Araith's page

That group setup is high the same as our original group.

I like where you're going with your campaign.

Good points, Jack and Orfamay, but despite their investment and the probable value of a client state in the south, what good is one that does not live up to expectations? What good is one that, when push comes to shove, does not act as the client it's supposed to be? Of course the mere claim on a royal title does not mean it will renege, but I can imagine it to raise suspicions of unwelcome ambition.

True, there may be deniability, but the people in power know full well what's going on here. Even if no official allegations can be made, the Swordlords would likely frown upon this claim to kingship from their intended client realm. If no gesture of loyalty follows on the part of the players, this might just cost them Restov's support - which is a heavy price to pay for an empty title.

Granted, most of the River 'Kingdoms' don't have actual kings, but the river freedoms (mainly 'you have what you hold' and 'courts are for kings') more or less give you the freedom to adopt whatever title you want. That said, the fact that they're just claiming some land backed by a charter from Restov does make it questionable that they indeed have what they hold.
Also, while presumptions with high and mighty titles might be perfectly acceptable in the riverlands, it would raise more eyebrows in Brevoy.

In our campaign we started giving leadership roles stipends a while ago, taking a rather simple course for a change and setting simple numbers; 500 gp/month for lower court leadership and 1000 gp/month for higher councilors.
The perhaps more interesting aspect for your thoughts on the matter is that we're not drawing these stipends from the realm's BP income, but adding it to the realm's consumption. I find consumption can be used creatively for a lot of house-ruled costs of government.

Cost of living we haven't thus far strictly taken into consideration, but we may we add an abstracted cost for a decent princely court in the future.

Liam, those are some good ideas there. I particularly like 4 and 5a.

As regards your idea 6, do keep in mind that 'leaving' might not be a viable option. Your ruler might be a greedy bastard, but he might not be worse than other bandit lords out there. And despite the heavy taxation the land might at least be relatively secure. For settlers from the Riverlands that would count as a lot and be something they'd probably be willing to pay for. Settlers from Rostland are probably younger sons with no chance of inheriting the farm, and a heavily taxed farm still is your own farm. Of course different settings for the Kingdom building rules would set different situations and reactions, but this is also something to keep in mind when considering that this doesn't take place in a vacuum.