If you go back as far as John's reign, the England you could plausibly have by the 18th century would be a very different place.
I thought the obvious place to look is the English Civil War and Charles I. Better yet, Charles doesn't let a Civil War break out at all. (What good are absolute monarchs if they can't prevent a civil war?)
So, my knowledge of just what factors were at work in getting that ball rolling, just a couple short generations after Elizabeth was ruling so very effectively, is kind of sketchy and hazy. As a progressive type, I've always pretty much accepted that Charles stood in the way of progress and was therefore an idiot and it's a darn good thing that England did not go in an absolutist direction.
But let's say we want the English monarchy to become absolutist, and presumably, if we aren't doing this in the spirit of pulling wings off of flies, it is because we have the notion that an absolute monarchy can be a good thing somehow. How plausible is it that the king, by judiciously granting favors and boons here and preemptively cutting off heads or hanging commoners there, that he secures sufficient power to himself to act pretty much freely of Parliament (or secures a compliant Parliament somehow), if we are willing to grant Charles I as much wisdom as he needs to do this, provided we don't make him too superhumanly Solomonic--it's OK if he is a little above the common cut, that's what monarchism is all about right, the king is supposed to be better than common?
What does it take for Charles I to hold on to at least as much discretionary power as Elizabeth had, and to adapt that power to the changing needs of England as it gets well into the 17th century? What prices does England have to pay--does it lose all opportunity to expand in America for instance, or get a foothold in India, or are both these projects actually furthered by the power of the King? Can Britain still lead the way in agricultural innovation (with its dark side to be sure, the ongoing pauperization and eviction off the land of the surplus workforce--or do the Kings have a creative answer for that?) and eventually industrial development, or will that perforce be the province of those regimes that manage to retain or invent representative government? If England falls behind in some spheres can she pull ahead in others, thanks to the discretionary power of a sovereign?
As I say, my gut feeling is that the sooner you limit or get rid of monarchs, the better.
But since you want a POD, I'd say look at the situation in James I reign, for that matter look at what worked for Elizabeth I, ask whether the slippage (from a monarch's point of view) that obviously left Charles I in a tighter place happened because of silly human frailties on James I or Charles I's own watch, versus deep and major social trends that can't be casually butterflied away. And then ask how Charles I could deal with the latter (and what reasonable measures could any dynasty take against the former too), and turn the situation to his advantage, and choose your POD in the early 17th century accordingly.