No, the argument has been that someone having got money for the creation or money having been involved somewhere along the line of transmission or in performance does not bar a song from being a folk song.

I would not argue with that sentiment.

But the 'discussion' about commerciality also touched on Bert Lloyd's view as quoted above that we now call 'folk music' originated in a particular era out of a synthesis of commercially created music by minstrels and others. This came in the middle of a rather Mortonian bit about social change in a particular century.

I am aware that Lloyd was not always consistent in 'Folk Song in England' but this is one of the things that he said.

Jim has already responded to this. His point, as I understood it was that Chapter One of Lloyd's book is a better reflection of what Lloyd thought folk music was. Jim expressed a view that minstrel songs of that century were nothing like folk music. Jim also referred to the point as 'shadow boxing' because it touches on the 'origin' question which I don't intend to debate any more. However, it serves to illustrate the point that when writing that particular chapter Lloyd did not seem overly concerned that 'folk music' had commercially produced material at the heart of its origins.