It seems to me we had this discussion once, but yes. Meritocracy is based on IQ, hard work and social climbing. Traditional systems such as monarchy are based on family, rootedness, love of tradition, and following in one's father's footsteps. They are completely at odds.  The latter is based on personal relationships and trust; the former on bureaucracy, testing, and the distrust that comes from rat-race competition. I believe the term was popularized by a certain president of Harvard back in 40s (whose name escapes me at the moment but Conan may have been his surname) who sought to end the dominance at that University of certain old Boston families, and to establish Harvard as an institution with national reach instead of a regional one.  He adored standardized tests such as the SAT.

Although the concept of meritocracy is indeed the very opposite of much of what monarchy and aristocracy stands for, it has often been used by monarchies to their benefit, particularly in the military field. 

Napoleon I created a new "nobility of merit", Louis XIV, Louis XV, and Louis XVI before him relied heavily on what were known as the "nobility of the robes" who were largely royal appointees appointed on thier merits, and Ethiopia's Haile Selassie also prefered to appoint officials based on merit and loyalty to high positions rather than exclusively from the old aristocratic families, and he was not the first Emperor to do so (Tewodros II, Yohannes IV and Menelik II following similar policies).

Meritocracy is not the same as democracy.  Doing away with the hereditary House of Lords in favor of an elected Senate is democracy and not meritocracy.  If it was a meritocracy, then there would be a test, or someone's record of service would be scrutinized for them to be appointed to the senate or  House of Lords.  Elections are just a popularity contest and are not really a measure of merit.

Meritocracy is not always incompatible with monarchy.

I think a distinction needs to be made between "meritocracy," stripped of its historical connotations; for instance, as you use the word in your last sentence, and meritocracy in the historical setting of the word.  Merit of course is a wonderful thing, and every successful society will take it into account. In traditional monarchies, e.g., pre-Tudor, very meritorious persons could become noblemen and rise above the station of their fathers. History has many examples of men becoming knighted.  However, as commonly used the word carries an almost unavoidable implication that the traditional selection process, based mostly on family and background, does not promote the most meritorious. Words such as "nepotism" and "inbreeding" gained currency to stigmatize the old ways. I think Jefferson had it about right when he said there was a "natural aristocracy." By this I think he simply meant that the most meritorious would usually come from the most meritorious stock.

Meritocracy is the only acceptable way to run a society. Otherwise a society falls apart under massive corruption and incompetence. 'Nuff said.