As I understand it Queen Victoria was a carrier of haemophilia. MY understanding is that boys get the disease girls carry it for their offspring.
Hemophilia is a recessive trait carried on the X chromosome. Males have only one X chromosome, so the trait appears. Females have two X chromosomes, so the trait is masked by the healthy gene on the second chromosome.
Males with the trait have nearly always died without fathering children, so it has not been passed on by fathers; it descends through maternal lines. But see below.
It usually appears by mutation. Victoria seems to have been the mutant in this case; the disorder did not appear in any of her maternal relatives, i.e. her older half-brother, the descendants of her older half-sister, or the descendants of her maternal grandmother, great-grandmonther, etc.
Now suppose all or most of her boy children got very ill early on?
Victoria had four sons. Only one inherited the trait, Leopold (1853-1884). Thanks to the great care provided to royal children, he survived to adulthood, married, and fathered two children. His daughter Alice was a carrier (as a girl, she had to inherit her father's X chromosome), and her sons Rupert and Maurice were hemophiliacs.
Victoria had five daughters. Two, Alice and Beatrice, were carriers. Alice passed the trait to her daughter Alexandra, who married Tsar Nicholas II, and had the hemophiliac Tsesarevich Alexei. Beatrice passed the trait to her daughter Victoria Eugenie, who married Alfonso XIII of Spain; two of their sons were hemophiliacs, including their eldest, Alfonso, who renounced his claim to marry a commoner.
As to the question: Victoria did not have hemophilia, she was a carrier, so it could not be more or less severe. She was a carrier, and the probability of any of her children inheriting the trait would simply be a matter of luck; there is no form of the disorder that is more likely to be passed on.
So the question really comes down to: what if more of Victoria's offspring inherited the trait?
OTL, she was relatively lucky. Only three of nine are known inheritors. The other three boys were spared. Of the other three girls: Victoria had eight children and many grandchildren, none of who showed hemophilia; Louise was childless; Helena had several children, but her daughters had no children, so there is no evidence.
OK, suppose that more of Victoria's children are affected. First, this could affect her life with Albert and what children they have. Leopold was their eighth child and youngest son, and his condition was not diagnosed till he was a few years old.
If the eldest son (Albert, later Edward VII), was afflicted... that's huge. he may be excluded from the succession for health reasons. (The OTL fate of Leopold suggests he would not just die.) The succession would probably pass to Victoria's eldest healthy son. It probably does not discourage her from having more children: OTL Victoria Eugenie kept on, and so did Alice's daughter Irene (three sons, two hemophiliac), both having had hemophililac eldest sons.
However, if Victoria's first three sons are all afflicted - that might discourage further procreation.
As to the daughters - the genetic mechanism was not then understood. But if the eldest daughter, Victoria (later Empress of Germany) was a carrier, and her eldest son was afflicted, too - there would be a perception that the British royal family was tainted or accursed. The younger princesses would have trouble making royal marriages, or there might be a consensus they should not marry at all.
In which case, Victoria might have no healthy grandsons at all, and no grandchildren by her younger daughters. This could lead to a succession crisis in Britain. Victoria's only legitimate living cousins were the children of her despised uncle Ernest Augustus, in Hanover. No one in Britain wanted to resume the union of crowns with Hanover - though after 1866 that didn't matter. Also Ernest Augustus was long dead.
All right, here's a scenario.
Eldest daughter Victoria the younger (1840) is a carrier.
Eldest sons Albert Edward (1841), Alfred (1844), and Arthur (1850) are all afflicted. Victoria and Albert cease relations, rather than risk another afflicted son.
Victoria the younger's eldest son Wilhelm (1859) is afflicted. This leads to the belief that the family is tainted.
Alice (1843), Helena (1846), and Louise (1848) therefore do not marry. Also, Albert Edward, Alfred, and Arthur do not marry. It's not so much that they
can't (OTL Leopold did, despite being afflicted) as the general perception that Something Is Very Wrong with the whole family.
In Germany, Victoria the younger and her husband, Crown Prince Friedrich (of Prussia at this time) also cease relations. Friedrich's father, King Wilhelm, insists that Wilhelm the younger and all other children of Victoria shall be excluded from the succession. As heir in succession, he names his nephew, Friedrich Karl, the son of his younger brother Karl.
Back to Britain. Victoria's seven children are all in line for the throne, even if they are not to have progeny. Assuming none of the boys outlive her - some of the daughters do. (OTL, Louise, who would be the youngest daughter ITTL, lived until 1939!) They might be excluded from the succession for want of heirs. If not, that postpones the question for a long time. But it's coming, eventually.
The next line in succession is the descendants of Ernest Augustus. His son George was blind. He has a son, who at this time is heir to Hanover adn thus not acceptable. He does however have two younger sisters. Possibly one of these might be adopted as eventual heir, on the presumption that she would marry and produce an heir? OTL these eventually died without offspring many years later.
Perhaps, by that time, Britain would be considering just dropping the monarchy.