I dislike a lot of the suggestions. I strongly feel that such fame points should reward desirable behavior. For example, do we really want to encourage having endless alliances and rulers staying on the throne forever? I can already see it: "Shhh, sure he's a bad king, but it would take forever to get that fame point if we replace him!"
A lot of them sound perfectly reasonable, though.
On the other hand, however, I wonder if it wouldn't be better to have a dynamic and competitive fame system, instead of the traditional "achievements" like you get with Steam games. What if instead of being points that everyone can get and be happy, we used a system that mixed historical standing with current standing.
For example, instead of unlocking an achievement when you get X CS, how about when your realm gets the strongest army average for a month straight, you unlock a historic and a standing realm fame point. And then, later on, if you decline and another one gets a bigger army, you keep your historic but lose your standing point.
That way, it encourages realms to compete with each other instead of just trying to reach an abstract objective that has little to do with everyone else. It also means that you don't get stuck with achievements that rely on nothing else but pure numbers that make them way too easy to get on some continents and impossible to get on others. Makes it all feel more organic, instead of some meta-game objectives. Call it realm "Glory".