> Not that Francis Child would have considered it as several comic versions of Lord Lovel had been brought to his attention and he chose to ignore them.

Rather pretentious to speak for Child, who can't defend himself.

If I may play ballad-devil's advocate, a "comic version" from 1765 would have carried more weight with Child than one that looked like a mere parody of the earliest text known.

I don't see the "comedy" anyway, but cultural ideas of humor change. What did Walpole see as "comic"?

And what are the filthy parts that Percy "sanitized"?