Attentive readers of Scripture will have noticed that the Ioseph typikos, of whom our blessed Lady's chaste Spouse is the Antitype, is decribed (Genesis 39) in the Vulgate (and the Neo-Vulgate) and the Septuagint as having been sold as a slave to Potiphar, Eunuch of Pharaoh. Indeed, Brown Driver Briggs gives "Eunuch" as the central meaning of the Hebrew SRIS. Eunuchs were very often Great Men in ancient kingdoms because a sovereign could be moderately confident that they would not spend their time and ingenuity squirreling away state resources for their own offspring. Since, therefore, great officers of state were often eunuchs, it will often yield apparently good sense to translate SRIS as "Officer" or "Courtier" or (Tyndale) "Lorde". And, of course, that will prevent naive people from blurting out "But how can a eunuch have a wife?" Nor will puzzled children ask what a Yew Nuck is and, when told, get out their pen-knives and start experimenting on the household pets.
And, indeed, all the proliferating English Protestant Bibles which derive from the King James Bible do translate this word as something like Officer. But, surprisingly, so do the Catholic Knox and Jerusalem Bibles (and, even more oddly, they do so with never even an explicatory footnote). Only the Geneva Bible and the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Bible courageously give "eunuch". (John Wycliffe, sometime Master of Balliol College in this University, rendered it "gelding"!)
Translating the term accurately as "Eunuch" might give, um, piquancy to Potiphar's wife's rather urgent desire for sexual intimacy ... Some have suggested that her name was Zuleika.
I venture to suggest that the Spouse of God's Mother has through Providence the name Joseph because of his chaste abstinence in his marriage to Mary. This would make his name, in Matthew and Luke, a "historical" witness to the Perpetual Virginity of our Lady.
B Pius IX felt that the afflicted Church needed a Patron/Protector, and gave S Joseph a Sunday in Eastertide (according to Gueranger, the commemoration had to be on a Sunday to ensure that Joseph did get a Day of Obligation). A Pontiff or two later, when it had become unpopular to encumber the same Sunday permanently with some other celebration, S Pius X shifted him onto the Wednesday ... today. Unaccountably, Pius XI was unable to think of a Good Idea for fiddling around with S Joseph, but Pius XII, another restless liturgical innovator, suppressed the festival, replacing it with S Joseph Opifex on May 1. The post-conciliar revisers (according to Fr Bouyer, "three maniacs"), noticing that nobody much seemed to want S Joseph the Workman, chopped him down to an Optional Memorial.
I disagree with you: this story is not funny. It has had the effect of sending Pip and Jim on their travels.
Their bodies are buried in the Basilica of the XII Apostles, dedicated on May 1 in some year near 570. Pius XII relegated them to May 11; the post-conciliar 'reformers' reduced their sentence to three days and left them on May 3.
Libertarian that I am, I shall be getting out Red Vestments for May 1. Today, for me, S Joseph. Mass and Office are very decently typological, and I have no prejudices against Pio Nono.