However in this document of 1617, he seems to have no problem in signing his name in full. Any thoughts would be welcome.
That’s very strange: in 1617 he can write his name, but in 1623 he uses a mark.
Maybe there was a special reason in 1623. Anyway he was not too old to be able to write his name (no senile shaky hands or something, or nearly blind).
Are you sure it’s the same person, because in the two records of 1623 the name is consequently Niclaes Claveren and in the 1617 record his name is indeed Claes Cleverly.
In the record of 1-1-1617 he is 24 years old and in the record of 19-3-1623 her is 33 years old. The difference is about nine years instead of about six. The record is written in 1617 and 1623 by a different notary. In 1623 he is tabackvercooper (salesman in tobacco) and in 1617 het toebackpijpmaecker (he makes pipes for tobacco). Not a big difference, but anyway .. To execise your profession you had to be a member of a guild and you had to show your skill in the field. I suppose you can’t simply switch form tabackverkoper to toebackpijkmaecker.
Claveren en Cleverly are too different when pronounced that I can hardly believe that the notary in 1623 made such a big mistake when he wrote down his name as Claveren. The ‘a’ in Claveren sounds quite differently from the ‘e’ in Cleverly and the end of the names are very different too.
Transcription of the fragment:
ter voorsz. stede als
getugen hiertoe beneffens mij notario
P. Warmont subscripsit