Is the motivation for doing so really so immaterial and irrelevant?
Our name is integrally linked to our identity.

Is it entirely immaterial that his father or he picked the name of an anti-Catholic hero?

And why wasn't the name of either ever legally changed?  That's quite interesting.

Was their failure to change the name a rejection of the legal system itself?  Possibly, and that's not to demean or dismiss the act; it actually might be quite understandable and all the more interesting, yes?

Is it entirely immaterial that many of his key speeches had long passages which were plagiarized?  How many people know this?  And why don't they know this?

It doesn't change the truth of some point made or borrowed, perhaps, but it definitely reflects on him, and perhaps it reflects more on us for not wanting to know these facts.  Why is it that some get so defensive about these questions and topics.  

Are we really lovers of truth?