The Holy Royal Martyrs Alexander and Draga - Life and Canonization

Their August Majesties, Pious Lord and King of Serbia Alexander I and Pious Lady and Queen of Serbia Draga Obrenović

Bishop Akakije of Utesiteljevo 

The Holy Royal Martyrs Alexander and Draga 

Life and Canonization

Recommendation for Inclusion into the Dyptichs of the Holy Serbian Orthodox Church of the Martyred Royal Couple King Alexander and Queen Draga Obrenović

Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of Man’s sake. Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy, for behold, great is your reward in heaven.  – Luke 6:22-24

Part One

THE LIFE, WORKS, AND MARTYRIC END OF THE HOLY ROYAL MARTYRS ALEXANDER AND DRAGA

Introduction

            The following life was compiled using the historical material available which contemporary scholarship divides between academic and journalistic historiography. Strong political agendas drove the historiography published shortly after the May Revolution and regicide. For those who had come into power, it was expedient to portray the king and queen in a negative light to justify the regicide and revolution, therefore legitimizing the new political authorities. Historians, journalists, and memoirists from the victorious side had a privileged position from which to propagate their version of events through educational systems and media. Such a negative portrayal of the life and deeds of the last Obrenovići prevails to this day.

The contemporary historical works concerning these events that take a neutral academic approach have been very useful. They provide a broader and more objective picture of the events and historical figures of the time. 

After the murder of the royal couple, the change of dynasties, and the strict control of the narrative, none of the ecclesiastical or church-affiliated historians engaged in evaluating their lives and deeds from a religious, monarchist, or martyric perspective. It was therefore a challenging task when composing this biography to adhere to the forms of the hagiographical literary genre without deviating from factual historical objectivity.

The first part of this article we have entitled "Life and Works."  This is, in fact, a creative translation of the Slavic expression "Житiе и жизнь." Almost all old manuscript biographies of Serbian saints have this title, and it is the general title of all biographies of saints. To understand the meaning of this title, let's look at what these words mean in Greek, as they are translations of Greek words: Βίος και πολιτεία.

In literary terms, the biographies of saints, based on their titles in Greek manuscripts, are divided into two types: one with the title Εγκώμιον and the other Βίος και πολιτεία. Εγκώμιον is translated as a eulogy or panegyric and formally belongs to church oratory. Βίος και πολιτεία is translated into Serbian as "Житiе и жизнь," meaning biography, storytelling, and description of the lives of saints, falling into the genre of hagiography. Therefore, "Житiе и жизнь" means the same as Βίος και πολιτεία. Βίος means life, biography, or life story, while πολιτεία in Greek means the way of life or achievements that a person has realized, achieved, or built, leaving a mark on history.

In the second part of the title, we added the hagiographic martyriological expression “and martyric end” which is the seal and fulfillment of the holiness of the royal martyrs Alexander and Draga’s biography here presented.

King Alexander Obrenović

            Alexander Obrenović was born in Belgrade on August 14, 1876 to Serbian King Milan Obrenović and Queen Natalija Obrenović.  He was the first ruler of modern Serbia who became the heir to the throne by birth and was raised from early childhood in the spirit of a proper understanding of royal duties.

The Serbian prince was named after his godfather, Russian Tsar Alexander II Nikolaevich Romanov, and in honor of Saint Alexander Nevsky.

Although the happiness of his childhood was interrupted by his parents' divorce, Alexander, as the heir to the throne, acquired a broad encyclopedic education that had not been provided to any modern Serbian ruler preceding him. At his father's request, King Alexander’s educational program was developed by the Minister of Education of the Habsburg Monarchy, following the model of educating royal children, with the addition of studying Serbian history and Orthodox theology. Following the Prussian militaristic tradition, his father began to prepare him from the age of seven for military service.

As a result, the young heir to the throne was marked by a seriousness that belied his age. While other children were lost in carefree play, from a young age Alexander’s heart and mind resembled more that of an grown man, having taken heavy burden of crown and care for the homeland onto his fragile shoulders. His rule would be free of childish folly, because reason outweighed youth in his character. In everything he showed a maturity worthy of crowned ancestors.

On March 6, 1889, King Milan issued a declaration renouncing the throne in favor of his son, calling on the people to pledge allegiance to the new King Alexander I. Until Alexander reached adulthood, a regency consisting of three members ruled in his name.

On the 500th anniversary of the Battle of Kosovo, in 1889, the thirteen-year-old King Alexander underwent the sacred ritual of royal anointing in the church of the Žiča Monastery, performed by Metropolitan Mikhail. On that occasion, among other things, the Metropolitan said:

"May Saint Sava, who anointed and crowned the Serbian King of the Nemanjić dynasty, his brother [Stefan the First-Crowned -.ed], here at this place, bless your entrance into seven-domed Žiča and your anointing, through which heavenly blessings will descend upon you. May God grant that heavenly blessing, His grace, to sanctify your thoughts, feelings, and actions. May grace strengthen and assist your physical and intellectual development, for the joy of the holy church, the happiness of Mother Serbia, the Serbian people, the comfort of your parents, and the glory of the House of Obrenović."

The young king, led to the altar by two archbishops, loudly recited the Creed, after which Metropolitan Mikhail anointed him with holy chrism. At the Holy Liturgy that immediately followed, the newly anointed king received communion at the altar, taking the Lord's Body separately and partaking of the Precious Blood from the holy chalice as the clergy do. At the end of the Holy Liturgy, the Metropolitan delivered the second part of the sermon:

“Pious Christians!

By the grace of God, we have now completed a very important and significant holy act: we have anointed with holy chrism and consecrated with God’s grace young King Alexander as ruler of the Serbian people. God Himself commands that His anointed ones should be respected and protected: ‘Touch not My anointed ones.’ Therefore, Christians, listen to the voice of heaven and obey God’s command. The anointed ones of God are the chosen ones, the rulers whom God raises, empowers, and sanctifies to govern and lead the people according to His will and command. Know, O Serbian people:  whoever undermines the authority of the bearer of supreme power undermines, destabilizes, and destroys the foundation of the state.  The progress, security, and happiness of society are thus all endangered.”

 The Regency was more inclined towards the constitutional, parliamentary, and liberal political aspirations of that time rather than preserving the inviolable sovereignty of the Crown. Perceiving the activities of the Regency as a threat to the monarchical order, Alexander declared himself of age a year before reaching adulthood in 1893, abolished the Regency, and took power into his own hands.

After assuming power, the young king immediately faced disrespect from political parties both towards himself and the monarchical order. In the state newspaper Serbian News, he issued a statement highlighting his two fundamental principles of state-building: the principle of monarchism, which demands that the rights of the Crown be "maintained inviolate," and the interests of the state, which require that partisan passions be calmed. This interpretation of state policy quickly became the main characteristic of Alexander's political program.  His sincere service to the state and the people entailed a decisive struggle against the rampant revolutionary political actors of the time, whose main goal was to destroy precisely the monarchist principles he had established.

The king demanded that service to the state and throne be carried out without hesitation. King Alexander's state program and principles also included the establishment of complete order in the country, which was constantly disrupted by party struggles.  He insisted on the strictest legality and party impartiality in the conduct of public affairs. Discipline and obedience of officials was required through loyalty to the king, under whose supreme supervision and in whose name all state affairs were conducted. For King Alexander, state interests were fundamentally linked to monarchist principles; he believed that the original, monarchist, non-partisan governments were the only ones capable of ensuring order and functionality.

From the very beginning of his reign the king demonstrated incredible political maturity for his age. Order and peace in the country, he realized, could only be achieved through a doctrine of autocratic power.^[1] He was aware of the dangers of the anti-monarchist, liberal-democratic reforms which all political parties advocated. It was clear to him that parliamentary squabbles and party corruption were destroying the state and society.  Partisan politics had brought the country to the brink of collapse. Seeking solutions for his country’s desperate state, he carried out several coups d'état, which, from a monarchist perspective, could be more accurately described as counter-revolutions.

As we have mentioned, he declared himself of age on April 13^th, 1893, forcing the regency and government to resign.

While still a minor, during the second coup on May 21, 1894, he abolished the previous liberal constitution and reinstated the authoritarian Constitution of 1869.

In the third coup, on October 19, 1897, he came closest to the ideal of the monarchist doctrine of autocracy: sovereign power was restored to the Crown, parliamentarism was suppressed, political parties were disbanded, and the unrestrained liberal press was subjected to state control.

King Alexander intended to completely abolish economic liberalism, seeing it as servitude to foreign capital and a hindrance to further development of domestic large-scale business, which operated better with state support. He also realized that the domestic economy benefited from strict, long-term order, which only a strict monarchist order could sustain. Only strict monarchy was capable of neutralizing socialism and liberal democracy, movements which were harmful to the state and people.

