Hi everyone ~
I read the following sentence in an article, and cringed.

"Wyman is pictured with then husband Ronald Reagan in 1941."

I know the sentence could have been written to say "her husband at the time..." but is there a word or phrase for that?

I'm drawing a blank...

Kia ora Coffebean,
Words that spring to mind are, former, erstwhile, past, previous/prior (depending on current marital status) Not quite 'her husband at the time' but a reference to their past association. Maybe 'contemporary' would relate them to the same time?

I can see cringing when reading about Ronald Reagan, but the construction you mention seems to me to be perfectly ordinary if not all that common. Are you looking for a word that describes that sort of construction?

Coffeebean!! Where have you BEEN?!?!? [rhetorical question, Sweet Thing] I have MISSED you, chickadee!

But as for your ref., I've seen it as "then-husband"--though that still sounds awkward. I assume the print media do things like that to conserve on space. Would have been just as correct to leave out the then, IMHO.

Yes there is phrase for that. It's "then husband." What's wrong with that?

"Wyman is pictured with Ronald Reagan, her husband in 1941."

This has exactly the same number of words and only the addition of a comma, if that's acceptable. :0)

That says RR was her husband in 1941 and does not say when the picture was taken. That later he was not her husband is only implied in this sentence rather than stated.
Adding another comma:
"Wyman is pictured with Ronald Reagan, her husband, in 1941."
we have when the picture was taken but we've lost the information about the change of marital status altogether.

I disagree. The photo is in black and white and she looks to be all of 20-something, both visual indicators for a reader to discern the time period of the photo. Absent the photo, however, it would be more clear to say "Wyman is pictured with her third husband, Ronald Reagan, in 1941."

Astoundingly (to me), Jane Wyman was married and divorced 4 (four!) times by age 37.Then she gave up...

Whether or not you can guess the approximate time period of the photo doesn't change the meaning of the sentence. Knowing the facts behind a story doesn't make an incorrect sentence correct.

Try this:
In this 1939 engagement photo, Jane Wyman is pictured with Ronald Reagan, her husband in 1941.
which is perfectly fine, while
In this 1939 engagement photo, Jane Wyman is pictured with Ronald Reagan, her husband, in 1941.
which has two contradictions. He's not her husband in the photo and the photo taken in 1939 can't picture her in 1941 unless it's a very special camera.

Mentioning that he was her third husband still leaves out what is implied by "her then husband".

I'm confused about the point of this example. I constructed no such sentence, or anything like it.

I thought Coffeebean was looking for something less awkward, which was the intent of my original response. Perhaps this will satisfy?:

"Wyman is pictured in 1941 while married to her third husband, Ronald Reagan."

I believe this makes clear that Ronald Reagan was her husband "then".

Olly, erstwhile looks to me like a half German, half English word. If we would take the whole in German things would be easy:
'with her damalige Gemahl '.

But I think as English has no specific word for it, to me 'with her then husband' sounds fine.

erstwhile looks to me like a half German, half English word.

It's all-English, Brannie. Old English ærest 'first, at first, before all' (link) and German erst 'first' are related. Interestingly enough is the -st ending which signifies the superlative degree of an adjective. I think German ehemalig 'erstwhile, former' would work better in this case. Mal, related to English meal, means time (as in time to eat): e.g., zwei mal zwei is 'two times two'. .

The only thing I see wrong with the first sentence is that it makes Coffeebean cringe. It says what it means and it means what it says. All the attempts to stop Coffeebean's cringing only serve to make the sentence awkward or strip it of important meanings. My suggestion would be for Coffeebean to seek professional help with her cringing problem.

the construction 'x's then(-)y" is very common in most English variants, isn't it? "Her then husband", "Zambia's then President", etc. all very clear and easy to understand and in widespread use. Sometimes the hyphenated version might improve clarity a little, but what's the error in this usage?

the construction 'x's then(-)y" is very common in most English variants, isn't it?

Yes. What Faldo said plus one.

Coffeebean didn't say the phrasing was incorrect, simply that she didn't like it, which she has every right not to, and also every right to make a comment indicating this. I tried to find her some alternatives, and now I need to "get a life". Well, you know what I do with posts that don't interest me? I have a life, so I just ignore them. Live and let live... :0P

Right you are zmejzhd. Damalig has to do with time. It translates to Dutch as destijds, meaning literally: for that time being.

Result of search for "damalig":

that -- damalig
then -- damalig
then -- dann; folglich; damalig

I just had some fun thinking of "damalige Gmahl" and his " ehemalige Ehegnosse."A nice couple.

I just had some fun thinking of "damalige Gmahl" and his "ehemalige Ehegnosse." A nice couple.

OK. I see. Works for me.

I'm perfectly comfortable with the phrase also. It seems very clear to me and is written in a way that I've seen many times before.

Thank you all for your input. I thought of "erstwhile" but it seems a stuffy word to me. I bow to current usage; however, if it were my sentence I would write: "...pictured in 1941 with then-husband ..." I like that better.

Hmmph! I still retain my right to cringe!

Coffeebean!! Hi stranger, I missed you around here.
I thought it was the "then" you objected to which sounded normal to me. I would probably word it the way you would.
PS Faldage is wrong, you seem to cringe just fine without any professional help.

She was objecting to the then but seems to have decided that a hyphen will ease the transition to the word husband. Fine. That's cheaper than hiring professional help. She may need help later on for hyphen dependency, but if she's happy, I'm happy. I was going to suggest at the time as a substitute for then in the original sentence, but I guess now I don't need to.

Yes she seems to be hyphenventilating, doesn't she? Perhaps reading a few good post modern novels (oxymoron?) with no punctuation whilst breathing into a paper bag might help?