Geological Evidence for the British Throne of David?
by John P. Pratt
Reprinted from Meridian Magazine (2 June 2003)
©2003 by John P. Pratt. All rights Reserved.
Could the tradition that the British monarchy is the kingly line of David, crowned
on the Stone of Jacob, be subjected to scientific scrutiny?
Today marks the fiftieth anniversary of the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II of the United
Kingdom on June 2, 1953. Surely her half-century reign would be the envy of many ancient
kings, who considered one measure of their greatness to be the length of their reign. Great Britain has
been a world power for centuries, and heads the Commonwealth of Nations which spans the
globe with nearly fifty member countries. How could a few small islands have come to have such
widespread influence? Just who are the British anyway?
When one traces the roots of the Britons, Scots, Irish, Welsh, English (Anglos and Saxons), Picts,
Normans, and Celts, there is substantial evidence that all of those peoples are of Israelite descent.
The tribe of Joseph seems to be best represented, but there is evidence for the presence of several of the tribes. Volumes have been written on that subject,
but in this article, it will be taken as a starting point
that the inhabitants of the British Isles have a lot of the blood of Israel. Because of this anniversary
date of the monarchy, let us focus on the succession of British royalty.
Queen Elizabeth II on her coronation day.
1. King David's Throne
There is a strong tradition that the British royal line is the continuation of the throne of King David
of the ancient "United Kingdom" of Israel and Judah. An examination of the genealogies of those
kings clearly shows their descent from that royal line. The Lord made a covenant with King
David, which was not conditional on David's continued righteousness. The Lord stated:
I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant,
Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations. . . .
I have found David my servant; with my holy oil have I anointed him:
With whom my hand shall be established: mine arm also shall strengthen him.
Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.
My mercy will I keep for him for evermore, and my covenant shall stand fast with
His seed also will I make to endure for ever, and his throne as the days of heaven.
If his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments;
If they break my statutes, and keep not my commandments;
Then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with stripes.
Nevertheless my lovingkindness will I not utterly take from him, nor suffer my
faithfulness to fail.
My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.
Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David.
His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me.
It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven.
(Psalms 89:3-4, 20-37)
Thus, the Lord covenanted that, notwithstanding their potential wickedness, the descendants of
David would rule as kings over Israel forever. If they became wicked, then they could bring
calamity on themselves and their subjects, but their kingly line would continue. That's an amazing
prophecy. All it would take to break it that the monarchy be overthrown, or to have no royal
descendant who could inherit the throne.
So has the royal line continued unbroken? It clearly was continuous for some four centuries until
the time of king Zedekiah, last King of Judah in Jerusalem. In 587 B.C., at the fall of Jerusalem
to Babylon, King Zedekiah, of the royal line of David, saw his sons slain before his eyes (Jer.
39:6). It was apparently Nebuchadnezzar's attempt to end the succession of Jewish kings, but there
was a detail of the Hebrew law with which he was apparently unfamiliar. A princess could also
inherit the throne if she married someone from the tribe of Judah (Num. 27:8; 36:3). So what
about the daughters of Zedekiah?
We are explicitly told that the daughters of Zedekiah were taken to Egypt along with the prophet
Jeremiah and others (Jer. 43:6). There Jeremiah prophesied that all those who fled to Egypt would
also be killed, except a few who should escape (Jer. 44:1-14).
That is where the Biblical story of Jeremiah ends, except for the hint that Jeremiah's mission was
not only to tear down, but also to plant (Jer. 1:10). No planting is described in his mission in
Jerusalem. Where did Jeremiah do his planting? And where was the new kingdom
described in the parable given to Ezekiel, where a "tender twig," cut from the highest branch of the
high cedar, would be planted and grow into a great kingdom, and that the lower tree would be
exalted above the upper? (Ezek. 17:22-24) That tender twig may well have been the daughter of
For the "rest of the story" we must turn to the history of ancient Ireland. The following account is
summarized from authenticated histories rather than mere legends or speculation.
2. Jeremiah and the Scottish Royalty
The earliest known colonizers of Ireland were the Danai, who almost certainly were from the tribe of Dan. They had separated from the other tribes shortly after the Exodus, and founded some cities in Greece, including Athens. About 1200 B.C. a colony of Danai from Greece journeyed to Ireland. Centuries later a group of Israelites called the Milesians arrived and subjugated the Danai. The Milesians were either the same as, or joined with, the Scots, who had migrated to Ireland from Scythia (Scotia = Scythia), near the Black Sea.
