Answer:
No.
Explanation:
The first half of the statement is true because abolishing poverty will help the poor greatly. The second half is false because it does not benefit the rich. Overall, people will only be happy with what benefits their class the most.
I can't really answer your question (as I don't really know enough about 18th century France), but I just want to clear up an (understandable) misconception about Feudalism in your question.
The French revolution was adamant and explicit in its abolition of 'feudalism'. However, the 'feudalism' it was talking about had nothing at all to do with medieval 'feudalism' (which, of course, never existed). What the revolutionaries had in mind, in my own understanding of it, was the legally privileged position of the aristocracy/2nd estate. This type of 'feudalism' was a creation of early modern lawyers and, as a result, is better seen as a product of the early-modern monarchical nation-state, than as a precursor to it. It has nothing to do with the pre-nation-state medieval period, or with the Crusades.
Eighteenth-century buffs, feel free to chip in if I've misrepresented anything, as this is mostly coming from my readings about the historiographical development of feudalism, not any revolutionary France expertise, so I may well have misinterpreted things.
The two principles of the federalism and separation of powers and checks and balances and you will have to decide what they mean for you because I am not you so I can not answer that but hope this helps
The "Connected to Royalty" and "London Monster" are associated by Cambaceres. This is written by a known philosopher, writer, and poet named Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The two stories are about a man with honor and with an exemptional strength who is ready to fight monsters.
