quote="ChurchSoldier, post:8, topic:302977"
......And re-introduction in the 1930's -1960's of having Union of Ultrecht / Old Catholic Bishops at Episcopal (meaning Bishop) Ordinations "just in case" and therefore re-introducing succession even if the previous were not valid. So, if the RCC chose to look at it, the orders would probably be considered "valid but not licit" for men ordained since then, in my understanding.
The liturgy had been changed as GKC said 1662 to speak about the sacrifice.
but as GKC says - complicated...........
True, that, mostly. But it was not a just in case. It was a full agreement of inter-communion, which had been being discussed/worked on for many years.
The official agreement between the Anglican Church and the OCs of Utrecht, following the Agreement of Bonn, provided for co-consecrations of bishops between the two jurisdictions, which began, for Anglicans, in June 1932. Later this agreement was extended to the PNCC in the US and the Episcopal Church (1946). The point, which is often confused, is that this would (theoretically) infuse the valid, but illicit (as you say) episcopal lines of the OCs into Anglicanism, from whence they would be further passed, as the Anglicans bishops so consecrated performed their episcopal duty. The question of form was not a factor by then, as the form was changed (for different and unconnected reasons) in the 1662 Book.
AFAIK, this Dutch touch would logically follow (valid/illicit), but again, AFAIK, the RCC has not made an official comment on it.
History, is indeed complicated. This subject is yet more complicated than has been discussed here.