Through judicial reform, he wanted to prevent judicial bias in favor of the anti-monarchist faction. This reform was necessary because up until the last coup, the lower and appellate courts had been acquitting obvious culprits. Revolutionaries, liberal politicians, editors, and owners of liberal newspapers who incited unrest by spreading liberal ideas, rumors, and slander had been able to do so without facing any consequences.

Alexander's counterrevolutionary coups were not the whims of an immature and arrogant king - as his political activity was portrayed at the time, an image propagated to this day - but the wise policy of a great statesman aimed at realizing the monarchist doctrine. This doctrine involved the elimination of constitutionalism and party-based parliamentarism.   It also included the introduction of radical reforms in the economic, military, and educational fields, which could only be fully achieved through the force of the king's executive power.

King Alexander looked to the prevailing trend in Europe at the time, in which the right-wing was returning to power with increased state centralization.  His October Program, announced on October 23, 1897, in which Serbia was to develop under the autocratic rule of the Crown without disturbances and political struggles, represented a grand attempt at the rebirth of the Serbian state.

It was because of this firm monarchism that King Alexander faced fierce attacks from Serbian political elites and media indoctrinated with revolutionary liberalism. At one point, in 1901, succumbing to pressure, he somewhat naively agreed to concessions to liberals demanding greater "political freedoms." However, shortly thereafter, he realized that when he yielded to liberal currents, the situation in the state rapidly deteriorated. Therefore, he resorted to one final coup, after which he was physically removed from power.

As an exceptionally wise autocratic ruler, Alexander believed that party-based parliamentarism was a great evil for the state and the nation. He always reiterated that he would never agree to be a ruler who was merely a figurehead. He aimed to secure for himself all the rights and prerogatives necessary for the ruler of a true monarchy. He saw the constitutional, parliamentary, democratic, and republican tendencies prevalent among much of the intelligentsia at the time as an illness that needed to be treated. It was precisely this republican-minded intelligentsia that was the spiritual creator of the atmosphere that prepared for the May Revolution and the bloody regicide.

In response to the frequent criticisms from politicians and pro-Western liberal intelligentsia who accused him of not leading Serbia on the path of progress, ie Western ideas of constitutionalism^[2], parliamentarism, liberal civil rights, emancipation, and free thought, the king replied: "We should approach the West in terms of adopting technological modernization, railways, armaments, etc., but at the same time, we should retain our national character. Serbia should remain Serbia." From this, it is clear that the king advocated for the preservation of the Serbian historical political identity, in line with the traditional values of our holy Christian faith and the state-building legacy of our sacred ancestors.

With a firm belief that he and his ancestors from the Obrenović dynasty were "rulers of the people," he matured with the conviction from an early age that he was not just a secular ruler, but a divine anointed one whose authority stemmed from God and the Church. This belief was particularly reinforced by the monarchist-leaning church hierarchy. It was precisely on this balance between the church's blessing and popular support that he based his royal worldview. In his public addresses, the king often emphasized historical continuity, the responsibility of the God-anointed ruler towards the people, and the importance of unity in achieving national progress.

He, in the fullest sense of the word, fulfilled the highest calling of the God-anointed leader, the evangelical "good shepherd" of God's people, in contrast to the anti-evangelical democratic-secular "hirelings and thieves who do not care for the sheep and come only to steal, kill, and destroy and to scatter the wolves (devil) among the sheep to plunder and scatter them." King Alexander fully resembled the Good Shepherd - the Chief Shepherd Christ, because he also "laid down his life for the sheep" (John 10:10-13), for the Serbian people entrusted to him by God.

King Alexander never even considered abdication as a way out of the boiling revolutionary political tension, as his father King Milan had done before him, and shortly after, the Russian Tsar Nicholas. He was willing to sacrifice himself and his family for the sake of loyalty to monarchist principles: the sacred, God-delegated, royal calling to govern a Christian state and God's people.

King Alexander adhered to the principle of the Nemanjić royal rule: "By the grace of God, King and Autocrat of Serbia," which unequivocally indicated that the unlimited royal authority was delegated by God. Regarding the modern, seemingly democratic addition - "and the will of the people" - he always viewed it from the perspective of monarchist dynastic right.  This phrase did not indicate the plebiscitary will of the democratic electorate, but the will of the people as a historic whole.  It was the will of the people, not as a collection of contemporaries, but as a chain of generations.  It was a link between the past and the future.  In such a vision, the Serbs as a people were faithful to the higher, eternal, divine law, which equally binds both ruler and subjects. The foundation of that law was Christian conscience.

The Bishop of Žiča, Sava Dečanac, who had a significant position in the Serbian Church at that time, was loyal to King Alexander I Obrenović.  His approving attitude towards King Alexander's autocratic rule and critical stance towards his ideological opponents were reflected in his letters to the faithful. He demonstrated sincere allegiance to the monarchist order and the "young Lord King of Serbia, Alexander I, Obrenović V" in his writings.

He sharply criticized "modern, intellectually deranged socialism, communism, and anarchism.”  Adamant as well was he against “all godless, subversive theories detrimental to faith, homeland, and national unity. These are distorted theories. Such deadly, poisonous elements shamelessly aim to level the Christian divine order church and state to its foundations."

Bishop Sava compared those who followed that path and strayed from the religious and state institutions to the Jews:  "Such individuals have severed the sacred bond with the church, with God, and with conscious human society.   They have joined the ranks of those insane Jews who wickedly cried out in the Sanhedrin and at Golgotha: 'Crucify Him, crucify Him!'"

Bishop Sava Dečanac instructed the diocesan clergy, "to use their powerful priestly voice, the voice of the word of the Lord, to suppress malice, partisanship (intense opportunistic allegiance to political parties - ed.), and individualism among the people."  Instead, they should "spread brotherly and Christian love that, through patriotic sacrifice, will contribute to the general progress of the Serbian people. They should strive for the honor and glory of the homeland, the holy church, and the Serbian King as the foremost bearer of state and national thought."

Bishop Sava's severely criticized anti-monarchist liberal social elements who spread slander against the king and queen: "By their criminal acts, they willingly go as soul-killers into the jaws of Satan, the father and creator of lies and all vices, whether in writing or orally, or by writing entire books, insulting the innocence (of the king and queen - ed.) and deceiving the innocent Christian world. They have no limits in their shameful envy, immense malice, and significant baseless lies. In both the short-term and eternal life, they will fare no better than the Jews, who not only did not receive their Savior but also crucified Him."

In his report to the Holy Hierarchical Council, Bishop Sava stated that "more and more printed books with godless content, striking at everything sacred and noble to our people, are spreading among the people, influenced by Belgrade which is tainted with foreign influences.  The fact that the people have deviated from the right path in some cases is the fault of the infamous parties and party leaders.  They are new, uninvited agents, disuniters of the people who, if they continue their work in this way, can be far more dangerous to the fate of our people than the dreadful betrayal of Kosovo once was."

Alexander I did not like to be feared by people.  He wanted to be respected and for people to be loyal to him because of monarchist principles. He made every effort to establish good direct relations with his people. Many saw his conciliatory nature as weakness. Such a lenient, peace-loving, merciful, and naive attitude towards enemies, whether they were personal, dynastic, or enemies of the monarchy, cost him his life, the collapse of monarchy, and the disappearance of the entire dynasty.

The king was a modest man, without any signs of arrogance or being puffed up by his position.  In dealing with people, he was dignified, direct, polite, natural, and likable. "Those who knew him," his contemporaries testify, "could not hate him, even when they disagreed with him on some issues." The king's movements, speech, and thoughts were quiet, composed, and correct, without any passion, zeal, or excessive emotions. As for his vices, they were nearly nonexistent.

On the other hand, he was quite distrustful of  those who surrounded him. The environment in which he had to function was mostly guided by hypocritical self-interest. Certainly, the king's attitude was influenced by the fact that his paternal great-uncle, Prince Mihailo, had been assassinated just two decades earlier.  Similarly, Alexander’s own father, King Milan, had survived at least three assassination attempts.

He believed that a ruler could have loyal subjects, but that very few rulers had sincere and loyal friends. Many considered him a pessimist because of such an outlook. However, the king denied this and claimed that he was neither a pessimist nor an optimist: "It is true that I see more dark things than bright ones, but I do not dwell on the dark ones." He explained how he carefully tried to see the "bright spots."   Even when evil seemed dominant, he tried to not let him overwhelm him, but rather, always turned his eyes "to the light shining in the darkness."

It is obvious that the pious king based his truly evangelical relationship with others on the highest Gospel teaching, in the spirit of John 1:5, “And the light shone in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not.”  In one interpretation of this verse, the holy fathers describe how most people consider the state of malicious sinners as a final obstinacy in sin, for which they a priori despise and reject them. In contrast, the Gospel teaches us a different approach: that the light - the Logos - always shines, even in the densest darkness of moral stumbling and resistance to the will of God.  Therefore, we should always strive to focus on the smallest spark of divine light even in an apparent sinner.

