But that sort of thing, as opposed to a colonial uprising.
It'd be interesting to see how that would develop in an absolute or semi-absolute England/Britain - Louis XVI and his forebearers paved the way for that by policies that may or may not have been strictly a fault of absolutism.
But even if you avoid that, the issue of "The rights of man" is going to sound very appealing to the common (non-noble) Englishman - which is enough to disrupt things.
Its theoretically possible to have a semi-absolute monarchy and most of what is associated with "the rights of man" coexist (at least #1-8 of the US Bill of Rights do not intrinsically clash with nondemocratic government - #9 is iffy and #10 is probably impossible to have with an absolute monarchy), but I am utterly at a loss as to examples of kings who actually promoted both in practice - not just on paper.
So that leaves us with what kind of kings we are talking about within that framework - Charles I, right or wrong, was not the sort to even handle the issues of the pre-Enlightenment.
I think the main things we need to establish is what era of semi-absolutism are we talking. I mean technically England was a semi-absolute Monarchy up till the Glorious Revolution, with the majority of Government powers invested in the Crown. So are we considering a scenario with a Royalist Victory in the Civil war or more along the lines of Charles II having legitimate children?
If we go down the Charles I wins path, I can eventually see an English/British Revolution, as Parliament will no doubt be stripped of its taxation powers in such a scenario, thus leaving the Crown with little reason to call it.
On the other hand, if we go with Charles II having legitimate heirs (something I find very interesting) then we will no doubt see something completely different. Even if his son doesn't inherit his ability to successfully work with and around Parliament, this son will still (hopefully) remain Anglican, stopping or at least delaying the Glorious Revolution. In such a scenario, however, the relationship between Crown and Parliament will still be undefined, with each wanting to be above the other.
But I agree, either way Charles I was NOT the man for the job.