Folk History is the same as any other history: subject to the deficiencies and prejudice of the sources and to the deficiencies and prejudices of the inquirer.

I pointed above towards elements of my thesis (which can be freely downloaded) and found almost all of what I said was ignored. However, the intention was to indicate a range of inquiries I, and others, had conducted into the 'relative truth' of a number, or range of songs about verifiable events. In doing so I suggested a series of methods whereby a degree of reliability could be established. These might have helped avoid some of the more bitter exchanges herein: - which in any case serve no purpose beyond the tempering of opinion.

The point I would make, as my last word, was provided by Bert Lloyd, of flawed and immortal memory: 'Folk songs do not tell us what happened; they tell what people believed happened' - however, Bert did not say as I think obvious: It is what people believe that tempers their actions. As such Folk History is intensely important in establishing some elements of 'Why?' events unfolded, as distinct from 'What' 'actually' happened.