Clearly, then, with all of this in mind, the king endeavored to overcome his distrust of officials whose goodwill and loyalty to the Crown was questionable.  Such a struggle for trust was necessary for the sake of much-needed peace and national unity.  Demonstrating the Gospel virtue of readiness for complete and unconditional forgiveness, he often granted amnesty to his personal and dynastic opponents, even open enemies.  These same people he would appoint to high positions, reward them, and even allowed some of them to serve in his immediate vicinity. The king's attitude was his obvious response to the Gospel commandment, "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous..." (Matthew 5:45- 48).

King Alexander distinguished himself with his charitable activities, patronage of the church, science, and the arts. Out of the money allocated to him as the king's annual budget, he spent only a tenth on personal needs, while the rest he directed towards the Royal Theater, the Belgrade Reading Room, the Grand School, the Medical Society, other societies, many churches, monasteries, and royal scholarship recipients. He was a great benefactor of the Serbian Royal Academy, built many schools, hospitals, and generously gave alms to the poor.

King Alexander was the savior of the greatest Serbian holy place, Hilandar Monastery on Mt. Athos. Pictured here with the Serbian monks, 1896.

In 1896, when the Serbian Athonite monastery Hilandar was facing the threat of falling into foreign hands due to accumulated debts, the young King Alexander became its savior through his decisive action. Visiting Mount Athos as the first Serbian monarch in centuries to do so, he personally paid off all the monastery's debts, thus returning this sacred place to his people. Through this blessed act, the young king joined the ranks of the greatest Serbian benefactors, standing shoulder to shoulder with the famous Nemanjić dynasty. As a token of this historic unity, the monastery's brotherhood gave him their greatest treasure — the Miroslav Gospel — recognizing in him a worthy heir of the noble lineage and guardian of the greatest Serbian sanctuary.

Unlike his father, King Milan, Alexander was, in the traditional sense, a family man, faithful to his spouse. To his father, the prince's innate chastity seemed like a "strange lack of interest in female attractiveness."  His relationship with Draga, which almost everyone, including his parents, considered the prince's first youthful passionate adventure, was long preceded by sincere friendship more akin to platonic love.  It was first a friendship that, according to the king himself, eventually evolved into "sublime love" and unbreakable marital fidelity.  A year after getting to know Draga, the king wanted to marry her; but he had to fight for five whole years to fulfill this lofty desire.

The way Draga reciprocated the young king’s love matched her caring and patriarchal character.  It was with her that King Alexander felt the much-desired warmth of a family home for the first time. There was a strong connection between them thanks to their complementary personalities.

The king always maintained a dignified military demeanor in both attitude and behavior, in line with monarchist militaristic traditions. During all significant state events, visits, and public appearances, King Alexander always wore a military uniform adorned with a sword. He was a devout Orthodox Serb at a time when this was unfashionable.  While either a formalistic approach to religion or even atheism was already spreading among the elite in Serbia, the king regularly attended church services, celebrated his Slava (the family patron saint day), fasted, confessed, and received communion.

King Alexander I ruled the Kingdom of Serbia independently for 10 years (1893-1903), plus 4 years under the Regency (1889-1903) due to his minority. He was assassinated at the age of 26.

Royal Wedding

When the time came for the young King of Serbia to marry, negotiations began with various European and Balkan kingdoms in a search for the future Queen of Serbia.

 The Obrenovići were a new dynasty that had emerged during the Serbian uprising against the Ottomans, and therefore they were not highly regarded among European dynasties. There were only offers of princesses from secondary royal families, matches which were not favorable for the Kingdom of Serbia. There were suggestions for the young king to marry the daughter of the Montenegrin prince, but King Milan would not hear of such a thing. There was also consideration for a marriage with the Greek princess Maria, but in the meantime she married the Russian Grand Duke George.

King Milan favored an Austrian-German princess as a bride for his son. This was not a favorable solution, however because the future Queen of Serbia and her female descendants would be required to retain their Catholic or Protestant faith. The Queen Mother, on the other hand, advocated for a daughter-in-law from Russia, but the Russian Empire rejected their suits because of King Milan’s pro-Austrian stance.

In the midst of uncertainty in the choice of a bride, the king reached his twentieth year, the age at which he was expected to marry.  It was not only a dynastic but also a national issue of primary importance. Amidst the turmoil in the search for a bride, between offers, waiting, and disappointments, the young king befriended a very pleasant, charming court lady named Draga at his mother's court.  An unbreakable love blossomed from this friendship which led the young king on his own to make the firm decision to marry her.

The news of the young king's intention to marry a lady-in-waiting from the Lunjevica family met with sharp disapproval from a faction of government members, politicians, and officers who were already the king's staunch opponents due to his hard-line monarchism.  Disagreement with this choice of bride also came from the king's parents, King Milan and Queen Natalija, who wanted a Serbian queen exclusively from foreign dynasties.

We often encounter disagreements between royal parents about the choice of the heir's bride. For example, the parents of the Russian Tsar Nicholas II, Tsar Alexander III and Tsarina Maria, strongly opposed his desire to marry Princess Alix of Hesse (known in Orthodoxy as Alexandra Feodorovna). They did not approve of her lowly lineage, as the Grand Duchy of Hesse was a small and insignificant state. Nicholas's parents sought to find a bride for their heir from a more prominent European dynasty, such as France or Prussia. They also did not like Alix's personal qualities, as she was considered arrogant, phlegmatic, and even "eccentric." Queen Maria in particular was not fond of her. In light of the growing anti-German sentiment in Russian society, the military, and the court, the German origin of the heir's bride was even less welcome. They also resented her being a Lutheran.

However, the young Romanov was unwavering in his choice, showing rare persistence. Just as it would later for the young Obrenovic prince, it took the Tsaravich a full five years to prevail in his choice of a bride.  In the end, his parents, seeing their son’s determination, and perhaps influenced by Alexander III’s deteriorating health (he would soon pass away), finally gave their consent. The engagement was announced on April 1894, six years before the engagement of the Obrenović royal couple.

On the other hand, there were a significant number of influential people and officers who enthusiastically welcomed this choice.  Support eventually came from imperial Russia as well, and the young king received the church's blessing for his marriage.

All of this is omitted by various historians and memoir writers from that time, who claim that all contemporaries were supposedly against the king's marriage to an Orthodox Serbian woman.  They blame his choice of a bride as main cause of dissatisfaction that resulted in the regicide. Such claims deliberately pass over the fact that Prince Miloš the Great’s wife was a Serbian woman, Princess Ljubica Vukomanović, as was Prince Nikola I Petrović’s wife, Princess Milena Vukotić, but this was not held against them.

Furthermore, if one looks at press articles at the time, it is clear that there were many who were against a royal marriage to a foreigner and heterodox. Let us remember the strong public resistance Prince Mihailo faced regarding his marriage to the Hungarian Princess Julia Hunyadi. Even the choice of King Milan's bride, Natalija Keshko, did not receive public approval.

On the other hand, in the press of that time, we can find reports that Belgrade enthusiastically welcomed the king's chosen bride. The bonfires and celebrations organized in Belgrade in honor of the king's engagement, like no other seen before, evidenced public approval.  Thousands of Belgraders participated in the bonfires, giving this event a popular character.  A large crowd cheered enthusiastically at every appearance of Draga the royal bride.

Almost all influential diplomats in the Kingdom of Serbia expressed positive opinions about the king's chosen bride. They observed that Draga was well received in all refined diplomatic circles of the capital.  She received visits from all diplomats, generals, ministers, and senior officials.

The main support for the marriage to Draga, however, came from the Russian Tsar Nicholas II, who even became the official wedding sponsor (Godfather) for the Obrenovic royal couple.  Recognition and congratulations for the royal couple's wedding also came from  Austrian Emperor Franz Joseph and German Emperor Wilhelm. The imperial sponsorship and support from the most influential European rulers signified approval for deviating from strict conventionality in the choice of the king's fiancée (i.e., entering into a so-called morganatic marriage).  Such support indicated that there would not be negative consequences for the reputation of the Serbian royal house or the international position of the state.

King Alexander's idea to take a Serbian Orthodox woman as the Serbian queen was visionary. St. Nikolai Velimirović himself, in his Zička Constitution, saw such a decision as necessary for the revival of the Serbian people: "The king must marry a Serbian Orthodox woman."

Queen Draga Obrenović

The aristocracy of the Kingdom of Serbia traces its origins back to the village chieftains of the anti-Ottoman uprisings in Serbia. From these villages emerged the modern Serbian dynasties of Obrenović and Karađorđević. During the Turkish rule, all the inhabitants of Serbia, except for Jews, Greeks, and Turks, were country folk. The emergence of a new aristocracy from the rural population began at the end of the 18th and the beginning of the 19th century. Intermarrying among these families gave birth to a higher social class in liberated Serbia.

