Best Amazon Prime Day deals: Mumsnet favourites

Best Amazon Prime Day deals:
Mumsnet favourites

Shop now

Please or to access all these features

Baby names

Find baby name inspiration and advice on the Mumsnet Baby Names forum.

would it be really cruel...

20 replies

goatshavestrangeeyes · 30/06/2011 14:07

if we had a boy to name him Charlie, even though our surname is Dickens?

Charles is a very important family name and Charlie is one of about 3 names we can agree on. We already have a middle name so won't be using it for that. Or would it just be plain evil?

Grin
OP posts:
Are your children’s vaccines up to date?
mistressploppy · 30/06/2011 14:08

I would do it. But then I'm a bit silly Grin

Seriously, why not? It's not as if Charles Dickens was a nasty man or anything

TrilllianAstra · 30/06/2011 14:08

It wouldn't be the kindest thing you could do for him, no.

swash · 30/06/2011 14:23

I think it would, yes.

razzlebathbone · 30/06/2011 14:27

Sometimes you just have to accept that you shouldn't use a name even if you love it. This is one of those times. Unless you would be prepared to double barrell your surnames, so Charlie xxxxx - Dickens.

MsChanandlerBong · 30/06/2011 15:11

I'm afraid I think it would be a bit mean too. You mentioned it was one of about three names that you agree on... so I would go for one of the other two if I were you.

LetThereBeRock · 30/06/2011 16:37

It'd be wrong.

AberdeenAngusina · 30/06/2011 17:06

Why not have two middle names; the one you've chosen already and Charlie?

headfairy · 30/06/2011 17:08

I think so. I used to know someone who was a direct descendent of Charles Dickens and even he wasn't called Charles Dickens :o

SloganLogan · 30/06/2011 17:20

I wouldn't do it. What are the other names you like?

ChessPiece · 30/06/2011 17:27

I know a James Mason Grin When introduced to him, it made me think of the actor instead of thinking about the person in front of me IYSWIM.

headfairy · 30/06/2011 17:32

I also knew an Oliver Reed, though his surname was spelled Reid. Not good to share a name with a famous drunk who occasionally acted.

missmiss · 30/06/2011 17:35

It would be cruel to put Charlie on the birth certificate.

Littlefish · 30/06/2011 17:36

Please don't do it.

MinnieBar · 30/06/2011 17:38

I knew a Thomas Cook. I used to inwardly giggle every time I saw him (and wonder 'what were his parents thinking?!'.

I suppose if you're going to put 'Charlie' on the birth certificate the link might not be apparent.

'Hi, I'm Charlie Dickens' sounds ok. Just.

CharlieBoo · 30/06/2011 17:49

Mnmm agree with other posters... Our surname is Jones which ruled out Tom and Grace for us! Sometimes you have to accept you can't use a name... I can see why you love Charlie though!

birdofthenorth · 30/06/2011 17:58

Yes, silly. I stopped a friend naming her babba Thomas Moore & Sir T is less famous than Charles D!

I know a Michael Jackson, a Janet Jackson & a Michael Kane they all have bad relations with their parents Wink

TheSecondComing · 30/06/2011 18:05

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

birdofthenorth · 30/06/2011 20:09

Don't tell my friend that Second, I think she still begrudges me & a whole pub full of (mostly Catholic) people greeting the idea of Thomas Moore with "Sir, Sir" and "off with his head!"!

squeak2392 · 30/06/2011 21:00

:O Charlie Dickens would be amazing!!!
Apparently I'm alone in thinking this, but I'd definitely do it if I was particularly keen on Charlie!
At least it's Dickens and not Manson Wink

BikeRunSki · 30/06/2011 21:09

I would, but I am called Alice Cooper.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread