"Evidently" in genealogical writing

Question

Today, I was reading an article and it struck me that the author had used "evidently" in an unfamiliar way. It made me wonder if that is a standard usage in serious genealogical writing that is code for something about the quality of the information (in a similar way to how "about" and "say" are used as different qualifiers when estimating a birth year).

The article I was reading stated that the Benjamin James profiled had married first by 1720, and in describing his second marriage, it said, "he evidently married second, after 1721 and before 1728, Joan (?Clarke)."

One of the pieces of evidence supporting this statement is the following:

* on 4 August 1740, "In Council appeared Joan James and desired that ye council would allow her time to get Bondsmen for Administration for her Husband Benjamin James Estate."

This record clearly states that Benjamin and Joan James were husband and wife. What reason could there be then to state that they "evidently married"?

Comments

Could it mean that the author is attempting subtly or ironically to draw attention to the fact that no direct contemporary source for the marriage is available, with date and location, but only the indirect subsequent implication from the estate administration record he cites?

---

I think it means that it is obvious they were married.

The Oxford dictionary (online) has the following definition:

adverb

1. plainly or obviously; in a way that is clearly seen or understood.

   "a work so evidently laden with significance”

2. it is plain that; it would seem that.

   "evidently Mrs. Smith thought differently”

---

On the other hand and in line with my comment above, the Cambridge Dictionary gives an additional meaning: "used to say what people believe is true".

Answer 1

I think the "evidently" is used to establish that the time frame of the marriage, was between 1721 and 1728, not to the establish the marriage itself, which was obvious from other evidence.

Comments

I swear I don't know how I selected the best answer. All I did was reach over my tablet to pet Sophie, my feline bed buddy, I looked back at the tablet screen and the best answer selection was made...let's lay the blame on Sophie....she won't mind.

Answer 2

Perhaps the "evidently" is intended to refer to the dates?

Comments

If that were the case, I would think it would have been written, "he married second, evidently between 1721 and 1728, Joan (?Clarke)". But perhaps you are right.

Answer 3

I agree with both George and Jim.  I interpret the author's message to be that he doesn't have a record of the actual event (e.g., a marriage certificate), but he has other convincing evidence that the event (the marriage) did, in fact, take place.  I think it's just a stylistic thing that is not necessarily unique to genealogy.  And I'm guessing that there has probably been more thought and analysis about the phrasing in this thread than there ever was by the original author when he wrote the words.

Comments

This is my interpretation, too. The existence of records for the births of baptisms of several children of a named couple would be evidence that they married, even if there is no record.