There are many theories as to why the British were able to mostly come out on top of the colonial game and build the first really global Empire.

One reason often brought up is that by law, land could not be split upon inheritance in England. Thus only the oldest son inherited the land and the title - which created a large group of well-educated and well-connected (and often rich, since they could inherit liquid assets) men that did not have land and had to make it some other way. They became merchants, (proto-)industrialists, civil servants and officers, both in the navy and the army.

The royal navy was a relatively meritocratic organisation for its time - even if many of the officers were "proper gentlemen" (ie some sort of nobility) there were still a sizable group of middle class officers and all had to pass the same tests to progress from cadet to officer. The royal navy was also unique that it retained large amouts of ships on full war footing even in peace time, escorting naval vessels, eliminating piracy and eventually eliminating the slave trade. While other nations laid most of their ships up over winter or even completely in peacetime, the royal navy kept sailing. During the age of sail, it took a lot of time to "trim" a ship, and even longer to "trim" a squadron of ships. This means drilling gunnery and sailing, getting a "feel" for the ship (how fast she is under certain conditions, how far up the wind he can sail, how she behaves in rough weather, how she answers the rudder, how much sail her masts can take depending on wind and much more) since every ship was more or less unique during this age. Getting a ship in "trim" could take weeks and a squadron months. Sailing in formation was very hard during this era - the Battle of Trafalgar is a very good example of this. The Franco-Spanish fleet was not "trimmed" well enough and not up to scratch on their gunnery. Thus their line had gaps as they were unable to sail at the same speed at all times and keep the formation and their gunnery was not exact. Thus Nelson could execute a bold manouvre allowing them to cross his T and break their formation, in essence crossing their T twice and destroying them utterly.

England was very well placed geographically to take advantage of the emerging Atlantic trade and colonisation of America. With no land borders to any major power and no ambitions to be fulfilled by a grand army, they could invest in a grand navy and be protected by it.

The British were also quite pragmatic when it came to their colonial possessions. Unlike the Spaniards, they had no real motivation beyond private missionaries to convert the local population and no qualms about hiring one side to fight the war for them if they proved to be competent. Consider for example the Gurkhas, which the British experienced roughly in India during the Anglo-Nepalese war of 1814-16. The British recognised the fighting abilities of the Gurkhas and employed them instead of fighting them.

Another anecdote of British pragmatism in India (which I unfortunatley have not been able to find a secure source for, so take it with a grain of salt) was to use sheep tallow for the fat for the paper cartridges used for muzzle-loaded muskets and rifles. The correct amount of powder and the musketball were wrapped in paper, which was greased to ensure it did not crack in dry conditions or let moist through during wet conditions (the powder would then be wet and not fire properly). The papper cartridge was bit open and the powder poured down the barrel, followed by the ball with the paper used as a wad to keep it all in place.

Since Hindus consider the cow sacred and the muslims the pig to be an unclean animal, logistics would either be difficult, or native troops of only one religion could be recruited. The British resolved the problem by using sheep tallow, which was ok for both sides.