It seems however that the general policy since roughly the end of WWII has been to not award hereditary titles, with a handful of exceptions. Is this part of a definite policy? If so, what is the goal? We’re this policy to continue indefinitely into the future, the result would be that all the hereditary peerages would go extinct, and the only holders of hereditary titles would be members of the royal family. Is that what is intended?
The Life Peerages Act 1958 created the concept of life peers in the degree of baron to prevent exponential expansion of the hereditary peerage just for political services. Since then few new hereditaries have been created, and mostly ones that would go extinct with the death of their holder.
No, some hereditary peerages were created up to and into the 1980s. It was customary for retiring PM’s to be given an Earldom, and (I think) the Speaker of the Commons to get a (slightly lesser) Viscountcy. The last PM to get an Earldom was Macmillan, but his successor could hardly do do, having renounced an Earldom to become PM only a couple of years before. The last hereditary creations were Thatcher’s deputy and cleaner -up of messes, Willie Whitelaw (of whom she famously said “Every Prime Minister needs a Willie”), and the Speaker George Thomas. Whitelaw only had daughters and Thomas wasn’t married, so the hereditariness was otiose. There was some speculation that it was a weird joke, but Thatcher also got a baronetcy (an hereditary knighthood) for her husband, which meant that her unlovely son gets to be called “Sir”, but since she herself only took a life peerage, we were spared the embarrassment of having him in the Upper House.
Since then, hereditary peerages haven’t been created, but as long as there are heirs the existing titles can still be inherited, even if since the Blair government they no longer come with a seat in the Lords.
An Earldom would go nicely with a previously awarded Order of the British Empire, so they could carry the honorific ‘Earlobe’.
[not my joke, courtesy of the late great Tim Brooke-Taylor]
There are two towns in Scotland, one in Shetland, one in Orkey.
Both towns are named Twatt.
Neither town has ever been represented in the House of Lords.
This is a grave injustice.
I really want to see someone ennobled with the magnificent title “The Lord of the Twatts.”
Need to gget one of them to change the vowel in their name to an I. Then you could have a Lord Twitt and a Lord Twatt.
Including Grosvenor Square and the buildings around it. One of the few American embassies that were only leasehold. I believe it’s a luxury hotel now.
Which should be put into a combined county Twaddle?
It was my understanding from some articles many years ago that Charles personally had a significant fortune based on the assorted enterprises he’d built. (The article gave as an example that he was a sausage king, which would have been before he was a king king).
So I presume combined with mummy’s assets would make for a full counting-house.
When Victoria first offered one to Disraeli, he declined for that reason, and asked that it be given to Mary Anne, his wife, instead. She thus became a viscountess — of course, women then could not sit in the House of Lords. Victoria — per Robert Blake’s Disraeli bio — feared this arrangement would be a subject of jokes, but felt she couldn’t politely question the request of a dear friend.
After Mary Anne died, Disraeli was offered it again and accepted.
Since life peerages about 1964, hereditary peerages have only been created for men born into the royal family. Reportedly, Captain Mark Phillips was offered a hereditary peerage when he married into the Royal Family in 1973, but declined. More recently men marrying into the family have not been offered peerages. (Women marrying into the royal family never were.)
Except . . .
In one of her odder moments Margaret Thatcher thought it would be a nice idea to revive the practice of awarding hereditary titles outside the royal family. in the mid-1980s three new peerages were created on her advice; an earldom for Harold Macmillan (former Conservative Prime Minister); a viscountcy for Willie Whitelaw (former Conservative Home Secretary) and a viscountcy for George Thomas (former Speaker of the House of Commons). The viscountcies have since become extinct as Whitelaw and Thomas died without direct male heirs, but Macmillan’s earldom is now held by his son. She also gave her own husband a baronetcy (not a peerage, but a hereditary knighthood) which is now held by her shady son Sir Mark Thatcher.
That brain-fart aside, the “for royalty only” principle has been observed on both sides of politics for more than 60 years. It’s not legally enshrined; any prime minister could recommend the monarch to create a new hereditary title for someone outside the royal family. But it seems very unlikely to happen.
Brings to mind the quip about what to call the new British one-pound coin when it first came out. Wags suggested it be called a “thatcher” - because “it’s thick and brassy and thinks it’s a sovereign…”
The Labour politician Tony Benn, disclaimed his peerage on 31 July 1963, the day the Peerage Act passed into law and made it possible for him to do so. Since 2022, the title has been held by Tony Benn’s eldest son Stephen Benn, 3rd Viscount Stansgate.
He sits in The Lords and is currently trying to get Harry and Edward removed from the pool of “counsellors of state” which allows them to stand in for the King when he is away. Under the Regency Act, counsellors of state are the spouse of the monarch and the next four in the line of succession, over the age of 21.
Harry and Edward, not Harry and Andrew perhaps?
It’s Harry and Andrew:
Late Queen Elizabeth II Reportedly Approved Prince Harry, Prince Andrew’s Removal From Counsellors Of State
"Baron Nicholas True, the House of Lords leader, even suggested that the reform “could be imminent during his parliamentary reply on Monday.” The current legislature lets two Counsellors of State take on royal duties, including most appointment approvals, when the monarch is not around.
The Regency Acts of 1937 and 1953 allow the four most senior adults, who are part of the line of succession, to fill these positions, along with the monarch’s consort. Camilla Queen Consort, Prince William, Prince Harry, Prince Andrew, and Princess Beatrice are the current State Counselors.
So, the proposal aims to amend the said laws and have Princess Anne and Prince Edward replace Prince Andrew and Prince Harry. There’s a reported degree of urgency for the reform as King Charles and Camilla are set to perform overseas royal duties."
Are Beatrice and Eugenie in agreement over this?
It seems to be an echo of the whole thread about succession and whether removing a particular person from the list of succession should include their offspring - especially adult offspring.
In the UK, it generally doesn’t. Somebody may be excluded from the succession to the throne for being Catholic, but their children who are not Catholic are not excluded.
The Regency Acts determine who the counsellors of state are so, if those Acts are amended to exclude Harry and/or Andrew, the amendments can also deal with the question of Harry and Andrew’s offspring. They can deal with it either way, obviously, but their seems no reason to exclude H and A’s offspring. The position of counsellor of state is not hereditary, and, e.g., Beatrice owes her position as counsellor of state not to her relationship with Andrew but to her relationship with the King, which isn’t changing.
Ah. So how many years before Archie is a counsellor of state? 
Impossible to say. He has to attain age 18 (which will happen in 2037) and be domiciled in the UK. But, even then, his becoming a counsellor of state depends on people currently ahead of him in the line of succession dying (or being disqualified), and on further progeny of the Cambridges not joining the line of succession (because if they do they will be ahead of him). He may never rise high enough in the line of succession to be a counsellor of state.
The solution that’s currently emerging in the press seems to be an amendment that simply expands the eligibility to include (at a minimum) the King’s two other siblings. If that’s correct, Harry and Andrew wouldn’t be excluded, just unused.
They can be unused right now, since there are three others available, and you can manage with just one counsellor acting if you need to. Expanding the range might make management a bit easier, but wouldn’t address the concerns of people who find it inappropriate that Andrew and/or Harry are included at all.