There's an argument that's been made regarding the later contretemps in 1688 that Louis-style absolutism (which James II was in favour of) was as much of an innovation as the parliamentary alternative. Charles' views were rather more conservative. An England with no Commonwealth would certainly have had a more powerful monarchy than it ended up having, but it's likely that it would have had a rather different pattern than France. (Filmer is strong on the divine right of kings, but also on their responsibilities to balance between competing interests in the body politic.)

I have no idea what such an England would have been like, but I'm pretty sure that it wouldn't have mirrored France.