Sorry, but I'm not so sure. Talk to many Copts and you will not hear a word of disagreement over matters of faith. I have.
Unfortunately, one could talk to many Orthodox who have no clue why we are not in communion with Rome (see Fabio's disturbing post above). Anecdotal evidence doesn't amount to much.
That said, if there is really no disagreement, then the anathemas pronounced by Dioscoros against Chalcedon should be repudiated and the council accepted. Instead, there continue to be assertions coming from the non-Chalcedonian camp ranging from that the council was dangerously capable of Nestorian interpretation to that the council was Nestorian plain and simple. (In fact, to be consistent, they should also anathematize St. Cyril's letter to John of Antioch).
Or perhaps there are too many elder brothers to resent the return home of the prodigal?
This suggests (and I would agree) that "home" is the Orthodox Church, and that the "prodigals" are those who left the church by wrongly rejecting the council of Chalcedon. The prodigal repented of his sins. As far as I know, none of the non-Chalcedonians consider their schism something to repent about...
Perhaps nobody was wrong, perhaps there was merely some serious linguistic and cultural misunderstanding on both sides? Like that has never happened before.....
Have there been two Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Churches? Did God allow his church to be split for over 1000 years?
If it was simply a misunderstanding, and not a real difference, then obviously somebody was wrong to perpetuate the schism for so long.
If it's just a linguistic and cultural misunderstanding, then there's no reason to continue rejecting Chalcedon. If, as is claimed, the theology of the "Oriental Orthodox" is indeed orthodox, then accepting Chalcedon need not have any dramatic effect on the life of their churches.
In actuality, the "Oriental Orthodox" continue to maintain that their rejection of Chalcedon is based on principle, not semantics or politics.