Dear Mr. Collins,
I was provided the following site by my brother: I do NOT know if the claims made on this site are accurate. It was sent FYI.
It is my understanding that the Throne of David is now occupied by Queen Elizabeth and that the promise to David was that his throne would be a continuing throne. I have since learned that some believe that the promise to David is that David would “never lack a son [descendant]” to sit on his throne to rule over Israel. This would allow the throne to be “unoccupied”. That seems to me the Throne of David would then not even be in existence!
If the latter is true, then the throne does not necessarily need to be occupied as long as a descendant of David is alive to occupy a throne ruling over Israelites. But if the Throne of David is to be a continuing throne, does that not mean that only the throne which now resides in England is the Throne of David? Remember Jeremiah was commissioned to “root out” the throne in Judea and re-plant it and that the throne would be overturned 3 times? (Which means that the Queen will not be allowed to vacate and dissolve the throne as the site claims).
I’ve been reading your books. I am now near the end of “Parthia” and I find the information fascinating indeed. I see where you show that there were descendants of David sitting on thrones ruling over Israelites. I guess my question there is: Would these thrones be considered “thrones of David” and that there is not just one Throne of David as the Bible
says? Jesus is coming back to sit on that particular throne is He not?
Kind Regards,
George Hubbell


Dear George,
I’m delighted that you are enjoying my book, Parthia: The Forgotten Ancient Superpower (the third book in my series on the history of the ten tribes). The fourth book in my series, Israel’s Tribes Today, has an extensive discussion of the issues you raised re: David’s throne over the ten tribes of Israel throughout history. If you bought the entire set of my books, you will see this information when you read the last book in my series. However, my response will give you a sneak preview to you about this material.
I do believe that the prophet, Jeremiah, brought one of the daughters of the last king of Judah (which was David’s dynasty) with him on a voyage to the British Isles after the fall of Judah. Jeremiah was given great liberty by the Babylonians to go wherever he wanted and to take whatever he wished with him after the fall of Judah (Jeremiah 39:11-15, 40:4), and Jeremiah 43:5-7 confirms Jeremiah brought “the kings daughters” with him as he traveled westward from Judah into Egypt. Jeremiah 25:22 indicates that Jeremiah already knew that there were “kings of the isles beyond the sea.” The expression “beyond the sea would mean “beyond the Mediterranean Sea,” and the “isles” would logically refer to the British Isles since those isles had long been in the Israelite/Phoenician sphere of influence in maritime trade and colonization. Notice also that the reference to “kings” in “Isles beyond the sea” is mentioned in the same verse which references the royal houses of Tyre and Sidon, the old allies of Kings David and Solomon in the glory days of Israel’s United Kingdom.
The Bible does not relate where Jeremiah traveled to, but it does record that Jeremiah was well aware of royal dynasties in the British Isles which had been part of the Israelite empire and sphere of influence before the kingdom of Israel fell. It is also logical that Jeremiah knew that “royalty married royalty” in normal custom, and we know Jeremiah purposefully took some of the daughters of King David’s dynasty with him when he traveled westward from Judah. It makes sense that Jeremiah intended to bring the royal daughters of David’s lineage and join them to other kings in the British Isles who ruled over portions of Israel’s ten tribes. In this way, Jeremiah actually implemented the promise of God to King David that his descendants would perpetually rule over, not Judah, but over the ten tribes of Israel (I Kings 2:4, Jeremiah 33:17-2). I do believe that the monarchs of Great Britain can trace their ancestry to the offspring of the union between the daughter of King David’s linage and ancient royal kings in the British Isles (Ireland, then Scotland, then England).
However, my book on Parthia offers much evidence that the royal seed of King David in Asia (which were restored to rulership positions and flourished numerically after the captivity in Babylon–II Kings 25:27-30, I Chronicles 3:17-24) later became the royal dynasties of Parthia and Scythia. When the Parthians and Scythians migrated into Europe after the fall of Parthia, they were still led by their traditional dynasties so the rulers of mainland European nations were also comprised of King David’s seed, ruling over more of the migrating descendants of the ten tribes of Israel. It is well known that the royal houses of England and mainland Europe have long intermarried, so David’s seed was spread to every royal house of Europe. In this respect, David’s descendants sat (and do sit) on many thrones in the world today.
When Jesus returns, Revelation 19:16 indicates that he will be called the “King of Kings.” At the time the Apostle John wrote this book, the title of “King of Kings” was the standard dynastic title given to the emperors of Parthia even as “Caesar” was the standard title for Roman Emperors. John’s statement indicated that when Jesus Christ returns, he will assume the title of the Parthian emperors and their ruling houses (which consists of the seed of David ruling over the ten tribes of Israel). Of course, Jesus will be the “king of kings” from the seed of David who will govern all the tribes of Israel and all gentile nations as well in the millennium. 
For whatever reason, I was unable to open the link you sent me despite several attempts so I cannot comment on it.
Steve Collins