No...?

It's hard because we see so little of their interactions.

We don't see any of their interactions in Dahlia and Esther's flashbacks in Season 2, which I think would have been the only time that Mikael did genuinely love her if he did. From what Esther tells Dahlia, it seems like Mikael and Esther were spending time together and he made her feel safe and loved. I do question if this love was genuine or if it was simply Esther's naivety. Esther had just watched her family be slaughtered and kidnapped by the village she was now being held captive in. She wasn't in the best mental state to be falling in love. She was also, I believe, fairly young and easy to take advantage of given everything.

It was clear that Dahlia and Esther were not fully accepted into the village given how they enslaved Dahlia. Just because we didn't see Esther being treated the same, doesn't mean she was welcomed. So I see it one of two ways. Mikael genuinely fell in love with Esther and was willing to face the consequences of marrying an outsider. Or, the one I think is more likely, Mikael was "encouraged" by his father/village leaders to marry Esther to secure Dahlia for life. This was fairly common for the time.

Esther does say that Mikael was better before Freya's "death," but that, to me, just means he wasn't physically abusive. There is a low bar with Mikael. I also think that any love for Esther he may have had died when Freya "died." It does seem that Mikael blamed her for Freya's death. The only joy he got back was after Klaus' birth when he thought he had found his warrior son. As Klaus got older, he became angry that Klaus wasn't the warrior he wanted him to be. Mikael never recovered from that anger. He may have felt fondness for Esther for giving him a warrior son, but that again would have disappeared as he grew disappointed in Klaus.

I don't even think Mikael's anger at Klaus killing Esther was about Esther really. Rather it was about Klaus taking what belonged to him. Even how they interact in TO doesn't suggest any love lost. I wish we could have seen them interact more in TO or TVD. A lot of Esther's backstory gets erased or told through other characters which causes the fandom to reduce her to a two dimensional character. Fleshing out her relationship with Mikael would have been really interesting, but they didn't do it because they didn't want to humanize Klaus' excuses. The show focuses on male villains as abuse victims, but tends to erase the women in these stories or even justify the abuse they suffered.

So the short answer is I don't know because the show didn't bother to give Esther a backstory. But to me, it doesn't seem like he did. If he did, it didn't last long.

Thanks for the ask!

TW: Discussions of abuse

I've said it before and I'll say it again, no abuse someone suffers allows them to become an abuser themselves.

That being said, if you have a character who you need to redeem quickly, the best back story to give them is child abuse. That sounds terrible, but it is an incredible affective back story. Children are inherently innocent. Especially in Klaus' case. They go out of their way to show Klaus being a sweet child. The only time we ever see any of the Mikaelson children is when it was used to show just how sweet of a child he was. The show purposefully did this to blame the abuse for his behavior. It is explicitly said by numerous characters throughout the show. Klaus every other episode is finding something new to blame his behavior on. This way Klaus never had to take accountability for anything which would have required the writers actually developing the character. And because the writers are so uncreative, they do the same thing for each "unredeemable" villain -- Damon, Kai, even Katherine.

But again, no matter what abuse a person suffered, they do not get to use it as a way to justify abusing others. There's not a statistic that I'm willing to cite since I haven't been able to verify the numbers, but a majority of abusers were once abused themselves. Yet only about 30 to 40% of abused children become abusers. Many children who had abusive backgrounds get the help they need and stop the cycle of abuse. So to say that Klaus' abuse justifies his abuse towards his siblings is disturbing.

