On reading this sentence again I think that I must disagree.
It more points to the fact that James was then her only living sibling and thus brothers Richard and William were deceased by 1831.
The key to this may be more in the children of brother James given only one nephew is named - that being James who married Eleanor HODGE.
It is that point I am investigating at the moment.
I will begin with the easier one - James QUICK m. Ann TONKYN.
Apart from son James baptised in 1782 James and Ann had three more children - all sons.
Richard bp. 6th August 1786
Richard married Ann WILLIS at Paul in 1808 and was buried there in 1835.
William bp. 22nd November 1790
I currenly know nothing more about him so he needs further investigation.
Edward bp. 15th November 1793
He married Margaret WILLIS at Paul in 1816 and was buried there in 1864.
So we know that, aside from James, there were two members of this famiy still living at the time Elizabeth wrote her Will and both had children who were most certainly still liing in 1831.
Turning attention to James QUICK m. Martha PEARCE
Aside from James they had the following children:-
1. Martha bp. 4th January 1784
2. Ann bp. 5th June 1785
3. Elizabeth bp. 3rd February 1788
4. Mary bp.9th December 1792
At the moment I have no further information on Ann and Mary and that creates a problem for a start.
1. Martha m. Anthony GRENFELL 8th December 1805
She had died prior to 1840 when a widowed Anthony married the widowed Elizabeth Stevens.
There is no death recorded in FreeBMD for a Martha GRENFELL in the Penzance R.D. prior to this so it must be assumed that she had died prior to Civil Registration.
Martha's last child was baptised 16th February 1821 which gives us, roughly, the earliest date to look for.
At St Ives there is only one burial for a Martha GRENFELL between 1813 and 1837.
30th November 1828 Martha GRENFELL, age 49
This would place her birth about 1779!
But I can find no other Martha so I think this must be her and that her age has been recorded incorrectly.
If correct then Martha would not be a beneficiary of the Will.
BUT - she did have living children!
4. Elizabeth m. Peter WOOLCOCK 7th October 1813
Elizabeth appears to have had only two children - Elizabeth in 1814 and Peter in 1817.
Her husband was widowed by 1854 when he married Susanna HART.
That tears it! - Elizabeth was still alive in 1851 although, due to a forgiveable transcription error, she might not be immediately found.
Her age has been transcribed as 43 when, in fact, it is 63 however it very much looks like 43 and is extremely difficult to make 63 out of it. But Peter Woolcock was a Coast Guard in 1841 and in the 1851 Census he is recorded as 'retired Coast Guard'.
So there is one theory destroyed!
But all is not lost and for different reasons I am beginning to lean towards Lannanta's view that it may have been James and Martha who were the parents of the James who married Eleanor.
If we follow naming patterns then James and Martha's first two children were named after themselves.
Ann would then be named after James' mother and Elizabeth for his Aunt.
Mary .....
When looking at the family of James and Ann (Tonkyn) there is a different dilemma given they only had sons.
James is obvious.
Richard - 'could' be named after James' father but could equally be for someone on Ann's side of the family.
William and, particulary, Edward just do not seem to fit at all.
Guess I had better return to the drawing board for a while.