Does "Orthodox" Anglicanism need Canterbury?

That is the question Rod Dreher poses today at his entry Anglicanism: the continuing crisis. I guess my answer would be no but read Rod's post.

I think Rod makes a great point here:
Demophilus is dunning the African Anglicans who are making noises about breaking communion with Canterbury in the name of preserving Anglicanism from the innovators. His is an interesting argument, one that I'm instinctively inclined to accept. But then again, let's say that the Bishop of Rome became apostate or vacant, and the validly elected pontiff established his throne in, I dunno, Denver. Would Roman Catholicism cease to be Roman or Catholic because the Bishop of Rome was no longer in Rome? It would of course be a terrible tragedy if the pope left Rome (it has happened before, though), but would Catholics prefer a pope who no longer held to the dogma of the Catholic faith but who remained in the Vatican to a pope who moved to Denver but confessed the orthodox Catholic faith?

Similarly, what is the value of maintaining communion with Canterbury in the name of Anglicanism, if one has concluded that Canterbury is functionally apostate?

I have to admit my view of Anglicanism has been colored greatly by living near and knowing more kinda of High Church Catholic sounding and smelling Episcopalians that had "Mass/ Eucharist every week. So I thought sort of the Branch theory/ Third way was what all Anglicans believed for a long time. Is that theology or viewpoint conditioned on Communion with Canterbury?

Anyway I have solution to all this that I expect people can guess at :)