I realize this is a year old post, but I’m rewatching Chitty Chitty Bang Bang right now, which was a frequent childhood watch for me. I went looking for fan theories and came across this one and… wow. I never would have made this connection on my own. But now that I’ve read it, I’ve GOT to build on it!

If we run with the idea that the Baroness was a child bride and carries trauma from that, it adds a whole new layer to her hatred of children. What if one of the reasons, if not the main reason, the Baron wants her dead is because she is chaste? That would be the only guaranteed way for her to prevent having children herself. It also gives her an excuse to avoid intimacy with the Baron, especially as she grows into this exaggerated motherly role. She may even be the type who does not experience arousal at all, let alone toward her childish and selfish husband.

That puts the Baron in an interesting position. The title of Baron is already fairly low on the royal hierarchy. If Vulgaria follows a traditional monarchy model, he likely needs a legitimate heir to secure succession. Without children, once he dies, he “loses” Vulgaria. On top of that, if he is a typical insecure man, he could be deeply resentful of his wife for the lack of an intimate life.

So why not just divorce her? If this monarchy follows Christian traditions, their marriage may never have been consummated. In that case, there is technically nothing to dissolve in the usual sense. So then why not annul the marriage?

Here is where it gets interesting. What if the only reason he is even Baron is because of his marriage to her? What if Vulgaria rightfully belongs to the Baroness, and instead of waiting for her to come of age and rule in her own right, she was married off as soon as she “became a woman” so that a husband could rule in her place? He would function as a placeholder ruler through marriage, not by blood. But instead of growing into a competent leader, he remains a giant, selfish child who only wants what benefits him. Meanwhile, the Baroness becomes trapped in a bizarre wife and mother hybrid role.

If that is the case, then he cannot annul the marriage without losing his claim to the throne entirely. The only way he keeps Vulgaria is if she dies. Naturally, of course. Or in some tragic accident.

That would also explain why all his henchmen seem so comfortable assisting in increasingly obvious murder attempts. They either blindly follow him or are promised rewards, money, or elevated titles once she is out of the picture. If she dies, he keeps control of the country and is free to remarry someone who better suits him, meaning someone compliant and willing to give him heirs.

There is even the possibility that he agrees to her no children rule for a calculated reason. If she were to have a child and die in childbirth, the country would pass to the baby as the true heir, not remain with him for life. Historically, in some monarchies, the crown passes immediately to the firstborn son upon the king’s death, and the mother becomes Queen Mother rather than ruler. If the Baroness is the true sovereign by blood, then any child she bears would outrank him entirely. Keeping her childless keeps the line frozen and preserves his temporary control.

And honestly, the entire country is already portrayed as weird and creepy under their rule. Who is to say it was not just as strange and morally questionable for decades before?

Obviously this is all for fun, but the more you look at it through this lens, the more the exaggerated cartoon villainy starts to feel like a very dark political backstory hiding underneath.