Draga Lunjevića, according to this new class distribution in Serbian society, was not an ordinary citizen or peasant. She came from the noble and respected Lunjevica family, who were blood brothers with Prince Miloš the Great, and the princely-voivode family of Čarapić. Also, her maternal great-grandfather was Prota Janko Mihailović Moler from Negrišor, a renowned leader of the uprisings and iconographer who famously killed the Turkish Pasha Hussein in the battle of Rtari. Therefore, her folk-aristocratic lineage gave her the right to be the royal bride of the people's dynasty. By such logic, her marriage union with King Alexander was in fact not morganatic, i.e., illegitimate.

Queen Draga was born on September 26, 1886, the feast of the Conception of St. John the Baptist, according to the Old Calendar, in Gornji Milanovac. The feast on which she was born carries deep symbolism in context of the rumors that Queen Draga was barren. The feast of the Conception of St. John the Baptist celebrates the miracle and grace of God towards the devout, righteous, but barren parents of St. John the Baptist.  The elder Zechariah and his wife Elizabeth prayed fervently their whole lives for a child, and were rewarded for their faith towards the end of their lives with a child.  This event is celebrated on the feast of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist - Ivandan. There are many such miracles in church history, from Isaac born to the childless Sarah, to Samson born to the childless Manoah and his wife, the Most Holy Mother of God born to the childless Anna, and many other servants of God who were granted children in such a way by God.

Upon completing elementary school, her father enrolled Draga in the most prestigious women's higher education institution at the time - the Higher Women's Institute in Belgrade, where she studied religion, history, music education (she played the piano perfectly), German, and French for four years.

Against her will, but in patriarchal obedience to her father Pantelej, at age seventeen Draga entered into her first marriage to the engineer Svetozar Mašin. After three years he passed away, leaving her a widow.

Upon returning to the family home after the repose of her parents, she was forced to support her younger siblings on her own, working as a translator and journalist. She was one of the main writers for the magazine Domaćica, (“Homemaker”), which was published under the patronage of Queen Natalija.

Slander as a Weapon of Revolution 

During this period of her life, there were rumors about her alleged immorality. It must be taken into account that in the then still very patriarchal Serbia, it was considered inappropriate for a woman to engage in professions such as journalism. Gossip criticized her for moving in public "without a guardian" and for being "too open and communicative." Her intellectual and physical attractiveness, along with her refined manners, attracted the attention of men, causing envy and jealousy among women.

The petty gossip of Belgrade ladies, mostly wives of high-ranking state officials, politicians, and generals, was intensified by liberal politicians and journalists when the young king chose Draga as his bride. The gossip escalated into a dirty slanderous campaign of huge proportions. Such ugly campaigns have always been a prelude to revolution. Revolutionaries spread them among the people to tarnish the reputation of the king, queen, or royal family in order to shake the love and loyalty of their faithful subjects.

The sort of gossip and slander that were spread against the last Russian Empress Alexandra Feodorovna in the aristocratic salons of St. Petersburg before the revolution of 1917, mentioned by the French ambassador Georges Maurice Paleologue, had already been heard in Paris before the revolution of 1789. Bernard Fay (1893–1978), a French historian known for his conservative and anti-revolutionary views, author of significant works on the French Revolution, wrote, "In the gilded Parisian salons, sharp-tongued ladies spread their hatred towards Queen Marie Antoinette; In all clubs, cafes, shops, and public places, they engaged in blackening the queen's reputation.

Let us compare two examples of slanderous campaigns, one preceding the French Revolution, and one proceeding the October (Russian) Revolution.   Revolutionary propaganda relentlessly bombarded the French Queen Marie Antoinette, the wife of the last autocratic French king Louis XVI.  They painted her as a woman of loose morals, a spendthrift, and a gambler; it was said that she was barren because she had not given birth to children until the seventh year of marriage (although she eventually had four). She was falsely accused of various affairs, such as in the necklace affair.  A false statement was attributed to her regarding a bread shortage in Paris: "if they have no bread, let them eat cake," and so on.  Empress Alexandra, the wife of the last Russian Tsar Nicholas II, was subjected to similar treatment. She was also claimed to be a spendthrift, unable to bear a heir (although she eventually gave birth to one after ten years), a foreign agent, a traitor to Russia, in an adulterous relationship with Rasputin, and so on. Both of these women were the exact opposite of these vile slanders. They were honorable and wise wives and consorts, distinguished by their elevated morality. They were both unusually pious and loyal to traditional family values for the women of that time. They were deeply empathetic towards the suffering people of their people, and even though they were both foreigners, they deeply loved their adopted country.

Renowned Russian White émigré Vladimir Rudnev wrote the following about the phenomenon of revolutionary slander: "Of all forms of political struggle, there is no weapon as base yet powerful as slander; ideological propaganda against the authorities can be fought with the same ideological means; a conspiracy can be uncovered; a rebellion can be suppressed, but how to stop the effects of planned, systematic slander, supported by the press, parliament, and a thousand-fold crowd?"

As a young widow, Draga was highly respected in the high circles of Serbian society, so much so that Queen Natalija chose her as her first lady-in-waiting. This fact, in itself, refutes rumors about her immoral life, as the queen's lady-in-waiting was expected to be impeccable in life and moral standing, especially in such a small community as the then-capital of the Kingdom of Serbia, Belgrade.  Well-intentioned contemporaries also recall that though she could be open and communicative, by nature she was modest, reserved, and shy. Her elegant yet unobtrusive way of dressing reflected her personality.

As a lady-in-waiting to Queen Natalija and a court lady, Draga perfected her knowledge of foreign languages, as well as behavior suitable to the level of the highest nobility of European royal courts.

God's providence sometimes allows great calamities to befall the righteous in order to glorify them even more. Overcoming adversity most powerfully reflects the glory of God and the glory of the righteous. This is what happened to the royal couple. In the midst of their greatest joy in life, news of the queen's blessed condition, a dark and insidious cloud of horrifying slander loomed over them.

In addition to enduring the usual malicious rumors about her alleged immorality, Queen Draga had to face a new, much greater attack - an accusation of supposedly faking her pregnancy. The fabricated scandal of the queen's 'false pregnancy' shook the entire Kingdom and caused great mental suffering to the royal couple. What really happened here?

The slanderous campaign of the "false pregnancy", with strong journalistic and political support, was conducted to discredit the queen's character. A scientifically proven clinical phenomenon was exploited for this purpose. As is known, clinical false pregnancy is characterized by very convincing symptoms identical to a real pregnancy, such as the absence of menstruation, nausea, breast enlargement, the sensation of fetal movement, abdominal enlargement, and cravings.  False pregnancy has been known since ancient times and medically could not be confirmed often until just before the "delivery" when it becomes evident that there is no baby and there never was.

Modern medicine also encounters such cases, although this phenomenon is now detected in time using ultrasound. The queen's real pregnancy symptoms, after just under a year of marriage, to the joy of the royal couple and the entire nation, were diagnosed by the highly esteemed court physician from Paris, Dr. Kole.  Sometime later, the Russian physician Snegirev, who came to confirm Dr. Kole's findings, concluded that it was a case of clinical "false pregnancy" with the possibility that the pregnancy had started but was terminated for some reason.  From this diagnosis, so painful and disappointing for the royal couple, the slanderous clique constructed perhaps the biggest scandal of that time.

The announcement of the queen's pregnancy was not a malicious lie, but rather a series of unfortunate circumstances that hostile journalists and politicians eagerly seized upon. Through malicious interpretation and a media campaign, they used this case to discredit the royal couple, with bizarre insinuations that the queen, being infertile, staged the pregnancy to pass off someone else's child as her own. However, renowned European and Russian gynecologists, after examining the queen, left Serbia with the conclusion that the royal couple could expect offspring in the future.^[3]

 

King Alexander and Queen Draga

The Pious Royal Couple

            After their grand wedding ceremony at the Cathedral Church in Belgrade in 1900, the royal couple embarked on their first official tour of the country to introduce themselves jointly to their subjects. They were welcomed everywhere with great enthusiasm: thousands of jubilant people greeted them along every stretch of the road. The king and queen had direct encounters with the people, who made it clear that they were loyal to the crown until death and that the royal rulers could fully rely on the support of the entire nation. The people addressed Alexander as "Your Majesty" and often kissed his hand out of great respect. The king greeted the people with the traditional Serbian greeting, "God help you!" to which they responded, "God help you, Your Majesty!"

