Hereditary Peerage question

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

There was also a provision in effect from 1963 to 1999 for a lord to disclaim his peerage in order to be eligible for the Commons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peerage_Act_1963#List_of_disclaimed_peerages

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

There was also a provision in effect from 1963 to 1999 for a lord to disclaim his peerage in order to be eligible for the Commons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peerage_Act_1963#List_of_disclaimed_peerages

Can a life peer disclaim her/his peerage too? Or once named a life peer, one stucks with the Lords forever?

You're stuck.  Disclaiming was established to allow hereditary peers to have the choice of choosing to remain eligible to be in the Commons.  You have to disclaim within twelve months of inheriting your title (or within twelve months of the passage of the act).  Life peers have chosen to accept their title, so there is no reason to allow them to disclaim it.

Checking the text of the act, newly created hereditary peers are also stuck, altho I think it is unlikely anymore hereditary peers that are not in the royal family are likely to be created these days.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Checking the text of the act, newly created hereditary peers are also stuck, altho I think it is unlikely anymore hereditary peers that are not in the royal family are likely to be created these days.

You can decline a hereditary or life peerage when offered. Sir John Major declined one.

I mentioned already that you have to accept a life peerage, and only come the deluge would it be likely that a hereditary peerage could be forced upon someone.  Even if for some bizarre reason one could not refuse a hereditary peerage, I doubt it was a hereditary peerage Major was offered.  The last former PM to be granted a hereditary peerage was Harold Macmillan, 1st Earl of Stockton.  Wilson, Callaghan, and Thatcher were created as life peers.  Heath was in advanced old age when he left the Commons and would not have been able to serve in the Lords.  Blair one-uped Major by not only declining a peerage, but also a knighthood. Brown is still in Commons.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

We might start seeing hereditary peerages being offered as a means of honoring someone, without giving them membership in the Lords

And we could see a repeal of the 17th Amendment in this country.  While technically possible, politically it just is not going to happen.  The whole concept of an inheritable honor is not palatable in British politics these days.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Let me debunk your examples for you.

So yes, other than for Royals, that won't participate in politics anyway, the United Kingdom does not award any new hereditary titles.

That might change with the removal of any hereditary basis for selection in the upper house.

Right now, there are a few hereditary peers elected by their fellow hereditary peers in the house (I think 92).  In the 1999 reform, the idea was that this would be transitional and that they would be eliminated.  If that happens, hereditary peers will have no involvement in the membership in the House of Lords.  At that point, you might start seeing hereditary peerages being granted. 

Here are few examples:

1.  The country wishes to honor an individual, but doesn't want the person to vote in the Lords.  The person is created a viscount (or even a hereditary baron), but not granted a life peerage or with it a seat in the Lords.  (Someone such as John Cleese or Stephen Hawkins might fall into that category.)

John Cleese turned down a CBE,  Stephen Hawkins has an OAM in addition to his 1992 Olympic Gold Medal in Double Sculls for Australia , and the Stephen Hawking you likely meant has a CH and CBE in addition be a member of the Royal Society

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As for The Right Honourable Sir Winston Churchill KG, OM, CH, TD, PC, DL, FRS, Hon. RA and The Right Honourable Sir Edward Heath KG MBE, you can see they too had their fair share of honors attached to their name.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You mean The Rt Hon Sir John Major, KG, CH

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Marquess of Lothian was created in 1701, so I have no idea how you think that has any relevancy to today.  The commander British land forces in the the Falklands War, Sir John Jeremy Moore KCB, OBE, MC, gives a far more likely idea of what sorts of honors are likely to be given for military success today.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There are already a plethora of honors the British crown can award without granting a life peerage.  Even the granting of hereditary baronetages that are not in the peerage has fallen out of favor.  The last one was to Sir Denis Thatcher, 1st Baronet, of Scotney in the County of Kent in 1990, and last before that had been several granted in the 1960s.

There is zero evidence that there is any call for the granting of new hereditary titles in Britain, and ample ways for the Crown to honor any of its worthy subjects without resuming the practice.  I'd have thought a member of Mensa would be able to grasp the obvious, but obviously I was wrong about that given the deluge of ill-founded reasons you have given for why the granting of hereditary titles could resume in Britain.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

And, even today, a peerage does confer a political right, a right to run for and vote in elections for, some seats in the Lords.  The "next phase" was to remove them, which has yet to happen.  I'd expect all hereditary peers to be removed, but, if so, I'd expect hereditary peerages to make a reappearance as an honorary title.

Why?  It makes no sense that it would happen.  As I already pointed out, there is already a hereditary title that confers no political privilege, baronet, which has been granted precisely once in the last half-century, and there is no indication that it is ever likely to be granted again.