Multiple Peerages.

.....There has been a debate on the Peer's List, and with TBT, over the recognition of a second or third peerage. I'm basically posting here to clarify my own thoughts on the matter as it seems that TBT and I came to a basic agreement last night. She will probably post in greater, and better, detail on the subject. But like I said, this is for my own clarification.

.....So, when considering someone for the accolade that gives them their second or third peerage, should you hold them to a higher standard then someone for whom this would be their first peerage? My answer is a yes, but let me clarify that.

.....Although I dislike the 'bucket theory', it makes a useful illustration. Say someone is a Laurel, and you are now considering them for a Pelican. Their 'bucket' for Laurel was already filled. The fact that you are considering them for a Pelican most likely means that their Pelican bucket is filled, or close to it. The bucket is still the same size, no matter what else is considered. What it takes to fill that bucket shouldn't change from person to person.

.....But, in my mind, what should be considered is that when the candidate is about to receive a second or third peerage is that an ADDITIONAL bucket should be applied. This is the character bucket. If you put two peers side by side, who received their first peerage on the same day, they are basically on the same level on the Order of Precedence. It does not matter if they get that second or even third peerage, that level does not change. BUT, what does change is a PERCEPTION from those around them IF one of the peers has that second and or third peerage. More is expected from them (or demanded of them as far as work ethic or courtesy or ....). Because that perception exists, those who are considering a candidate for that second or third peerage need to take this into consideration.

.....A quote come to mind from one of my favorite movies, 'The American President,' which is 'Being President is ALL ABOUT CHARACTER.' The same sentiment applies here, in my opinion.

.....It is also a two-way street. Those with a second or third peerage also represent the peerages to a greater degree then those who maintain just one. What a multiple peer does reflects smore strongly upon the peers as a whole than does a peer who holds only one.

.....Now, this is not as cut-and-dried as I make it sound. Every individual brings a different set of standards to the table and here I've over-simplified it to make my point. But I still believe that the bottom line holds true. That being that a multiple peer is held to a higher standard then a holder of a single peerage and that this needs to be taken into consideration when debating said candidate.

.....Just my opinion, I'm sure others will agree and disagree. And I'm sure that TBT will say this much better than I have, even if her bottom line opinion differs from mine. :-)

.....Aaron / Arontius.