This chapter looks at the contribution of Eugenius III to the evolution of the crusade protection privilege and the practical significance of his protection to comital crusaders in Flanders and Champagne. It employs charter evidence and narrative sources for the comital crusade regencies from c.1145 to 1177, the period in which the crusade-specific protection was dominated by Eugenius’ influence. The discussion focuses primarily on the two regencies of Sibylla of Flanders to investigate, in the first instance, her experience and her suitability for the role, to explore the continued distinctions between pilgrim and crusader, and also to examine the role of the papacy in defending the crusaders’ wives and possessions. The first part concentrates on Flanders because Count Thibaut of Champagne did not take the cross but played an important role in protecting the interests of his crusading vassals. It then goes on to consider the two regencies of Philip of Flanders, Thierry and Sibylla's second son, to evaluate how he fitted the pattern of regency and to analyse the main events under his rule. The chapter concludes by examining Philip of Flanders’ and Henry I of Champagne's preparations for their crusades.

Charter evidence forms the basis for the discussion because this material provides insight into the crusade regents’ political acts. Clanchy described charters as ‘a kind of open testimonial’. The point of these documents was to secure grants of property and ensure their permanence. They were often ratified with public and visual ceremony, designed to ensure that all the participants knew what they were putting their names to. The witness lists were designed to guarantee the viability and validity of the act, so the witnesses needed to know what they had witnessed in the event of a challenge to its authenticity. It follows that the donors and witnesses would also be aware of events dealt with by these charters. Seals, the use of which increased during this period, were another way to ratify these documents. We have already seen that seals were a vital visual means of communicating power. The attachment of a seal was designed to prevent forgery, to prove the legitimacy of the act, and to ensure its permanence regardless of whether those involved were literate. In contrast to Adela of Blois, impressions of Sibylla of Flanders’ seal have actually survived which makes the dating and attribution of her documents easier.