that Sabo was, in fact, alive, which we found out to be the case 67 chapters later. Oda is clearly no stranger to leaving hints that a deceased character is alive, and introducing the idea of implied survival in the same arc as another example seems a bit too on the nose to be a coincidence to me. This also leads me to my next point...
"The Vivre Card Databook says that Monet is dead!" And Sabo's entry in Green said he was too. Go figure, Oda doesn't want to spoil his own series. If you must insist that the databooks are infallible and 100% truthful, I'll note that her entry doesn't actually say she's dead like any given confirmed dead character's, rather just that she was pierced through the heart, which only implies death, leaving the door open for it to be revealed later that she's alive.
"Monet still probably died from the Shinokuni gas spilling in / she bled out / she died of something else." Then why didn't Oda just commit to her being stabbed? We know her heart was wounded, but Oda reneged on that by showing us that her heart wasn't pierced as a subtle plot twist. Why would he show us that just to have it turn out that something he didn't even allude to happened to her instead when he could just have left her being stabbed? It doesn't make any narrative sense, and would be sloppy at best and mean-spirited at worst. Also, I'd like to point out that Monet's location, C Block, was explicitly shown not to have filled with Shinokuni.

Presumably it was sealed tight, protecting her from the gas, but even if it wasn't and she ended up coated in Shinokuni, that doesn't really mean anything, as we'll go over later. The point right now is that there's no good reason to assume that Monet died of some currently unexplained event when we were told she survived the stabbing that we were supposed to believe killed her.
"If Oda was going to bring Monet back, he would have done it by now!" How long was it between Jinbe's invitation and official recruitment? 328 chapters, 648-976. Heck, how long was it between the first time his name was mentioned and his first appearance? 458, 69-528, a span of over ten years of publication. How long ago was Vegapunk first mentioned, and we still haven't even seen his face yet? 547 chapters ago at the time of this writing, back in 433! Oda likes to play the long game. Oda also once said in an interview at Jump Festa 2018 that while he doesn't necessarily plan for every character to come back, he keeps characters alive for the sake of having the possibility for them to return. One may take this to mean that he isn't actually planning for Monet to come back, but given the fact that she's one of the few characters he showed being killed only to hint that she's still alive tells me that he has a specific plan for her. The latter half of this theory will be dedicated to my thoughts on what that plan may be, but for now, let's just focus on the fact that he created the opportunity for her to return, and most likely plans to use it.
"Just cus she's alive doesn't mean she's joining the crew." Yes, true, but also irrelevant, because we're talking about her being alive, which this argument acknowledges, so I'm calling that a win.
Although never alluded to or otherwise implied in series, Monet is revealed in an SBS to be fellow Donquixote Pirate Sugar's older sister, and the two of them were rescued from a "misfortunate environment" by Doflamingo thirteen years before the current storyline. That seems like an unusual amount of detail in Monet's story to just not be talked about at all. This woman is supposedly dead, and Doflamingo knows it, but we never see him break the news to her younger sister? The deep psychological reason that Senor Pink dresses like a literal baby is vital information, but who wants to see Sugar grieving (or potentially more interesting, dismissing) her deceased sister? Why even bother making them sisters if the narrative is just going to treat them like complete strangers? Also, whole lot of work must have gone into "a misfortunate environment," huh, Oda? Why come up with a sad backstory bogged down by boring details like Baby 5 being abandoned by her mother because she was too poor to feed her own daughter when you can just sum it up as misfortunate? Oda isn't that sloppy. If he didn't already have intentions to tell us the details later, he probably would have either just gone ahead and told us them right there, gone over it in the Vivre Card Databook like for other minor characters like Heracles, or acknowledged that he had no intention of doing so.
He also goes on to say that Doflamingo is the one who gave them their Devil Fruit, and that Doflamingo is observant of the environments that people grow up in. The wording of these two ideas implies that they're somehow related, as if Doflamingo specifically chose to give Monet a snow-based fruit and Sugar a youth/control-based fruit. Whether or not that's the case is hard to say, but it just seems odd to word it that way otherwise. Even if they're unrelated, Oda likely meant that Doflamingo singled them out from their environment to recruit them because he saw some kind of value in them and knew how to manipulate them to draw out that value. That manipulation may be evidenced through Monet's final words:
"[Doflamingo is going to be] the man who becomes Pirate King." Correct me if I'm wrong, but has Doflamingo ever mentioned any semblance of a desire to become Pirate King? The only character who ever implies any interest in making Doflamingo Pirate King is Monet herself, with no such ambition being mentioned by any other member of the Donquixote Pirates. If Doflamingo is in fact manipulating Monet, it's very possible that her impression that he wants to be Pirate King is a part of it. It's also possible that it's related to some greater ambition or dream that Monet has independently of Doflamingo himself, which is somehow contingent on him becoming Pirate King.
Whatever that greater ambition is, though, it hasn't been passed on to anyone else. Most if not every other major death in One Piece comes with some form of inherited will, an unfulfilled dream or desire taken on by a successor. Whether it's Kuina's dream to be the greatest swordsman inherited by Zoro, Hiriluk's dream to create the grand panacea inherited by Chopper, or Pedro's belief that the Straw Hats would bring about the Dawn of the World likely to be inherited by Carrot, death in One Piece is never the end of a person so long as someone is around to carry on what was important to them. A minor character like Mr. 11 back in Alabasta was never going to get anything like that, as he was a throwaway meant to show the cruelty of Baroque Works and to reintroduce Smoker and Tashigi back into the narrative, but Monet? With so many vague hints surrounding her past, many of which I haven't even touched on yet, I cannot imagine that Oda has no intentions of revealing Monet's ambitions to us sooner or later. What's more, if he was going to have someone else carry on that will, he probably would have established that anyone else even knows or cares that she's dead by now. The only person that's said anything about Monet dying is Doflamingo, and I'm pretty sure he just assumed that because she failed to hit the self destruct switch and then never reported back to him. Her own sister is never even shown to be aware of her demise, so either Doflamingo couldn't bring himself to tell her, or she just isn't interested in carrying on Monet's will or avenging her.
Another, possibly more subtle hint about her past comes from her fight with Zoro, as people also seem to strongly believe that the reason she froze up during his final attack is inherently tied to her backstory.
I think the logic is that it seems odd for her, a pirate who has probably been in life or death situations before, to be paralyzed in fear when facing a stronger opponent. Plus, it's not like she doesn't know how to fight strong people, she nearly beat Luffy by prioritizing strategy over force, so why isn't she acting just as pragmatic here and turning to snow and disappearing into the floor? The popular explanation is that she has some unexplored trauma and that either Zoro's words or his expression were a trigger that subconsciously brought her back to the event in question. I've always been willing to take it at face value that Zoro is just that intimidating, but it is presented a little strangely.
Possibly of less importance, there's also the fact that we most likely haven't learned her real name yet, as all of the members of the Doflamingo Pirates use codenames. I think that Rocinante and Vergo are the only ones whose names we actually learn, so maybe it doesn't really matter too much, but I feel like Oda must have a name in mind for her that he just hasn't decided to reveal to us yet, and I for one desperately want to know it. Quick aside, why haven't we been told Baby 5's real name yet? She's a part of the Grand Fleet, I feel like we deserve to know by now.
He also goes on to say that Doflamingo is the one who gave them their Devil Fruit, and that Doflamingo is observant of the environments that people grow up in. The wording of these two ideas implies that they're somehow related, as if Doflamingo specifically chose to give Monet a snow-based fruit and Sugar a youth/control-based fruit. Whether or not that's the case is hard to say, but it just seems odd to word it that way otherwise. Even if they're unrelated, Oda likely meant that Doflamingo singled them out from their environment to recruit them because he saw some kind of value in them and knew how to manipulate them to draw out that value. That manipulation may be evidenced through Monet's final words:

