While Henry VIII fancied himself a theologian, and a conservative one at that, the break happened as continental reform was hitting its stride. Cranmer, I think, just didn't have a philosophical system to support coherently what he thought the sacrament was. (Though he was courageously content to be burned for his incoherence. He's a very interesting guy.) But in general I think a receptionism ("real presence in the believer") or Zwinglian virtualism rapidly dominated ONE strand of English thought. However many persisted in holding to Transubstantiation or in any event to a "Real presence in the consecrated elements" view while not troubling themselves with working out the philosophical underpinnings for such a view. Queen Elizabeth was reportedly firmly pro Real Presence, and the following rhyme is attributed to her:
'Twas God the word that spake it,
He took the bread and brake it,
And what the word did make it,
That I believe and take it.
But by the middle of the 17th century the idea that Jesus was in the Sacrament was so offensive that when the 1662 prayer book prescribed kneeling to receive the "black rubric" was inserted to make clear that "just 'cause we're kneeling doesn't mean we think He's in there, so relax!" (I think they used different words though.) The whole Anglican thing was, pretty much, believe what you want, but treat the thing with the greatest respect -- the "Settlement" which provided words and ceremonies which admitted or were compatible with a belief in the real presence, but did not prescribe a theology one way or the other.
This might have worked in England, but in the US have seen priests pour consecrated wine down a common drain or in the flowers, and heard of one who fed "left over" consecrated hosts to a dog. Episcopal Clergy just don't play well with others, and think being ordained frees them from any obedience.
Eucharistic Theology and liturgics was a big deal with me.
OK. As I said earlier, I don't pretend to be an expert on protestant theology.