Among Anglicans the matter of the Real Presence is, naturally, rather hard to nail down. The Articles are adamant in the reality of it, but aside from an affirmation of a "spiritual" nature and a rejection of transubstantiation, interpretation is fairly open. Some of the Carolina Divines and the Anglo-Catholics have a very high Eucharistic doctrine, which at times approaches the Roman or Lutheran view. And then amongst the Low Church folks, one might find an almost Zwinglian bare-bones symbolism.
Even Calvin had a remarkably high view of the Eucharist, endorsing a Real Presence, although the exact nature of his views is definitely a matter of debate. He disagreed quite admantly with Luther- but also with Zwingli. At any rate, Zwingli's novel position was the minority among the Reformers. His view has definitely proven the winner in modern Protestantism, if defined by the number of adherents or semi-adherents.
Heck, even the originial Baptist confessions on Communion have sacramental-sounding language, with talk of grace being connected to the Eucharist, and even of partaking of Christ in some sense. By contrast, few evangelicals today make any connection between the Eucharist and God's action. It is merely a memorial meal in which the action is entirely one of exercising faith via a didactic rite.
Are you, a Catholic, opposed to "exercising faith via a didactic rite?"
That is true (again, LOL). Like one of those movies where the people keep doing and saying the same things repeatedly.