            During the official appearances of the royal couple in public, the queen never gave any speeches, thus giving patriarchal precedence to her husband. Instead, she demonstrated her connection with the people through individual, kind conversations with all social strata of the population, by exchanging gifts, and engaging in extensive charitable activities. She helped impoverished families, funded medical care for patients who could not afford it themselves, and spearheaded the construction of a large state hospital in Vračar, which was called "Queen Draga's Hospital" in her honor.  She paid tuition fees for gifted students studying abroad, and performed many other acts of charity.

            Queen Draga had a special fondness for art and cultural creativity, which she generously supported in an unusually lavish manner for her time. She not only honored artists for their merits but also provided financial assistance to poets, writers, painters, sculptors, and actors. Additionally, she financially supported the work of cultural magazines.

            It is worth mentioning the event when the residents of the three villages in the Pomoravlje District at the time - Dubnica, Volujak, and Puljci - out of love for the queen decided to unite the villages under her name. The Council of Ministers of the Kingdom of Serbia, based on the king's decision in November 1900, joyfully named the newly formed settlement "Dragovo" to the delight of the residents of these three villages.

            In her interactions with the people, Queen Draga often gathered children around her, to whom she paid special attention. During one such encounter, she embraced a girl named Anka, who proudly proclaimed in her later years that meeting the queen was "the most beautiful memory of her life."

            The people respected the monarchist hierarchy in society, assigning a privileged and elevated position to the royal couple, while seeing themselves as loyal subjects. The king and queen were given the role of protectors of the national destiny, creating a deep emotional bond between them and the people. The royal couple was not just a symbol of abstract state power but also the personal protectors of every individual, thus confirming the paternal figure of the ruler.

            King Alexander particularly emphasized these experiences and impressions with the people as the main factor for the stability of the Serbian Kingdom with the Obrenović dynasty at its helm.

            The great kindness and warmth of the people towards their native and national queen were evident. Queen Draga was considered a symbol of virtue, care for the people, and the embodiment of the renewal of Serbian statehood.  Her presence contributed to peace in the royal household, and thus, in the state. The marital happiness of the royal couple was important for the entire country. The people attached special importance to the queen's lineage from the Lunjevica family.

            In their personal, everyday needs, the royal couple was frugal.  Descriptions of extravagant and wasteful living in the household of the last Obrenovic king were tendentiously served to the public both before and after the May Revolution in order to tarnish the reputation of the murdered royal couple.

            The New Palace (now called the Old Palace and housing the National Assembly of Belgrade), built by King Milan, can be said to have had the characteristics of a royal residence, but one that suited the rank of a small Balkan royal dynasty.  Its halls, salons, grand dining room, and rooms were luxuriously furnished with gilded foreign-style furniture covered in silk or leather, expensive crystal chandeliers, Saxon porcelain services, enameled tiles in the bathrooms, and so on.

            In that representative palace, King Alexander and Queen Draga never lived, nor spent time. It was used only for grand ceremonies and the most important receptions. The royal couple actually lived in a building known as the Old Konak. This royal residence, according to one Russian journalist, resembled more of an ordinary, tastefully-furnished civilian house than a royal palace. During public celebrations, the queen stood out for her particular modesty by often refusing to sit at the main table, where her majesty was supposed to sit, and instead sat among the other guests.

The “Old Konak” the royal residence and scene of the murder of the last Obrenovići. A postcard circa 1901.

            Queen Draga insisted on frugality in organizing life at the court. After receiving several high bills from Viennese shops, she abolished the court stewardship, the administration responsible for supplying the court, and established personal control over all purchases. She deprived the daily royal table of many luxurious, mostly foreign foods.

            It is interesting to note that the queen managed the royal household according to Serbian customs. For family celebrations, she prepared the serving herself with the help of the servants. She simplified everyday life in the royal court to such an extent that some opponents of the royal couple began to disapprove of how, during her time, the court had lost its former splendor and elegance.  All this was not a result of her lack of sophistication or incompetence in the role of queen. On the contrary, before ascending to the throne, as a lady-in-waiting to Queen Natalija, she was familiar with the life and rules of imperial and royal courts throughout Europe and Russia down to the smallest details. Rather, this simplicity was a reflection of her humble, Christian personality.  On the other hand, in the presentation of the royal court at public ceremonies and official receptions, the protocol and ceremonial rules remained unchanged.  In this regard the queen followed the examples of her predecessors.

            The king and queen rarely walked through the city themselves, but they loved to visit Košutnjak, which was then a dense forest and the private hunting ground of the Obrenović dynasty. They went there not for hunting or sports, as neither the king nor the queen engaged in such activities, but for walks in the forest and fresh air. They always made a point of visiting the place where Prince Mihailo was assassinated and prayed before the memorial cross. The queen planned on building a memorial chapel at the site of Prince Mihailo's assassination, but her premature death prevented her from realizing that plan.

            Queen Draga allocated significant funds for churches and monasteries, generously gifting them with valuable donations.

            It is known that in the royal court, apart from the chapel, there were over 30 valuable icons adorned with golden or silver frames and several candlesticks, with 6 icons in the royal couple's bedroom. In the adjacent auxiliary room, there were 16 icons. This small auxiliary room is the space where the royal couple spent the last hours of their lives. Among the icons, a small icon of the Holy Mother of God adorned with gold, pearls, and precious stones stood out for its beauty. This icon, as a prominent court relic, was given special reverence. All these relics, as well as gifts from various monasteries, especially from the Hilandar Monastery, including the handwritten Miroslav Gospel, were looted and sold at European auctions shortly after the assassination of the royal couple.

            The icon known as the "Dvorska Bogorodica" (Our Lady of the Court) is the only known preserved icon of the Obrenović royal couple, out of the lost 36 painted icons from the royal court (Stari Konak) in Belgrade, which was demolished in 1904 by order of King Peter I Karađorđević.

            This family icon, a silent witness to the regicide, foreshadowed the martyrdom of the royal couple in its mystical representation. It was an icon of the Mother of God (17th century),  of the typed called "the Passion," featuring an angel foreshadows the saving sufferings of Christ.  In light of the fate that befell the royal couple, it is more than symbolic.

            The icon depicts the Mother of God with a sorrowful expression on her face calmly looking at the Archangel Gabriel who, with bowed head, reverently shows the symbols of Christ's sufferings: the cross, spear, and sponge on a reed.  The Christ Child in her arms also gazes at the symbols of suffering, blessing them with his right hand.  Resting on his knee in his left hand he holds an orb, ie a globe with a cross (Latin: Globus crucifer)^[4] symbolizing the Christian imperial power.

            Queen Draga was even more devoted to the Church and the Faith than her royal spouse, and according to contemporary accounts, she exerted a strong religious influence on him. With her presence in the royal household, fasting practices were introduced that had been neglected or shortened before her arrival. The queen said daily prayers in front of the household icons.  During extraordinary life circumstances of great challenges and temptations, her fervent prayers lasted throughout the day, often late into the night.

            In her memoirs, her youngest sister Ana states that the queen was very pious, and that even in the most difficult circumstances, she never complained to God, but always diligently knelt down, offering long prayers.

            King Alexander always carried a small pocket icon of the Most Holy Mother of God with Christ. It was not uncommon for him to take it out of his pocket in the presence of others, especially in moments when he sought confirmation of their loyalty to the Crown from his associates.

            For all major holidays and their family patron saint day (the Serbian “Slava”) of St. Nicholas, the royal couple received communion, following a several-day preparation through fasting and prayer. During visits to various monasteries where the relics of saints are kept, the royal couple did not hesitate, as rulers, to kneel down and pray before the relics of the saints.

            Prayers and expressions of gratitude were a regular, significant part of their lives. The public display of piety by the royal couple was certainly a reflection of their personal devotion, as well as a demonstration of the connection between the Church and Crown.

            As the monastery’s modern-day savior and benefactor, King Alexander  donated to Hilandar, among other valuable gifts, a processional banner with two faces: royal and ecclesiastical.  The banner was made of red silk richly embroidered with gold and silk of various colors. On the royal side, there is the coat of arms of the Obrenović dynasty with the royal order of St. Prince Lazar with a crossed scepter and sword, symbols of royal authority. On the ecclesiastical side, the full figures of St. Simeon and St. Sava are embroidered, holding a model of the Hilandar Monastery church.  Surrounding them are busts of four rulers, benefactors of Hilandar: King Uroš, King Milutin, Emperor Dušan, and Prince Lazar. This banner, a masterpiece of artistic embroidery, adorns the narthex of St. Milutin in the main church of Hilandar to this day.

            During their frequent pilgrimages to monasteries, the royal couple always brought generous gifts. They contributed not only significant monetary sums, but also various precious, carefully selected, exquisitely-crafted liturgical items. On one occasion, they gifted the Studenica Monastery with a gold-embroidered cover for the tomb of Saint Simeon. This exceptional piece of ecclesiastical art (preserved to this day) features embroidery of Saint Simeon holding a model of the Studenica Monastery in his hands, with a dedicatory inscription below: "In Christ God, the gracious King Alexander the First and the most Christ-loving Queen Lady Draga offered this in 1901."

