"Titled" vs. "Entitled"

Dennis started mentioning this issue years ago. People use the word "entitled" to mean that a certain article, book, movie, etc. bore a certain title. "This movie is entitled 'How to Lose a Man in Ten Days", or some such. Dennis said the proper word was "titled". His point is self-evident and easy to understand. But is he correct?

Personally, I like keeping the two separate. But to use the en- prefix on "titled" would seem to provide the sense of "provided" or "imbued". "Embedded" and "emblazoned" also use this prefix. It suggests that an item didn't start with a certain quality but was given it later on. Perhaps that's why so many people use "entitled" when they know the other meaning of "entitled".

I just want to say I was surprised, when reading Ben Franklin's Autobiography (one of those short biographies that Dennis loves so he should read it!), to come across Franklin's use of "entitled" several times. Now, editors have the bad taste to "correct" manuscripts wherever they want. Jane Austen's "chuse" and "ancle" are written "choose" and "ankle" in almost every edition of "Pride and Prejudice" currently available. This is, in my never-to-be-humble opinion, a desecration. Who can't figure out that "chuse" is an old spelling of "choose"? So one never knows whether Franklin actually used the word "entitled" or if some genius editor changed it out of her own ignorance. A friend of mine had a manuscript go to print and the nitwit who was editing for "errors" changed all her "uninterested"s to "disinterested"s. So who knows what violence was done to Franklin's language?

At any rate, Dennis, if it's proper enough for Franklin, it's proper enough for me.