Even how Mikael speaks, it is clear to me that he raised his children no differently than he was raised. We have to remember they grew up in a very different society than we did. This does not excuse child abuse, but it can put it in context. This idea that Mikael had no reason for his abuse is also a misnomer. Yes, he says it in a scene, but this is after an entire season of them emphasizing that Mikael was attempting to strengthen Klaus and this is why the abuse was targeted on Klaus. We have that entire scene where Klaus is blaming Esther for giving her the necklace and weakening him, making him the focus of Mikael's ire. Parallel this to Mikael training Davina, talking about power and strength. Again, this does not in any way justify the abuse. But it does show the cycle of abuse that Mikael was subjected to and then put on his own children. Mikael is never given any sympathy because of his childhood because it is not explicitly said. But that is something I think most Klaus stans would say doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if Mikael was abused, it does not justify him abusing Klaus. By that logic, Klaus being abused does not justify him abusing everyone.

I also think this fandom loves to focus on certain character's abuse and forget other's. The worst villains who suffered child abuse are excused for everything (i.e. Klaus, Damon, Kai) but then the characters who aren't as bad or suffered abuse in a different manner, or even just later in life, are given no sympathy.

The fandom loves to pretend that children who grow up in abusive household are not affected by the abuse. Or if it is not explicitly shown, then they were never abused. I find it hard to believe that Mikael only ever abused Klaus. If that was his method to make them strong, I would imagine he abused all of his sons. Rebekah even talks about them all being afraid of Mikael. I don't put it past him to physically abuse both Rebekah and Esther as well. But even if this is just my take on it, we know they were all emotionally abused. And yes, this is a form of abuse that can be just as harmful as physical. As someone who works with domestic violence survivors in real life, I hate how this fandom treats abuse. You cannot compare abuse, one is not inherently worse than another. They are all extremely damaging.

Because Rebekah's abuse happened later in life and Klaus always came up with justifications for it, the fandom loves to say "it's not abuse" or "he was doing it to protect her." This is why they dropped the storyline that Mikael was doing it to strengthen Klaus, because if that was the justification, Klaus may have actually had to take responsibility for what he did to his siblings. He may have had to faced the realization that he became his father.

We also see this in TVD. Stefan was clearly terrified of their father as well, but only Damon is given sympathy because in one scene in their entire lives, we see Damon get punishment over Stefan. If we talk about later abuse, people love to talk about Damon's time with the Augustine torture but skip over the fact that Stefan drowned for an entire summer. The fandom picks and chooses what abuse justifies what behavior. Stefan also had his autonym stripped away, which is abuse, and was forced to become the thing he hates for an entire summer and this is used as a plot device to justify his girlfriend and brother developing feelings for each other. No sympathy is given to him, but Damon is given sympathy for every bad thing that ever happened to him.

Also the fact that Tyler clearly grew up with an abusive father but is given no slack ever because he isn't the perfect victim. His behavior in season one, screams abused child. But Tyler actually has character development, unlike other characters.

All of this to say, Klaus' childhood abuse does not excuse what he did to his siblings. Klaus abused them all for a thousand years. There is no question about this. I will not debate this. He emotionally and physically abused them. Just like there is no justification for what happened to him, there is no justification for what he did to his siblings. But I don't think childhood abuse necessarily made him redeemable. I really blame his pretty privilege, his accent, and his humor. The fandom looks for anything to excuse his behavior because they want to love him. Even as he is abusing people, he makes a joke and that somehow makes it okay. But the backstory allows the fandom to feel okay about liking him. Whereas with characters the fandom doesn't like, the abuse is just disregarded, or worse, minimized.

Thank you for asking! I do truly try to have a "non-biased" view of the show but, of course, I am only human. I have my own biases, however, as I said, I do work with domestic violence survivors and have personal connection to the topic, so I definitely focus on it when I see it in media. I hope this answered the question!

Esther "Mikaelson" and Misogyny

The misogyny in TVDU, in both the writing and the fandom, is exhausting. It comes out so much, especially when it comes to complex women versus complex men. Esther (yes, I know her last name is not Mikaelson), is not one of my favorite characters, she's not even a character I particularly like. But to act like she is an absolute villain with no redeeming qualities is a best misogynist, and at worst blaming a victim of abuse.

