In his booklet The United States and Britain in Prophecy, Herbert Armstrong wrote: "The son of this later king Herremon and Hebrew princess continued on the throne of Ireland and this same dynasty continued unbroken through all the kings of Ireland; was overturned and transplanted again in Scotland; again overturned and moved to London, England, where this same dynasty continues today in the reign of Queen Elizabeth II." (Page 126) Now, we have already demonstrated that this statement has NO basis in Scripture, and we will demonstrate in this post that it also has no basis in history!
First, while there have been instances where the daughter of a king (a princess) has succeeded her father or sibling as monarch and/or has transmitted a claim to the throne to her offspring, this has always marked the end of that dynasty! The reigning house has ALWAYS derived its name from the male progenitor of the reigning family. Hence, if we accept the legend that a Hebrew princess married a King Herremon of Ireland, their children were of the House/Dynasty of Herremon - NOT David!
Likewise, the Kingdom of Scotland had a number of different dynasties or houses to occupy its throne (McAlpin, Dunkeld, Baliol, Bruce, and Stewart/Stuart). And, when the Scottish King James VI of Scotland assumed the throne of England as James I, the House of Stuart was interrupted by the execution of his son, King Charles I in 1649. The throne remained vacant until 1660 when his son, Charles II, assumed the throne and the monarchy was restored. Moreover, when Charles II failed to produce any legitimate offspring (he had numerous illegitimate children), his Catholic brother assumed the throne as James II. James, however, was overthrown in the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and replaced by his daughter Mary and son-in-law, William of the House of Orange. The childless couple were, upon their own deaths, replaced by Mary's younger sister (Anne) who also failed to produce any children who survived her.
Thus, with the death of Anne, Parliament invited her distant German cousin, George of Hanover to assume the throne as King George I (he couldn't even speak English). This dynasty occupied the British throne until the death of Queen Victoria (the last British monarch of that line). Victoria had married a German cousin, Albert, from the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, and the first monarch of the new dynasty was their son, King Edward VII. Unfortunately, the First World War intervened, and King George V (the second monarch of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha) decided that it didn't look good for the King of Great Britain to have a German surname! Hence, he changed the name of the ruling house to Windsor. Technically, Queen Elizabeth II was the last monarch of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha/Windsor. However, the royal family has retained the name of Windsor and has joined it with the Germanic surname of Mountbatten (the surname that Elizabeth's husband, Prince Philip, chose for himself). In reality, Philip is a scion of the Danish House of Oldenburg/Glucksburg! Thus, the notion that King Charles III is a member of the House of David is absolutely absurd!
The truth is that a great many different dynasties have occupied the British throne over the centuries. The throne has passed through many females during that period. Indeed, George of Hanover derived his claim to the British throne from his mother, Princess Sophia, who derived her own claim through her mother, Princess Elizabeth (the younger daughter of King James I). Moreover, the succession to the crown has been very irregular throughout its history - often NOT going to the legitimate heir (George I was given precedence over several of his Catholic cousins who had a superior claim). Likewise, most of us are aware that Queen Elizabeth's father, King George VI, only succeeded to the throne because his brother, King Edward VIII (afterward the Duke of Windsor) abdicated the throne so that he could marry an American divorcee!
So, in my six-part series, we have seen that Scripture does NOT support the notion that the English-speaking peoples of the earth are Israel, or that the British monarch occupies the throne of David. Others have pointed out the DNA, linguistic, and archaeological evidence which refutes this notion. And, in this current post, we have demonstrated that history does NOT support the notion that the British monarch is a member of the House of David, or that King Charles III occupies David's throne. In short, from the perspective of history alone, Herbert Armstrong's notions about the British monarchy are shown to be spurious and without foundation!
***In the interest of transparency and establishing my qualifications for writing this post, I would like to note that my college curriculum focused on British and American History.
You make an important point. There is a difference between a line of royal succession being simply “Davidic” in contrast to following the rules of monarchy. The rule we can interpret from the original promise made to David was that the line would forever masculine. A man to sit on the throne would not be lacking. But in the BI scenario, a man is lacking and the Davidic line is passed through a daughter who married Heremon. You have identified this as a change in dynasty. This means that the line would continue to be Davidic in the genetic sense but would be a new dynasty in the monarchical sense and would violate the masculine lineage rule of the Biblical promise.
ReplyDeleteOf course, the whole scenario of Heremon marrying the daughter of Zedekiah and thereby healing the breach is fictional. It is crafted from various disjoint pieces of legend. It is salesmanship and not history. Greg Doudna, a former Ambassador College student and now a Biblical scholar, wrote:
“What the originators of the…legend did was simply combine famous, known figures in the annals, many centuries apart, and splice them together in a TOTALLY IMAGINARY RECONSTRUCTION.”
To anyone who is serious about the foundation of theology in truth, this is a show-stopper. The Zedekiah's Daughter story has no Biblical traction. On the other hand, Peter exegeted the promise to David in his Pentecost Sermon. Peter stood up and delivered, with inspiration, a sermon directed to the Hebrews in Jerusalem. Peter speaks of David as a Prophet and explains how David saw the promise made to him:
“Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses.”
Peter clearly understood that the break in the conditional masculine kingly line of descent was not an abrogation of the spiritual promise, just as the promise made to Abraham was not undermined by the failing of Israel under the Law of Moses. As the Angel said to Mary, “He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David…” This I believe is in harmony with your six part series.
Yes, exactly. The Armstrongist understanding of patriarchy and monarchy is flawed, but their teaching about the British monarchy is not even consistent with their own understanding. History and the documented dynastic changes within the various British monarchies also does NOT support their teaching. And, as you elucidated in your comment, I think it is much safer to go with Peter's inspired exegesis of the Davidic promise!
Delete