Is Shakespeare kidding?

As we read last week (in our handout), John Fletcher defined tragicomedy thus: "it wants deaths, which is inough to make it no tragedie, yet brings some neere it, which is inough to make it no comedie." If we are to take Fletcher's definition of tragicomedy as accurate, how can we classify this play as a tragicomedy since both the Queen, Cloten and presuably several soldiers die (the latter all for naught since Cymbeline, like Arbaces, undermines the original reason for war and agrees to pay the tribute)? Consider the outrageous things that happen in this play: Guiderius/Polydore walks onstage with a actual severed head; a literal deus ex machina occurs; the female lead slathers herself in blood for seemingly no plot advancement; the reveal at the end is clumsy at best (the height of which is Cornelius' last minute rememberance of important information from the Queen's deathbed confession, expressed "O gods! / I left out one thing which the Queen confessed" - 5.6.243-4). Shakespeare seems, to me at least, to be taking these conventions to their ludicrous extreme. Might we then classify this play as something more like parody (of revenge tragedy, for example) in which case it belongs squarely in comedy (despite the deaths of the aforementioned characters who, as John Wayne might have said, needed killin' anyway)?

There are no women onstage at the end of this play. (Technically, Innogen is a woman, but she is still dressed as a boy.) Yet the men in this play have proved vacillating, prone to passion, impetuous, bloody. Should we feel good about England's future?