There are obviously lots of reasons that the course of British history has turned out. However, I would say that you've answered a great deal of it yourself regarding the Civil War and Glorious Revolution.

There was already an existing pedigree of the King accepting advice from Parliament and Parliament controlling the purse strings stretching back to the signing of the Magna Carta etc.

The exact reasons for the outbreak of the Civil War and the side-taking is a source of great debate but the outcome was that Charles II was invited back not necessarily by Parliament directly but under the guise of a Parliamentary mandate. This shifted the balance slightly further towards Parliamentary government.

The same can be said for the Glorious Revolution, though still a monarchy slowly more and more power rested with Parliament as they had orchestrated the return of the Stuarts, the invitation to William of Orange and then the invitation of the Hanoverians.

I would argue that this increasing beholdence of the monarchy to Parliament coupled with the financial power Parliament had obtained contributed greatly to the evolution rather than revolution of the British political system.

Well, for a start the two countries had very different internal structures. France for most of the Middle Ages was a complex patchwork of different polities with regional and local lords holding sway. Nominally they all swore fealty to the King of France in Paris, but often in reality the King was a minor, ineffectual figure. Over time, however, the Kings of France brought their vassals to heel and expanded their personal power until by the time of the Bourbons the French Kings were the archetypal example of European absolute monarchs.

However, this process of centralisation left in place the various local and regional differences that had been in place during the Middle Ages. Some areas were governed by Roman law, others by common law. There were various laws and taxes that applied in some places but not in others.

England (I'll get onto the rest of Britain in a bit), by contrast, had been more or less a fully centralised state since the Norman Conquest. The upshot of this is that unlike France, England developed centralised lawmaking institutions - i.e. the Crown and Parliament. How much power the King and Parliament each had in lawmaking was often disputed, but it was clear that once a law was passed, it applied everywhere in England, with no regional exceptions.

As for the rest of Britain, Wales was fully incorporated into England by the 16th century. Ireland did have its own laws and Parliament, but was very much a dependency of England. On the eve of the Civil War Scotland did remain largely independent from England despite its personal union, largely because the Union of the Crowns was only 40 years earlier.

In summary, Britain (or rather, England) had an established Parliament well-placed to take power should the King lose it. In France, there was no such body. The closest thing it had was the Estates-General, which prior to 1789 had not been convened since 1614. When it was actually called in 1789, it wasn't even entirely clear how it was supposed to operate. Any real transfer of power from the Crown to a national legislature required France's legal and constitutional structure to be more or less torn down and rebuilt completely from scratch, which of course is exactly what happened.