Re: 1928.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Guoshu_InstituteHopefully, Graham may have a discussion of that year, or the "Nanjing Decade," on his podcast. I think the nationalist politics had a lot to do with what was promoted and what was not. I tend to agree that the three "internal arts" were not considered a family because of body method, shape, training routine, or anything that could not be found in some other cma --that wasn't labeled "internal." Yang tcc, and its mythological beginnings, and philosophical ideals, served a political purpose.
I'll dare to be heretical and say that it still does; the political controls over culture has changed. I knew nothing about Chen style tcc until the PRC sent the "Peking Wu Shu" troupe on tour. I was at their first performance in NYC (at MSG). The announcer made it clear that what we were seeing was the original and "real" tcc. Only after that did the "Four tigers" from Chen village appear on the pages of Inside Kung Fu, etc.
This was right after the "Cultural Revolution." And, what followed was a flurry of "official" manuals for the various tcc styles published by the PRC. However, Chen style --as it was presented in the performances-- was more like "Wu shu." I.e., the emphasis was on high kicks and low stances. Of course, at the time, ... well, you've seen the Shaw movies. Ever seen two people really fighting like that outside a movie? ...Um, actually, I did see a guy try to do a flying kick on someone outside the Sun Sing theater. Dude fell flat on his butt.
Anyway, my point is that the way and the reasons Chen style has been promoted since 1980 are similar to the reasons Yang style was promoted in 1928. It had little, if anything, to do with martial ability. Yep, people were "fighting" using weapons and adopting the methods needed to fight. At the same time, martial arts clearly survived. The same is true today.