The kings of both of these nations came from Judah, from the line of
Zerah. Who was Zerah? Judah was given the promise that his children would reign until Shiloh comes (Gen. 49:10, most likely referring to the second coming of
Christ). His descendants all come through his twin
sons Pharez and Zerah. David came through the line of Pharez, and a similar promise was made to
him concerning his descendants, as noted above. But the line of Zerah
also produced many kingly
lines, including the kings of ancient Ireland. For the purposes of this article, we need only
understand that the ancient Irish were of Israel, and their kings were from Zerah, whose symbol
was a red hand, or a hand with red thread tied around it (Gen. 38:28).
The Flag of Northern Ireland combines the Star of David (Pharez) with the Red Hand (Zerah).
The histories say that in about 584 B.C. a Milesian chieftain named Gathelus became a hero in
Egypt and married the Pharaoh's daughter, Scota. Gathelus must have given her that name in honor of Scotia, or Scythia, the former country of the Scots. The histories explicitly state that Gathelus was a descendant of Cecrops who founded Athens. My conclusion after doing this research is that the Milesians were not the same as the Scots. The Milesians were most likely a second colony from Greece which came about 1000 B.C., and the Scots probably migrated from the Black Sea after the Assyrian captivity in Israel about 700 B.C. Thus, Gathelus giving his wife the name Scota might have been a way to help politically merge the two groups into one. They moved to the part of Spain now called
Portugal and built the city of Brigance and called his subjects Scots. Gathelus and Scota
had a son named Eochaidh whose wife Teah Tephi chose Ireland to be their residence. They founded Tara in Ireland, officially called their subjects "Scots" in honor of his mother, and Ireland later became known as Scotia.
The histories also mention that Eochaidh was accompanied by a prophet
named Ollam Fodhla and his scribe Berach. Gathelus (or perhaps Ollam Fodhla) prophesied that wherever his marble seat would be found, there would reign one of his descendants over the Scots.
2.1 Ollam Fodhla
What has all of this got to do with our story? Some versions identify Scota as the daughter of King Zedekiah, Ollam Fodhla as Jeremiah, and Berach as his scribe Baruch. But wasn't
Scota the daughter of Pharaoh? Remember that "pharaoh" is simply the Egyptian word for king, and
Zedekiah's daughter certainly was a king's daughter who was in Egypt. The traditions also state that the small group who thus escaped from Egypt took with them to Ireland the harp of David, the ark of the covenant, and the stone of Jacob. It states that King Eochaidh was coronated
by Jeremiah in Ireland while sitting on the stone of Jacob, and some versions add that his wife Teah was the sister of Scota and also a daughter of Zedekiah. The harp of David became a national
emblem of Tara and of Ireland.
The Harp is the Symbol of Ireland on the Royal Flag.
2.2 The Stone of Destiny
All the kings of the Scots in Tara were coronated on that stone for over a thousand years. Then
about A.D. 500, Fergus of Ireland conquered the Picts who lived in Scotland. The Picts agreed to
accept him as king, so he had the Stone of Destiny moved to Scotland, where he was crowned on
it. It thereafter also became known as the Stone of Scone (pronounced "Scoon") because it resided
at the castle there. True to the prophecy, that
land where the stone resided was ruled by a Scottish king, and became known as Scotland. Later,
King James VI of Scotland became James I of England, and today Queen Elizabeth is his
descendant. Thus, even now that Scotland forms part of Great Britain, it is still true that the Scots
are ruled by a monarch of Scottish royal descent.
The Stone of Destiny was moved to Westminster
Abbey in London, England, in 1296 A.D. by King Edward I. He had a special "coronation chair" built around that stone, and
all of the British kings and queens have been crowned in that chair since, including the currently
reigning Queen Elizabeth II. In 1996 the stone was returned to Scotland.
The Coronation Chair was built around the Stone of Scone (just below the seat).
2.3 Were Davidic Kings Coronated on the Stone?
The Coronation ceremony appears to have been taken as directly as possible from the description in
the Bible of the coronation of David and Solomon. The monarch is anointed with sacred oil by the
Archbishop of Canterbury, trumpets sound, and the people shout "God Save the King" (1 Samuel 10:24, 1 Kings 1:39).
