A good case can be made, however, that the Anglican Church has never taken that POV. We're defensive when the Roman Church declares, for political reasons of its own, that our priests are not valid, but that's a different matter.
Don't worry about it, but you may note that there is no mention of Apostolic Succession validity in either the Articles or the Quadrilateral, yet to talk with the average Anglican or Episcopalian you'd think it was one of our most cherished beliefs. We HAVE A.S., it's valid, and we're going to keep it...but WHY is never pondered by the typical Anglican.
I think my experiences with who is a typical Anglican might not be the same as yours, so this may be a better discussion for STR. However, A.S. as a theological concept was referenced by Anglican theologians such as Richard Hooker and John Jewel. It was always inferred from the Ordinal to the Book of Common Prayer, and the necessity of the Historic Episcopate was spelled out in the Quadrilateral. There has been a history within Anglicanism of whether or not AS was the "Esse" or the "Bene Esse" of the Church, but that is the most significant disagreement that I am aware of.
As far as Anglicans having A.S. that is valid, I think that at this point that cannot be said of all Anglicans:
First of all, a small percentage of Anglicans (such as the Episcopal Church) have women "bishops." Since the faith of the Apostles clearly indicates that the sacrament of ordination can only be applied to a man, it cannot be said that the historic episcopate has been passed on through these groups.
Secondly, not all Anglicans believe in the faith of the Apostles. In order to have Apostolic authority one must be proclaiming the faith of the Apostles. This is axiomatic, since that's basically what the doctrine of Apostolic Succession is claiming: "this church has the authority handed down from the Apostoles and proclaims their teaching."
For example, American Episcopalians do not believe that the historic Christian faith as received by the Apostles and recorded in the Scriptures can be said to be
objective spiritual truth. They have publically and officially stated that they believe the faith expressed in the Scriptures and the orthdox Church Fathers is not a perfect, unchanging, and authoritative record of the revelation of God.
Do not misunderstand what I'm saying: I'm not suggesting that they can't have AS because of their
belief of what the ancient faith
is. I'm saying that they don't have AS because
they don't believe that the ancient faith is actually authoritative for today. This means that they intentionally don't hold to the doctrine of Apostolic Succession itself.
If you reject the idea of Apostolic Authority then you are rejecting the very idea of Apostolic Succession since the two are one and the same.
So to clarify, I'm not saying that they don't hold to A.S. because I disagree with their interpretations on doctrine. I'm saying that they don't hold to A.S. because they officially do not actually claim Apostolic authority because they do not believe that the teaching of the Apostles can be taught as being authoritative. In other words, I'm not saying anything that the heirarchy of that Church would not agree with. It's just a difference of perspective and the fact that even though sometimes groups use the same words, they don't always mean the same things for everyone.
(I would make the distinction however, that despite the fact that the church heirarchy has made these statements, that not everyone in the Episcopal Church is in agreement with them)