****the rejection of research carried out over centuries is hardly that****

As modern historians will tell you there is a lot wrong with past scholarship. It can be extremely biased and is based upon nothing like the resources we have available to us nowadays with modern technology. With less bigotry and no hidden agenda modern historians can afford to be much more honest.

Child had limited resources, his preferences were weighted by his own elite background, and he also admitted that he was very unsure of the selections he was making. He also, despite his reservations regarding street lit., included a great deal of it.

Sharp had his own agenda which included ignoring the influence of broadsides even though he was well aware of it. Baring-Gould and Kidson were much more knowledgeable when it came to song backgrounds.

Personally I don't put much store in MacColl's scholarship, but I don't think he made many claims in this direction. He was a performer and actor primarily and only produced scholarly works near the end of his life. I certainly wouldn't go to his sleeve notes for accurate information, any more than I would Lloyd.