The Legitimacy of a Known New Kingdom

The Legitimacy of a Known New Kingdom

Let me present to you here some established facts about a well-known new kingdom. And then ask you to vote if such kingdom can be qualified to be called a state and more importantly if it is a legitimate state or not?
1- It is less than 80 years old, and it had no borders before that;
2- The founder of this kingdom received monthly salary and weapons from a foreign state to help him to grab territories;
3- That sponsoring foreign state declared in a “treaty” signed between a single person and a government of an empire that any land grabbed by that person shall be its own protectorates;
4- That kingdom bears the name of a person and not a name of a people or a land;
5- The new kingdom is rejecting core U.N. human rights treaties and agreements such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, and the Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families.
6- The nationality certificate of that new kingdom is named “Fellowship”;
7- It is refusing to  improve its criminal justice system, abolish the system of male guardianship over women, and throw out discriminatory aspects of its sponsorship system for foreign workers, which leave workers vulnerable to abuses including forced labor and unpaid labor;
8- It spends extremely huge portion of its revenues from sales of oil as monthly payments and grants for all members of the royal family;
9- There is no financial accountability form the people of that kingdom over its government and its royal family;
And 10- It stands out for its extraordinarily high levels of repression and its failure to carry out its promises to the Human Rights Council.
The question: Is such kingdom can be qualified to be called a state; and more importantly if it is a legitimate state or not?