I think that's part of my point.  So, the only REASON we have for believing that Bishops are required are PRECISELY this practice of Traditional bishops globe-trotting to administer Confirmations.  But the theological/Canonical reasons cited by Father in his paper are compelling.

Perhaps the only counter-argument would be that since Traditional Catholics DID have bishops, there wasn't sufficient need.  But I disagree with that.  Really, the Traditional Bishops don't have jurisdiction themselves, so in a sense they're not much different than the priests in that regard.  Do they somehow have some SUPER power of Order when they can validly confirm without jurisdiction but priests need it?  That doesn't work, since it's either in the power of the Order of Priest or it's not.  There's no super-plus power of Order for bishops to confirm.

Now, some claim that in necessity even a priest can ordain another priest, but this is highly doubtful at best and disputed among theologians.  But no one disputes that a priest has the power of Order to administer Confirmation.

I think you mean Fr Wathen, who did confirm people because, at the time, he was a member of the OSJ, whose order allowed priests to confirm.  And, yes, he did so out of necessity and told everyone to get conditionally confirmed by a bishop, if possible.

Is not the fact that he urged the recipients of his confirmations to be subsequently conditionally confirmed proof that he considered them doubtful (ie., you cannot receive a conditional sacrament unless there is positive doubt regarding the validity of the first)?

But perhaps Lefebvre never had priests confirm for pastoral reasons (ie., they would freak out that he was going too far, and/or question validity, etc)?

This delegation is necessary for the validity of the Sacrament. If a priest tried to confirm without delegation or outside the limits of his delegation, there would be no valid sacrament.

The distinction with the sacrament of penance is that the priest is, by his priestly character, metaphysically ordained to give such an absolution. The jurisdiction does not give him the power to hear confessions, but rather it gives him a subject on which to exercise that power (see L'Église du Verbe Incarné by Journet). But a simple priest with no delegation does not have the power to confirm whatsoever (as confirmed by chap. 4 of Sess. 23 of the Council of Trent). The priest, in himself, has no power to confirm. So there is no foundation for any supplying of power here.

Precisely my question:

Is the delegation essential to validity?

It would seem so.

Fair points. 

Just trying to wrap my head around the new idea, and wondering why it’s only emerging 60 years into the crisis.

I don’t recall Lefebvre ever endorsing the position that his priests could simply all perform their own confirmations, even though he was the only SSPX bishop for 18 years, and families all over the world were waiting years for him to come by.  Seems like he could have saved himself (and the faithful) a lot of trouble if there’s really no problem.

Necessity may supply a bishop with jurisdiction to confer a delegation, but how can the delegation be skipped altogether?

That’s like saying necessity gives independent priests authority to elect a pope.