The privilege of protection for crusaders’ possessions was an important one but it was not the only defensive measure that the crusaders relied upon. Thus, it was common for crusaders to appoint close family members, usually their wives, as regents to guard their interests for the duration of their absence. This chapter will focus on the First Crusade regents to determine the effect of the protection privilege and the impact of the crusaders’ absence on those left behind, in this case the wives and sons of two prominent First Crusaders: Count Robert II of Flanders and Count Stephen of Blois. The potential disorder that might be provoked by the crusaders’ departure required strong secular guardians. In this sense, perhaps it is surprising that many crusaders chose their wives rather than male candidates. In the medieval period, rulership was normally a male prerogative, so there must have been compelling reasons to appoint female regents. One may be familiarity; the close relationship of a wife to the absent crusader and the familiar face she presented to his neighbours and tenants provided more stability than the appointment of an outsider or non-family member. In terms of military expertise, the use of experienced advisors could have mitigated the problems associated with female rule and indeed it was not unheard of for women to engage in warfare directly as commanders of armies.

The phrase ‘comital insiders’ is used here to indicate people who were close members of the court's inner circle and had a familiarity with that court and at least an understanding of the basics of government. As a wife, a countess was one such comital insider; she was part of the count's inner circle and she was well placed to observe her husband's government. Likewise an ‘ideal regent’ required access to court and an awareness of the key political players who could form her power base – those most loyal to the count, including both ecclesiastical and lay people. An ability to inspire and retain those loyalties and to foster new ones would also seem valuable. Logically, the ideal regent would remain loyal to the count and protect his possessions. Hodgson and Geldsetzer argue that wives were chosen because regency was viewed as an extension of the perceived ideals of motherhood; a wife should act for the well-being of her children, and her lands.