Virtually all new elevations to nobility are life peerages, are they not? Though I did hear that when Benjamin Britten was elevated to the peerage, it was in theory a transmittable peerage, but he was most unlikely to produce an heir.
[QUOTE=His Excellency Sir Samuel Vimes, Duke of Ankh-Morpork, Commander of the city watch]
“I’m his Excellency, too? I thought I was ‘Sir’”.
“You are both”.
“I was a chalkboard cleaner, too. Does that help?”
“It may come in handy in case of a tie, sir”.
[QUOTE]
(From memory, the exact quote it probably funnier)
This may appear to be off topic, but the book is written by a brit, and he probably knows his nobles.
That certainly appears to be the philosophy of recent British governments, yes. There has been the odd hereditary peerage created since the 1980s though I think. William Whitelaw was granted a hereditary viscountcy. And Harold MacMillan was created the Earl of Stockton, a title to which his grandson later succeeded.
Well Princes Andrew and Edward were both granted hereditary peerages on their wedding days, but royalty is a different story. Maggie Thatcher was given a life barony, though her husband was made a baronet (not actual a peerage) just so her son, Mark, would inheirit a title.
Prior to the 1960s, wealth and influence would get you a barony.
Being a retired war hero (preferably a Field Marshall or a Fleet Admiral) would get you a viscountship.
Being an ex-Prime Minister would get you an earldom. (When Maggie Thatcher only got a baronage, it raised some eyebrows. But her husband got a baronetcy, so they weren’t completely gypped.)
If you inherited an earldom, and then had a distinguished military or political career of your own, you might get upgraded to a marquess.
For a dukedom, you had to do something really spectacular, like beating Napoleon and then becoming Prime Minister.
BAN HIM! BAN HIM!!