For whatever reason have either of the following happen, and explain the consequences:
1) The bankruptcy of the French state occurs before the famine years of 1787-89, and thus the third estate's calls for reform have less backing from the working class.
2) The French state manages to totter on a little long, and you get working class bread riots occur before any calling of the Estates-General. Would they get much political voice. Would this put off the King from calling the Estates-General for the next few years? If no, would the nobility and clergy be more willing to accept reform? If yes, is there another way out of France's fiscal hell?
1) The working class had nearly no impact on the early French Revolution (1788-1789). So I don't think this would have an impact
2) Would they get much political voice ? I don't think so. Bread riots were quite usual at that time. They did have an impact
because they where coupled with other events. The King didn't want any Estates-General, he only accepted under the pressure. The working class meant nothing for him and noble people (only for the low-clergy, because they were very close to low people).
Each event of the French revolution isn't enough to trigger the fall of the monarchy. But you can't separate them, because they are linked. The famine is more or less linked to the bankruptcy. It was overall a problem of tax, because poor people were too poor to pay high taxes. And it was nearly impossible to raise taxes on rich people, because of their links to the King. So taxes had to be high on medium and poor people. That's why, each time bread was expensive, events like "bread riots" occured. You see ?
Your last question is interesting. Is there another way out of France's fiscal hell ? At that time, nobody thought that it was possible (read travels of Arthur Young in 1787-1790). A big reform wasn't avoidable, but it would have been different if the king and especially the queen and her entourage weren't so intractable on their privileges, according to most observers at that time.
After 1779 (the end of Necker - 1st mandate) it is nearly too late to continue on the same way without a big reform, in my opinion (Before that, only medium reforms would have been enough). With that and the affair of the diamond necklace (the discredit on the royal family) the absolute monarchy is nearly dead at medium term.
EDIT : I see that Imladrik and I have said nearly the same thing...but he 8 minutes sooner then me !