I think it depends on which branch of the Episcopalian Church you were raised in. I was raised and confirmed low Episcopalian and got put off by the Episcopal Church decades ago and haven’t been back, so a lot of my knowledge is pretty shaky.
Still, the church has been through a tremendous amount of upheaval since the ordination of Fr.(?) Gene Robinson(?). Given the scripture I was taught when I went to Sunday school, as well as the (seemingly endless) sermons we had, his ordination was anathema to the teachings of the church.
When I talk about Episcopalian churches severing their ties and aligning with the Anglican Church (your point on this issue of church lore was exceptionally well made), what I intended to convey was that they dropped any/all references to “Episcopal” and altered those references to indicate their Anglican roots.
Thank you for the clarification. Yes, I think that is what most who leave the Episcopal Church are trying to do--go back to the roots of Anglicanism (excepting of course those who go on to other denominations.) But perhaps we have a difference of terms. I don't see one Anglican Church but rather a communion of independent, self-ruling churches. The Archbishop of Canterbury has never been an "Anglican Pope" and never will be. The Church of England is the mother church, but exists now as one among many.
What has kept the Anglican Communion together is a common approach to scripture and the role of the church, and with enough "comprehensiveness" to accommodate low, broad and high-church. But what has taken place in the Episcopal Church over the past 40 years is unprecedented. The divisions within the Anglican Communion are so deep now, that I think that an official break will be recognized over the next few years.
At any rate, I am glad to see the Diocese of San Joachin leave the Episcopal Church. This sends a very clear signal to the rest of the Communion that they will have to take a stand on one side or the other. Talk of comprehensiveness has its limits.