Parish record look up Wednesbury St Bartholomew

[forestchild]

Is anyone able to do a look up in the Wednesbury parish records, probably St Bartholomew?

I have a James Doyle who, in the 1841 census, is living as a lodger with Christopher Smith 55 and his daughter Jane 25 and her children Ann 8 and Mary 1.
In 1851 James and Jane appear to have married but the puzzle is that her 2 children Ann and Mary now have the surname Doyle.  This leaves me with 3 possibities -
1 - James married Jane and adopted her illigitimate children, -  but I can find no record for a marriage of a James Doyle between 1841 and 1851.
2 - They were already married in 1841 and the census somehow got the names wrong. -  but surely then he would have been son-in-law not lodger.
3 - They never actually married at all.
There was a Mary Doyle born West Bromwich in the September of 1839 so I am thinking the second senerio is the most likely. There is no Mary Doyle in the census only my Mary Smith.
I can find no marriage registration for a James Doyle and a Mary Smith in the reisters from 1837. Could someone check the parish records for a marriage between James and Jane before then?
Jane was baptised at St Bartholomew in 1814 and they are living in the Vicarage area of Wednesbury in 1841 so I think St Batholomew would be the right church. James was born 1816 so I am looking for a marriage in the 1830s.
Would also like the baptisms for Mary and Ann checked. Mary b 1839 and Ann either 1833 or 1838. It varies on different censuses.

thanks,
Sylvia

[CaroleW]

The 1841 census does not show relationships and does not show James Doyle as a lodger

but surely then he would have been son-in-law not lodger.

It is not at all unusual to find children of a previous marriage shown under the surname from any re-marriage

[forestchild]

You are quite right, Carole. I expect I assumed him to be a lodger when I first saw the census entry and got that stuck in my head!

Jane wasn't married to Christopher Smith, she was his daughter. I know this from her baptism record, so unless she had married a man with the same surname as hers she had not been previously married.