A lot of the men in my family have the first or middle name [name_m]Clay[/name_m] going back to the early 1800’s. There have been some [name_m]Clayton[/name_m]'s interspersed throughout but for the most part there have been several men named [name_m]Henry[/name_m] [name_m]Clay[/name_m], [name_m]Clay[/name_m] [name_m]Thomas[/name_m], and [name_u]James[/name_u] [name_m]Clay[/name_m]. I have always loved this name because of the familial ties and the old-timey aura without it being outdated or overdone.
I am due with our first boy in about 8 weeks and we have definitively decided upon calling him [name_m]Clay[/name_m], but we aren’t sure if we should name him “just” [name_m]Clay[/name_m] or use the longer [name_m]Clayton[/name_m]. I personally think [name_m]Clayton[/name_m] lacks a lot of the charm that I love about [name_m]Clay[/name_m], but my husband really prefers the longer name. My stance has really been - why bother with [name_m]Clayton[/name_m] when we will call him [name_m]Clay[/name_m], and there are really no other nickname alternatives to use with [name_m]Clayton[/name_m]? His argument is - [name_m]Clay[/name_m] seems unsubstantial and weak and [name_m]Clayton[/name_m] sounds more professional.
What do you think? His middle name is [name_m]Joseph[/name_m] and our last name is 3 syllables so the flow works well on both (I think). Our daughter is [name_f]Margaret[/name_f] [name_u]June[/name_u] “[name_f]Maggie[/name_f]” Opinions are very much appreciated!
I personally much prefer [name_m]Clay[/name_m]. I think it sounds more modern and fresh, while still maintaining that old-timey aura. [name_m]Clay[/name_m] by itself just has a better sound to me. I find [name_m]Clay[/name_m] to be much more charming than [name_m]Clayton[/name_m] overall. I do not find it “insubstantial” or “weak.”
I knew a [name_m]Clayton[/name_m] for most of my life, a very nice person, so I have positive associations with the full name. However, people always called him by his full name – not sure if that was his preference or just what happened. So, perhaps nickname not a given. On the other hand, I can’t think of another nickname for [name_m]Clayton[/name_m] other than [name_m]Clay[/name_m], so your preferred name will be the choice most will default to.
I can see the arguments both ways, but I’m a little bit in favor of [name_m]Clayton[/name_m], as it gives more options and it’s a great name.
I prefer [name_m]Clayton[/name_m] because i think it sounds better with your daughters name, [name_f]Margaret[/name_f]! You can call him [name_m]Clay[/name_m] as a NN like you call your daughter [name_f]Maggie[/name_f] as NN! Its a formal name on paper, maybe he prefers it as an adult.
Good luck 
I love [name_m]Clay[/name_m]. [name_m]Just[/name_m] [name_m]Clay[/name_m]. I agree that [name_m]Clayton[/name_m] doesn’t have the same charm [name_m]Clay[/name_m] has. There is nothing wrong with having a short name either, there is nothing weak about it. I’ve always believe that you should name the child what you intend to call them. If you completely plan on calling him [name_m]Clay[/name_m] all the time than [name_m]Clayton[/name_m] would be pointless in my opinion.
I much prefer [name_m]Clayton[/name_m]. [name_m]Even[/name_m] if you plan to call him [name_m]Clay[/name_m], it does give him another option as adult. I also think [name_m]Clayton[/name_m] [name_m]Joseph[/name_m] sounds better than [name_m]Clay[/name_m] [name_m]Joseph[/name_m].
I prefer [name_m]Clay[/name_m] as it’s such a strong name. Although if you use [name_m]Clayton[/name_m] then it gives your little guy the option and he can choose which he prefers.
[name_m]Clayton[/name_m] does seem more substantial and professional [name_f]IMO[/name_f]. I think it’s better for your son to have options when he’s older.