Genuine question, not being flippant.
The church of england was founded as a state religion (under Henry 8) that initially followed catholic practice, and was reformed later (under Elizabeth I).
It was never a 'protesting' church like the other reformed churches.
Are anglican's protestants in that sense. In the sense that baptists, puritains, etc are.
One must define Protestantism, and examine history with that definition in mind.
The word 'Protestantism' should not be confused with protest, even if the word was originally derived from the idea of protest. (It may actually be derived from positive affirmation of the gospel,
Pro Testamentum.) It stands for two (or three) very positive theological positions that pertain
whether or not any other sort of religious body exists. These positions are that a) the Bible (66 books) is the sole arbiter in matters of faith and behaviour, and b) mankind can be justified by faith in the perfect righteousness of Christ, which is imputed to the faithful. A third tenet sometimes added is that of the exclusive priesthood of all believers, though this is just a logical extension of b), because those who are justified need no human priest or intermediary, and indeed cannot have any.
Now does the CoE meet that definition? The relevant Articles of Faith of that denomination do indeed support all three tenets. (The Articles also use the word 'repugnant' of Rome's practices, and Anabaptism is also rejected, so there is certainly objection to other views.) While Anglican clerics are often called 'priests', the word is alleged to derive from 'presbyter', and is unrelated to the word
sacerdos meaning a person offering sacrifices on behalf of the people. This is an ambiguity of the English language that is far too often disregarded- or taken advantage of, by Anglican clerics particularly.
Now if Protestantism is a necessary belief of those 'born again', it is possible to be born again and an Anglican; or it was, before the advent of homosexual and female clerics, which seems to have almost put an end to the presence of the converted in the CoE. Even before that, as late as the 1960s, many Baptists, Brethren and the like accepted Anglican 'born agains' as brothers, though they did not think that the CoE was a very good home for Christians, controlled as it was by absentee bishops appointed ultimately by a secular leader. But of course the CoE is quintessentially a national church, and is intended to cater for all sorts and conditions of men. Since the Oxford Movement, one could and can be 'higher' than a Catholic in the CoE simply by ignoring the Articles that make it Protestant. Then there are the liberals, who are not even sure that there is a God, some of them. The CoE is to an extent a reflection of English society (and in some views, is not actually a church).
Now this present modern admixture is of course very far from Henry's church, but his church was in many ways not a bit like the older CoE either, because it represented, not society, but Henry's autocratic view! It is therefore incorrect to say that the CoE was founded by him. He merely exchanged monarch for pope, and made virtually no theological or practical changes that were not entailed by that purely political act. The body over which Henry ruled was
Ecclesia Anglicana, as Catholic, as directed, as before, in practice. Henry, who once hanged a man for eating meat on a Friday, would have had a thousand fits at the thought of the many theological changes that began even as his own body cooled, as it must have been said at the time.
Having said all that, many found that the CoE did not go nearly far enough, and the proliferation of dissenting sects in 17th century England, though many of them were plainly off-beat, is clear evidence of that. Methodism, which put more emphasis on preaching and living the gospel, and the Baptists, who also found infant baptism wanting, constitute two of the movements that have survived because founded on serious Protestant values more closely than others.
Whether any official denomination has truly fulfilled the tenets of Protestantism even now is very open to doubt. The current trend towards independent and house churches reflects a view that even the most Bible-based of the denominations is hardly any different in practice from the organisation that Henry rebuffed.