Charles or Charlie on birth certificate ?

[BoichallH]

One of the names we really like is Charlie but my husband is insisting he should be Charles on the birth certificate. I love Charlie but don't like Charles really. What are your thoughts, should I have the full name on the birth certificate or choose another name entirely ?

Charles is a brilliant name.* I can't understand the aversion to it. Charlie, on the other hand, is very common (4th most popular name for boys last year I think) and carries with it all those 'cheeky little urchin' connotations that might be fine when he's two but he might not like being saddled with at 34. Charles gives him choice and autonomy over his name as he grows. Charlie confines him to your preferences.

*Disclaimer: DS1 is called Charles. He corrects people who call him Charlie.

The arguments in favour of the formal name seem to be that it might get used after all. Which if you hate the name might equally be seen as an argument against using it. Of course it's not all about you and personally I think too many people see baby naming as a chance to show off how terribly original and sophisticated they are, but it's slightly odd to say your preferences are totally irrelevant here. You may as well pick a name out of a hat if that's the case.

You have to give your dc shit formal names because some judgy fuckwit might judge them in 40 years time.

Fwiw he can call himself whatever the fuck he wants when he's older. Be it Charles or Dave or even Sue.

You're calling him Charlie.

I think the parents who say 'But we'll always call him/her by the shortened version, so why not put that on the certificate" are being rather selfish.
Once the child is older she or he might prefer to be known by the full version (or a different shortened version if there is one)
I generally introduce myself by the shortened version of my name, but I use the full version too, especially for anything formal (I think both are gorgeous names) and although I love the NN, I'm really glad I have the option to use both.
Incidentally I would always assume anyone (male) called Charlie was actually Charles.

It's all changing with time. 40 years ago I'm guessing that there weren't many professional Sarahs or Jens or Kevins. As the children with these outrageous modern versions of names will be growing up and getting jobs their names won't seem so young and cute.

But why does the choice argument only apply to nicknames? Dd's name, Anna, doesn't really afford her any choice. No one's criticised me for selfishly lumbering her with a name she can't change. It just seems very strange to me that you might call your dc a name you really dislike. I do agree that some names sound babyish and I have always tried to consider how a name would suit an adult as well as a child, but Meg, for example, is not a babyish name and I can't imagine thinking "perhaps Meg would prefer to be called Margaret" (a name I hate) any more than thinking Hmm, I hate the name Prunella, but perhaps dd will like it, I'll call her that.

Isadora - but anyone call use any name they like - if my 'Charlie' wants to be known as 'Charles' when he is older he just has to inform friends/family of that decision - he doesn't have to qualify it with a statment about his birth certificate .

For a number of years I preferred to be known a different name thinking I was being trendy - I just asked people to use my 'new' name. No one asked if I had changed it be deed poll or anything.

Charlie Sheen is really called Carlos, and Charlie Brooker is Charlton, so there are other options if you don't like Charles.

I really dislike nickname-type names on birth certificates, so I think Charles is much better than Charlie (although I don't like either name).

'And maybe there's something a bit shifty about
people who change their name completely from, oh I don't know, say Gideon for example to something like George.'

at squoosh - shifty indeed!

Totally agree with longestlurkerever Why am I selfish for putting a shortened version of a name on a birth certificate when people who choose a name that can't be changed in any way aren't being selfish.
My child doesn't have multiple names choices but neither do theirs.

I return to my original post yesterday. It's a judgy class thing prevalent on here and is absolutely all about the High Court Judge situation. That and the fact that so many children of parents on here are destined for greatness and will need to be taken terribly seriously.

FWIW - I gave one child the formal name on his birth certificate and the other the shortened version of his, and either of them can call themselves what the hell they like when they're older. It's a piece of paper. Nothing more.

Charlie

I have a son called Charlie, it is not a nickname, it is his name. When he was at primary school his friends called him Chazzer - that was a nickname, as was a name he had related to his surname.
It's funny how some people are all superior about 'proper' names yet they don't even know the difference between a diminutive and a nickname.

If you don't like the formal version then of course you shouldn't use it. But I'd not use a short form either in that case. The OP's dh obviously does like Charles (or doesn't dislike it anyway) and they both should have an equal say in the choice of name.

Personally I wouldn't (and haven't) choose a name with no variants. I don't think it's selfish, it just limits options. I have enjoyed using a variety of diminutives (and a few nicknames too) and wanted my children to have the same option. I also like formality to be an option at times. So I would always advise a longer more formal name over a shorter informal variant. The OP did ask for advice!

My DS is Charlie.

I don't like Charles and don't see the point in putting a name down that I wouldn't intend on calling him.

I don't see why someone should have to pick a totally different name if they don't like the longer version, unless they are worried about people mistakenly using it. That would deprive their dc of the option of using the longer name too!

Fair enough if you deliberately want to go for a name with lots of variants. That's a bonus, I guess, though with my surname I always thought a dc would think brevity is a virtue as surname is already a mouthful and needs to be spelled out. People do think about these things. It's not just because they are thick and selfish that they make a different decision.

Sorry, I don't know why this annoys me so much. It's just that it crops up on thread after thread and it's the combination of lay down the law tone "never put a nickname ob a bc" with inconsistent logic "lack of choice/nicknames are babyish" that grates.

Go for what you going to actually call him. My son is alex. People were trying to get me go put Alexander on his birth certificate but that is not what we call him and I don't like it. Don't be pressurised into having a name you don't even want! Why would he suddenly want to be called Charles when be will be used to Charlie for years?

Charles - a beautiful name
Charlie - a lovely nickname

I don't get the OP's problem, really.

Of course people were registered with nicknames - we have an Annie, Nellie, Carrie and a Cissie in our family.
It was a fashion.

100% Charlie. Charlie is a lovely name, Charles really isn't. It's unlikely he's going to want that to use it when he's older. And if you don't even like the name charles there's really no point.