I am neither a Roman Catholic nor a Protestant, so I don’t have a dog in this fight — but one major problem with what you have presented is much of it is ahistorical. Where is Henry VIII’s body of work in theology and exegesis? Charles Wesley is remembered as a hymnodist, not a theologian, and even his brother John is revered by Methodists more as a founder of a tradition than as an authority. A collection of his sermons, along with his amended version of the Anglican Articles of Religion historically set Methodism’s theological emphases, but a lot of Methodists pay no attention to them, if they are aware of them at all. Another thing is that many of the people here would not necessarily identify themselves as Protestants, since they saw their own movements as being distinct from the work of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and the Anabaptists. That is certainly the case with Mary Baker Eddy, and the same case can be made for some Pentecostals. Even some modern-day Evangelicals debate on whether or not they are Protestants. Sure, some of the people pictured here started out as Protestants, but they didn’t end up Protestants. If starting out as a Protestant is how someone is to be measured, then you may as well have included Brigham Young, originally a Methodist, on this list.
=============================================================
Well, if I had the time, I could have included many other Protestant founders on the thread, but this is just a representative sample of all the Protestant denominations that exist.
People may not study the founder's teachings of their denomination, but their denomination surely does, and that is what they teach (until they change the founder's teachings), so the members learn those teachings from their denomination's teachings in church.
I would argue that Charles Wesley preached (very eloquantly) through his hymns (some of which we sing in the Catholic Church), and Henry VIII preached through his immoral actions, and through his "founding a denomination" by severing all ties with the Catholic Church. Those deeds follow them in their denomination's adherents.
And while I understand the distinction you are making for the "cults", there are multiple valid definitions today for the term "Protestant", and the one I utilized in this thread was the one that defines the term as "non-Catholic / non-Orthodox" "Christians" or those who identify themselves in some way as being "Followers of Christ". (Do a Google search on definition of protestant, and you will find that definition as being one of the valid ones sometimes used today.)
Where is Henry VIII’s body of work in theology and exegesis? Charles Wesley is remembered as a hymnodist, not a theologian, and even his brother John is revered by Methodists more as a founder of a tradition than as an authority.
You argument lacks coherence (and paragraphs), but the primary distinctive of the Reformation was that of holding Scripture as supreme as the accurate wholly inspired word of God, not the assured veracity of men as in Rome.
Thus truth claims in Scripture were established upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.) If you have a problem with this, tell me why common people in the 1st century should have followed itinerant preachers whom the historical learned magisterium rejected, and whom they reproved by Scripture as being supreme? (Mk. 7:2-16)
The officers answered, Never man spake like this man. Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed. (John 7:46-49)