            On that occasion, Bishop Sava of Žiča and Dečani said: "Rejoice, Serbian Jerusalem, for you have been visited by the fifth Obrenović, the heir of the Nemanjići, on whom shines the crown of the First-Crowned,^[5]  with his queen.  Therefore, let all the Orthodox faithful who love this Sion of the Serbian people [Studenica] and its founders rejoice, for the curse of Kosovo has been absolved with the rebirth of the Nemanjić dynasty in the persons of the great and blessed Obrenovići."

            The Obrenović royal couple attached exceptional importance to the Žiča Monastery, the cradle of the first Serbian archbishopric and the centuries-old coronation church of Serbian rulers. Despite centuries of destruction, the church never lost its powerful symbolism. With the proclamation of Serbia as a Kingdom in 1882, Žiča was once again elevated to the rank of the official coronation church, a status solemnly confirmed by the anointing of King Alexander Obrenović in 1889. The significance of this sanctuary was further emphasized by the initiatives of King Milan, which included both the thorough renovation of the monastery and the renaming of the Užice Eparchy to the Žiča Eparchy.  In the royal endeavors of King Alexander and Queen Draga, Žiča held a central place as a living symbol of the glorious Nemanjić tradition. The royal favor was best illustrated by a special decree that institutionalized the ongoing care of the monastery with a law for its comprehensive renovation and maintenance.

            In addition to his noble and historic act of saving Hilandar, becoming its second sponsor after the Nemanjići, King Alexander was the first initiator of the construction of the grand memorial church of Saint Sava on Vračar.  In 1894, he issued a decree to build a new large church on the foundations of a small church dedicated to Saint Sava.  Then, in 1899, a law was passed to establish the Society for the Erection of the Cathedral of Saint Sava on Vračar.  A year later, on the day of their engagement (July 8), Alexander and Draga donated a significant sum of dinars in gold, with which the construction of the Saint Sava Church in Belgrade began. During their reign, they renovated Žiča, Studenica, and many other monasteries and churches. Overall, they were exceptionally zealous in the restoration and endowment of churches and monasteries.

            Queen Draga greatly respected Serbian traditions.  For the celebration of the foundation of the kingdom, she had a carefully designed dress, inspired by Serbian medieval queens and empresses, sewn for her. The dress was her personal design, inspired during her frequent stays at Serbian monasteries.

Queen Draga in her festive medieval queen’s gown

            The Queen’s adherence to tradition was not merely a fashion statement for the cameras, but a genuine return to the highest values of Serbian statehood.  She wore her historical dress at celebrations of the kingdom's founding, during liturgies on major religious holidays, and at court balls.

            Liberal newspapers criticized this sincere intention of the queen to emphasize continuity with Serbian medieval tradition as a reactionary return to the “dark” Middle Ages.  If that failed to influence their readers people, they would paint it as a sort of elitism aimed at allegedly separating the nobility from the common people, along with other, similar accusations.

 

Regicide

            From the beginning of their life together in Belgrade, the royal couple had no peace. The specter of the democratic anti-monarchist revolution was becoming increasingly terroristic. Constant political upheavals, unrest, and the struggle of political parties led by Pašić's Radicals against the monarchical authority of the sovereign openly called for a popular uprising against the Obrenović monarchy.  There was a revolutionary struggle to establish a progressive, legalistic, and democratic civil state of Serbia. The goal was allegedly to give the people sovereignty through a constitution with the “will of the people” being implemented through representatives in parliament. They wanted to establish a secular authority that did not stem from God through the church's anointing of rulers, but solely from the people: "The people are the source and origin of power in the state." 

The revolutionary anti-monarchist conspiracy took on frightening proportions. With few exceptions of people who remained loyal to him, who were convinced monarchists, faithful subjects of the crown and dynasty, the king became surrounded by politicians and officers poisoned by the ideas of parliamentarianism and democracy.

            Fourteen years after these events in Serbia, Russian Tsar Nicholas II faced similar challenges in a similar situation. The betrayal of the Grand Dukes of the Romanov House^[6] and other high officials forced the Tsar to abdicate. Then a Provisional Government was established composed of liberals and socialists advocating for the creation of a democratically-elected executive and Constituent Assembly. This eventually led to the abolition of the monarchy, the declaration of Russia as a republic, and the establishment of the bloody Bolshevik dictatorship. The nobility, members of the parliament (State Duma), and high military command played a key role in implementing the first stage of the revolution. This state of affairs in the country was preceded by the loss of authority and prestige of the Tsar, especially in officer circles and the military in general, caused by rumors about "debauched Rasputin," "the evil German Empress," and "weak and indecisive Tsar."

            The similarities between King Alexander I Obrenović and Tsar Nicholas II Romanov are numerous.  Both of their reigns coincided with enormous social upheavals and growing revolutionary movements. They were both deeply conservative rulers dedicated to the principles of autocracy.  Both opposed democratic reforms, which ultimately led to their deaths, terrible murders carried out in an almost identical, unprecedentedly brutal, and quasi-ritualistc fashion.  They were extremely devoted to their families, showing them great care and protection in their private lives. Official liberal historiography views them as autocratic monarchs whose removal brought so-called political freedoms to Serbia and Russia. We, on the other hand, see them as victims of a revolutionary Judaeo-Masonic conspiracy, as heroes, and as martyrs (Tsar Nicholas was canonized as a martyr by the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad in 1981).

Anonymous threatening letters, public slanders, insults, death threats, and actual assassination attempts of the royal couple due to their rejection of liberal reforms were an integral part of the environment in which the modern Serbian kingdom found itself at the turn of the 19th to the 20th century.

            This was not the first time that the Obrenović dynasty had encountered anti-monarchist revolutionary ideology.  As the first modern king of Serbia, King Milan wrestled with the demon of revolution throughout his seven-year reign. Then his young son Alexander inherited the seething cauldron of political unrest. Before them, their predecessors Prince Miloš the Great and Prince Mihailo had also grappled with revolutionary ideas advocating for limitations on princely authority, constitutionalism, and liberalism. Prince Mihailo was assassinated by revolutionaries.

            The rumor of a conspiracy among the officers reached the royal couple, but they dismissed it as malicious gossip. The extreme innocence of the royal couple in such matters reflected the words of St. Ignatius Brianchaninov:

"It is characteristic of sanctity not to think evil of one's neighbor; it is characteristic of sanctity to consider that even the most suspicious and obvious evildoers are not as evil as they actually are. Indeed, we see that many holy people have not allowed themselves to be deceived by obvious sin: they were deceived by their great love, their trust in their neighbors."

            Around 60 officers from Belgrade and the interior regions were involved in the conspiracy against the king and queen, closely collaborating with Pašić's radicals. One of the main centers of the conspirators abroad was Zurich, Switzerland, where Peter Karadjordjević also resided. Zurich was a gathering place for international revolutionaries; Lenin himself stayed there the most often.

            Peter Karadjordjević was an eminent liberal and revolutionary in a period when monarchies and monarchism dominated. He advocated for democracy and liberalism. He became known for translating into Serbian the liberal doctrine "On Liberty" by the founder of modern Judaeo-Masonic liberalism, John Stuart Mill, writing an enthusiastic preface for it. Politically, he was a republican. After the destruction of the Obrenović dynasty, he did not want to become king but rather the president of a Serbian republic. This information is mentioned in his most comprehensive biography by academician Dragoljub Zivojinović.  According to King Peter I himself, his father-in-law, Montenegrin King Nikola Petrović, once called him an anarchist during a dispute over freedom of the press due to his liberal views. King Nikola, as a staunch monarchist, was a sworn opponent of liberalism.

            From Zurich, Peter Karadjordjević worked tirelessly  against the Obrenović dynasty. The most ruthless articles were those in his illegal newspaper "Topola," which openly hinted at the shedding of royal blood because "the people can no longer tolerate the Obrenovići." He admitted to spending over a million francs on various attempts to overthrow the rival dynasty. When the conspirators were deciding on the fate of the royal couple, one of the organizers and political leaders of the regicide, Minister Genčić, asked the conspirators to abandon the idea of exile and proceed with the assassination plan because, as he stated, Peter Karadjordjević, the candidate for the new king, insisted on it.

            Revolution does not choose random dates for the murder of its enemies. The date chosen for the assassination of Alexander and Draga was May 29 (June 11 in the new calendar), the day in 1453 when Constantinople fell, marking the end of the Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Empire.  According to widely accepted opinion, the fall of Byzantium marked the end of the Middle Ages and the beginning of the modern era. On that same day, 35 years before the murder of Alexander and Draga, another anointed Obrenović ruler, the pious Prince Michael (Knez Mihailo) had also been brutally assassinated.

