So the fourth kingdom is in power when Jesus returns. It is the kingdom of the beast in Revelation 13.
No. Daniel does not distinguish between the first and second coming of Christ.Nor did Isaiah when he speaks of the birth of Jesus and then (without any hint of a gap) about His rule on earth. The OT propheties did not know the secret of the Church, and nothing about the time of the Church, this was revealed to Paul (though Paul does not prophecy any details of world history). Even Jesus, who did not know when He will come back (Mk 13:32), mixed the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD with the End of the world, without knowing what happened you would not be able to decide which things in Mk 13 or parallel passages is about 70 AD and which about His return.
In Daniel 9:26, the prince who shall come is from the people who destroyed the city and sanctuary, the Romans.
This prophecy was fulfilled in 70 AD.
In the list of 7 kings of Revelation 17:10, the kings don't have to have the title of emperor, but leaders of the fourth kingdom
Show me where in Revelation the kings of rev 17:10 are called leaders of the fourth kingdom. The beast in Rev 17 is the Beast of rev 13, not one of the beasts in Dan 7.
The little horn person will be of the Julio-Claudian family.
Really? Part of what Daniel prophesies is about Antioch IV. "Epiphanes", the horn is usually taken to denote him. A prophecy may have more than one fulfilment.
There are million ways to interpret Revelation - wrong. But only one way to interpret Revelation - right.
There is also the possibility that one who gets things in Revelation wrong understands the signs of his time right in the light he has got from Revelation, while one who tries to understand the "only one true" reading of this text misses what is important to understand his own time, being entangled in a future he does not understand.
The G7 theory doesn't fit because the sixth king was ruling at the time of John, 1st century.
And you really believe he is alive today?
The Roman Empire is history, long gone. We live in a time Daniel says nothing about (skipping from Jesus' ascension to his ruling in the millenia in Dan 7).
There are cases where it is a matter of definition whether two empires are the same or distinct. One might argue that the first three beasts in Dan 7 are not distinct empires, but different dynasties of the same empire. Whether Eastern Rome (after the split of the Roman empire), a Latin empire, and the Greek Byzantine empire are the same or distinct, is a matter of discussion. And so on ...
There are also tricks which allow some people to identify empires that were different by common sense (and by judgement from all historians). August was Pharaoh over Egypt (which, legally speaking, was no part of the Roman empire in his time), the following Roman emperors were called Pharaoh in Egypt (though it soon became a rather normal Roman province), so one might say that Roman Empire and Egypt were the same?
The tricks used to say Roman was still there in the Middle Ages and subsequent times are even more far-fetched than the Egypt-Roman example above.
And I say again: Had the Bible the intention to tell world history, we should expect prophecies that allowed to predict Genghis Khan or the British empire. There are no such prophecies, I don't see any prophecy about the Brexit, and I don't see any OT prophecy that speaks of the Beast in Rev 13 or 17. Anyone who looks for this is misguided.