As far as I know, Doyle's Oxford history is still the go-to resource, despite being relatively old. The French Revolution is revisionist history all the way down, and Doyle published his work around the time that a lot of the most notable works in the field of cultural history were published or being published. However, he primarily mentions these as asides, rather than letting them steer his argument. Indeed, I think the reason Doyle's work has stood the test of time is its circumvention of any apparent agenda or bias--although obviously subjectivity in history is unavoidable in one way or another. In general, the French Revolution has had so much written about it that more recent works will always (afaik) take a particular approach. For example, Simon Schama's Citizens is fairly comprehensive, and as Schama is a "popular historian" it's most likely accessible, but he makes a particular argument that may mislead a reader who is unable to distinguish between the objective historical narrative and the subjective interpretation. This isn't to say the book is bad, just that as a starting point it may not be ideal. Be warned, however: Doyle's Oxford History is absolutely a "history book" and it will remind you of this on every page.

In short, Doyle isn't beautiful, but it's a solid work. The content's not difficult, given that you have a general understanding of history, and it's absolutely accessible to an amateur in that regard. But as I said, it's a history book, and you'll feel it. However, if you still want to study the French Revolution, you'll have a solid foundation from which you can explore one of the most beautiful, subtle, and profound moments in history.

Thank you very much for the detailed answers!

My University's library has Schama and Doyle, so I might loan them to get a "feel" of each (it doesn't have Hibbert, though).