Clankenbeard said:
1. True enough for Edward Kenned "Duke" Ellington and Prince. But not so for Earl Chrisitan Campbell and Dean Martin (born Dino Paul Crocetti and changed it). Clearly you are right that stage names should not suffer the same scrutiny as a given legal name.
Huh, I didn't know that about Earl Campbell. Clearly I couldn't be arsed to actually look it up... heh. I'm gonna have to stand by Dean Martin, though. He changed it himself, stage name or not.
2. Does time enter into it? If a title evolves from a name, shouldn't that make the word as a name no longer an option? If "President" were changed to "George" tomorrow, no one could name their kid George, moving forward. I would argue (but not too aggressively) that Earl, Dean, and Marshal should still make the list. If there is the possibility of having a Marhsal Marshall, Earl Earl, Dean Dean, or Judge Judge then it merits weeding out.
I'm not a lawyer, merely a knower of useless trivia. I would say it does, to an extent, unless the name has alternate meaning or contexts that can be used to specify and identify a single individual without additional context. To use the same example: "President" has no such distinction (by definition it is a nonspecific term), but "George" most certainly does.
On a related note: Finding an Earl Earl or Marshall Marshal are highly unlikely, due to the titles being severely disused, but there are, in fact, a number of Dean Dean's. The surname "Dean" is quite common, at least in America, and the title is earned by a surprisingly large number of people. Additionally, the first name Dean has been on the rise since the 40's (with rising popularity of Italo-American culture... and whatever Jersey Shore is. heh), so it is entirely possible (though very unlikely) to have a Dean Dean Dean. Judge, I believe, has been officially disallowed as a first name, but definitely exists as a surname (though no Judge's I know would consider studying law...).
