Quite fascinating fiction. You must certainly be aware that no such concept as Mary being Queen of Heaven was even mentioned for many hundreds of years.
The truth is that the first icon was painted by the Gospel writer Luke and it was of Mary. Mariology is woven into the Church's history and was integral to the early Church. The mother and child icon and later sculptures almost dominated holy depictions. Even if I did produce first century evidence, would you then believe? Do the fact that the first definition of the Council of Ephesus negate anything? The Trinitarian Formula and the Nicene Creed was first defined at Nicea. Since they were not in existence prior, does that negate them?
The truth is that the first icon was painted by the Gospel writer Luke.An unsupported legend, hardly verifiable truth. Quite unlikely considering the prohibition of the second commandment.
Mariology is woven into the Church's history and was integral to the early Church.The early church is totaly silent on the various Marian heresies for the first 400 years or so years until the apocharyphal pagan transitus Marie writings appear and are condemned by the Church but later brought in. See 2 Pet 2
The evidence is entrirely lacking to support any of your assertions. The entire NT does not record Mary playing any active part in the NT church! No one is praying to Her! She is not sitting on a throne, anywhere. She is not dispensing "grace" to anyone! She is not performing miracles. She is not part of the Apostolic ministry in ANY way!
Unfortunately, the church allowed heresy to influence her and let Mary became a focus for all sorts of nonsense 500 YEARS after the Biblical events occured! See the reference by Jesus about traditions of men.