- This topic has 7 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 11 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I’m just wondering whether it was the intent or not, because it almost seemed to be implied. It’s a common trope to have a prince or wealthy client try to whisk away a harlot or courtesan to a new life.
Given they have no shame in showing harlots on the show it would be a positive step for me if they did have a major character with that in their background – though I’d prefer them to be a good guy.
In the book “Bitter Greens” the witch who imprisoned Rapunzel was originally a courtesan.
Disney Princess Veronica Franco?
[adrotate group="5"]I don't cause commotions, I am one.
I don’t think so because when she confronts Jonathan 2 months later, she says that he took her virtue and her good name. I think this means she was a virgin when they had sex that night. I think she was just a barmaid who was trying to earn some extra money, and had some loyal customers.
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"aww, either way poor Cora 🙁
I wonder what she’d have turned out like if she had been treated nice…
I don't cause commotions, I am one.
JUST TO POINT OUT THOUGH
Even if she’s a Harlot she can still have a “good name” and “virute”. She could have been a more reputable harlot, something more like a Courtesan just poorer.
I don't cause commotions, I am one.
JUST TO POINT OUT THOUGH
Even if she’s a Harlot she can still have a “good name” and “virute”. She could have been a more reputable harlot, something more like a Courtesan just poorer.
Oh sure, she could have. But she was a poor Miller’s daughter working in a seedy bar with men who pawed at her. Not exactly the situation of a Courtesean, even a poor one.
And I really d think she is using “virtue” as virginity. Especially with Jonathan’s response of “took? You practically forced into my hand”
"He was a lot of things to me" "The only conclusion was love"As a miller’s daughter she hardly should have been among the poor of a village, but I know, OUaT is only following common misconceptions about medieval times, societal structures and economy. Maybe as the daughter of a miller’s hand she could have been called poor in comparison, but whatever.
No, don’t see Cora as a harlot in the sense of regular selling her body to whoever. She was the Queen of hearts later, but not quite the Woman in Red. Think though that Cora very well was striving to become more than just a miller’s daughter and was ready to do everything for that.
Had the impression though, that somehow we were meant to see her as a bit naive falling for that con guy, being somewhat of a dreamer hoping for being found by a prince some nice day (don’t all girls dream of that?… No!) instead of just letting her be an ambitious young woman using whatever means she had available. Some girls, some women are ambitious and don’t feel guilty about it, and don’t see their happiness just in a husband but maybe more in a good job, respect, status and enough money to do whatever they want to do, what’s wrong with that? I disliked that they made Cora now even more wishy-washy, more or less mitigating her into some ingenue dreaming of becoming a princess falling for some con man (might have not quite worked, Rose McGowan never is believable as ingenue, no matter how charming and disarming her looks and smile can be, and I love her for it).
¯\_(?????? ?)_/¯
I don’t think Cora was a harlot. Jonathan was just being derogatory towards her. Cora didn’t throw herself at men, she wasn’t a floozy. She was a gold-digger, after the wealth and good life a rich husband could offer her.
All magic comes with a price!
Keeper of Felix
The topic ‘Was Cora a harlot?’ is closed to new replies.