As I say elsewhere on this site, Brown provides no evidence whatsoever that Mary Magdalene’s ancestry can be traced with any reliability at all.  But even if it could, and even if the evidence showed that Mary Magdalene was of the tribe of Benjamin, this would prove exactly squat about her alleged “royal descent.”  You see, my dear child (to use the annoyingly pedantic phrasing of Leigh Teabing),  the tribe of Benjamin was not the tribe from which the kings of Israel descended.  Almost every single one of the kings of Israel came from either the tribe of Judah (in the case of the southern kingdom of Judah) or the tribe of Ephraim (one of the two “Joseph” tribes, in the case of the northen kingdom of Israel).  In all of Jewish history, there is exactly one king who is of the tribe of Benjamin, and that was the first king, Saul.  But his right to rule is taken away from him by God, and it is not given to any of his Benjaminite descendants, but to David, of the tribe of Judah, and to his descendants (see 2 Samuel 7).  There is not a single documented case (to my knowledge) of any member of the tribe of Benjamin making any kind of royal claim in the thousand years between the rule of Saul and the time of Jesus, nor of any Benjaminite doing so thereafter.   Moreover, by Brown’s logic, if everyone from the tribe of Benjamin,  the tribe of Judah, and the tribe of Ephraim is of royal descent,  then there would have been more than a hundred thousand members of the “royal family”in Jesus’ time.  Hence it is hardly a distinguishing characteristic, and would certainly not have led the Jews in France to “revere” Mary Magdalene as Brown alleges (without proof) that they did, nor would it have led the Jews of Palestine to follow closely and “chronicle” the life of Jesus as Brown alleges (falsely) that they did.