Crossed out on 1921 census?

[SapereAude]

Hi all,
This is the column showing the number of children someone had on the 1921 census for my 2x great grandparents, who were married just over two months before the census was taken and didn't have any children yet. They are the last people listed in the household, and two couples above them also had no children (and their "none"s were written cleanly). My 2x great grandparent's "none"s have been written over something else. Do you think anything interesting is hiding under them, or am I reading too much in what is just a mistake ?

They are the bottom two lines, the top one is a reference to how the others have been written.

Thank you in advance

(I think I am reading too much into nothing, though...)

[SapereAude]

I forgot to say, but my 2x ggf is the second one down, and his wife is the bottom one, could be useful

[arthurk]

(I think I am reading too much into nothing, though...)

I'm sure there is something there, and if it were mine, I'd want to know what it was.

Unfortunately I can't make much out of it (2nd one ends in -ing, perhaps?). Can you give us the couple's names and location (and/or Piece and Schedule number), please? Seeing the whole page with more of the handwriting might make it easier to work out the partial letters that are visible here.

[SapereAude]

They are Thomas and Fanny Hammond living at 108 Copster Hill Road in Oldham, Lancs. The head of house is Ernest Oldham. Not too sure how to find the piece number, and I think the schedule number is 22 (but could be a strange 11).
Thank you for your time

(by the way they're the two people on my avatar )

[arthurk]

Thanks for that, but I'm afraid I still can't make anything of it.

For anyone else wanting to look, the piece is RG15/19870, ED 37, schedule 77 - according to the transcript at FindMyPast.

[hanes teulu]

I couldn't  make out what was written underneath. I did note that original entry had not been accompanied by marking the appropriate age range of any child with an "X" - the required action in normal circumstances.

[SapereAude]

Oh, well...
I know from both living memory and records that they only had one child (in December 1922), but that doesn't exclude the possibility of a miscarriage before him
Maybe the -ing could possibly be "expecting"? But then again I have no idea if that word was used for pregnancy at that time...
Thank you for your time

[Zefiro]

Have you checked other parts of this census to see what kind of information is written in this column?
Is it always none, one, two, three etc? If you never encounter something 'strange', then there's a small chance that the crossed out writing has any meaning. It probably was something written in the wrong column.

[SapereAude]

Have you checked other parts of this census to see what kind of information is written in this column?
Is it always none, one, two, three etc? If you never encounter something 'strange', then there's a small chance that the crossed out writing has any meaning. It probably was something written in the wrong column.

On other pages I've seen of this census, I can't remember noticing anything "strange"

It could be, and probably is, nothing; it just caught my eye as, on this page, they are the last two people at the bottom of the page of a household of eight, including a couple who has children and one who hasn't. Nothing "strange" is in the people above's boxes, that would have been filled in first (as I assume the pages were filled in from top to bottom) but, yes it could very well just be a mistake.