I have found a curious inconsistency in registration districts for a couple of 1850s English birth records. I was looking for children of David Hill and his wife Jane (nee Harris) of Little Rissington, a small village in Gloucestershire. Little Rissington, like its better-known close neighbour Bourton on the Water, was part of the Stow on the Wold registration district. A search of that district in the GRO indices did not yield all of the entries that I expected. Widening the search, I found a candidate in the adjacent district of Northleach.
The two certificates (GRO PDFs) do look like they come from births to the same couple:
16 Jan 1856 Mary Jane, dau of David Hill and Jane (formerly Harris), Little Rissington 01 Nov 1857 Thomas, son of David Hill and Jane (formerly Harris), Little Rissington
And this is what I find curious: both births are recorded in the "District of Bourton on the Water", and the Registrar's District is "No. 2 Bourton on the Water". But the earlier one has a Superintendent Registrar's District of "Stow on the Wold", while the later one is "Northleach".
UKBMD has pages for both Stow on the Wold and Northleach registration districts. The former has Bourton on the Water and Little Rissington parishes in the Stow district from 1837 to 1937, and "Bourton on the Water" is also named as a Sub-district. The Northleach page mentions neither village. So it doesn't look like they were ever part of the Northleach district.
The answer to another question about birth registrations states that:
A birth must be registered in the sub-district in which it occurred – the parents did not get to choose which register office to go to.
People couldn't choose their register office on a whim, and I assume that registrars couldn't choose their district on a whim either!
So as I understand it, this situation should not have happened. Both births should have been registered under Stow on the Wold. The boundary between the two districts is not too far from Rissington, and I could imagine David going to a different register office despite the rule given above, but that office still couldn't have listed Bourton as part of Northleach, because it wasn't.
The registrar's name in each case is William Wells, but the writing does not look like the same hand. Similar in places, but with substantial differences particularly in the capitals. I know that a William Wells was a surgeon and registrar who lived in Bourton on the Water, and died there in 1859 , just a few years after this, aged around 60. I have several other earlier records written by him, and the writing all matches the first (Mary Jane) example well. I don't have any other Northleach records to compare, and I don't know if the same Wells was a registrar for that district as well as Stow (if that was even possible).
The writing at the top (Superintendent Registrar's District) is similar on both records but looks a little different from the main text. If so, that points to at least two people involved in the generation of each record.
So I'm wondering how two births apparently registered in the same sub-district ended up assigned to two different registration districts. Is this due to how these records were created? it looks like an error at the registrar's level, rather than the informant or superintendent registrar. (E.g. if the districts shared a registrar, then perhaps he, or an assistant, used the wrong book one time…) Is this likely to be a common error?