The recent passing of the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill this March finalised the abolishment of the presence of hereditary peers from that chamber. This recent article I've linked from The Tatler uses the example of one such peer, and I won't focus on his individual case or point of view on the topic. But, it did interest me enough to ask here: if in fact an hereditary title in the UK is no longer a qualifying identity to have a seat in the Lords, then by the same token does it still prevent a current such peer from running for a seat in the Commons? My line of reasoning there being: the title is no longer any legal right to a seat in the Lords, so why should it still be a legal barrier to a seat in the Commons? I'm aware of the earlier legislation from many years ago, that allowed hereditary peers to renouce for their lifetime the use of such a title in order to run for a Commons seat (the case at the time being late Anthony Wedgewood Benn, formerly Viscount Stansgate). But surely, this latest Bill in March makes any such renunciation unnecessary, since now in fact any such peer has no automatic staning in the upper house? So for instance, said Lord Devon could possibly run for a Commons seat without any need of renouncing anything at this point? But my reasoning may be wrong on all that, so I'm interested in other factors or perspectives on any of this...The Tatler