Most of the hate for Esther tends to come from certain character stans because they don't like how Esther treated their favorite character or want to shift the responsibility of their favs to Esther so that they don't have to deal with a complex, morally grey character.

Esther is a survivor many times over and we cannot talk about her without first acknowledging that. When she was just a teenager/young adult, her entire family was slaughtered and she and her sister were kidnapped. I know there is a lot of debate in the psychology community regarding Stockholm syndrome, but her falling for Mikael screams a manipulated, traumatized, naïve, young woman.

Esther and Mikael

Whether it was Mikael's intent initially or not, he took advantage of the mental place she was at when they met. People recently have wanted to argue whether or not Esther was abused, but this is not a debate. First, there are many different types of abuse, mental, physical, emotional, financial, etc.

During this time period, while Norse communities tended to give woman more power, Esther was from "outside" their community. Her rank in the community would come directly from her marriage. I personally don't know if she went into her relationship with Mikael in order to gain security or if she was just truly that naïve and wanted love and a family. There is nothing wrong with either. It reminds me of why Hayley decided to try and actually have a relationship with Jackson. Woman have historically had to make hard decisions in order to gain protection. And even if she just wanted to get married and have kids, that is fine. Esther reminds me of Meg March. Her dreams may have been different than Dahlia but that doesn't make them less important.

We see very little of their human lives and it is told from everyone else's perspective except for Esther. We also know that everyone's stories are not accurate. Klaus lied about Esther's death for a thousand years. He also has a tendency from not seeing things through other perspectives. Klaus, and even Elijah, when they talk about their human lives, focus on Mikael's abuse on Klaus because the show centers around Klaus and doing everything they can do to redeem him. There is no benefit to making Esther look complex or going into how living with Mikael impacted her. But it is naïve to say she didn't suffer abuse. She lived in a household with a violent, angry man. Even if he didn't physically hit her, which we honestly don't know but I would find that extremely hard to believe, it is clear he verbally, emotionally, and financially abused her.

People love to say she is a powerful witch and could have stopped him or left, but this is shifting the blame from the abuser to the victim. First, abuse isn't about who is stronger. This logic is completely dismissing so much abuse that happens, especially women abusing men. Yes, Esther is a powerful witch, but if she had no other options outside of Mikael, being powerful doesn't matter. We know she would put Mikael to sleep for long periods to protect her and her children. We don't know if she did anything else, but we have at least one example of her using her magic to intervene. We also know she stopped practicing for a long time because of her fear of dark magic and how the community treated Dahlia.

We also have to acknowledge that Esther had very few choices. Sure, she could kill Mikael but she would have gotten sentenced to death for that. Again, her position in the community came from her connection to Mikael, otherwise she was just another enslaved person from a village they raided. We know how Dahlia was treated. Maybe she could have run off with Ansel and they would have protected her from Mikael, or if he was dead, the villagers, but this is putting her, her children, and the pack in a dangerous situation. Potentially starting a war between the pack and the village for aiding and abetting a kin-slayer. She would also be acknowledging her affair and adultery by woman was met by serious punishments, usually death. After committing matricide, she also wouldn't have claims to Mikael's money or land as an outsider. Maybe in the "new world," but she would have to hide her involvement in his death. Esther would have no money or land of her own as her familial land and money would have been claimed when it was raided.

While women in Norse communities did experience more freedom than other areas of the world at that time, they were still far from free. This is especially true considering how Esther came to this community. While she wasn't enslaved in a way Dahlia was, it is wrong to say she wasn't still enslaved. Her entire village was killed and her and her sister were forced to come to their village and live amongst them as hostages. Esther was kept as a way to keep Dahlia in line. She was not welcomed into the community. This was a common practice during these raids.

The reason I get so angry when people attack Esther as if she wasn't a victim is because real-life victims hear this everyday. Esther's situation perfectly exemplifies the "non-perfect" victim and the fandom perfectly exemplifies how many of these victims are treated.

