Do you really think the nobility just rolled over and gave the middle classes all the power because they asked nicely?
Edit. Actually that is exactly what merit is. Meritocracy is not rule by the just, but rule by those most likely to be winners. It just happens that given the opportunity the “winners" are most likely to be found within then middle class.
Fun fact: the first president of Singapore was senior wrangler at Cambridge, which according to Wikipedia has been described as the "the greatest intellectual achievement attainable in Britain"[1].
Singapore also has one of the world's most liberal immigration policies, allowing practically anyone in who can get a reasonably paying job, instead of privileging the employment of its own citizens like most countries do.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senior_Wrangler_(University_of...
Prussia was really the first example of this in the west, where in 1770 all civil servants were required to pass a written exam.
More seriously any society not ruled by a hereditary nobility is a meritocracy. The nobility did not embrace this change - they just lost the war with the middle class.
I should say that no society is a perfect meritocracy and that the past winners are always conspiring to keep out the new, but overall most current societies in the modern world are a vast improvement over the old, inbred-nobility ruled alternative.
This is the sort of crap people complain about whenever the meritocracy comes up. Sorry, but merit is not whatever you want it to be after the fact when you point to something that succeeded. That's called the Texas sharpshooter fallacy.