            On the eve of the regicide, the royal couple retired to their chambers earlier than usual. They went to bed early because the following day was the anniversary of the murder of Prince Michael, for whom a memorial service would be served in the Cathedral Church.

Queen Draga Obrenović

            That evening, at the royal court, the queen's sisters had dinner with the king and queen. Before they parted ways, something very strange happened.  After dinner, all of the sudden the queen's older sister, Christina, noticed a strange change on the queen's face. This mystical event was detailed in the exile memoirs of the queen's youngest sister, Ana: "The mercy of the Almighty is only provided for good people after their death. And the more horrific the death, the greater their bliss in comparison!  The history of martyrs is full of their premonitions of subsequent, future bliss.  The queen herself must have experienced such a premonition only a few hours before her dreadful death. As she sat in front of a large mirror combing her hair, it was as if all of the sudden she was transfigured.  An unusual beauty shone on her face.  Such an otherworldly radiance suddenly came over her that the queen seemed strange to even to herself. Smiling, amazed by her extraordinarily beautiful appearance, she turned to Sissy (Christina) and asked her: 'Don't you find, Sis, that I look completely different than usual?'  Sis also noticed the transformation in the mirror and, suspecting nothing, rejoiced in her wonderful appearance.  It makes one wonder: did the queen's soul prophetically rejoice in her unexpected martyr's death, through which she would receive mercy?! Who can know all the secrets from the world beyond?"

            That same evening, at the same time, about 500 meters away from the court, at the Officers' House tavern (today's Student Cultural Center), the conspirators were merrily drinking, sadistically delighting in requesting "Queen Draga's March" to be played over and over.  After midnight, precisely at 1:45 am, Captain Dragutin Dimitrijević, nicknamed “Apis^[7],” gave the command to move. They headed towards the court.

            At the same time, military units from various directions arrived and surrounded the royal court, along with a full battery of cannons.  Most soldiers did not know the true reason for the siege of the court.

            Here it should be emphasized that all "factual" knowledge regarding the May Revolution and the regicide is based on the works of Dragiša Vasić, "1903" (first edition in 1925), and Slobodan Jovanović, "The Reign of King Alexander Obrenović" (first edition in 1936).  Both of these works are considered by Serbian post-revolutionary historiography as the most significant objective sources of information dealing with this topic and are used as the basis for understanding the atmosphere, causes, and consequences of the May coup d’etat.

            However, the works of Vasić and Jovanović cannot serve as objective sources due to their pronounced ideological bias. The authors were part of a political circle that actively opposed Orthodox autocracy, openly advocating democratic principles and parliamentarianism.

            Therefore, as ideological participants of the May Revolution, they present only the facts that support their political stance. They interpret all events tendentiously in line with their ideological beliefs. Subsequently their works cannot be considered entirely objective, reliable, and relevant sources of information.  On the contrary, their works are a propagandistic tool created for the manipulative purposes of shaping historical consciousness and narratives. Their goals were justifying regicide, the May Revolution, and the overthrow of the Obrenović dynasty by demonizing them. Of course, the ultimate goal was to legitimize the new revolutionary authority.

            The trusted guard lieutenant Petar Živković, who was later revealed to be a homosexual, and who rapidly advanced under the Karađorđevići to become the Minister of Defense and Prime Minister after the regicide, was tasked with opening the gate of the court for the conspirators at precisely 2 o'clock in the morning.

             The conspirators blew up the heavy gates of the royal court with dynamite. In the conflicts with the external and internal palace guards who were not involved in the conspiracy, many people were killed, including Captain Jovan Miljković, the king's loyal aide who bravely opposed the conspirators. On the conspirators' side, during this shootout, Lieutenant Colonel Naumović was killed.

            Logically, the surrounded Court, with a large number of soldiers, the explosion, and the exchange of gunfire would have awakened the royal couple.  They may have been awakened by the guards inside the Court. Such a violent intrusion of the conspirators into the Court would not have left the king with the slightest doubt about their intentions. Therefore, it is impossible for the king to have surrendered to them, asking them to swear allegiance to him beforehand. This is precisely what the conspirators themselves confirm: "The king could not doubt that death itself had entered his Court and was seeking him..."

            The intrusion of the conspirators into the Court was met with resistance from the internal palace guards. In this shootout at the very beginning, even Apis himself was seriously wounded. Undoubtedly, he was one of the first to enter the Court, wanting to take the lead in the act of regicide.

            The king's first aide-de-camp, General Lazar Petrović, was taken alive by the conspirators during the conflict. Being loyal to the king, Petrović, like the Russian hero Ivan Susanin^[8], bought time by leading the conspirators around the entire court, pretending to search for the supposedly hidden royal couple, all the while hoping that help would come. Even under the threat of death, perhaps even torture, he did not betray his master to the end. When the king and queen were finally found, he wounded one of the conspirators with a hidden revolver, after which he was killed.

            Since we only have the conspirator’s account of the events that night at the court, we treat the official narrative with extreme skepticism. There could be two other scenarios of the encounter between the conspirators and the royal couple. The first scenario is that the king, being warned of the conspiracy against him and the possibility of rebels breaking into the court, strengthened the palace guard. He might well have personally checked every evening if the entrance gates of the court were locked. In all likelihood he would have had a revolver with him, with which he would have joined the royal guard’s resistance to the conspirators. In this scenario, he would have defended himself and the queen.  At the same time he would have been defending the monarchy, dynasty, and state. This confrontation lasted until the conspirators, being more numerous, overpowered him.

            The second possibility is that the king's peacefully submitted himself to the will of God.  In this case he would have consciously surrendered himself and the queen to martyrdom. He could have made this decision convinced that his reign, due to revolutionary upheavals, had lost support in his closest circle,  even though these important political figures had all sworn allegiance to him on the holy Gospel. Like the Russian martyr Tsar Nicholas, he could have acknowledged the bitter reality of the desperate and hopeless state of his reign: "Everywhere around me there is betrayal, cowardice, and deceit!"  In this scenario, the royal couple could indeed have secluded themselves in a secret room with 16 icons hanging on the walls. In this small prayer cell the king and queen might have waited in fervent prayer, preparing themselves for martyrdom.

            Of course, in the official version of the regicides, the king is portrayed as a weak coward who hid in his pajamas with the queen, and when discovered, "trembling with fear" begged the conspirators for mercy. We consider this version of events to be nothing more than a notorious revolutionary insinuation aimed at disgracing the king’s memory as much as possible.

In any case, when the royal couple found themselves face to face with the conspirators possessed by the evil spirit of revolution, they were murdered in the most brutal way possible. According to the autopsy findings of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, 12 bullets were fired: six into the king's chest and five into the queen's chest and stomach (one bullet was found on the floor).

Before he fell to the ground, the king made the sign of the cross. The queen fell after him. Then a bloody satanic ritual began. The perjured officers with their sabers and daggers cut and pierced the bodies of the still-living royal martyrs. During the butchering of the royal bodies, the officers stripped them, stomped them, kicked and scorned them. They cut off the king’s ear and a few fingers, pierced his eyes, disfigured his face, and smashed his teeth. The queen was subjected to even greater cruelties and humiliation.  They slashed her face, cut off her breasts, cut open her stomach, and as the pinnacle of the satanic ritual, rammed their sabers into her reproductive organ (per the testimony of Major Dobrivoje Lazarević, “The Murderers of the Serbian Nation”, Lausanne 1917).           

The naked and unrecognizably mutilated bloody royal bodies were then wrapped in big velvet curtains and thrown out of the window from the second floor of the Stari Konak (The Old Inn). It was announced to all those present that the “tyrant” was dead. Down on the pavement, the rest of the insane conspirators continued to butcher the royal bodies. In multiple sources there are  claims of witnesses that the king and queen had continued to give signs of life, “that they struggled against death” until the conspirators threw them from the second floor to the pavement. One of the conspirators who was standing in the courtyard that night, Col. Mika Živanović, , committed suicide after seeing the bloody horrors that were visited upon the royal couple. According to the king’s valet, the soldiers who were guarding the palace that night from the outside, who had been deceived by their superiors, disarmed, and locked in the court’s stables, wept inconsolably for the king and queen.

The revolutionaries paraded the severed breasts of the queen and her severed reproductive organ on their sabers decorated with flowers through the main streets of Belgrade, chanting: “Long live freedom” and “Long live the republic”.  Laza Kostić witnesses to this in the French newspaper Figaro, saying, “not only did they cut them up with sabers and axes and throw them out of the window like that, but they ran through the city with the queen’s crotch pierced on tip of a saber.” One of the regicides took the severed breasts of the queen as a trophy. Later he would show that dried piece of human flesh to his friends and boast about his role in the murder.

