It is understandable that these days some want to speak about 'truly Anglican' to distinguish something or someone who is the genuine Anglican article from run of the mill or even fraudulant Anglican claimants. But the phrase 'truly Anglican' bears a bit of examination. How do we determine who is 'truly Anglican' from someone who is not? Where, for example, is the criterion or criteria written down for all to see which assists with such determination?
It is possible to invoke some criterion, e.g. an Anglican who lives by Scripture, Tradition and Reason, with which many Anglicans would agree. But not all Anglicans agree with this criterion. And it is not written down anywhere that I know as an agreed standard for global Anglicanism.
In any case 'Scripture, Tradition and Reason' itself bears examination as it involves a curious sleight of hand, as I shall attempt to explain soon.
Alternatively, some might invoke the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral. But as I understand that, it is a statement of an Anglican meeting. These days it is fashionable to question the authority of any Anglicna meeting posing as a council with authority. So the famous Quad is, really, just a statement with no authority.
So, if there is no recognised criterion or criteria for determining who is truly Anglican, then perhaps determination boils down to a matter of opinion. Accordingly I am really, truly Anglican. Maybe you are not!