Not representative of the period as a whole.
The medieval period was a very long time indeed, and so nothing's really representative of the period as a whole. The exact dates depend on the events you choose as defining the period, so they vary from country to country, and Medieval England ended far earlier than the Middle Ages in France.
In English history the nomenclature has changed in the last few decades, with the term "Medieval" now almost invariably including the period formerly called the "Dark Ages", which is now more commonly referred to as the "Early Medieval", which begins with the end of Roman power in England, usually placed somewhere in the fifth century (476 is one of the most popular dates), and ends with the Norman Conquest of 1066, which marks the beginning of the "Late Medieval" period, which in England ends in 1485. So the Medieval period as a whole runs for ~1,009 years, or 419 years if you discount the "Early" period.
Nevertheless, the French Revolution most certainly isn't representative of any part of the Medieval period, because it didn't happen until about three centuries after the medieval period ended in England, and about two hundred years after the end of Medieval France, which I would place no later than the end of Valois rule in 1589.
I'm personally in favour of dividing the Medieval Period into three parts from the point of view of English history: The first part begins with the withdrawal of Roman power, and is a protracted process rather than a single event, but certainly belongs somewhere in the second half of the fifth century. The second part runs from the Norman Conquest of 1066 to 1348, when the fundamentals of society were massively disrupted by the pandemic disease known to contemporaries as the Blue Fever, but today usually referred to as the Black Death. The third part runs from the plague to the end of the Wars of the Roses in 1485, which marks the beginning of the Early Modern period.
Your comments on class structure and the relationship of monarchy, church, and peasantry are likely fairly true of the Early Modern period, but the entire Medieval period was far more static and more explicitly hierarchical, particularly in the central period from 1066-1348. The plague of 1348 sowed the seeds of power for the peasantry, by making it possible for them to unilaterally depart from the lands they were tied to, and hence from the authority of the landowner. But this didn't show up as any kind of requirement for monarchs to gain the support of the peasants until the thread of monarchical succession was broken at Bosworth Field. Henry VII and his successors needed the support of the peasants, not least to underpin the support of the aristocracy.
The Norman conquest stamped out any suggestion of a return to the more democratic structures in the Anglo-Saxon and Danelaw communities of Early Medieval England, and it took the deposing of the King in 1485, and then a further two centuries of steady growth in confidence amongst the wealthier peasants (culminating in the deposing of Charles I in 1645 and his execution in 1649) to demolish the autocratic structure of the English monarchy.
Certainly no English monarch between 1066 and 1485 felt in any way beholden to public opinion; They had to consider the opinions of their extended families, and of the wider aristocracy, and even of the kings of other European countries, but those people didn't care about what peasants wanted any more than the king did.
Trifunctional hypothesis
