So, back to the original question.
"Do Anglicans believe in Real Presence or not? Or do they not know?"
The conclusion I reach from the above is that the Anglican answer is
they do not know. Edited to add: More specifically, the Anglican
Church does not know. Individual Anglicans may choose to
believe RP or not.
Like Ebor writes, Anglicans accept the Communion by faith
and don't question further, or as Keble seems to say, it's not our issue.
So, they, as a church, don't really know. Am I right?
Sorry for my tone.
I think you realistically have it about right. When I was an Anglican, and Catechist, (oh, and webmaster), I used to have a section on the website called "Ask the Catechist" where people could submit questions to be answered by the Catechetical team (including our rector). One time, somebody asked what the Episcopal Church believed about Mary and the Saints. My response began, roughly, that it was difficult to know what the Episcopal/Anglican view was on very much at all. This is simply because of the extremely wide range of acceptable belief. Of course, in the ECUSA (the "official" Anglican Church of the U.S. - and please no sniping about CANA or AMIA or ACN, or any of the others - I mean official in the very narrow sense of being recognized by Rowan Williams et al.) you can be the Presiding Bishop and apparently not believe in a lot of basic Christian doctrines. To make a boring story short, my response ultimately was based on the prayer book and the hymns. To a certain degree, that will, similar to Orthodoxy, give you a decent sense of what acceptable beliefs would be.
The one thing not mentioned here, though, is the
39 articles. While now merely an historical relic in the ECUSA, belief in these used to be required by at least the clergy, if not the laity. Of note would be Article 28:
The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another, but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ's death: insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ; and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ.
Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by Holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.
The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.
The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.
In general, these articles reflect a much more reformed era in the Church. John Henry Newman, shortly before becoming Catholic wrote an extensive
tract attempting to square the very "Romish" (and this coming from a former AngloCatholic) opinions of the Oxford movement with the 39 articles. Basically, what Newman came down to doing is pointing out the inconsistencies between the words of the 39 articles and what was allowed to be preached, and justifying the movement's opinions. Here, then, lies the other problem. Belief is not at all static, but seems to change with time. In the early 19th Century (1840's or so), there was a series published known as the Library of AngloCatholic theology. It contained, among other things, "Hammond's Practical Catechism", a 17th century text asserting that it was entirely inappropriate to take the Lord's words to mean that his body and blood were really present in the Sacrament. By the 1890's, the Church Club (another AngloCatholic body) published some lectures where they said clearly you have no choice, based on Scripture alone, to believe in the real presence.
I have to admit that reading Hammond's Practical Catechism helped push me out of the Episcopal Church. I was attempting to moderate my beliefs by adhering to the Anglican Divines and the like - looking toward early Anglicanism. I just couldn't do it.
Finally, one other note. As Ebor has mentioned, there were a lot of politics around the break between England and Rome. Among those political issues were things having nothing to do with Henry or the Tudor's. Historically, Parliament (with their limited powers back then) had attempted to limit Rome's influence in English government - especially with regard to Peter's pence. With little effect, but nonetheless, the desire was there on the part of people outside of the Royal family to limit or eliminate Rome's presence.