The royal crown contains twelve jewels made of the same twelve stones which were in the
breastplate of the high priest (Ex. 28:17-21). These similarities alone do not prove that the kings
really are the royal blood of Israel, but such would be expected if the British throne is the
continuation of the throne of David. Of course, the royalty also have extensive genealogies to
prove their lineage.
It is interesting to note, however, that although the stone is not explicitly mentioned as part of the
Biblical coronation ceremony, there seem to be references to it which have been overlooked.
Consider the following accounts of when King Joash of Judah was anointed by the high priest
And when she looked, behold, the king stood by a pillar, as the manner was, and
the princes and the trumpeters by the king, and all the people of the land rejoiced,
and blew with trumpets (2 Kings 11:14)
Then they brought out the king's son, and put upon him the crown, and gave him
the testimony, and made him king. And Jehoiada and his sons anointed him, and
said, God save the king.
Now when Athaliah heard the noise of the people running and praising the king,
she came to the people into the house of the LORD:
And she looked, and, behold, the king stood at his pillar at the entering in, and the
princes and the trumpets by the king: and all the people of the land rejoiced, and
sounded with trumpets, also the singers with instruments of musick, and such as
taught to sing praise. (2 Chronicles 23:11-13)
He were are told that along with the usual parts of the coronation ceremony, that also the king
stood at his pillar, as was the custom at coronation. What does that mean? Some Bible
translations are more literal and render it, "The king stood on the pillar."  How can one stand
on a pillar? It turns out the word translated pillar come from the root meaning "to stand" and can
also refer to a "stand" or "platform." The meaning of pillar come from the idea that a pillar is
standing up on its end. So the verses could also be saying that the king was coronated while
standing on his stand, as was the custom. Was that stand or pillar the Stone of Destiny? If so, just
what is it that makes this stone so special? It was called the Stone of Jacob. Just what was the
stone of Jacob?
3. The Rock of Israel
The is a strange story in the Book of Genesis, which has been somewhat enigmatic. In the light of
knowing about the traditions surrounding the Stone of Destiny, and knowing its size and shape,
and knowing that authentic or not, an unbroken chain of kings has been crowned on that stone for
centuries, the following history now makes a lot more sense.
Nearly two thousand years before Christ, the Prophet Jacob (as in "Abraham, Isaac and Jacob"),
was traveling back to the land of Haran to choose a wife. When he passed by a city named Luz,
the following event occurred:
And he lighted upon a certain place, and tarried there all night, because the sun was
set; and he took of the stones of that place, and put them for his pillows, and lay
down in that place to sleep.
And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached
to heaven: and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it.
And, behold, the LORD stood above it, and said, I am the LORD God of Abraham
thy father, and the God of Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it,
and to thy seed;
And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the
west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south: and in thee and in thy seed
shall all the families of the earth be blessed.
And, behold, I am with thee, and will keep thee in all places whither thou goest,
and will bring thee again into this land; for I will not leave thee, until I have done
that which I have spoken to thee of.
And Jacob awaked out of his sleep, and he said, Surely the LORD is in this place;
and I knew it not.
And he was afraid, and said, How dreadful is this place! this is none other but the
house of God, and this is the gate of heaven.
And Jacob rose up early in the morning, and took the stone that he had put for his
pillows, and set it up for a pillar, and poured oil upon the top of it.
And he called the name of that place Bethel: but the name of that city was called Luz
at the first. (Genesis 28:11-19).
This account includes several puzzling features. First, a stone small
enough to use as a pillow seems hard to imagine being set up as a pillar. Second, just because he
had a dream about how the multitudes of his posterity would spread out all over the world, why
would he anoint his pillow stone with oil? And what did he mean
that the stone would be for God's house? It was important enough that he renamed the place
Bethel, which means "House of God." Did it have something to do with a temple?
3.1 The Stone of Jacob
The size and shape of Stone of Destiny helps make sense of this account, in case it really is this
stone of Jacob. First, it is in fact about the size and shape of a big pillow, being about 26 x 16 x
10 inches. It was apparently already a stone which had been cut into a rectangular building shape
when Jacob found it. It was probably rejected by the builders because it has a crack in it, so it
had been discarded before being finished. If
the Stone of Destiny really is Jacob's stone, then it is easy to see how he could stand it up on its
end to be a "pillar." Actually, it might have been difficult because it weighs over
300 pounds. Checking the meaning of the word translated "pillar," we see that it means a "stone
marker," which often were very large pillars. Most likely this one served mostly as a marker, so
that he could find the location when he returned.
