I really dislike [name]Charles[/name] but love the nicknames of [name]Charlie[/name] and [name]Chuck[/name]. [name]Do[/name] you think [name]Charlie[/name] on it’s own sounds incomplete or ‘childish’? What about [name]Will[/name] (short for [name]William[/name]) on it’s own?
*Not pregnant, just looking for opinions.
Actually, this is one of the times that I prefer the nn’s of Charlie and Will more than the full names of Charles and William. The only reason to choose Charles and William as first names is to give a boy the option to use them in the future when he’s grown up. I find Charlie more “spunky” than “childish”. But if you don’t LOVE the longer versions, I think Charlie and Will are fine as stand alone names. Personally, I would stay clear of Chuck (it rhymes with a bad word).
I love [name]Charles[/name] and [name]Charlie[/name], and I think that [name]Charlie[/name] stands very well on its own. My great-grandfather was named [name]Charlie[/name] - not [name]Charles[/name] - and it never held him back.
I agree with [name]Mischa[/name]. I adore [name]Charlie[/name] and [name]Will[/name], but there’s something about the original names that just unsettles me (probably bad associations). With all the nicknames being used as full names today (I met a girl named [name]Charlie[/name]), I think it’s just fine. [name]Charlie[/name] is just too adorable!
I think [name]Will[/name] can stand alone and I think of it as a rather nice word name/virtue name.
I think [name]Charlie[/name] all alone is a bit childish, not very strong feeling. I think there are some options besides [name]Charles[/name]…[name]Charleston[/name], Charlemagne, maybe even something less obvious like [name]Carlisle[/name] or [name]Carmen[/name]?
I really like [name]Will[/name] on it’s own though!
I like the spunky sound of [name]Charlie[/name], but I do think it looks incomplete and unprofessional as a full adult given name. It’s perfectly fine to dislike [name]Charles[/name]. I’ll toss out some other ‘formal sources’ in case you’re interested:
[name]Charlton[/name]
[name]Carlton[/name]
[name]Charleston[/name] (as taz mentioned)
[name]Archer[/name]
[name]Fletcher[/name]
[name]Thatcher[/name]
[name]Carlo[/name]
[name]Chaucer[/name]
Chayton
[name]Carolus[/name] (Latin original)
Charter
Chaston
I don’t like nn’s on their own… Well maybe some but not [name]Will[/name]…!!! Maybe [name]Charlie[/name]. I know a [name]Charlie[/name] (on it’s own) but it is a girl :/. Umm, I would say keep it long ([name]William[/name], [name]Charles[/name]) so when they are OLDER they can go by that(if they want); but you can always call them [name]Charlie[/name], [name]Will[/name], etc. :).
I like a pp suggestion of [name]Carlisle[/name], nn [name]Charlie[/name]. [name]Will[/name] can stand o. It’s own, but I don’t think [name]Charlie[/name] can
I don’t like [name]Charlie[/name], [name]Chuck[/name] or [name]Will[/name] on their own. There are some great alternatives to [name]William[/name] and [name]Charles[/name] to choose from.
@taz and @blade already made some great suggestions for [name]Charlie[/name]/[name]Chuck[/name]. a few others are
Alternatives for [name]William[/name]: [name]Wilhelm[/name], [name]Willard[/name], [name]Wilson[/name], [name]Willis[/name], [name]Wilmer[/name], or [name]Wilton[/name]
A [name]Charlie[/name] will inevitably be called [name]Charles[/name] at some point because someone just assumes [name]Charlie[/name] is his nickname, and then they’ll have to have the annoying “well no, I’m actually just [name]Charlie[/name]” conversation. I know this as I’ve lived with a “what’s that short for?” “nothing.” “oh.” name! To some this is no biggie, to me it’s been annoying enough that I feel strongly about not only giving my child a name that doesn’t sound like a nickname, but also giving them a name that’s very nickname-able so that they’ll always have an answer to the “what’s that short for?” question.
I just don’t want my kid ever thinking “why the heck didn’t my parents just name me [name]Charles[/name]?!”
I feel you on not liking [name]Charles[/name] but loving [name]Charlie[/name]. You may find that you can force yourself to like it, for the sake of using [name]Charlie[/name]. There’s nothing wrong with just using [name]Charlie[/name], but it certainly does and will continue to sound diminutive, people will assume it’s a nickname, and it will be a conversation he has to have over and over and over and over and over for the rest of his life.
These seem like [name]MAJOR[/name] leaps to [name]Charlie[/name] for me…
I think [name]Charlie[/name] can stand on its own perfectly. Most of the [name]Charlie[/name]'s I know are just [name]Charlie[/name], not [name]Charles[/name], and I suppose it depends where you live but in the UK [name]Charlie[/name] is more popular than [name]Charles[/name] and I highly doubt you’d get the ‘what is it short for’ thing.
On the other hand, [name]Charlton[/name] is a great way to get to [name]Charlie[/name], not too common but familiar in being both a surname and place name so would fit in well with a lot of the boy names big in the States at the moment.
Using nicknames instead of an actual name is one of my biggest pet peeves when it comes to naming.
In my opinion, you should use [name]Charles[/name] so he has a full name to use if he wants to. You can call him [name]Charlie[/name] all the time anyway.