I think that for me at least, and I'm not sure about others. We (rA and I) have been at cross purposes in this debate. I am seeking to characterize Englishness; rA seems focused on "uniquely English" which is a very different thing. Whilst uniquely English might have existed a century and a half ago, world conflicts and trade, globalisation, the internet and other media I'd suggest has rendered no nation unique - except very remote locations.
Nations have become homogenous. Tea drinking unique to the English - ask the Chinese or Indians. Pubs - the Irish might demur. The fete - I've seen similar in Australia, USA.
The trouble is when you set out to assimilate the world you are in many ways guilty of imposing your own values on other nations who may adopt them when later independent - eg bureaucracy in India, Christianity across much of Africa, pioneering/entrepreneurial spirit in North America.
So I would contend that there is nothing uniquely English, but actually I'm glad of that as anything standing out from the norm would likely be negative it it hasn't been shared. So the rA argument that being polite isn't an English quality "because I met a polite Bulgarian once"* is specious. * illustration not a direct quote.
So let's focus on what qualities the English have, rather than what ones they are characterised by. I'd kick off with democratic, tolerant and inclusive at a macro level, generally amiable, welcoming and outgoing. Spiritual (thus avoiding the which religion argument) creative and scientific.
Nothing very unique here but these things I think go to build a picture. No elusive butterfly of a quality here but I challenge anyone to name a quality unique to any nation - even Vanuatan prowess at bungee jumping has been globalized.

