Bart Ehrman: Jesus was killed as someone who claimed to be a rival king.

Steefen: You can say that if you can prove Jesus from Galilee circa 30 C.E. was the one who staged the Palm Sunday (King Solomon's entrance re-enactment) event. Until then, we are not really dealing with facts worthy of persuasion.

Let's take a closer look at your statement from a historical perspective. There certainly was another royal family in Jerusalem circa 30 C.E.: Queen Helena, King Monobaz, Prince to King Izates. Queen Helena had a palace. Queen Helena was more a royal family to Jerusalem than a Roman governor. Her royal family saved Jerusalem from famine, feeding 5,000 on multiple occasions.

Who had a bigger political claim on Jerusalem under Rome's eye, a little Jesus or a royal family with ties to Parthia, Rome's sometime rival empire?

That royal family had kings who wore crowns of thorns. Google or Bing "King of Edessa and crown of thorns" and you will see the thorns and latticework on the crown. This isn't just artist rendering but you will find this on coins, that this royal family is the reference for crown of thorns.

Question Two: Who was a bigger threat to Rome, a little Jesus or a royal family Josephus records as supporting the rebels during the Jewish Rebellion?

In the end (of the Revolt) did this royal family (key members converted to Judaism) who committed sedition, get crucified and left for dogs, birds, and weather? No.

The Bible says the one who was crucified was a problem for Rome, a king who over-reached his position locally, stepping on Rome's toes, and wore a crown of thorns. The Jesus who was crucified was either a king in that royal family or a prince in that royal family. If he were a prince awaiting succession who made more of himself than Rome allowed, Rome mocked him saying, in three languages: King of the Jews.