The Stone of Destiny
Two decades and a dozen children later, Jacob was commanded to return to Bethel. After Jacob
returned, and had built and anointed a more permanent altar, God appeared to him there and
announced that his name would be changed to Israel, adding "a company of nations shall be of
thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins" (Gen. 35:11). This is most likely the time when Jacob
decided to bring the original stone with him, though we are not explicitly told that detail. Note that
the announcement that kings would descend from him occurred there. It would not be surprising if
he was also given to know the future relation that his stone might have to those kings.
The Stone of Destiny has two rings which have clearly been used for transporting the stone by
sliding a pole through both rings. There is a groove worn between the two rings which testifies of
having been gradually eroded by such transport for an extended period. The stone would have
been taken not only to Egypt with Israel, but then also with them at the Exodus and the forty years
in the wilderness. Presumably it stayed in Jerusalem from the time of David until the fall of that city
in 587 B.C.
3.2 The Stone of Israel Symbolized Christ
There is evidence in the Bible the it might well have been this stone which was specifically
indicated to have been the "stone of Israel" which symbolized Jesus Christ. During the blessing of
Jacob to Joseph, he inserted parenthetically, "from thence is the shepherd, the stone of Israel"
(Gen. 49:24, compare D&C 50:44).
Jesus Christ, the Rock of Israel
Although I couldn't find any place where the Bible states explicitly that the stone of Jacob accompanied the
Israelites during their exodus from Egypt, Paul seems to imply it. He compares physical
things such as the manna, water, and a rock which "followed" them to their spiritual counterparts
which all symbolize Jesus Christ:
MOREOVER, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our
fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that
followed them: and that Rock was Christ. (1 Corinthians 10:1-4)
Thus, the Rock of Salvation (Psalms 95:1) which shepherded the Israelites, apparently referred to the physical Stone of Jacob. Of course, as Paul explained, it was symbolic of Jesus Christ, who also identified himself as the Good Shepherd of Israel (John 10:11).
If the identification with the Stone of Scone is correct, then it is a very plain looking piece of calcareous sandstone, so ordinary that in preparing this article I noticed that several web pages describing the Stone of Scone were scoffing at how plain it is for the royalty to make such a fuss about. Thus, it has "no form nor comeliness" and "no beauty" that is should be desired, which is exactly how the Savior is described (Isa. 53:2). That led to it being "despised and rejected of men" (Isa. 53:3).
3.3 Rejected by the Builders
It may not only have been the original builders who discarded the stone. There is a also a tradition that when it came time to build the temple of Solomon, that the stone of Jacob, which was associated with the house of God from the beginning, should be included. But the builders rejected it because of the crack in it. There seemed to be no way that it could be a cornerstone to a temple. Nor did it seem to the Jews who saw the Savior that there was any way that he could be the Messiah, the cornerstone of their religion. Thus, both were despised and rejected. David prophesied that the stone would be rejected (Psa. 118:22), and Jesus identified himself as fulfilling that prophecy. He explained that the "stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner" (Mat. 21:42, compare Acts 4:11). Knowning the Jesus Christ is the Rock of Israel (2 Sam. 23:3), we have long understood that scripture in the spiritual sense. But now that we learn about the Stone of Jacob, we see that the prophecy might well have been fulfilled in the physical sense also.
Is the Stone of Scone indeed the Stone of Jacob, which Jeremiah brought to Ireland, and on
which British royalty has been coronated for so many centuries? Is there any way to verify these
traditions, or will such ancient claims remain forever impossible to verify?
4. Geological Evidence
In the age of modern scholarship, it has become fashionable to demote all ancient history and
tradition to the realm of legend, myth and fantasy. In many cases, that is like throwing out the baby
with the bath water because there is usually a core of truth handed down in legend. In preparing
this article, browsing the web for the "Stone of Scone" led to more articles ridiculing the
traditions than those giving them any credence at all. Modern writers have assumed the Stone of Scone must have originated from a local quarry.
