"...a Folk Revival which has not only failed Traditional Folk Song, but in so doing shamefully misrepresented it, resulting in the somewhat desultory status amongst other British Cultural Treasures that it enjoys today."

If you're suggesting that, had it not been for the Folk Revival, traditional song and music would be part of the English cultural mainstream, you're in fantasy land. Singers like Bob Copper and Walter Pardon, quite independently of any Folk Revival, made conscious efforts to preserve the old songs they loved because the songs were being ignored or ridiculed by their peers, even as far back as the 1930s.

You've made the assertion more than once on this thread that the Revival misrepresented or falsified the actual tradition. The revival is certainly not without faults or existential contradicitons, but where's the evidence of widespreaed falsification?

So, Bert Lloyd tarted up a few songs (as did Baring-Gould and others going back to Thomas Percy)? But the revival documented thousands of songs whose provenance is unquestioned.

So, many revival performers didn't spring from the cultural stock from which their songs arose? But they didn't claim to be. Just enthusiasts discovering a treasure trove.

What the revival did do was to give a platform to a swathe of outstanding singers and musicians from the rural working class and traveller communities, in order that their talents could be more widely appreciated. It also made available recordings which preserve (one hopes, in perpetuity) the songs and music of those communities.

Which part of that is a "con" or "misrepresentation"?