2. G to A for life, then to B's children for life, but if B's children stop visiting their grandmother, to C and his heirs; B has one child
A has present LE, B's children have future LE subject to exec. interest, C has shifting executory interest in FS. I'm pretty sure this executory interest is wiped out by RaP b/c B could potentially have more children, and grandma could outlive the other ascertained lives in being. Therefore, G would have a reversion in FS.
I don't agree on the RAP analysis on this one. Even though B could have more children, the death of B or the Rule of Convenience would close the class to the then-existing children at the time the LE came into being. There's a currently ascertained life in being, so not a RAP problem. Grandma could outlive the kids, but Grandma's not going to get the estate.
C's got a contingent remainder that could possibly be destroyed (rule of destructability in contingent remainders) if C dies off(or C and heirs die off) prior to B's children's life estate ending.
If C's remainder fails, then G (or heirs) has the reversion in FS.
Overall, though, nice job.