No, you shouldn't :-)
But this is a well-known problem in meta-programming

The reason why you cannot do this in smalltalk is because, when you have a class A and a subclass B, the metaclass of B (being 'B class') must be a subclass of the metaclass of A (being 'A class'). (The reason for this is to guarantee upward and downward compatibility - see links below. In CLOS, one is allowed to choose any metaclass in the class definition, but no compatibility is guaranteed)

A better example is the concept of an abstract class, with concrete subclasses:
A is an abstract class, so 'A class>>new' raises an error (like with a singleton)
B is a subclass of A, inheriting all behaviour from A, and 'B class' (a concrete class) is a subclass of 'A class': a concrete class inheriting its behaviour from an abstract class.
So it is not always conceptually right for classes and their metaclasses to inherit in parallel.

This paper explains the problem clearly and proposes a solution which uses code (and class) generation
Safe Metaclass Programming (1998) ( Noury M.N. Bouraqadi-Saâdani, Thomas Ledoux, Fred Rivard)
http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/37617.html

This paper uses traits for metaclass programming
Uniform and safe metaclass composition (Stéphane Ducasse, Nathanael Schärli, Roel Wuyts)
http://www.iam.unibe.ch/~scg/Archive/Papers/Duca05ySafeMetaclassTrait.pdf  <http://www.iam.unibe.ch/~scg/Archive/Papers/Duca05ySafeMetaclassTrait.pdf>