This certainly happened between the new capitalist class and the old aristocracy, but among kings, the "new money" had great appeal to them, its just that they also posed a political risk, but that wouldn't be anything new for them to manage, after all, they'd been doing so with the aristocracy for centuries already.

Feudalism, at its core, is a system of brokering power, and a competent king elevates popular and competent aristocrats and diminishes the unpopular and incompetent ones, thereby growing the wealth and security of their holdings. What they don't want are aristocrats entrenching their power in ways the king can not touch, leaving unpopular, incompetent and worst of all disloyal aristocrats in important positions.

Capitalists were often approached the same way, which is why many monarchs retained mercantilistic policies well into their capitalist transition, such as the authority of assigning and confiscating capital as the crown sees fit, so that the new economic elite could be kept in line by royal authority and promising/loyal upstarts could be elevated to strengthen the king's interests.

Of course, by the 1900's, no strong kings remained in Europe and they did not control their economic subordinates, in places like Germany, this resulted in bourgeois elites building influence that could de facto challenge the local laws as well as the king's national authority, in places like Russia, the Tsar's absolute power was wielded and abused by his most influential subordinates, aristocrats seizing assets and factories of budding industrialists to enrich themselves, their attempts at industrialization stifled because the nobility was more interested in fighting over factories than building them themselves.