Uh, Dave, I don't believe that Jesus was a virgin birth, remember? If you want my opinion, his father was Joseph, of the tribe of Judah.
I asked in the generic first.
Are you aware of the law that most (if not all) states have that children born into a marriage are considered, by law, to be the offspring of the husband?
SD
Modern jurisprudence has no bearing on customs of first century Judea.
BUT, just for fun, let's assume that the kingship can be passed matrilineally, and let's further assume that the genealogy in Luke is Mary's and not Joseph's. There is still a problem!
When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom.
He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. (2 Samuel 7:12-13)
God made this promise to David. Clearly this refers to Solomon.
Then the LORD appeared to Solomon in the night and said to him: "I have heard your prayer, and have chosen this place for myself as a house of sacrifice...
For now I have chosen and consecrated this house that my name may be there for ever; my eyes and my heart will be there for all time.
And as for you, if you walk before me, as David your father walked, doing according to all that I have commanded you and keeping my statutes and my ordinances,
then I will establish your royal throne, as I covenanted with David your father, saying, `There shall not fail you a man to rule Israel.' (2 Chronicles 7:12,16-18)
Which confirms 2 Samuel.
So the line of David -- and the line of the future messiah -- must pass through Solomon.
Now, let's take a look at the pertinent passage of Luke:
the son of Me'le-a, the son of Menna, the son of Mat'tatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David (Luke 3:31)
This genealogy goes through Nathan, not Solomon.