This is not at all how it went. Your brain on narratives.
The bourgeoisie rose not so much in a constant struggle with the feudal aristocracy or alongside it, but because the feudal arrangement of society was always dogshit. The nobility by definition was parasitic on anything productive and devoid of any spiritual purpose, and didn't really manage property well. So, as productive science improved, and as new weapons displaced the old that required a supply chain and knowledge to create them, the nobility found they required alliances with the producers and what would become a scientific class, which originated from priestly functions and in universities. Specifically, empires required gunpowder, ships, cannons, artillery, all the methods to raise an army worth a damn, and realized that they would do better if they had a useful contrivance to facilitate that technology and production. That's how capitalism emerged as a situation. It made a lot of sense to rely on the growing mercantile interest that allowed all of this new technology to be funded, and the effectiveness of gunpowder armies and artillery made it a necessity. The mercantile functions had existed for a long time, and were noted in Antiquity, but the attitude of the aristocracy towards wealth and producers was universally contempt.
The bourgeoisie - literally the town-dwellers representing urban interests and economic centers that had no buy-in with the manorial arrangement - could offer themselves as scientists, courtiers, merchants, men-at-arms, explorers (and this was a big part of what made capitalism the thing, overseas expedititions), and all the things that allowed a state to be stronger. The state of feudal society was basically a glorified warlord and his court, propped up spiritually by the Church, and in this arrangement, the interests of certain of the bourgeoisie and the interests of the nobility met. Those interests were not identical and sought position in the arrangement, but they never directly attacked each other. Their mutual enemy was always the general people, the workers and peasants who had no reason whatsoever to go along with any of this, just as the workers and peasants never saw anything in this terrible arrangement that brought nothing by death, sacrifice, and terror every so often. It was, and would remain, an alliance of convenience.
The only thing that changed around the 17th century is that the bourgeoisie would become more relevant in the ruling interest, and the nobility were increasingly short on cash. There is a whole story of mercantile fuckery, intrigues, cults, secret societies, and so on which is a mess to untangle, but the great story of the liberal revolutions is that the bourgeoisie, merchants, scientists, explorers, and all of the interests that we know today, attained a majority share of the wealth. The nobility, far from wanting to destroy the bourgeoisie conceptually, wanted to co-opt it and control it, and in some way resemble it. There was no way to maintain any feudal arrangement, and at the upper tier of the nobility, this wasn't even a thing desired. The remaining buy-in with feudalism was not with the noble elite but with petty lords and interets that were holding on to their privileges and titles. An interest in the bourgeoisie saw that those titles held them back, but there were among the bourgeoisie people who bought into that system and wanted very much to protect the interests of the petty-nobles, and become themselves petty-nobles, which did happen on occasion. The real story of the revolution is not a clean narrative where one identity group supplanted another, but a story of conspiracies within both groups that saw advantage to gain. The overall effect is that a new aristocracy, and a principle for choosing that aristocracy on the basis of wealth and perceived merit, was the liberal idea. There were liberal nobles who were part of the old arrangement and were ready for something new. There were many in both camps that weren't ideological at all and simply sought to join the side that was good for them at any time. Such is how struggles among disparate interests actually go. It is never one big happy family until the cards are on the table, and obviously the first concern of every revolutionary junta is counter-revolution. The Americans rammed through the current constitution in a conspiratorial manner and tabled the counter-revolution, because there was nothing to go back to. In France, the counter-revolution won. In Britain, there was no revolution as such, and to this day hereditary aristocracy and its conceits remains a force in British thought, even as the aristocracy is full of technocrats and the usual shits who rule now. The high aristocracy in Britain by and large is not anti-technological, but at the vanguard of this concept of historical progress, and can be found among the most liberal elements in British society. They believe hardcore in eugenics, and in this idea of commanding technology and science to push the masses into submission, and that they're going to harvest science for their purposes, with no more democratic interference.
All of this is to say that you have no fucking idea how this works, if you actually believe history conforms to these clean narratives. You sound like Wilhelm II chirping about how he will win the battle between Christianity and Buddhism, as if any of these nobles were spiritual creatures. It's a fucking joke.