"Nothing curious at all. It may be impossible for Americans to underatand, but in monarchies the idea of a republic attracts progressive intellectuals and radicals."
I know they like to think of themselves as republicans but really it's more populist/anti-monarchists. Ultimately, since all forms of socialism must inevitably devolve into coercive totalitarianism, republicanism or anti-monarchism are only waypoints on the road to hell.
The British definition of republicanism is just what most unimnformed think of a republic these days: any system of government that doesn't have a monarch as its head. No more, no less.
In contrast, Americans still use the definition of a republic that originated in ancient Greece and Rome and later picked up by the Founders. Walter Williams put this forth:
"So what's the difference between republican and democratic forms of government? John Adams captured the essence of the difference when he said, "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." Nothing in our Constitution suggests that government is a grantor of rights. Instead, government is a protector of rights.
In recognition that it's Congress that poses the greatest threat to our liberties, the framers used negative phrases against Congress throughout the Constitution such as: shall not abridge, infringe, deny, disparage, and shall not be violated, nor be denied. [Note: notice how accurate the American Founders' predictions have come true in the modern day Westminster systems of government: it has power concentrated in the Parliament, particularly the lower house if it is bicameral, and through the elections, the Prime Minister serves as the virtual elected unrestrained dictator. What the Parliament defines becomes law] In a republican form of government, there is rule of law. All citizens, including government officials, are accountable to the same laws. Government power is limited and decentralized through a system of checks and balances. Government intervenes in civil society to protect its citizens against force and fraud but does not intervene in the cases of peaceable, voluntary exchange."
Of course in much of the Westminster world, this difference is ignored or even ridiculed. Not a surprise since a lot of British constitutionalism doesn't really inherit directly from ancient Greece or Rome, unlike the US system.