Even as a Scottish and then Australian "republican"... I thought that some of the conclusions in the article were just as confusing. "Since 1664 no monarch has

Even as a Scottish and then Australian "republican"... I thought that some of the conclusions in the article were just as confusing. "Since 1664 no monarch has set foot in the House of Commons" "And yet it appears that the Queen has quietly asserted her claim to own Parliament." Assuming validity of the claim for the purpose of discussion, these two things are not contradictory. The monarch could own Parliament and still recognize for symbolic or other purposes the tradition of not entering the House of Commons, entirely easily.