How the ideal of Popular Sovereignty held by the Americans contrary to the idea of Parliamentary Sovereignty held by the British during the colonial era?

by NingMenHao

In this article, there was a sentence that stood out in particular to me:

"Unlike European states, the American republic was founded on the principle that the government served as the agent of the sovereign people rather than the embodiment of the nation’s sovereignty."

But then the article goes on to also suggest that the British idea of Parliamentary Sovereignty was based off of Popular Sovereignty.

Parliament used the argument of consent of the governed and Popular Sovereignty to justify taking away power from the king. But why is it so commonly accepted that Popular Sovereignty and Parliamentary Sovereignty are contrary, when they seem to be so closely tied? Also, how can scholars make the claim that Popular Sovereignty in America is different from Parliamentary Sovereignty when Parliament at the time still HAD popular sovereignty (House of the Commons had voting, so doesn't this mean that Parliament has popular sovereignty?)

Advokatus

Sovereignty in the British understanding is vested in the monarch, who is crucially circumscribed by convention in the exercise of the sovereign powers; that body of convention is what establishes the institution of the British state and government, which is distinct from the personification of it in Elizabeth II.

This differs from many other monarchies, which range from absolute and uncircumscribed in the personal disposition of sovereign power by the monarch (i.e. Saudi Arabia), to cases in which the monarch is explicitly not the sovereign (i.e. Japan). It differs from the US along obvious lines.