Other royal prerogatives were connected with the primitive conception of a patriarchal monarchy. The king, although he lacks the absolutism of the _paterfamilias_, occupies much the same position in the state as the father does in the family. In a sense he is owner of the whole community, and as such capable of commanding the _munera_ of the burgesses.[169] But a large portion of the public domain was more peculiarly set apart for his own private use.[170] This crown-land must have been worked mainly by the king’s own clients, who held it _precario_ from him;[171] for there seems no reason to doubt the belief that a large proportion of the half-free Plebeians were in the immediate _clientela_ of the king, connected with the community chiefly through him, its representative. These may have been captives who had submitted to the _fides_ of the state, and whom their conqueror had not attached as dependants to other leading families of the community. The theory of a kingship is best expressed in the mode in which the monarch ascends the throne. The alternative principles that have usually been recognised are the hereditary, the elective, or that of divine right. Of the hereditary principle there is no trace at Rome. It is contradicted by the facts of the traditional history, which believed that, when the hereditary principle was first realised in the last king, the monarchy came to an end; and it is expressly denied by later authors who reflected on the character of the early monarchy.[172] There is rather more to be said for the theory of divine right. Romulus is the son of a god and awaits the verdict of heaven before he assumes his rule. Numa, his successor, insists that the same verdict shall be appealed to.[173] But, if the taking of the auspices be the sign of a divine origin, then everything in Rome proceeds almost equally from the gods. Probably in earlier as in later Rome religion played a most important subsidiary part in public life, but we have no warrant for believing that it was ever the sole guiding power. As we shall see, in discussing the question of the inauguration of the king, this theory raises into a primary and material what was merely a secondary and formal element in the transmission of the monarchy, although this formal element was one of the utmost necessity and importance. The Roman thinkers were thus thrown back on the theory of election. Tradition is unanimous in representing the monarchy as elective—depending, i.e., on free popular election, or on such election guided by the Senate.[174] On the death of a king there is no immediate successor with a title to rule; an interim-king (_interrex_) is appointed for a few days, and on his proposal a king is elected by the patrician burgesses at the _comitia curiata_, subject to the sanction of the patrician Senate (_auctoritas patrum_).[175]