Could you be more specific about what you want to know? No two monarchies were exactly alike, just like no two countries today have exactly the same laws. Do you mean why did France become an absolute monarchy while England became a constitutional monarchy?

In Machiavelli's 'The Prince', he said this was because the power of the monarch in France and England was different. In France the monarch was essentially the strongest militarily. Whereas in England there was no clear strongest Lord, so a King was chosen to prevent the in-fighting that was common before then. [Note: England was not a constitutional monarchy until the 1215 Magna Carta, before then it had been an absolute monarch.]

What is interesting to note was that in both France and England the King essentially had to rule by the mutual consent of the Lords. But In Turkey one ruler governed the entire Kingdom, though he used servants called 'Sanjaks', and various administrators who he could change around as he pleased. The King of France was placed among a group of hereditary nobles who are recognised in that state by their subjects, and have certain privileges. Despite Louis XIV being self-proclaimed 'The Sun King', lords inevitably made demands on him that had to be met and he was powerless to ignore because of the estates generale.

I'm at work so cannot give you a comprehensive answer but the trend to absolutism lies heavily in religion, which is why the Spanish and French monarchy both trended towards absolutism but the English crown tended towards constitutional monarchy.

This religious idea was simply the Divine Right to Rule.

Catholicism believed that the Right to Rule was given to the King by God himself. Protestantism on the other hand did not, it believed that the Kings authority came from his subjects. (Top down vs bottom up governance).

The best example I can give here to prove it would be Charles I's actions. He was a believer in Arminianism, a brand of Protestantism which was sort of like a Catho-lite religion. Because of this, Arminianism believed in the Divine Right to rule, and through different acts he attempted to subvert Parliament's authority and rule as an Absolute Monarch, like his European cousins.

France and Spain however had no conflict of interest. Their authority was pretty much agreed to come from God, their populations were heavily Catholic and any differing views for example the Cathars in France were simply not tolerated by the Crown.

There are of course more in depth factors but the main factor of the divide between English and French / Spanish monarchies definitely came down to religion. This is of course further backed up if you look at the similarities between the rulers in the Holy Roman Empire and England.

Sources

Glenn Burgess - The Divine Right of Kings Reconsidered, 1992

Paul W Fox - Louis XIV and the Theories of Absolutism and Divine Right, 1960

Note, I hope this is fine. I know there are gaps but this is a brief overview of at least the religious divide between the French and English monarchies

EDIT As people have pointed out there are many factors. I believe I did mention this but I will reiterate that religion is just one of many factors. It is one of the most important in my mind and from what I've read many agree with that. I am not doubting that somebody else can come up with a more complete answer than myself but my personal knowledge is mainly on the rise of Absolutism in Europe and the religious divide in that era. I do not know enough about pre 16th century Europe to comment on more long term factors that caused this divide.