It seems to me that most people seem to think of nations in some kind of strategy game context here, as monolithic entities aiming vor victory for their side. It isn't a modern phenomenon, however, that even foreign politics are driven by the political, economic and mercantile interests of cliques vying vor internal domination. Political gaffes make for good propaganda to make a war popular, but they are seldom the reason for one, those usually being economic ones. I think we should look more at the economic differences between Germany and Britain, and there's a growing disparity there in the late 19th and early 20th century.
The British had enormous captive markets in Africa and India, and to some extent China, so they had little incentive to produce quality. It was just more profitable to foist cheap junk on the natives. The Germans had tried that, too, but without much success, so they switched to more expensive, but better quality and technologically superior goods. When the British started to notice German penetration of their markets, esp. at home, they tried to counteract, but their 'Made in Germany' capaign bit them in the backside. Germany made rapid inroads especially in South America, and their goods in Britain itself must have given the British the impression of much higher market domination than it really was, as the German goods were on the more expensive end of the spectrum, which anyone in a position of some influence would see daily, while few but the actual producers would notice that the hoi polloi were still buying mostly British.
Under those circumstances, I feel that Germany would have been seen much more as a danger than, say, France or Russia, who weren't challenging Britain's economic dominance. And economic dominance and financial success was instrumental in upholding the social order in Britain.