I am only aware of two scientific attempts to determine the origin of the stone. The first was by
Professor Totten of Yale University. In response to suggestions that it had come from a local
quarry, he issued the statement:, "The analysis of the stone shows that there are absolutely no
quarries in Scone or Iona wherefrom a block so constituted could possibly have come, nor yet
The second study was done by Professor Odlum, who was a geologist and professor of theology
at Ontario University. He made microscopic examinations of the stone, comparing it to quarries in
both Scotland and Ireland, and found it dissimilar to stones from those areas. He became intrigued
with the idea of that it might really be the stone of Jacob. That hypothesis could be tested
scientifically by searching to see if a similar type of rock is found near Bethel, where Jacob found
his stone. After considerable searching he found some strata rather high near a cliff that had
exactly the type of composition he was looking for. He chipped off a piece and later performed
microscopic tests. He concluded that his sample "matched perfectly" with the coronation
Desirous for even better proof he sought to get a little piece the size of a pea from the coronation
stone, on which he could perform chemical tests. When he petitioned the Archbishop of
Canterbury for such a piece, the reply was that it would take an act of Parliament signed by the
King, and even then he wouldn't provide it.
To the best of my knowledge that was the end of a really fine scientific experiment which could at
least partially validate the claim that the stone might have come from Bethel. This is an excellent
example of how science can indeed be used to validate historical traditions. They cannot provide
proof, but can greatly add to the credibility of a story. What is needed now is a really thorough
scientific study of the stone to verify its authenticity.
Preliminary geological studies have indicated that the
Stone of Destiny, upon which British monarchs have been crowned for centuries might indeed be
the stone of Jacob as tradition asserts, because it matches a formation near Bethel, the Biblical
location of the stone the prophet Jacob found. Further scientific testing is now required, such as a
thorough chemical composition comparison, and even that can only confirm the possibility that the
stone is authentic. In any case, on this fiftieth anniversary of the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II,
we can pause to pay respect to what very well might be the continuation of the unbroken line of
succession of kings reigning over the children of Israel, from King David, over three
thousand years ago.
- See www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page2333.asp for a complete summary of events.
- E. Raymond Capt has written several books which summarize much of the evidence. Most of the information in this article was taken from his book Jacob's Pillar, Muskogee OK, Artisan Publishers, 1977. The author wishes to thank Colette Thomas Smith and William L. Walker, Jr., who pointed out to him several of the books on the subject, many of which are available from those publishers.
- One son of Zedekiah named Mulek avoided being killed, and came to America and became king of the Mulekites. His seed continued as kings until the time of Zarahemla about 120 B.C., when the Mulekites merged with the Nephites whose kings descended from Joseph through Lehi (Helaman 6:10, 8:21; Mosiah 25:2; Omni 1:19; Alma 10:3).
- The lower branch must refer to Zerah, son of Judah, whose kingdoms in Great Britain would go on to surpass that of the Kingdom of Judah, which was ruled by the higher branch of Pharez.
- Argos and Athens, the early culture centers in Greece which helped establish its culture and laws, were founded by the Danai (named for Dan). Muller, in Fragmenta Historicorum II:385 summarizes: "Hecataeus [of Abdera, a fouth-century B.C. Greek historian], therefore, tells us that the Egyptians, formerly being troubled by calamities, in order that the divine wrath might be averted, expelled all the aliens gathered together in Egypt. Of these, some, under their leaders Danus and Cadmus, migrated to Greece." (Capt, p. 25). Another ancient historian, Diodorus, adds "Now the Egyptians say that also after these events a great number of colonies were spread from Egypt all over the inhabited world . . . They say also that those who set forth with Danaus, likewise from Egypt, settled what is practically the oldest city in Greece, Argos . . . Even the Athenians, they say, are colonists from Sais in Egypt." (G.H. Oldfather, Diodorus of Sicily, 1933, vol 1, I:1-II:34, pg. 91, quoted in Capt, p. 26). The Danai became associated with the Phoenicians, and gave them their alphabet (the Phoenician alphabet is same as ancient Hebrew), upon which the Greek alphabet was also based. The Bible mentions how Dan made ships during the period of the Judges (about 1300 B.C., Judges 5:17). Homer refers to all of Greece as Argos, and calls them Argives or Danai, but most Greeks are descended from Javan, son of Japheth (Gen. 10:2). The Argives apparently later became the Macedonians. See Gawler, J. C., Dan, Pioneer of Israel (London, 1880) reprinted by Artisan Publishers, 1984, pp 11-16. This was clearly part of how all the world would be blessed by the children of Abraham.
