Those same questions are precisely why the hemophilia story is flawed.
Victoria's father was not a hemophiliac... and that was the whole point of the 1995 book "Queen Victoria's Gene', in which the authors had questioned Victoria's parentage and suggested that she may have been illegitimately fathered by another man who must have been a hemophiliac... as the only way to explain how Victoria could have passed on the gene (as has been popularly claimed but has still not been scientifically proved).
Recent research shows how hemophilia starts in a family by either a gene inversion or the phenomenon now known as "jumping DNA" in the first boy to have the disease... not in the mother... which in Victoria's case was her fourth of four sons. If the disease can only start in the first son to have it... which in Victoria's case is Leopold... and not in his mother... then she cannot be a carrier and cannot pass on the faulty gene to her daughters because she does not have the faulty gene. She cannot be the first to have the faulty gene if the recent research shows that the DNA flaws that initially cause the disease originate almost "exclusively in male germ cells"
For this reason, among numerous others, somewhere in Queen Victoria's line the disease must have been misdiagnosed... because the currently known facts of recent DNA research into the way that hemophilia starts do not fit well at all with the way that the story has always been told.
JK
So you're saying that the haemophilia in the Spanish royal family wasn't haemophilia regardless of the doctors who said it was, that the haemophilia in the Russian royal family wasn't haemophilia regardless of the doctors who said it was, and that the haemophilia in one of Princess Alice's sons wasn't haemophilia regardless of the doctors who said it was.
While I don't have a great deal of confidence in the "Queen Victoria's Gene" book (I was using it last year when I had to do some technical writing about major genetic and infectious diseases and I wasn't wildly impressed by it), I think the notion that Queen Victoria's actual father was an unknown haemophiliac is every bit as likely as the notion that haemophilia has been misdiagnosed in three royal families.
Oh, and by the way, when they say something happens almost excusively in male germ cells, the ethical way to do your highlighting is as follows:
"happens
almost excusively in male germ cells" not "happens almost
excusively in male germ cells."
Just sayin'...
However, if we're going to resort to argument based on trading quotes from newspaper articles, then I'll add some emphasis to a quote which you apparently thought wasn't worth emphasising.
"In her case, it caused no problem. Kazazian said he suspected that the line1 element jumped from her Chromosome 22 to the X chromosome
either in the mother's egg cell or during an early stage in the development of the embryo that became the boy."
That, right there, ought to give a clue that "almost exclusively in male germ cells" (wherever you want to put your emphasis) is by no means the whole story.
First, the article which refers to it is nearly 15 years old, so if it was true that haemophilia in general only originates in men, I think it would have worked through to being common knowledge by now. However, that paper doesn't refer to haemophilia in general, it refers to the specific case of haemophilia caused by inversions in the Factor VIII gene. That's actually a different process from the one in the newspaper article, which is a migration of genetic material from one chromosome to another. Also, the paper states quite clearly that the gene inversion process accounts for only around half of all cases of this particular type of Factor VIII-related severe haemophilia; not only that, but Factor VIII isn't the only clotting factor whose defects result in haemophilia.
So what we have here is an example of inductive reasoning run wild - "this is how it is for a minority of cases so therefore this is how it must be for all cases and certainly for this case." Before falling back on the "almost exclusively" argument - or, in your case, the "almost
exclusively" argument - you'd need to show that the haemophilia in Prince Leopold's family was due to this sort of inversion in the Factor VIII gene, which as far as I can tell, you haven't. And the supporting evidence for more widespread haemophilia in the Russian and Spanish royal families as well as in one of Princess Alice of Hesse's sons suggests that this particular piece of inductive reasoning is, to say the least, seriously flawed.
