Following on from this discussion - http://www.geni.com/discussions/114688?msg=830477 and a naming query by Aletta C F Bucknall, I thought it wise to check what everyone thinks about the name appearance showing the le Febre / le Fèvre difference.
Interested in our grandpa here would be (I think) Private User; Private, Daan Botes; Private User
I'm locking the naming field, just to make sure we are all commenting on the same thing here, not because i think it is the best or only way :-)
My way of approaching these things is to give the variations in spelling in a Curator note, adding them to the AKA field and to use in both surname and birthname the name as appears on the earliest or most relevant document available.
1692 she is Maria F: le Febre weudewe van Hendrick Eeckhof in http://databases.tanap.net/mooc/make_pdf.cfm?output=pdf&id=MOOC...
Generally the name appears at le Febre in documents around this time - I found only one instance of le Fevre in 1714
So my vote is that we have le Fébre in both fields with the alternate le Févre in AKA.
I am not for different names in the two fileds unless it is to reflect the married name after 1800.
Lea may have come across the name in the registers?