Hello Raymond,
In answer to:
On Philips side first, The Philip Baptised on 15 May 1814, the true parents are William Quayle and Margaret Cowley of Ballaugh.

Although these parents look very likely you can't be 100% certain unless you find supporting information. Please see my previous message about looking at the wills for William Quayles in Ballaugh and the decree for Margaret Quayle als Cowley [refs for these listed in previous message].

You wrote:
Mary Corkills parents are James Corkill and Mary Callow. b.c. 1793 Maughold and b.c. 1792 of Maughold.

It is clearer if you write the bapt date when you have it, rather than b.c. [that came from a census index].
James son of John Corkill & Margaret Cannell bapt Maughold 28 Jul 1793.
Mary dau of Charles Callow & Jane Kelly bapt Maughold 24 Jul 1791.
Mary dau of James Corkhill & Mary Callow bapt Maughold 20 Nov 1816.

You wrote:
Catherine Quayle had one illigetimate daug to J Corkill, so was Maria his or did she put her in her own name, or am I asking you to be Mystic Meg?

There is no way of knowing who this "J Corkill" was, unless Cath later married him, or unless the daughter went to live with her father's Corkill family and appears there in a later census, or was mentioned in a J Corkill will [which illegitimate children often were], or her father was named on her marriage record, etc. - No point guessing. It could have been any John, James or Joseph. The other illegitimate child could have had the same father - or not. In later censuses they could be under Corkill or Quayle.

You wrote:
I also take it Donna you are fairly certain the Philip Quayle and Isabella and family you had in the 1851 Census is my correct ancestor, with the way that records are.

Yes, Donna was pointing out that when I identified the two illegitimate children I hadn't said which family they came from - I just referred to Brian Lawson's census transcript which he had posted for you. We wouldn't have had this confusion if we had kept to the same string [as Frances has pointed out]. New strings make it tricky to check back.

You wrote:
I had came across this 1851 Census a good while ago but being the amateur I am I dicarded it thinking they could!nt possibly be paupers, or been publicans. I always thought of them in the agricultural sense. This tells me I should keep all I find until absolutely certain, a lesson learned I hope. If I have got it wrong let me know. I am still going through all the information you have sent me.

These families were originally on the land. For information about publicans, etc. have you looked at Frances Coakley's website?
http://www.isle-of-man.com/manxnotebook/

http://www.isle-of-man.com/manxnotebook/gazateer/brweries/backgrnd.htm

Sue