Am I correct in believing that Daniel was a eunuch because he was not married and he was under the care of the chief eunuch?
Your statement that Daniel was a eunuch is questionable. The common definition of a eunuch in our modern concept of this word is a male deprived of the testes or external genitals. You asked why do I think the Ethiopian eunuch was whole. Again, we have to have the counsel of the whole of scripture to make an educated guess. When we take something out of context without comparing it to all the scriptures related to the subject we tend to misinterpret scripture. That is the fault of Christian theology as regards the “Law.” The Torah states that castrated or homosexual men were excluded from serving as priests (Lev. 21:20) and from membership in the congregation of Israel (Deut. 23:1) and this means either by nature or by intent. The Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26) was either Jewish or a Jewish Proselyte and if he had been castrated or a homosexual he could not come to Jerusalem to worship as it was against Torah for him to enter the Temple, which was the purpose of coming to Jerusalem. By extension, the Hebrew word translated eunuch could be used of any court official and was (At Gen. 37:36 and 39:1), where the reference is to a married man. The Greek term translated eunuch is bed-keeper. They had charge of the bed chambers in large homes or palaces. Many rose to higher positions such as the Ethiopian Eunuch who was Queen Candace’s treasurer. The word eunuch was employed to denote persons in such high offices without indicating anything of their proper manhood in both Greek and Hebrew. It could also be employed to denote a castrated man as well. Therefore, we have to look at the context of the scripture where we find it.
Now, because you read it in the bible does not establish it as being interpreted correctly. So, yes, I disagree with you about your definition of eunuch in this particular case because other scriptures shed a different light on the word. Christians quote the bible all the time, to back up their doctrine of antinomianism and they are dead wrong because they don’t consider all the bible and the scriptures on the subject.
I disagree with you that all European royalty is of the tribe of Judah. If anything, most royals if descended from Israel are from the tribe of Dan. Attributing the royal head to Judah is found within British Israelism. You allege that Mary was an Anglo Saxon is wrong. Mary’s lineage is found in the NT and she obviously was a maid of Judah in Israel corporate. Many people teach otherwise in order to circumvent G-d’s plan and promises to Judah or to come into the sovereign tribe by the back door for agendas of their own. They do this also to give credibility to their religionist persuasion, and many others try to deny that Yahshua was Jewish. It is a subtle and not so subtle form of anti-Semitism. The line of David is resident in Yahshua and will manifest itself on earth during the millennium. Right now, the Davidic royal line exists in Heaven for HaSatan is still the Prince of earth.
The reference you speak of in Daniel 1:9 was a minister of state holding the office of chamberlain. See your Strong’s. The root word Rab Saris means chief chamberlain, a Babylon official. Your reference to no wives being mentioned is not compelling proof. If you observe scripture, women are rarely mentioned in connection with a personage of importance like the prophets etc.. It is superfluous. Therefore, you cannot make a case when a wife’s name is omitted unless she figures somehow importantly in the story.