I am reminded of Cassius Dio's commentary on the early days of Hadrian's tenure as emperor. There was some doubt about the legitimacy of his succession after Trajan (it was rumoured that it was Trajan's widow who had nominated him, not Trajan) and the man himself was off in Syria at the time. Having to think quickly and not being in a position to return immediately to Rome to consolidate his new job, Hadrian authorised a posthumous triumph for Trajan, knowing that the months it would take to organise and then celebrate would deflect public attention away from the legality or otherwise of his appointment and give him time to tour the empire on the way to Rome making sure the other generals and governors "got the message".
Cassius Dio cites this as an early example of a tendency which had grown more common in his own lifetime, and warns his reader to always suspect when the authorities decide to bestow public honours on anyone after their death, especially long after their death (such honours were always an excuse for diversions such as extra feast days and games). It is nearly always a blind to deflect your attention from a vulnerability on the part of the bestower. The more deserving the dead beneficiary in the eyes of the public and the more belated the bestowal the more the need to examine the real reason why the delay happened at all and the timing of its resolution.