The killing of one’s king entirely violated the Divine Right of Kings, a doctrine defining the monarch’s God-given right to rule, which had governed English society for centuries.<br><br>Oliver Cromwell assured his troops “there is no such thing as chance, no mistake in providence”<sup>1</sup>, convincing them of God’s favour — that they were indeed the “instruments of providence” — as they fought and later beheaded King Charles I. In Cromwell’s camp, the act of regicide of a tyrannical king was an act of divine intervention.<sup>2</sup> Many however were not convinced.<sup>3</sup><br><br>Providential beliefs were widely held in early modern England and until the Civil War the idea that a non-royal could commit a deposition of this kind was virtually inconceivable to the English.<sup>4</sup> Royalists believed Cromwell and his soldiers had grossly perverted the Divine Right of Kings and that in time God would have his vengeance on them.<sup>5</sup><br><br>Providential beliefs could be manipulated for both the benefit and detriment of the King and Cromwell. When censorship laws lapsed as a result of political uncertainty during the Civil War and Interregnum (1649-60), propaganda on both sides exploited providence to support their causes.<sup>6</sup> But by 1660 when the republican regime had begun to falter under Cromwell’s son, public opinion began to shift in favour of the restoration of the monarchy, with many viewing their beheaded king as a virtuous martyr.<sup>7</sup><br><br>By the time of the Restoration, the public at large was firmly rooted in their support of the new king, Charles II, while a spike displayed Cromwell’s head outside Westminster Hall.<br>