that’s a part of it.

see, the french revolution had a multitude of causes and factors that led to it.

the enlightenment introduced ideas of liberty and equal chance for all men, so the french, specifically bourgeoisie, looked at themselves and questioned why they held a lesser status than the nobles in society when enlightenment ideals preached equal opportunity, liberty, etc. additionally, the american revolution, occurring before the french revolution, was a major catalyst in europe and especially france because america essentially set an example and proved that enlightenment ideals could be successfully integrated into a government, society, and country. so the french compared themselves to this american example and thus the demand for liberty/equality rose among the bourgeoisie. however, the french revolution was much more complex than that of the americans because of the historical buildup, actions of the previous bourbon monarchs, wars, etc. this was essentially one cause.

the starving peasants were not really looking for liberty/equality, but instead food, which is another cause of the french rev; these people were starving in the streets outside of the palace of versailles while the king and nobles were living extremely comfortably. the price of bread was so inflated to the point where an entire month’s salary could barely pay for one loaf of bread. thus, they were in a position where they had nothing left to lose and essentially fueled the uprisings and upheaval with their demand for basic necessity. (they also faced the majority of the tax burden since the first estate was exempt and the second estate had a significantly lighter load and was able to find ways to become exempt from taxes)

another major issue that served as a catalyst for the revolution was the extremely deteriorated economy of france. after the seven year’s war which the french lost to the british and subsequently lost ownership of their colonial holdings in north america, the french sought their revenge by aiding the americans with ammunition, weapons, and even men in the american revolution. the debt that accumulated with these wars was tremendous and could not be paid off because of an ineffective tax system which put most of the tax burden on the demographics that were least able to pay them. additionally, traditional ways of dealing with debt were infeasible because france could not declare partial government bankruptcy, which would lighten the debt and force decreased payments, since the majority of debt was held by aristocratic and bourgeoisie creditors, and declaring bankruptcy would be an extremely unpopular decision. printing more money to create inflation was also not an option because france lacked a central bank; they still used gold and did not have paper currency. there were also bad harvests for a few years, destroying the agriculture industry, which in turn could not provide for the growing population (grew because of advancements in knowledge and tools that came from the enlightenment)

another major part of it was that louis xvi was just an ineffective leader. he lacked the prestige and motivation of previous bourbon leaders like louis xiv who was able to manipulate the aristocracy on such a fundamental level. louis xvi was unconcerned, didn’t have the qualities of a monarch, and was never ready for the throne despite his training from a young age. the spending of the royal family and first estate was also an aspect that significantly deteriorated his image to the peasants and common people of france, especially paris.

Like everything in history, or at least almost everything, its almost impossible to point to a single reason for such a major event. The French Revolution was undoubtedly heavily spurred by such massive inequality though. But it was also the fact that the people who had such a majority of the wealth didn't accrue it through labor, but rather through inheritance and the accruing of capital, usually through rents on their lands. That spurred the idea that the nobility/aristocracy did not deserve such wealth.

It was also not only the actual wealth distribution, but also a tax system that had numerous exemptions for the aristocracy and clergy, in some cases such that they paid little tax at all, but taxed the poor heavily, essentially balancing the budget on the backs of the peasantry.

Further, France's system of absolute monarchy meant that substantive change to resolve these issues, which would have been to the detriment of the ruling class, seemed to be almost impossible. This was characterized well by the attempts of the short lived finance minister, Jacques Necker. Necker saw the problems that the regressive tax system of the ancien regime presented, and proposed major changes. These included reducing exemptions for the clergy and landed gentry, but thanks to the heavy influence of the aristocracy on the French monarchy, this was not to be. In fact, Necker was dismissed, replaced by Charles Alexandre de Calonne, who soon realized the extent of the situation and himself proposed a renovation to the French tax system. This would have created a land tax, and taxed the clergy and aristocracy. Like Necker's proposals, this was not popular with the clergy and aristocracy, and Calonne faced opposition from both the parlements and Council of Notables.

While there were political elements to the French Revolution, as is certainly shown by the radical departure from monarchy taken by the Jacobins, the origins of the political part of the revolution was not so radical. In the Book of Grievances, compiled at the Estates-General of 1789, most present supported a monarchy. Indeed, major complaints were unfair taxation and the organization of the Estates General, such that although the third estate(peasantry) compromised up to 98% of France's population, the estates general was in no way representative of the will of France. Not to mention that the 1789 convening of the Estates-General was the first time this had happened 1626.