With respect to the Anglican situation, let me see if I can help youall out.
According to Leo XIII’s *Apostalicae Curae *(1896), the Anglican Church lost Apostolic Succession when they began using the first form of the Edwardine Ordinal to ordain/consecrate clergy. This rite was judged to be deficient in form and intent. When the last Anglican bishop who had been consecrated with the Roman Pontifical died, the Anglican Church’s Succession was said to be broken. The form of the Ordinal was changed about 100 years later, for entirely different reasons (that is, the defect in form was removed), but, according to Rome, this doesn’t help.
Joint consecrations between the Anglican Communion and the Utrecht Old Catholics began in 1932, and between the Anglican Communion and the PNCC a few years later. Both the PNCC and the Old Catholics, at that time, were regarded by Rome as possessing valid orders.
Anglicans do not generally claim to have received any infusion of Orthodox lines, and given the general Orthodox view of Orders outside the True Church, I don’t see how there could be any.
I have no sympathay for the Episcoapl Church, but the female clergy person who was claimimg to be both Muslim (if we’re thinking of the same case) and Anglican, was told by her female bishop person to go and sit on herself.
Attempting to ordain women, or being a steam powered fruit cake (Spong) would not remove Apostolic Succession, until there were no validly consecrated bishops to ordain or consecrate proper perons. At such a time as there were no valid bishops left, the Succession would be lost. And Spong, if he was validly consecrated, wouldn’t lose his orders by becoming a dingbat. He would have to be deposed.
Anglicans have a different view of Apostolicae Curae.