This is a website which has the DRAFT Divine Office which awaits final approval for the Personal Ordinariate of St. Peter. You can dial in and say morning and evening prayer with a handful of people from the ordinariate if you want to do it in some form of community. http://prayer.covert.org/

Another source is the Customary of Our Lady of Walsingham :Daily Prayer for the Ordinariate (2012). What I particularly like is the provision of alternative post-biblical readings to supplement the one-year Roman cycle. These are drawn from English writings consonant with the Cathoilc faith, but not exclusively writers in Communion with Rome when they wrote them. Unfortunately these seem to have occasioned a pushback by the Vatican (as did the original two year cycle proposed by the non-US conferences). However since I have no obligation to the Office, I can use them privately.

I see the Autralian one here, but the 2021 Ordo should be available soon I imagine.

Does that suggest that North Americans will continue to do something different?

ServiamScores - For Mass texts of the Sacramentary I think we have all adopted (had imposed on us) the ICEL translation as hacked about by Una Voce. With one or two small (in size) national tweaks.
For the Office, outside the USA we produced a translation before ICEL had done theirs, and have resisted all attempts to change it (change annoying, contentious, bad! think CBCEW). ICEL suited the US bishops better, I suppose.
For lectionaries, I suggest that uniformity is undesireable. No translation fully conveys the sense to everybody, in particular reading a text on the page (where you are free to flick your eyes back and forth) is different from listening to it. Even the Vulgate was not imposed on the Psalter.

...Anglophone...KJV for hundreds of years...

Oh, would that we could use the Authorised Version (KJV) in the ordinariates. Rome would not have permitted it - and, quite oddly (if not traitorously), most of our people didn't want it. We use the Catholic RSV, which may be the most poetic of modern translations, but, really, isn't all that fine. It lacks the grace, rhythm, and rich imagery of both the KJV and the Douai. And the Douai itself does not compare to the KJV. (But then, our contemporary translators and the Church are not interested in poetic grace and rhythm, let alone musciality.)
Whenever I read the lesson from Genesis at Advent lessons and carols it's all I can do to keep from saying 'who told thee that thou wast naked'. There is power there that's not to be found in any contemporary translation. One could offer countless other examples (the Prologue to St John's gospel, for one) of masterful translation and masterful language.

Schonbergian -

I have profited from the Jerusalem for many years and often find it more beautiful in places than the RSV. I said 'often', not 'always'. The language is often clunky and abrupt, but does have a certain precarious flow once one gets used to it. Nor is it always the most faithful to the Latin. Here is one of my favourite passages of scripture, I. Corinthians 2.9 -

Latin -
Oculos non vidit,
Nec auris audivit
Nec in cor hominis ascentdit
Quae praeparavit Deus his
Qui diligunt illum.

Anthorised (KJV) Version -
Eye hath not seen
Nor ear heard
Neither hath it entered into the heart of man
What God hath prepared for them that love him.

Jerusalem Version -
What no eye has seen
And no ear has heard
What the mind of man cannot visualise
All that God has prepared for those who love him.

RSV -
What no eye has seen
Nor ear heard
Nor the heart of man conceived
What God has prepared for those who love him.

One can see that both the Authorised Version and the RSV are more faithful to the Latin, as evidenced particularly in the third line, where cor is given as 'heart', whereas Jerusalem has 'mind'. (Heart and mind are not synonymous.) Also, Jerusalem's 'visualise', besides being rather clumsy and artless (if not downright ugly), does not really give the best sense of ascendit, 'entered into ...'. The RSV's 'conceived' gives a somewhat better sense of the Latin and, to boot, has far more power and grace - not to mention euphony. A glaring omission in the Jerusalem is that the sentence (verse) as structured makes no sense at all without a verb such as 'is' following 'visualise'. Likewise, the RSV requires the same verb following 'conceived'. This is incredibly sloppy and shows an astonishing lack of thought and care in crafting words into grammatically sensible literature and sacred texts. Further, it will be noticed that neither of these has the flawless rhythmic flow that inheres both in the KJV and the Latin.

While I do like the Jerusalem I find it less graceful and faithful to the sources than the RSV. Still I do very much enjoy reading and studying it.

Of course, for one who was reared on the Authorised Version all else pales in comparison. There simply is not its equal in beauty of language and power of expression.

This is a short answer to your question. One could speak of Jerusalem's reliance on the Hebrew and Greek texts which give, perhaps, a more literal, though often forced, abrupt, and clumsy reading than others. But then, abruptness and clumsiness seem, to some greater and lesser extents, to be, if not de rigueur, characteristic of any modern translation of any sacred text that I have experienced - a studied poverty of expression and little, if any, sense of rhythm, grace, and euphony.

If you want to hear JB in use, move to the UK.
In England&Wales the OF Lectionary is only available in JB(©1966), with the Psalms Grail(©1963); RSVCE(©1965/66) is authorised but no one publishes it. As I said above, CBCEW (our Bishops) think all change is annoying, contentious, and thus bad (for them). When I said to our Archbishop, that I hoped the then forthcoming 2011 Sacramentary would be accompanied by RSV Lectionaries, he replied "I still prefer Knox".
For the Office(1974) a mixture JB or RSV for most books, Knox for Wis and Gal - and Today's English Version: Good News for Modern Man for Acts and several epistles.

I suspect the KJV is out of favour due to the style of English, rather than childish arguments about the translations of the Bible.

Which is what is particularly sad. I was just telling my schola two weeks ago how it is incumbent upon us to raise up the liturgy and encourage people to assent to it, rather than dumb it down to their level. The old English is beautiful. I use "high church english" wherever I can in my arrangements and compositions. Much like "sacred music" should sound sacred (ie-set apart for liturgy) I believe that our vernacular translations should too. The Thee's and Thou's, and ______-eth words really hammer home that this is not normal language, and that to me is a good thing.

What wonderful news!
This makes me even more resentful
that it is not allowed for liturgical use in our Ordinariates.
I'm ordering my copy today.
(Incidentally, I have a quatercentenial facsimile of the original 1611 edition, published by Oxford.)