It's hard to have a serious conversation with you about a very complex historical question when you clearly don't even have a Wikipedia-level understanding of history.

1. Most countries that transitioned from monarchy to liberal democracy did so through revolutions that involved various degrees of bloodshed.

2. You can't just pose a counterfactual about what would have happened had one of the most important events in world history not happened the way it did and assume that it could of gone another way based on the way history unfolded in entirely different countries with entirely different sets of political, cultural, social and economic conditions. That's like saying the Civil War could have been avoided because Brazil or Britain or any other country that wasn't absolutely reliant on slave labor for 3/4ths of its exports abolished slavery bloodlessly. It's absolutely ludicrous, facile and ahistorical.

If you remove all the actual relevant conditions and consider historical events as if they happened in a vacuum then of course it's going to be reduced to some simplistic moral question about whether it was "good" or "bad" that the French Revolution happened.

And anyone who considers history (or current events) with such a rigid dichotomy is absolutely neutered and useless politically. They are relegated to just being spectators and arm-chair quarterbacks making glib pronouncements in comment sections.