What I originally planned to suggest in this article was that we have a referendum to install Prince Harry as King of Australia. He seems like a bit of a larrikin, much better than the other stuffy English royals.

But then, in the epiphany-inducing relaxation of a shower, I had an epiphany.

First of all, we don't need a referendum to change monarch. Although the Constitution obliges us to have a monarchy, it does not oblige us to have a particular person or lineage as the monarch (not since March 3, 1986 when the Australia Acts came into effect, anyway).

Queen Elizabeth and her heirs are on the throne due to a grab bag of very old British legislation, all of which parliament can change the same way it changes all other legislation.

It is only by convention and the "Perth Agreement" - neither of which are legally binding - that Australia keeps its monarch the same as Britain and the other Commonwealth realms.

Second, theoretically possible though it might be, Australia would never actually install Prince Harry as king. It's a fun but unrealistic brain bubble.

Third, there is nothing obliging our monarchy to be hereditary. All aspects of the monarchy, other than there actually being a monarchy, can be changed by legislation.

This leads to all sorts of exciting possibilities and solves several problems.

To begin with, we wouldn't need to bother becoming a republic, which is not a popular option anyway.

We'd have an Australian on the throne, chosen by a non-hereditary legislative process. Even the Australian Republic Movement might tolerate that.

Plus, we can stop arguing about Australia Day/Invasion Day. Surely we'd just go with Coronation Day for our new non-British monarch.

Moreover, it's a prime opportunity to work on other "indigenous issues". Just pick a first Australian as the monarch! Not only will a first Australian rule Australia (... again), but, by virtue of being the Crown, all the land will belong to them (... again). Getting the land back might go a little way to ameliorating First Peoples' dispossession.

There are some excellent choices for a first Australian monarch. I'm not a sport person but I recall there was that AFL player who got booed a lot, Adam somebody. I suspect he's got the ... Goodes to be king! Pin an AC on his chest and you're set. Sports star, role model, resilient in the face of adversity ... all the things Australians want in a figurehead.

Or, if a confident black man is too threatening to all the white people in parliament, we could choose someone similar to Elizabeth at her coronation - young, pretty, naive and easily manipulated by the establishment. Magnolia Maymuru springs to mind.

The problem for those white men though is that, much like Elizabeth, I expect it will turn out Ms Maymuru was never naive and easily manipulated at all.

Or we could anoint one of a thousand other first Australians, any of which would be more valid, useful and Australian than our current monarch (no offense, Your Majesty).

The hurdle is getting it to happen at all. "Pipe dream!" you say. Well maybe, but also maybe not.

Consider this: The Coalition loves implementing socially progressive causes and it will be crowing about same-sex marriage for a century. The love is double if it implements something symbolic that doesn't actually detract from their power, like changing a single word in the national anthem. So if the Coalition install a first Australian as monarch, they get all the kudos and none of the loss of power. Win.

Labor would vote for it because it's a step closer to the republic Labor wants - something they can build on when they return from what looks to be 40 years wandering in the wilderness of opposition. Plus, if the Coalition supported it Labor would be well and truly wedged. So not quite a win, but not something Labor could oppose, either.

The Greens would vote for it because they learned the hard way not to make perfect the enemy of the good. And the same reasons as Labor: some social progression is better than none.

Consequently, in my view, we can make everyone happy. The republicans get everything of substance they want. Monarchists get to keep the monarchy. First Australians increase their political presence. No down sides at all!

The only barrier now is the trifling matter of convincing the federal government.