That attitude only really works in languages spelled consistently. English has far more ridiculous spelling, like Leicester for example.
I don't care how these people want me to say their name. Worcester is like Manchester but with wor instead of man for me.
American English still indulges etymological and traditional spellings for heaps of words. In cases like “fillet” and “valet” American English goes with “French” pronunciation.
I recall seeing an American somewhere in France getting frustrated when hotel staff couldn't understand what he meant by "maître-d", with his emphasis increasingly placed on the 'dee' as he got more and more annoyed.
(disclaimer: Brit here, not defending our pronunciation of Worcestershire)
> (disclaimer: Brit here, not defending our pronunciation of Worcestershire)
The Americans typically pronounce it some form of "Wooshishurr".
I used to live in Massachusetts, and my wife would complain about the British-inspired place names and their local pronunciation. "I'm from Louisiana, I can't with your New England names! There's no 'lemon' in Leominster!"
I would gently remind her of how 'Natchitoches' is pronounced; it's certainly not as written.
British English is even less consistent, using the French pronunciation of "valet" for one of its two meanings and the Anglicized pronunciation for the other meaning.
If you want a less controversial example use the word “one” and consider the voiced labial–velar approximant.