Talk:Presumption of death

message: I suggest a merger of the content of this the Presumption of Death article into death in absentia, and redirecting this page to that article.--h i s   s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 07:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree to merge one way or the other. In the meanwhile, Im specifying the category of law.  Bearian 22:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree per above--wpktsfs (talk) 03:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree per above Biofoundationsoflanguage 18:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Merger complete (didn't take long - the other page has virtually no content worth keeping). Terraxos (talk) 02:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: merge from Presumption of Death

message: As far as I can see John List was never declared dead in absentia...? Pennywisepeter 11:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  John List 

message: "Princes in the Tower" anyone? I suppose they never have been presumed dead on a certain date?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.101.13.74 (talk) 18:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edward V of England 

message: Is there any need to have a section for famous cases here, when a reader can simply be pointed to the (far more comprehensive) article List of people who disappeared mysteriously? I'd think the list in section could be removed and replaced with a . Grutness...wha? 10:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Famous cases" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Declared death in absentia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131016144044/http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2012-13/presumptionofdeath.html to http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2012-13/presumptionofdeath.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The above title redirects to this article.  However, this article does not mention "Cestui que vie" or any Cestui que vie Act.
There are two other Wikipedia articles relating to Cestui que vie Acts:
Cestui que vie Act 1540, and 
Cestui que Vie Act 1707
Both these articles are stubs.
The UK statute Law database contains entries for both
"Cestui que Vie Act 1666", and
"The Cestui que Vie Act 1707",
but none (that I can find) on Cestui que Vie Act 1540
On this basis, I believe that "Cestui que Vie Act 1666" deserves a freestanding article of its own - even if it is only a stub to begin with similar to those for the 1540 and 1707 Acts.
I have added "see also" links in this article referring/linking to both the Wikipedia "Cestui que Vie Act" articles.
Hedles (talk) 10:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cestui que vie Act 1666 

message: It seems unnecessary to have the "declared" in there. It feels clunky and less like an encyclopedia title and more like a name better for a redirect. Führerstand (talk) 05:56, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: "Death in absentia" is not the correct legal term - see above.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested rename to "Death in absentia" 

message: Was she i n a parliament office 
💬💬 169.255.185.23 (talk) 13:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The first queen of the record 

message: : (emphasis added)
In terms of this sentence (how I hate such lazy phrasing!), is a declaration of disappearance the same thing as a declaration of absence? or is the latter (nowhere else mentioned) a prerequisite of the former?
Would anything be lost by deleting up to the first comma? —Tamfang (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  disappearance in China