Asking who the baddy is, with a ballad which goes back as far as Matty Groves does is asking for trouble, simply because cultural attitudes to love, marriage, property etc have change so much since.

As far as mediaeval England is concerned, I agree with Don Firth. Lady Barnard (sorry for the change of name) was his property. Little Musgrave, had violated his property - had become damaged goods in fact - and he dealt with Musgrave in the same manner in which he would have dealt with anyone else stealing from him.

Plus, in feudal times, with wars and rieving and God knows what, kinship alliances were vitally important. If Lady Barnard had been mucking about, and one or more of her sons were those of some oppenent, Lord Barnard could have ended up in a very sticky predicament.

Therefore, Lord Barnard despatched his cuckold in full accordance with the harshness of the times. And if you think that Little Musgrave suffered harshly, I recently read a footnote in a book about manorial life in England in feudal times. The footnote said that the Bishop of Chester (I think) borrowed a gallows from the appropriate authorities and unceremoniously hung one of his parishoners for stealing a dozen eggs.

But what happens when the ballad surfaces in the Southern Appalachians, where social mores regarding marriage are entirely different?

It seems to me that the murder then becomes a genuine crime of passion and the villain of the piece is not Lord Barnard but the foot page for not having the sense to keep his mouth shut. Note how Dillard Chandler's version christens him "little Robert Ford" - a nineteenth century traitor if ever there was one.

Also note how Hedy west's version ends:

"Hark, hark, the dogs do bark,
and the sparrows they do cry.
Today I killed two true loves
And tomorrow I must die."

A fate which certainly would not have befallen the original Lord Barnard.

BTW. I always thought "the man with the horn" was Little Musgrave and that's how he ended up in bed with Lady Barnard in the first place. -:)