Miscellaneous desk
< February 12	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 13

Talking dolls

Among my very many areas of total ignorance are dolls. I note that we have an article on Edison's Phonograph Doll; do we also have a more general one about "talking" (i.e. sound-emitting) dolls, perhaps lurking under some title I can't think of? -- Hoary (talk) 08:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's also Chatty Cathy, which has links to other stuff. If there's no article or list, you could create a category grouping them together. Also, if you google "wikipedia talking dolls", you'll find some others. And there are also various works of fiction on this subject, such as Living Doll (The Twilight Zone). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, BB! -- Hoary (talk) 09:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teddy Ruxpin was a robotic bear airship captain so boys didn't have to admit they were friends with a doll, but he did wear tiny clothes, so... InedibleHulk (talk) 04:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inheritance: Comparative law

Besides the Jewish/Israeli law, is there any other legal system in which:

The childless intestate grandfather's property - is divided unequally among his three grandsons - if, one grandson has no siblings - whereas the other two grandsons are full siblings.

(The Jewish/Israeli law - gives a half to the grandson who has no siblings - because, he represents his dead parent who - would have inherited a half - if the grandfather's two children had been alive).

87.70.102.206 (talk) 11:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to read per stirpes, which has a fair amount of discussion about the various ways the estate may be divided and a few US examples.

Anyway this isn't legal advice. But per stirpes is generally followed in NZ law too. If the death is intestate the grandchildren will inherit if their parent who would otherwise inherit pre-deceased the decedent [1] [2] [3]. But as they represent that parent they only inherit what that parent would be entitled to, divided among them depending on their number. Also this doesn't apply to any generations beyond the grandchildren of the decedent, i.e. if person A dies and their child A1 pre-deceased them, and their child A1a pre-deceased A, A1a's child A1a1 will not receive anything if there is a living child or grandchild or spouse. Excepting some rare cases where they can challenge the distribution. (But being a great-grandchild is not one case where they can.)

Note when there is a will, whether the grandchildren will inherit will depend on the will. But if it doesn't otherwise specify, the grandchildren (but again no further generation) will inherit the share of any their parent (child of decedent) who pre-deceased the decedent [4] [5]

However, whether intestate or even with a will, people including grandchildren may be able to argue that decedent had some duty to them which will depend on the specific circumstances [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] So a grandchild who is a minor with special needs and under the care of the decedent could have some additional claim than an adult grandchild who had been found guilty of abusing the decedent. (Although as a number of the sources mention, the descendant being a adult with no reasonable financial need doesn't mean the decedent isn't perceived to have a 'moral duty' to them.) But from all these sources, I find it unlikely a court will allow a challenge simply because someone chooses a per capita by generation division of their estate. So per stirpes may be the default, but isn't required.

Also NZ law doesn't distinguish between the gender or sex of the child (or any party). And as many of the sources make clear, although there are the intestate rules, most people strongly suggest you don't rely on them, especially with a significant estate and instead make a will. (But you should consider the other legal requirements to reduce challenges and confusion. Besides the earlier examples, see e.g. [12] [13].)

P.S. I'm aware the NZ Herald source mentions "In theory, if a spouse died and his children who are next in line were no longer alive, the blood-grandchildren could miss out with the money going to the surviving spouse and his or her children from a former marriage." but I couldn't work out what circumstances it's referring to.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I came across [14], which when taken together with [15], makes me think per stirpes applies in the Republic of Ireland too. Maybe also Northern Ireland. Also [16] discusses in some limited way how various common law jurisdictions allow challenges to the distribution. Nil Einne (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your detailed answer. I appreciate it. 87.70.102.206 (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Historically, the fee tail usually gave everything to the oldest male child of the oldest male child, by operation of law (i.e. it was not even up to the grandfather). 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:7AC0 (talk) 04:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]