Talk:Illustrations of the rule against perpetuities

The article links to itself
The "Precocious toddler" link at the end of the fertile octogenarian section links to a redirect to this same page. Why would it even be a link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archon Shiva (talk • contribs) 03:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This has been fixed. – ukexpat (talk) 03:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal
Oppose: The RAP article is a good length, we don't need to make it any longer by merging this one into it. – ukexpat (talk) 03:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Let's follow typical WP practice...the more detailed information has its own page.--71.111.229.19 (talk) 11:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Favor: The illustrations are extremely important to help understand RAP. It should be included as a subsection of the RAP article. – TylerD004 (talk) 09:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

confusing statement re: issue vs children
Here's a portion of the article that I think could use some clarification:

''Note that changing the word "issue" to "children" makes the gift valid, since the class of "A's children" is closed and completely cognizable at the time of A's death (plus a gestation period as allowed by the rule). On the contrary, the class of "A's issue" is subject to expand long after A's death, and thus a gift to A's issue cannot vest in this case until B dies.''

The bolded part isn't explained either here or in the "issue" article. I don't get why A's issue could expand "long after" his death while his children couldn't. I think that the readability and usefulness of this article would be helped by an explanation. (Edit: is the answer that A's grandchildren are his issue but not his children?  This should be explained.)   AgnosticAphid  talk 18:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The answer is, in fact, that the common-law rules for future interests in property treat the phrases "A's issue," "A's lineal descendants," and "the heirs of A's body" as if they were identical. So agnosticaphid is right with the comment about A's grandchildren...at least that's how it was explained to us in a lecture on the Rule in Shelley's Case by our property instructor. The technical term for phrases like those in conveyances is "words of indefinite succession." The Shelley's Case article does a better job of explaining that than the RAP article does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.55.180.8 (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Merger Proposal
This does not need to be its own page. The illustrations are often overlong (I shortened the unborn widow example the other day), and should probably be included on the RAP page. Moreover, basically nothing links to this page. This isn't an example of a highly-detailed but still notable aspect of a broader article. We're ultimately just "illustrating" the sub-rules which are mentioned in the main article. Moreover, the sources here are really lacking, and frankly it could use with some more attention.--2603:7000:3E40:83D7:D817:EAD4:CAB9:FA61 (talk) 01:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Klbrain (talk) 10:34, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Statutory Presumption of infertility
This has no place in the article, but it was widely reported in the European press that John Farrant (then 60) and his wife Patricia Rashbrook (then 62) had a child, Jude, in 2006. https://www.irishtimes.com/news/british-woman-62-gives-birth-to-baby-boy-1.789746 Modern medicine, and particularly IVF, sits rather uncomfortably with statutory presumptions that a woman is incapable of bearing a child after the age of 55. Or even 60. Thomas Peardew (talk) 08:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC)