"We always come back to the same basic brick wall. My studies lead me to believe what I believe. "
That would be fine Steve if you were prepared to put up arguments for your claims beyond earliest dates - so far you have not.
You have agreed that to take into consideration all aspects of the song tradition (a holistic approach) is a way forward, yet you have never gone beyond arguing that you have managed to trace the earliest printed version, then arrogantly declared (not argued) that this must be the source, and when challenged you provide 'what ifs' rather than results of research (which appear to have been made up on the spot).
Throughout these arguments you have claimed you must be right because of the number of who agree with you.
On this basis you have swept aside all previous work on the subject and sneered at the work of others as 'naive' and 'romantic'.
You appear to have done no fieldwork on the subject yourself; if you have, you have never produced it.
You appear to be unaware of the numerous functions of the tradition to the people who passed on these songs, in the case of Lord Lovel you had to ask if there were singers who took Lord Lovel as anything other than a burlesque song, ignorant of the fact that some of our best traditional singers did so.
You have passed off with a feeble on-the—spot excuse the fact that historically our traditional songs have always been regarded as "country songs" that have made their way onto broadsides.
Put up your "studies" for consideration; put up your reasons for rejecting ideas that have been held since folk-song and folklore became a serious study, put your claims into the wider context of the lives of the people who sang and passed on the songs.
You have been given evidence of their having made and remade songs; show us why they couldn't have made our folk-songs, otherwise your theories are desk-bound speculation and nothing more.
Elsewhere on this forum I'm involved in an argument on religion at present - this argument has remarkable similarities - you are asking us to take your beliefs on trust/faith, without tangible evidence.
Jim Carroll