Someone I once worked with said that everyone had at least one good idea in their life that could lead to fame, fortune or both – the trick was knowing which one it was. I, of course, told him that all my ideas were good. The only problem I had was convincing others of how brilliant all my ideas were before I lost interest in them.

Well, while listening to a discussion about the whole Republican versus Monarchist debate, I had one of my best ideas yet. One – I was sure – that I’d have no trouble getting support for. I can’t remember the exact conversation between the two talkback guests but it went something like this:

“But we want an Australian head of state!”

“Surely you don’t want someone that the politicians would appoint. And electing a President would be so divisive. We’re better off with our current system.”

Ah, I thought I have the answer. I contacted the Republican Movement, but like so many on the Left, they just abused me and told me that my idea wasn’t worth sharing. So I contacted Sir David Pint from “People Who’d Rather Be Under A Queen” and, to his credit, he was prepared to take my phone call.

“So what’s your great idea?” he asked.

“It’s simple. We create a compromise.”

“A compromise?”

“Yep. Some people want an Australian Head of State. And you support an hereditary monarchy. So, why don’t we create our own Royal Family?”

“Pardon?”

“Look, it’s quite simple. We call someone King or Queen of Australia, make them head of state and the role is passed down to their children via the eldest child. Or eldest son, if you want to be a traditionalist about this.”

“That’s ridiculous.”

“I’m quite easy about the eldest son thing. Just so long as we get it straight before we decide on the system in advance so that nobody can say that they weren’t warned.”

“How on earth would you decide who was this so called King?”

“I don’t know exactly. Maybe something like a Big Brother show where we found out who was comfortable with being in the public eye. You know, anyone who assaults a member of the paparazzi is excluded.”

“We can’t have an Australian Royal Family.”

“Why not?”

“They wouldn’t be legitimate royals.”

“They would if we say that they are.”

“No, the current Royal Family are the only legitimate Royals.”

“So what makes them legitimate.”

“They were born into the Royal Family.”

“Yeah, but they must have started somewhere. I mean there must have been some dude who work up one day and said this crown suits me, so I’m in charge.”

“You’re talking a long time ago. This has nothing to do with the current Royal Family.”

“Didn’t they descend from this guy? But you’re overlooking the wonderful potential for tourism. The British Royal Family brings in millions. Imagine if we had one that could do that too. I mean there’d be no need Tony Abbott to make being poor more difficult.”

“Abbott isn’t making being poor more difficult.”

“Oh, of course, he’s making it easier to be poor. Anyway, can I count on you to help spread my petition for an Australian Royal Family?”

“You can’t just create a family and call them ‘Royal’. It’s not the same as people who’ve been royal for generations.”

“But William’s mother wasn’t royal, and Kate isn’t royal, so doesn’t that mean that George is only a quarter royal?”

“You clearly don’t understand a thing about Royalty. Good-bye!”

So there ya go. My ex-workmate was right. The trick is knowing which is your one good idea. Maybe I lost him with the “Big Brother” thing. Perhaps I should have stuck with my original thought of making it King Geoffrey Rush. Or perhaps, King Shane of Warne. After all, we do seem to love acting and spin these days…

[polldaddy poll=8042754]