Welcome! You folks are a great asset at a time when so many “Catholics” want us to emulate the church from which you fled. I agree that any Episcopalian (other than marriage converts) who would be so inclined as to convert to Catholicism would likely require very little catechetical instruction.
The same would certainly be true of “Anglo-Catholics” in England who already saw themselves as essentially a branch of Catholicism. Generations came and went hoping and praying that the C of E would return to communion with Rome. Unfortunately, the rest had no such intention, and instead embraced every modernist fad to come along. If that’s the path which Anglicans choose, they ought not to whine when some leap from that sinking ship and reach out for the Barque of Peter.
I applaud the creation of this ordinariate. I don’t see how such Catholics will be any less “proper Catholics” than those who attend Maronite, Ruthenian, or Ukrainian parishes. Aren’t the Eastern Catholic Churches independent of the local Latin bishop? If the Archbishop of Philadelphia can sleep at night knowing that there are Eastern parishes with his geographical jurisdiction, I think the Archbishop of Westminster will be able to manage while knowing that there are Anglican Ordinariate parishes out there which are not under his pastoral jurisdiction.
Perhaps His Grace's view is colored by the long-running controversy over the "flying bishops" . . . ?
The U.S. has had an "Anglican Use Rite" for some time -- they don't have their own bishops but use most of the old Book of Common Prayer (with amendations to correct some Edwardian excesses). There's not enough critical mass (pun intended) in our old ECUSA diocese to start an AU parish -- this is traditionally a "low" diocese with only a couple of "high" parishes -- but in Texas where for some reason there is a cluster of AU parishes it seems to have worked fine and caused little if any problems with the local bishop.