Esther and Dahlia

Dahlia gets way more slack than Esther because she is a "more perfect victim." But again, we are getting the story from everyone's perspective but Esther. Yes, what Dahlia went through was horrible, but what she put her sister through was also horrible. Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

Dahlia had no right to expect Esther to give up her dreams for her, even though she did sacrifice a lot for Esther. She made that decision and took it on. Yes, it was noble, but again, she cannot expect anything for a choice she made. It is just like Klaus expecting his siblings to never leave him and punishing them when they do. Siblings do not owe each other their lives. I would also not blame Dahlia for leaving Esther behind to protect herself.

On top of that, when Esther went to Dahlia and asked for help, she took advantage of the situation and stole her child. I don't care what Esther promised or how much she understood of the situation, clearly at the moment Dahlia came for Freya, Esther did not want to give her up. If we look at it in a modern perspective, a mother who puts her child up for adoption has the right to change their mind because, morally, we understand it is impossible to understand how you will feel until that moment. If a person than steals the child after the mom changes their mind, that's kidnapping. If we look at it from a historical perspective, Norse communities were patriarchal and the children belonged to Mikael. Meaning Esther did not have the ability to "sell" her children.

Dahlia is given a lot of sympathy in the fandom because they relate her story to Klaus, who they spend a lot of time victimizing. So it makes an easy leap to paint Dahlia as the victim and Esther as the "evil" one. But again, we never see how Esther reacted to her sister casting her aside because she wanted love and a family. or how Mikael treated her throughout their relationship. Even if Dahlia ended up being right about Mikael, whether he was always evil or turned evil losing Freya, Dahlia doesn't get to make that decision for Esther. It is hard to watch someone you love get into an abusive relationship, but you can't tell someone what to do with their life. All you can do is try and be there for them when they need help.

Esther and Klaus

Another reason people hate on Esther is because of her relationship with Klaus. I personally think Esther loved Klaus the most because of who his father was. She babies him in a way she never did with the other's. We even see Finn resenting her treatment of Klaus because of it.

Yes, she does give him the necklace which ends up making Mikael target him to "make him strong." But, one, let's blame the abuser and not shift blame to a fellow victim. And two, what would you have her do? Sure the answer is probably, don't have an affair, but then your fav character wouldn't be there. Also, again, she was young and naïve. She also gets more blame for having an affair than Mikael does for beating a child. She made a mistake and did everything she could to protect Klaus from that mistake. Was it misguided, maybe, but her intention was good. She wanted to protect Klaus from Mikael finding out.

The fact that Esther can forgive Klaus for brutally murdering her shows how much she loved him. Her wanting to kill her kids later is honestly understandable. She never knew the side affects of the spell she performed. She watched her children become the worst versions of themselves for a thousand years and felt the guilt for every life they took. She also knew peace existed since she had been on the other side. When she first tried to take their lives, they would have all just gone to the other side. She didn't want them to suffer but wanted the pain they inflicted on the world to end.

The Misogyny of it all

The reason I say it is misogyny, is because every favorite character in this show has done absolutely terrible things. Klaus, and all of the Mikaelsons, are serial killers. It doesn't matter what reasons they had for doing it. Esther had her own reasons for her actions. The fact that people can't acknowledge Esther as a complex character but can do so for Klaus, Damon, Elijah, Stefan, etc. shows that it is based on misogyny. Even the fact that Dahlia, someone who kidnapped and abused a child, gets more love than Esther because Esther isn't a "perfect victim" shows it is rooted in misogyny. Men are allowed to be messy and complex but when it's a woman they are either a victim or pure evil.

I'm not saying there aren't things you can't hate her for. I hated her treatment of Elijah in Season 2 of TO and her plan to harm Hope. But to ignore the complexity of the character and pretend she wasn't a victim is just harmful rhetoric. Women are allowed to be complex and morally grey.