View Message

I don't like it for either, but it's slightly better on a boy.

I used to like it for a girl, but I’ve kind of moved on from that.

I like it for a boy, short for Charles. It's a nice, friendly nn. On a girl it feels a mix of cheap and self-consciously tomboyish.

Boy as a nn only

Boys only. I know a little boy, about 5 or 6 I guess, named Charlie - not Charles, and no mn that I'm aware of. His twin brother is Adam.

---

I was at school with a Charlene; we always called her Charles, but when she started nursing she just became Charlie. But I still call her Charles.

I much prefer it as a boy name, don’t like it for girls.

Boy. Charlie's pretty handsome in my view. Charles isn't really, though.
It irritates me as a gal name, unless it's pronounced SH- like for Charlotte. But that's confusing.

As mostly a traditionalist, especially when it comes to the subject of names, I strongly prefer Charlie for a boy. There's simply nothing about it that seems suitable for a girl at all. (Although I'm aware some may use it as a nn to Charlotte, Charlene, or whatever else.) Still not crazy for it.
Charlie on a girl by itself is certainly not my cup of tea, but butchering the spelling in order to "feminize" the name is even worse.

This message was edited 8/3/2023, 7:35 PM