Cymbeline's Model of Kingship

There are a couple points in the play at which Cymbeline seems to avoid matters of state in order to focus on those of the family (III.v.27-30; IV.iii.27-35); in these passages, the condition and advice of his daughter and queen outweigh the importance of Britain's deteriorating relationship with Rome. We later find out that Cymbeline took bad advice from his wife when he refused to pay tribute to Rome. At the end of the play, Cymbeline comes very close to punishing Belarius, Guiderius, and Lucius, but eventually frees everyone (or at least invites everyone to be merry, in the case of Lucius). Belarius complains that Cymbeline didn't have much of a reason to banish him. Finally, is Cymbeline's decision to remain subordinate to Rome a good one for his land? Considering all of these aspects, are we to consider Cymbeline a good king? His power is hardly ever critiqued, but he seems as fickle as Arbaces in the majority of A King and No King. How does Shakespeare handle kingship differently in this play in comparison to Beaumont and Fletcher in Philaster and A King and No King?