As for the "Scripture, Tradition, and Reason", it sounds like prima scriptura, where the Bible is the highest authority, but tradition and reason also play important roles. Is it accurate to call the Anglican perspective "prima scriptura?"
Evangelical conservative Anglicans feel that way. I would say most Episcopalian (US) clergy do not. There is a distinct difference between the way conservative evangelical Anglicans talk about the three-legged stool, and the way the rest of them do. Episcopalians lean towards viewing and teaching all three legs as equal.
Granted, Hooker himself definitely seemed to be what you describe as prima scripture, but Hooker was not a prophet. The analogy has evolved over time to a stool of three equal legs in many Anglican jurisdictions.
Also, there are Anglo-Catholics, who's perspective on this would be very interesting to read.
I would really caution you against taking anything in Anglicanism as being written in stone. National churches govern themselves independently, and many national churches allow for great variation from diocese to diocese and parish to parish, and especially among the laity (non-ordained church members) in theology so long as they recognize each other and stay under the same bishops and celebrate the Eucharist according to the same (national) Book of Common Prayer.
For example, we have a priest here from the Anglican Church of Australia who said the vows in her church that priests take upon ordination include upholding the 39 Articles. In the United States Episcopal Church, priests take no such vow and are not expected to concur with the articles' opinions on things except in certain parishes that raise the question during the interview process while hiring. Many actively reject them. It's in the American prayer book as a historical document for people to look at what at one time was the Anglican norm, but not as a current norm.
Anglo-Catholics will tend to paint a portrait of Anglicanism as having it's roots in Celtic Christianity that came to what is now England while the Roman Empire was still there. Hadian's wall used to be considered the edge of civilization at the time (Don't shoot the messenger, I like Scotland, personally
). There were representatives from the island at local councils in the 2nd and 3rd century that are documented. Yet, the church basically existed independently of Rome to such a degree that the Pope sent St. Augustine of Canterbury there in the 6th century with a mission to convert the pagans there, not expecting to find Christians. St. Augustine found Christians- and pagans- but also Christians. And these Christians had their own beliefs and rituals and succession, and liturgical calendar.
Eventually, the Celtic Christians merged into the local church formed by St. Augustine and adopted Roman customs in most respects, but they did continue to practice the Suram liturgical rite native to their tradition instead of the Tridentine rite that was used in most of Roman Catholicism.
So, from this perspective, when Rome and Canterbury separated again during the Reformation, it was part of this broad history that included, say, people like St. Anselm (10th or 11th century) with high views of the Saints and the Virgin Mary, alongside the Protestant Reformers. King Henry's break with Rome or Queen Elizabeth's second break with Rome (in between, Queen Mary, who followed Edward who followed Henry, and ruled right before Elizabeth, restored communion with Rome, hence two different breaks in the Reformation era) were not the seminal moment in the history of Anglicanism, but one chapter in it.
I would say the evangelical party in Anglicanism tends to focus on the Reformation and the reformers more and understand that as, if not the creation of a church, at least the establishment of a significantly new order to which they trace their primary identity apart from basic Christianity, which is part of why they find things like the 39 Articles so important.
For the Anglo-Catholics, that's just one chapter in the story, no more important than any other. I may be exaggerating that slightly, but that's sort of the "lean". And the Oxford Movement in the 19th century where some old Catholic elements were restored and others re-acknowledged as having always been there may be just as important or more important to them in terms of what is significant to their religious identity.
And so you get two views of what Anglicanism is that tell the same story, but have different emphasizes, and thus create different outlooks to some degree, but this is intended. Elizabeth saw the bloodshed when the Church of England broke with Rome and then the bloodshed when it reunited with Rome, and realized that if her subjects were to have a single church, it would have to be flexible enough that people who weren't extremely committed to one side or the other could share a Eucharistic table and common prayer.
The vagueness is not a bug, it's a feature.
And, of course, today, you have a liberal versus conservative divide as well as the Anglo-Catholic versus Evangelical divide, and the high church versus low-church divide. But these are only divides in so far as people let them be divides. Looked at in a certain way, this type of diversity is a great strength where people can take the best from all strains of Christian thought and tradition.
