The English Reformation is substantially different from the Continental Reformation in many ways but the most interesting is the way the Prayer Book developed and how it became the glue that bound diverse theologies into one common piety. Bryan Spinks, someone also known for his liturgical scholarship regarding Luther's reforms of the Mass, has written a short but well written history of that Prayer Book rite from 1559-1906. He has called it The Rise and Fall of the Incomparable Liturgy. You can read a good review of the book here.
I have already ordered the book and you may wish to, as well, since the liturgical work of Cranmer and others has impacted the shape of texts for American Lutherans in significant ways. In any case, I am not going to review the book here. What I am going to focus upon is how significant the liturgical texts and ceremonies of the Church are. Some time ago in a conversation with Dr. David Scaer we discussed whether or not a church body was better suited for reform and restoration of the orthodox faith if it had preserved the doctrine but lost the liturgy OR preserved the liturgy but lost the doctrine. Spinks would probably identify the Anglican position as one in which the liturgy has been preserved (albeit in a variety of forms from 1928 to modern day revisions) but the doctrine has been lost (you can believe just about anything and be a priest in the Church of England these days).
Lutherans typically have placed less emphasis on the confessional and catechetical role of the liturgy and so Lutherans have generally preserved the confession (Book of Concord) but left the liturgy a matter of freedom in which some forms with great catholicity have been retained and in other places evangelical styles predominate. We could be in a position of a church body that has preserved the doctrine (at least in theory) but have lost some of the battle of retaining the liturgy (again, it depends on where you are at in Lutheranism). I would add that Lutherans have never completely lost the liturgy and it has always been maintained in form and practice even if it was done so by a minority. That said, it is not unusual to find a pastor coming to a Lutheran congregation where anything has gone on Sunday morning but they insisted that they have kept the faith in tact at least by confessional subscription. So would this pastor be better equipped to restore catholic doctrine and practice or would a pastor who found the liturgy in tact but a history of not believing its words?
As long as the liturgy is familiar, it is never far from the life of the people. It is, in many respects, easier to teach people that what we confess in the liturgy is, indeed, what we believe, than it is to teach people that the liturgy is, in fact, the devotional form of our confession for Sunday morning. In any case the loss of the liturgy is not without serious consequence for the confession, as Spinks goes on to show in the case of the Prayer Book. Mess with the liturgy and you mess with the faith, especially in terms of trying to economize on what happens on Sunday morning or abandon it entirely. We Lutherans have an innate fear of liturgical rules and we will probably never get to the point where, as it was in Germany for so many years, a liturgy is regulated but we could help ourselves out by admitting that the Confession we claim does have a liturgical shape and that Confession expects it even if it does not prescribe it. In any case, who wants to be in a position in which what we say we believe is distant from how we worship on Sunday morning? The danger to us for the loss of either confessional certainty and liturgical identity is great and we cannot remain a vibrant communion with the loss of either.