- The Milesians were said also to called Gadelians, but the latter were probably a group that came later from the same area, because they were said to have remained in "Gothland" for a century and a half before coming to Ireland (Gawler, p. 31). I cannot help but notice the similarity of the name "Gadelian" and the name "Goth" to "Gad," one of the twelve tribes of Israel. I've never read of anyone else making that connection, so it might be merely a coincidence. Keatinge, in his History of Ireland p. 72 states, "The most ancient Irish chronicles assert that the Gadelians in general were called Scots because they came out of Scythia." (Gawler, p. 41). The original source seems to be Annals of Ireland, by the Four Masters, "The Milesians, according to our old annalists, were originally a colony from Scythia, near to the Euxine and Caspian Seas, on the borders of Europe and Asia, and about the country now called Crimea. From these people, called the Scoti or Scots, Ireland got the name of Scotia." (Gawler, p. 31).
- Zerah is the usual spelling for this name (Gen. 46:12, 1 Chron. 2:4, etc.). The only time it is spelled Zarah is in the one verse describing his birth (Gen. 38:30).
- David's promise of continually reigning descendants appears to be an extension of the same promise given to Judah. This article discusses the continuity of the regal line after David, but what about from Judah to David? Saul was from the tribe of Benjamin (1 Sam. 9:1-2), and before that Israel was ruled by judges from various tribes. Where were the kings from Judah at that time? A manuscript from the Archives of Constantinople, which might well be the last chapter of the Book of Acts, states that the apostle Paul visited the British Isles, and that "certain of the Druids came unto Paul privately, and showed by their rites and ceremonies they were descended from the Jews which escaped from bondage in the land of Egypt, and the Apostle believed these things" (E. Raymond Capt, The Lost Chapter of Acts of the Apostles, Artisan Publishers, Muskogee, OK, 1982, p. 6). If some Israelites escaped from Egypt as the bondage began, then Judah's descendants could have a continual reign beginning with Judah himself.
- The Greek tradition is that Cecrops was the founder and first king of Athens, and that his brother Darda was the founder of Troy. Both were said to have come from Egypt. Some researchers have concluded that they were none other than Calcol and Dara, sons of Zerah (1 Chron. 2:6; Capt, Jacob's Pillar, p. 26). If so, it would mean that those cities were founded earlier than thought and that the founders left before, rather than after, the Egyptian bondage.
- The Scottish tradition is that his people were officially named "Scots" in honor of his wife, although they also say the name came from Scotia, their former home (Scythia): "the ancestor of the Scots was 'ane Greyk callit Gathelus (father of Eochaidh ...) son (descendant) of Cecrops of Athens, untherways of Argus, King of Argives' who came to Egypt when 'in this tyme rang (reigned) in Egypt Pharo ye scurge of ye pepill of Israel.' Gathelus gained a great victory for Pharo against 'the Moris and Pepil of Yned' and 'King Pharo gaif him his dochter, callit Scota, in marriage' It explicitly states that after they moved to Lusitana (Portugal) and built the city of Brigance, that he 'callit his subdittis (subjects) Scottis in honour and affeccioun of his wyiff.'" (The Chronicles of Scotland, by John Bellenden, 1531, vol. I, pgs. 21-27, quoted in Pillar of Jacob, p. 30).
- Capt, Jacob's Pillar, pp. 31-32.
- Another regal line in England descending from David comes from Joseph of Arimathaea, who went to England shortly after the Crucifixion of Christ, and from whom King Arthur descended.
- According to Capt (p. 26), after the fall of Troy, about 1200 B.C., Aeneas, the last of the royal blood of Zerah, took what was left of his nation and moved to Italy. He married the daughter of Latinus, king of the Latins, and founded the Roman Empire. His son (or grandson) Brutus with a large party of Trojans, removed to England. He arrived about 1103 B.C. and made a contract with his kindred in Britian. He built his new capital called Caer Troia ("New Troy"). The Romans later called it "Londinium" and today it is known as London.
- See the CNN coverage of the return of the Stone of Scone.
- The Companion Bible, quoted in Jacob's Pillar, p. 12.
- Bethel was located within a few miles of what is
now Ramallah, which is Yasser Arafat's headquarters.
- Some possibilities are Ex. 17:6, Num. 20:8, Deut. 8:15, Psalms 114:8 in light of 1 Cor. 10:4.
- But didn't Gathelus say it his chair was marble? The word marble at that time could refer to any calcareous stone which could be polished (Jacob's Pillar, p. 31).
- This tradition comes through the Masons (Jacob's Pillar, p. 11).
- Jacob's Pillar, p. 59.
- Jacob's Pillar, p. 60.