Talk:Kingdom of Montenegro

Pax, can I ask something...What the hell do you think you are doing?! Sideshow Bob 21:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I decided to bring up more information into the article.

I put the official state flag to the window (I know, despite its far less popularity and "spreadness" as the other one) and the regal flag into the article. --PaxEquilibrium 12:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

flag, flag, flag

why is NOW on this page present flag of Montenegro from S.R. Yugoslavian period. Few months ago was regular flag of kingdom of Montenegro

Stefke 03:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This article is good for shit.

link

when you click arrow '->' it links to kingdom of Serbia article??? Why not kingdom of Yugoslavia article? (Stefke 03:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC))

Because after Podgorica Assembly, Montenegro was annexed by Kingdom of Serbia, before they joined Kingdom of SHS, and months later Kingdom of Yugoslavia.

About the flag, I really don't know who changed it and why... Sideshow Bob 16:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

....and months later Kingdom of Yugoslavia.

I would make one correction> It wasn't MONTHS later, it was only 2 days later

Stefke 01:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

See, I thought more time passed before that happened, but as I see now, it was only 5 days (from 26 November to 1 December 1918), so... I don't know if that 5 day annexation is relevant at all. Sideshow Bob 03:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Podgorica Assembly was on 29 Nov (Gregorian calendar), so it was 2 days only. I think that period is too short to be relevant.

Onother thing is that on /kingdom of Serbia/ article doesent exist "<-" link to kingdom of montenegro article?? Stefke 14:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Flag & Church

1) That simply wasn't the official state flag. That's not even from the age of the Kingdom!
2) The Montenegrin Orthodox Church simple wasn't. I don't this: "however in regions which become part of KoMNE later SOC was de facto present." Could you please explain this? Also, yes, since I've read the whole Constitution of the Princedom of Montenegro as well as all annexes, amendments and interpretations. So I don't want you to quote that article, because there is no such article. :) --PaxEquilibrium 20:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

1) Kingdom flag had golden lion. If that flag wasn't kingdom flag , explain OF WHAT was that flag?

2) yes, of course> in constitution of Princedom, given by Nicholas I, official church was Montenegrin Orthodox Church (I don't know does it have any connections with present MOC). This article was abolished by act of Alexander I of Yugoslavia in 1920ies. If he has abolished MOC, that means MOC existed!

De facto, cities in Old Serbia (Montenegrin part of Sanjak) such as Pljevlja which later become part of Montenegro were part of "Rasko-Prizrenska eparhija".Stefke 02:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

another thing, have you seen the talk above about linking? Montenegro was 48 hours in Serbia, not 48 years. 2 days period was too short to be relevant.

1) That was either the standard of King Nicholas of the Court (government?) Flag. Not state flag.

2) I stand by my statement, Nicholas' Constitution of the Princedom of Montenegro from 1905 has no where written that the Montenegrin Orthodox Church is official, there was no such thing back then. The first time a MOC was formed was in 1993, it received some recognition from the police in 1997 and was finally recognized as a religious institution in 2000.

what are you talking about? so king Alexander I abolihed something that hapened in 1993???!!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefke (talk • contribs) 01:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

King Alexander didn't abolish the MOC, it didn't exist back then. --PaxEquilibrium 21:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Montenegrin state expanded to include those areas. It also had another episcopate - the zahumska. However I still ask you to clarify yourself, 'cause I may be slow - but I don't get it. ;) "however in regions which become part of KoMNE later SOC was de facto present." ?

What are you talking about? The union was five days, not two (from 26 November to 1 December 1918). Also it wouldn't be the difference if it were five minutes only...the point is Montenegro entered Yugoslavia through union with Serbia, which was also stated as one of the reasons why it remained with Serbia after Yugoslavia collapsed in 1991-1992. --PaxEquilibrium 10:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Listen, I am not member of MOC, but I wan't tolerate playing games about MNE history. MOC existed in XX c, in spite you don't like it. I trust Valtazar Bogisic much more than your pro-serbian propaganda. check this! [[1]]Stefke 01:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think you're a member of the MOC (despite being a Liberal). ;) I'm not "playing games" with Montenegrin history, the very source you mentioned (Montenegrin Ethnic Association of Australia) AFAIK uses misinterpretation (just as some used about the Flag, that's revisionism as a result of the 1990s surge of nationalism, typical for former Yugoslavia). The precise article to which you linked was written by Novak Adzic, who is known for controversial works. An example may be be his thoughts on the origin of the Montenegrins, by which he supports their Illyrian origin, only partially Slavic, containing an abundance of historical fallacies, for example the claim that Rascia imposed dominance on Doclea with Byzantine help, and in that way brutally conquered it in the 12th century, which to anyone with at least some knowledge on the Medieval history of our regions is well known. From the site you linked, his second source is the Fascist from WWII Sekula Drljevic, and is absolute nonsense "Montenegrin Orthodoxy is Montenegrinoxy...the Montenegrin Church through all centuries wasn't one any dependence upon any Orthodox Church, not even the Constantine Patriarchate".

Point: please do not attach to me any sort of pro-whatnot propaganda, as I'm not attaching any to you either.

The General Property Code of Balthazzar Bogisic states that ...Montenegro had its own autocephalous Montenegrin Church. The term Church of.. was applied for the regional branches of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Such example is that some sources in English (and me) apply the term for the period from 1766 when the Pec Serb Patriarchate was abolished to 1920 when the reunification of the Serbian Orthodox Church was realized: Church of Montenegro. In the very same manner Serbia had "Church of Serbia". In Dalmatia under the very Nikodim Milas that link quotes there was "Church of Dalmatia", and in the very same manner "Church of Bosnia", etc. The difference however between the Church of Montenegro and the Church of Serbia is that the Serbian Church became autocephalous, in 1879 (self-styled as such since 1817). By the way, in the very same manner, the Serbian Church was abolished in 1920, however the injustice could be larger, since it was autocephalous as such and recognized, unlike the Montenegrin. The usage of this phrase in English as well as other western languages originates from the Roman Catholic Church and the Western Civilization, refer to the Church of France article.

Point: that cannot and should not (as some supporters of the MOC misinterpret in bad faith today, as I pointed out before) be mistaken with the Montenegrin Orthodox Church, with as an organization has been formed in a gathering in 1993 (registered in 1997, recognized in 2000). By the way, it seems to me quite odd that that is stated in 1888, because there were not yet any mentions of it. --PaxEquilibrium 23:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)