hi david great explanation and thank you i acknowledge and accept your main points above my only argument is that the term british isles is being used as a substitute for a more accurate term if we substituted the word europe we would lose the point that this was the first anglican bishop to not swear allegiance to the british monarch on behalf of a province outside the kindoms controlled by the british monarch in enemy territory the scottish anglicans were still within the area kingdom of great britain as a note the relevance is those two points taken together not swearing allegiance and not being in an area controlled by the monarch btw what is the connection between the consecration of samuel seabury and the founding of the new province is it assumed that the new province was recognized immediately if so what is the relevance of representative clergy from nine dioceses meeting in philadelphia to ratify the church's initial constitution in is this the actual official founding of the province if you are happy to substitute the term with kingdoms of great britain and ireland as a compromise i am fine with that