Oren owned Purpleacre, a tract of land, in fee simple. By will duly admitted to probate after his death, Oren devised Purpleacre to "any wife who survives me with remainder to such of my children as are living at her death." Oren was survived by Wen, his wife, and by three children, Cynthia, Cam, and Camelia. Thereafter, Cam died and by will duly admitted to probate devised his entire estate to David. Cynthia and Camelia were Cam's heirs at law. Later Wen died. In appropriate lawsuit to which Cynthia, Camelia, and David are parties, title to Purpleacre is at issue. In such lawsuit, judgment should be that title to Purpleacre is in 
Cynthia, Camelia, and David, because the earliest vesting of remainders is favored and reference to Wen's death should be construed as relating to time of taking possession.  Cynthia, Camelia, and David, because the provision requiring survival of children violates the Rule Against Perpetuities since the surviving wife might have been a person unborn at the time of writing of the will.  Cynthia and Camelia, because Cam's remainder must descend by intestacy and is not devisable.  Cynthia and Camelia, because the remainders were contingent upon surviving the life tenant. 
Question: Oren owned Purpleacre, a tract of land, in fee simple. By will duly admitted to probate after his death, Oren devised Purpleacre to "any wife who survives me with remainder to such of my children as are living at her death." Oren was survived by Wen, his wife, and by three children, Cynthia, Cam, and Camelia. Thereafter, Cam died and by will duly admitted to probate devised his entire estate to David. Cynthia and Camelia were Cam's heirs at law. Later Wen died. In appropriate lawsuit to which Cynthia, Camelia, and David are parties, title to Purpleacre is at issue. In such lawsuit, judgment should be that title to Purpleacre is in 
A. Cynthia, Camelia, and David, because the earliest vesting of remainders is favored and reference to Wen's death should be construed as relating to time of taking possession. 
B. Cynthia, Camelia, and David, because the provision requiring survival of children violates the Rule Against Perpetuities since the surviving wife might have been a person unborn at the time of writing of the will. 
C. Cynthia and Camelia, because Cam's remainder must descend by intestacy and is not devisable. 
D. Cynthia and Camelia, because the remainders were contingent upon surviving the life tenant. 
Answer: