Do these examples not serve to demonstrate that it is, in fact, quite usual for spiritual and/or political leaders to have various titles? Why, then, might the "living Horus" not be described in various ways?
Point taken. But on the other hand, just because it was done in recent history doesn't mean it was done 4,000 yrs ago.
I criticize egyptologists because..... every subject I've researched, Khufu, Sothis, Sphinx, I've run across these same feeble explanations for their conclusions. They change names, insert names where there are none (dream stela), translate words to suit their purpose (sothis). I've grown tired of their inaccuracies and their mental gymnastics in making the translations fit into the Manetho timeline. Not enough time between two kings for a newly discovered king? No problem, just rearrange names. They had a big problem with the 4th dynasty, co-regents/brothers/sons, just what was going on they couldn't figure it out. There wasn't time for another king after the G1 builder (if I remember correctly) they eventually concluded that it wasn't a new name discovered, it was just another name for Khufu. I wish I could remember which newly discovered pharaoh was given a particular position in a dynasty simply because it was the only place where there was room for the length of his reign.
When I read of cuneiform, there are sentences and whole documents that make sense. It's amazing that anyone was able to decipher that language. Cuneiform is an older language, yet the outcome is readable, coherent. But the hieroglyph translations are gibberish. It's nonsense and they know it, so it's explained away as religious beliefs in a fantastic parade of bizarre deities. Better to have a bizarre religion than to admit of gross mistranslations.
The language was reverse engineered, so to speak, from Coptic and Greek. You present the final outcome, how it stands now, with the "fact" that a king had 5 names. It sounds perfectly believable when you state it as...... they had 5 titles....period. It is presumed to be fact for the simple reason that an egyptologist would not state it if it were not a fact. But you do not present what went on behind the scenes, what transpired to make that "fact" come about. We presume that the discovery of this fact was born of meticulous study, indisputable written records, etc., being double and triple checked by the savants of the time. We also presume that these savants were pure of motive.
But is this the truth?
Regarding Chemmis ; Cheops and Suphis are mentioned once in extant literature. There is no history or etymology to study. But there is history for Chemmis, so of course the name is more interesting. If Cheops and Suphis were legendary, as claimed, I would expect to find the names in other authors. Especially since the Greeks, Romans, Babylonians, left such a wealth of information.