1. Yes, Creighton is a complete red herring here (as elsewhere).

2. ‘Rachaf’ (instead of ‘Rakhaf’) is surely a gratuitous importation (into an English text) of the customary German transliteration, as here:

[de.wikipedia.org]

(German Wikipedia is so clearly better on Egyptology that I do not know why they do not just copy it.)

3: Honorific transposition surely leaves uncertainty in this case.

M.