What, you want more?
OK, I think we need to bear in mind the 19th century was a period of dual revolution. Quite aside from the specific confluence of events of 1789 and immediately after in France, capitalism was reshaping society in Britain, in the Lowlands, and of course in France and Germany, the rest of Europe and the world.
I don't think the Revolution in France was simply the sprouting of a seed of a mere idea that blew over from the American Revolution across the Atlantic. All of these revolutions were earthquakes driven by the deep strains of new economic modes that shifted the pattern of social relations.
No major political revolutions means one of two things--either the ongoing transformation of society due to the evolution of capitalist economy had to slow down toward an effective halt (which I see absolutely no mechanism to cause, as it was a pervasive trend based in the nature of economics and private enterprise, scattered all across Europe and indeed the world); or we imagine a long and broad succession of political leadership atop the old regimes possessed of an incisive political and diplomatic wisdom far above the standard that actually prevailed, making one astute adjustment after another in careful and considerate concert with each other, to gradually and empirically modify the old political and social forms to accommodate a new economic order the like of which the world had never seen before, in such a fashion that the alarms and discontents of both the common working people and the ranks of their social "betters" were sufficiently considered and balanced that no configuration of them would, as Alexis de Tocqueville defined revolution, "see a way of solving their problems with one bold step."
The latter being just as ASB, or more so, than the former. At least we can imagine a sweeping reactionary panic willing to brutally sacrifice the obvious gains and benefits of the expanding global economy in fear of the unpredictable tomorrow they might bring, and crude methods to nail down society in place. It would be a Revolution as disruptive and bloody as 1789 and all that of course, and in the service of a fearful and defeatist vision, and offering by definition no progress unless it failed. But at least we can credit such a negative foresight. To have a positive foresight would indeed require something like divine prophecy.
No, I think that political revolution in some form, somewhere, was as inevitable as earthquakes, due to inexorable subterranean forces building up stresses in material not supple enough to always flow smoothly along the course they drive toward. Preventing or postponing it in France around the 1790s just means other pressures diverted OTL by the polarization of Europe caused by the great French revolution built up elsewhere and elsewhen taking some other unforewarned European Old Regime (Great Britain, for instance) by surprise.