The Babylonian kings derived their right to rule from divine appointment by Babylon's patron deity

Marduk and through consecration by the city's priests.[22] Marduk's main cult image (often
conflated with the god himself), the Statue of Marduk, was prominently used in the coronation
rituals for the kings, who received their crowns "out of the hands" of Marduk during the New
Year's festival, symbolizing them being bestowed with kingship by the deity.[11] The king's rule and
his role as Marduk's vassal on Earth were reaffirmed annually at this time of year, when the king
entered the Esagila alone on the fifth day of the New Year's Festival each year and met with the
chief priest. The chief priest removed the regalia from the king, slapped him across the face and
made him kneel before Marduk's statue. The king would then tell the statue that he had not
oppressed his people and that he had maintained order throughout the year, whereafter the chief
priest would reply (on behalf of Marduk) that the king could continue to enjoy divine support for
his rule, returning the royal regalia.[23] Through being a patron of Babylon's temples, the king
extended his generosity towards the Mesopotamian gods, who in turn empowered his rule and
lent him their authority.[22]
Babylonian kings were expected to establish peace and security, uphold justice, honor civil rights,
refrain from unlawful taxation, respect religious traditions and maintain cultic order. None of the
king's responsibilities and duties required him to be ethnically or even culturally Babylonian; any
foreigner sufficiently familiar with the royal customs of Babylonia could adopt the title,[22] though
they might then require the assistance of the native priesthood and the native scribes. Ethnicity
and culture does not appear to have been important in the Babylonian perception of kingship;
many foreign kings enjoyed support from the Babylonians and several native kings were
despised.[24] That the rule of some foreign kings was not supported by the Babylonians probably
has little to do with their ethnic or cultural background.[25] What was always more important was
whether the ruler was capable of executing the duties of the Babylonian king properly, in line with
established Babylonian tradition.[26] The frequent Babylonian revolts against foreign rulers, such
as the Assyrians and the Persians, can most likely be attributed to the Assyrian and Persian kings
being perceived as failing in their duties as Babylonian monarchs. Since their capitals were
elsewhere, they did not regularly partake in the city's rituals (meaning that they could not be
celebrated in the same way that they traditionally were) and they rarely performed their traditional
duties to the Babylonian cults through constructing temples and presenting cultic gifts to the city's
gods. This failure might have been interpreted as the kings thus not having the necessary divine
endorsement to be considered true kings of Babylon.[27]