So by your rationale they must have dissolved Parliament right?
Please don't put words in my mouth, especially intentionally absurd arguments that I didn't make. There are ways that civil society can fray that don't involve outright tyranny. For example, the concentration of power that just seems efficient and wise when you have a smart ruler can, in hindsight, be disastrous with the successor, but social institutions don't turn on a dime without violence or catastrophe.
Your examples are, of course, rather interesting in their own rights. Elizabeth started out a very weak monarch, and only through a lifetime's work did she make her rule and her country strong. Her successor, James I, began a fraying process that led in two generations to a civil war and the execution of a king. People who should have been accommodated instead found that they had no way to influence a powerful monarch, leading to warfare.
Victoria is a somewhat better example on the surface, but Victoria, for the most part, presided over the gradual de-politicization of the monarchy in Great Britain. While still an institution with tremendous symbolic power, Victoria (especially later in life) involved herself less and less with the actual government of the nation. I'm not sure that's the example you are thinking of.
I apologize if I come across somewhat snappish on this topic. The romanticization of "benevolent autocrats" rubs this anarchist sympathizer the wrong way every time, and historically, has never actually worked as well as its proponents say it will. Even in a monarchy, distributed power tends to lead to greater stabiity than concentrated power (although such a broad generalization is itself open to many exceptions and extreme cases). I know many people really hope for the infinitely wise parent who will run their lives for them, but the times in history that such hopes are given real political expression have rarely been happy for long.