The reason modern western leaders support house of Saud isn't that they're the good guys. They're just the best of what all realistic possibilities in the region, unfortunately.
I doubt it. Saud family were interested in fighting the Ottomans, as were the British in WW1, and their interests aligned then. And during WW2, once it was found to provide access to oil, it only made sense for the west to make sure a stable regime was established. The US/Brits support the Sauds in whatever they want to do, and the Sauds provide oil and purchase weapons. Keeps the region nice and unstable for future weapons orders and to prevent a situation like Norway where the oil wealth is distributed to everyone and no longer able to be controlled by a handful of people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Saud#Origins_and_earl...
For further proof, the more modern socially liberal Iran was destabilized in favor of a fundamentalist leader by the US for their refusal to play ball:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruhollah_Khomeini#Khomeini's_c...
It's just business, it's easier to deal with a small country's king than a democracy.
This is a good book about the circumstances that result in the modern situation:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/64594.A_History_of_the_M...
Isn't the wealth distributed to the saudis to keep them happy and inline?
And if the Saudi king decides to stop the payments or kill you for speaking out against them (see Kashoggi assassination), what good is a few thousand in oil money while the royalty splits the billions with the US.
Very very unfortunately, this sounds more like wishful thinking than a reasonable prediction.
The truly troublesome part is that predictions about social phenomenon can be self-fulfilling prophesy. If you basically want to see a bloody revolution instead of a better solution, that actively increases the odds of it happening.