Can't quite agree with your analysis, Richie, particularly the last verse. It is far closer to 295A than the version of Cruel Nymph I have before me. Will check others later. The only other thing that brings any further affinity to Cruel Nymph is the change to first person and as we both know changing person from version to version is very common and is but a moment's alteration.

Apart from all of this, as I point out in my article, the ridiculous language Baring Gould employed in concocting his hybrid is such a give-away and the supposed oral version follows this almost to the letter. Had this forgery ever been in oral tradition for any length of time such ridiculous language would have been ironed out quickly (IMO) that okay, Jim?