[quote=DavidFilmer]Correct. It was the ordination of Mathew Parker in 1559, done with a defect in form (and an underlying defect in intent) that invalidated Anglican Orders. It wasn’t Henry’s break that did it - Anglican Orders were still valid under Henry VIII (who died in 1547). The break occured during Elizabeth I’s reign (not Edward VI, as JKirk suggested). Parker was Elizabeth’s choice for the post from the moment she assumed the throne (though Parker didn’t want the job).
Oh, and it’s not a question of Apostolic Succession. There’s no question that Parker’s consecrators (all four of them, if I’m not mistaken) were themselves in valid Succession, so Parker’s ordination was 100% genuine Apostolic. But that’s not the same thing as Sacramental. Anglicans sometimes loose sight of this perspective (as did I when I was Anglican). A valid Sacrament must have FIVE valid components (and not one less): Minister, Subject, Matter, Form, and Intent. The first component (Minister) was fine - Parker had valid consecrators (Apostolic Bishops). But other requirements were lacking.
He’s right. But David, the ordinal was written by the English reformers under Edward VI, right? Prior to that, they had used the same one as the Church.