Thanks to all who replied - both on and off list - to my request for help. I'm still unsure whether or not to accept the information shown in the census. However, Lynda's observation, that the crossing out looks as if its ghosted through from the previous page, is an interesting one, as is Patricia's about the page numbers having being amended. Curiouser and Curiouser, as Alice said. Thanks again Regards Ed

Ed - the page before has been started as the census for Farleigh Wallop and then crossed out. The Cliddesden census then begins on the page your Elizabeth is on and, I believe, is a valid census page, albeit the enumerator has had to manually amend the page numbers. You will notice that the rest of the servants in the household on the facing page have not been 'struck through' so there is no reason to believe that Elizabeth's page is invalid. The crossing out on the previous page (Ancestry does not give access to this but Origins does) is very clear and bold and I would say that Lynda is correct in that the lines have shown through. Hope this helps to convince you! Cheers, Patsy - New Zealand. > Thanks to all who replied - both on and off list - to my request for help. > I'm still unsure whether or not to accept the information shown in the > census. However, Lynda's observation, that the crossing out looks as if > its > ghosted through from the previous page, is an interesting one, as is > Patricia's about the page numbers having being amended. Curiouser and > Curiouser, as Alice said. > > > > Thanks again > > > > Regards > > > > Ed >