truly lasting success

How do you define "truly lasting success"? Neither England nor France has wide swathes of "empire", not since decades ago. Those who still call themselves an "empire" are due to historical rivalry. Others hardly qualify.

All the European countries you mention had/have issues and challenges. Spain had the neither the tradition nor the manpower to be a true global empire. What is astonishing is not that their empire decayed, but rather that they became an empire at all! Provably, they relied on "foreigners" such as Columbus and Magellan at key points of their expansion. That they were burdened by troubles closer to home was not novel.

England had to wait until the Tudors were given help by the Spanish in their shipbuilding. They had to further wait for William III Orange to bring Dutch capital to England before they became a true global naval power. Here's a great summary. Our perception tends to be biased by how former British colonies have ended up well, but even that perception is incorrect.

Finally, France always had the huge manpower potential, but compared to Spain and England they lacked access to sea lanes, due to internal turmoil or royal policy. They still have small holdings around the globe that are part of the DOM or TOM ( départements et territoires d'outre-mer) but they can hardly be called an empire. Surely the French don't address themselves as an empire.

TL;DR, From the perspective of empire as a state, none of the three empires had truly lasting success.