With respect, it seems to me that there are several overlapping and interesting and reasonable ideas in some of the more recent threads, and some *possible* sources of confusion:

1 An interest in 'fakery' or 'fake songs' ie songs that have been written by a person who does not count as 'folk' in the eyes of the poster/by certain definitions and passed off as genuine 'folk'. This did happen.

2 The question of what is and is not 'fakery'.

3 The question of what can and cannot be done with a song considered to be 'folk' or 'traditional', which is linked with 2. Much seems to depend upon the claims that are made. The social class of the person doing the alteration seems important to some people. This is why some people try to claim Bert Lloyd ( a well-known tinkerer) as 'working class' however middle class his life style and profession(s). But I don't think this is the end of the matter??

4 The possible confusion relating to the title of Harker's book, which, as Brian pointed out, can be interpreted as suggesting that it is about 'fake songs' when in fact it is about the whole *concept* of 'folk song' especially as it emerged from a) the Romantic era (Scott etc), Percy's Reliques b) in the US Child's work and in England from the work of Victorians followed by Sharp and those coming just after him followed later in the 20th century by Lloyd.