"[Doflamingo is going to be] the man who becomes Pirate King." Correct me if I'm wrong, but has Doflamingo ever mentioned any semblance of a desire to become Pirate King? The only character who ever implies any interest in making Doflamingo Pirate King is Monet herself, with no such ambition being mentioned by any other member of the Donquixote Pirates. If Doflamingo is in fact manipulating Monet, it's very possible that her impression that he wants to be Pirate King is a part of it. It's also possible that it's related to some greater ambition or dream that Monet has independently of Doflamingo himself, which is somehow contingent on him becoming Pirate King.
Whatever that greater ambition is, though, it hasn't been passed on to anyone else. Most if not every other major death in One Piece comes with some form of inherited will, an unfulfilled dream or desire taken on by a successor. Whether it's Kuina's dream to be the greatest swordsman inherited by Zoro, Hiriluk's dream to create the grand panacea inherited by Chopper, or Pedro's belief that the Straw Hats would bring about the Dawn of the World likely to be inherited by Carrot, death in One Piece is never the end of a person so long as someone is around to carry on what was important to them. A minor character like Mr. 11 back in Alabasta was never going to get anything like that, as he was a throwaway meant to show the cruelty of Baroque Works and to reintroduce Smoker and Tashigi back into the narrative, but Monet? With so many vague hints surrounding her past, many of which I haven't even touched on yet, I cannot imagine that Oda has no intentions of revealing Monet's ambitions to us sooner or later. What's more, if he was going to have someone else carry on that will, he probably would have established that anyone else even knows or cares that she's dead by now. The only person that's said anything about Monet dying is Doflamingo, and I'm pretty sure he just assumed that because she failed to hit the self destruct switch and then never reported back to him. Her own sister is never even shown to be aware of her demise, so either Doflamingo couldn't bring himself to tell her, or she just isn't interested in carrying on Monet's will or avenging her.
Another, possibly more subtle hint about her past comes from her fight with Zoro, as people also seem to strongly believe that the reason she froze up during his final attack is inherently tied to her backstory.

I think the logic is that it seems odd for her, a pirate who has probably been in life or death situations before, to be paralyzed in fear when facing a stronger opponent. Plus, it's not like she doesn't know how to fight strong people, she nearly beat Luffy by prioritizing strategy over force, so why isn't she acting just as pragmatic here and turning to snow and disappearing into the floor? The popular explanation is that she has some unexplored trauma and that either Zoro's words or his expression were a trigger that subconsciously brought her back to the event in question. I've always been willing to take it at face value that Zoro is just that intimidating, but it is presented a little strangely.
Possibly of less importance, there's also the fact that we most likely haven't learned her real name yet, as all of the members of the Doflamingo Pirates use codenames. I think that Rocinante and Vergo are the only ones whose names we actually learn, so maybe it doesn't really matter too much, but I feel like Oda must have a name in mind for her that he just hasn't decided to reveal to us yet, and I for one desperately want to know it. Quick aside, why haven't we been told Baby 5's real name yet? She's a part of the Grand Fleet, I feel like we deserve to know by now.
Last edited: