Originally posted by Gonzaga
Sure, but the king's son would surely be a candidate anyway, so it would be interesting to Charles have a son that could be elected. If Charles' son becomes king is other problem, but he would probably try to have one in order to have a chance of keeping his line on the Polish throne.
Also, three decades later that famous Polish constitution recognised the Wettins as hereditary kings, so probably the idea of a permanent dynasty could come up anyway. If Charles have some luck the same guys who supported it IOTL might accept a Stuart dynasty instead.
The question of making Polish monarchy hereditary was already considered, but consevatives were still too strong. However, as I mentioned before, it might have worked. Stuart dynasty would have been actually quite acceptable for Polish-Lithianian noblemen.
First, it would be a dynasty which would probably be concentrated on Polish affairs - chances to regain British crown were small to none. Other elective kings, who often had already been rulers in other countries, tended to think more about their motherlands than about Poland.
Second, the romantic image of exiled king had its value.
Third, Jan III Sobieski as ancestor - really good card. Conservatives wouldn't be able to say he is totally alien in Poland. Besides, in XVIIth centuries many Scottish mercenaries had settled in Poland and were considered good citizens.
Fourth, Austrian and French backing. Poland-Lithuania had actually quite good relations with Austria and no conflict of interests. France was also considered a friendly country.
However, I still have my doubts about Russia. I'm not sure if Russia would have allowed it, even with estern part of the Commonwealth as compensation. In 1764 Russians practically made PLC their protectorate. Why to change it?