Again, when modern Anglicans move on to Rome, they are following through on the logic of their position. They have been taught that they have no beliefs except for those of “the Catholic Church,” and they have been nurtured with a profusion of pre-Reformation ceremonies. Why is it surprising, then, if they embrace a church that lays claim to precisely the same inheritance, but with a more perfect unity of its pre-Reformation ceremony and pre-Reformation doctrine?
Source: Why Is Anglicanism a Gateway to Catholicism? - Mere Orthodoxy | Christianity, Politics, and Culture
In point of fact–er, experience: lay and clergy that I know who jumped from ACNA over to Orthodoxy or Rome did so largely because of ACNA’s stalemate on female ordiantion, and either persecution for opposing such, or discouragement at the lack of direction towards a solution. The former’s explicit support alienates the classical, the reformed, the catholic; the latter’s implicit support breaks confidence there is ultimately any doctrinal core in the Anglican church, which includes consequences when doctrines are not upheld.
For example, the conversion of Michael Nazir-Ali to Rome appeared to be about the total breakdown in governance in Gafcon: Kenya consecrated two women to the episcopacy in violation of standards agreed upon, and nothing happened except “well it doesn’t matter that much anyway; it isn’t like Gafcon is a jurisdiction” 2) the issue of female consecration/ordination itself, which negatively impacts talks with Orthodoxy, Catholic, Coptic, PNCC; any Apostolic church except Anglican and liberal, affirming Old Catholics.
The above statement then is, in my experience, is inaccurate. People have been taught Anglicanism, including a rich doctrinal history of the classical and Anglo-Catholic luminaries. What they see in Anglicanism is a total lack of gumption to actually be Anglican, and may as well move on to a place that, like the post-Vatican II RC, and Western Rite Orthodox are each more “Anglican” than many Anglicans.