It is a Britwank, I believe.
I'm not quite sure I see, though please explain. My principle point is that I don't believe the UK did anything with its power to justify Vicky's reign being a Britwank. I mean, if we're just talking about in military terms, I guess yes, the RN was quite wankingly strong. But Victoria's reign was past the point at which it was needed. By 1837, the UK wasn't fighting in North America anymore, except to suppress rebellions. Similarly it wasn't really colonising Australasia. In Asia it took barely any land - though I admit on paper, its victory against the Chinese was rather infeasible, but given the weakness of the Chinese army at that point, I think any European country could've done it, given the ability to move the troops - which if it can be considered a result of wank, certainly didn't derive from Victoria's reign. In Africa it expanded hugely, granted, but it was using near-modern troops against tribesmen, facing no opposition from European colonial nations which it had had to contend with elsewhere. As far as I recall, it had to deal with no wars in Europe save the Crimean War, and the British and their allies did so badly there it surely can't be considered wank. And France wasn't that weak, in fact it was pretty strong until Prussia humbled it. It's just that the Napoleonic Wars and their aftermath had polarised Europe into the starting phases of the alliances which would become the alliances of World War One - i.e. counter-alliances of nations designed to prevent war by being the military match of each other. They didn't want war except where they thought it absolutely necessary. Hence, no chances to show military weakness.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that I think you are wrong. You could well be right. I am just looking for an explanation of your side, as personally I think that the British Empire was about as inactive as it could have been in this era - there were many places it could have expanded further, or been more successful, but didn't.