After the gruesome regicide, the conspirators’ attention turned to the belongings of their victims. They looted everything that they could get their hands on, starting with money and jewelry. Then they moved on to the queen’s dresses and undergarments. Immediately after the regicide in May, some of the conspirators even built two-story houses with the looted wealth from the palace. Many important historical valuables disappeared from the palace during that looting, including the Miroslav Gospel and the saber of Prince Miloš encrusted with gold and precious stones.

Reflecting upon the butchering of the limbs of the long-suffering royal spouses, we are reminded of the martyrdom of the holy spouses Timothy and Maura on the cross. Their last words to the gathered spectators sound like something our royal couple would say to us:  “Brothers and sisters! Remember that we have acted humanely living among men. But also remember this, that we were doing the work of God, for we are the servants of God, and now we receive crowns of martyrdom from our Lord Jesus Christ. May you, living according to human nature, make an effort to do that which is pleasing to God, so that you may receive forgiveness of sins and receive crowns from our same Lord.”

Fifteen years later, the same satanic ritual was repeated on the bodies of the Holy Royal Martyrs in the Ipatiev house in Yekaterinburg. Nevertheless, in bestiality, the Belgrade regicide trumps even Robespierre’s and Lenin’s revolutionary, satanic, bloodthirsty perversion.

After a perfunctory autopsy done on a pool table, the naked, butchered bodies of the royal couple were transported by oxcart from the palace to the old church of Saint Mark on Tašmajda. There they were quickly placed in the tomb of Ana J. Obrenović. Nobody crossed themselves nor lit a candle above their grave. Two paupers’ tin crosses were leaned against the wall above their tombs, on which were written in black paint the names “Aleksandar and Draga Obrenović”, without their royal titles.

In stark contrast to the treatment of the royal couple, the fallen conspirator Col. Naumović was honored with a full ceremonial funeral, complete with a church memorial service, state, and military honors. 

One incident is worth mentioning: During WWII and the bombing of Belgrade, the old Tašmajdan church of Saint Mark was severely damaged. As a result, the remains of the royal couple were transferred from the old church to the crypt of the newly-built, larger church. At that time, a finely-crafted marble tombstone was found in the excavated tomb. The supreme irony was that it was the Austrians who had placed this marble tombsone during their occupation of Belgrade in 1917.  It was inscribed in Serbian Cyrillic with the words,

“Here lie in the peace of God His Royal Majesty King of Serbia Aleksandar Obrenović and Her Royal Majesty Queen Draga Obrenović, who died at the villain’s hand on May 29th 1903. Eternal Memory.”

The Serbian revolutionaries did not worthily bury and mark the tomb of their king, but our enemies – the Austrians – had enough honor to do so. They also erected monuments to Serbian soldiers who fell in the battles of Košutnjak and Legeta.

Immediately after the bloody regicide, two generals were killed in their sleep: the president of the state, Cincar-Marković, and the army minister Milovan Pavlović.  Both of these men were heroes of multiple wars who were decorated with the highest medals and awards.  Meanwhile, the minister of internal affairs Velimir Todorović miraculously survived after being severely wounded. Lt. Voja Tankosić personally killed the queen’s brothers. Their homes were barbarically looted. Without a doubt it was revolutionary ideas that led the conspirators to remove the royal family and topple the Obrenović dynasty.

Just a few months before the regicide, one of the prominent conspirators, the aforementioned Voja Tankosić, helped the leaders of the social-democratic (communist) demonstrations to flee by boat to Zemun. In March of that year, demonstrations of workers and scholars erupted against the “tyranny” of King Aleksander Obrenović, on the 23rd and 24th of March 1903.  Dimitrije Tucović and Triša Kaclerović organized the demonstrations.  The army was sent to break them up and to arrest their leaders. Tankosić's squad played dumb and hid dozens of communist students in a Kalemegdan cave. Meanwhile, he transferred the demonstration organizers to Zemun.

During the violent overtaking of army command, several leading officers were killed. These were officers who were loyal until death to their oaths sworn to God, the King and the fatherland. One such case was Col. Dimitrije Nikolić who, looking death the eyes, courageously confronted his ex-colleagues, the traitorous regicides.

Within the next 48 hours after the regicide, over 200 members of the closer and extended Obrenović family were killed, along with Obrenović dynasty supporters. From first to last, from the elderly to the newborn, they were wiped off the face of the earth.  It was noted that more generals were killed during the May pogrom than in the three wars before and three wars after the May Revolution.

  The heads of the Belgrade Metropolia at the time must have been deeply involved in the revolutionary coup. First of all, as hard as this is to believe,  none of the hierarchs of the Church at the time performed a memorial service for the anointed Serbian king. Rather, a simple priest performed a short memorial, as if for criminals who are condemned to death.  According to some accounts, a memorial service was not even served.

At the news of the death of the royal couple, shockingly, all of the church bells in Belgrade and Serbia remained silent, while church bells rang sorrowfully in Sremski Karlovci, Cetinje, Saint Petersburg, Moscow, London, Vienna, Berlin, Budapest, Madrid, and so on.

It is particularly surprising that the Belgrade Metropolia overnight rejected the God-anointed ruler who had generously helped the Serbian Church, who had cared for her well-being.  Up until that moment that same ruler had been commemorated in the Church as “the devout lord and Serbian king”.

After the murder of the royal couple, the Metropolitan of Belgrade Inokentije Pavlović commanded that the Metropolitan palace be decorated with flags to represent joy. He did not want to perform a Hierarchical memorial service. He commanded that prayers for the deceased royal martyrs immediately cease in the churches. Moreover, in the Belgrade Cathedral Church of the Holy Archangel Michael, he blessed the traitorous officers as the “Christ-loving army.” Even worse, he praised the faithful for not showing any resistance to the revolution and thereby “showing maturity”.

The Russian Tsar denounced the Belgrade Metropolitan as a monster for such behavior. The next day, the Russian Church immediately held a ceremonial memorial service in the Kazan Cathedral for the murdered Serbian royal couple. The Russian Church also sharply and publicly criticized Serbian Metropolitan Inokentije. Serbian Sion, the newsletter of the Karlovci Patriarchate, also decisively condemned the Belgrade Metropolitan’s unconscionable behavior.

Meanwhile, the Belgrade press wrote of the regicide: “This joyful news will merrily echo throughout all of Serbdom. The tyrant has fallen at the hands of officers who are true Serbian knights.” Official newspapers published a telegram to the new revolutionary government, addressed to the “first government of free Serbia”, in which the murderers were praised as the “heroes of yesterday’s historical act.”

The shameless race to defame the murdered king and queen began immediately after the murder.  It was a planned and institutionalized deconstruction and satanization of the Obrenović dynasty which continues to this day. Even the choice of the final resting place of the victims demonstrated the intentions of the revolutionary government to marginalize them forever. This is when the disgusting myth about Queen Draga as a harlot and an evil woman was established.

In response to the news of the murder of the royal Obrenović couple, the inhabitants of all cities across Serbia put up black flags on their houses as a sign of grief.  The new revolutionary government demanded, with death threats, that all black flags be removed from the streets and that they be replaced with the national three-colored flags. This is how the illusion that the nation was celebrating the killing of their own king was created.

While the news about the regicide in the Austro-Hungarian Novi Sad invoked dread and great mourning, Belgrade decorated itself with flags and socialist students led by Dimitrije Tucović paraded through the streets with a happy stride chanting “Long live freedom.

In response to the murder of the crowned heads, European royalty ceased diplomatic relations with Serbia.  The European press expressed horror at the massacre that the king’s officers committed, trampling their oaths to the king that had been given in a Church ritual upon the Holy Gospel.

 

In truth, not all of the king’s officers participated in the revolution. The bravest ones among them formed counter-revolutionary groups which publicly stepped forward and demanded that the conspirators be prosecuted for regicide. In Niš, in 1904, a certain number of officers even took control over the Niš district as a sign of support for the murdered king, requesting the arrest and prosecution of the conspirators. A similar rebellion broke out in Kragujevac.

As the loyal subject of the crown, the king’s personal adjutant and colonel (and future voivoda^[9]) Živojin Mišić was put into early retirement for his condemnation of the regicide (1904).

The newly-enthroned King Peter I kept his promises that he had made to the regicides  before the revolution. None of the participants of the May Coup were accused of the crime of regicide, high treason, or the massacre of all the Obrenovići and those officials loyal to them. The regicides were free to keep the stolen valuables of the Obrenovići and other victims of the May pogrom. All of them were promoted to higher army ranks, while some of them were even placed in important government positions. All the regicides became the first laureates of the prestigious medal “Karađorđe’s Star”, which replaced the highest medal of honor of the Kingdom of Serbia until then, the “Takovo Cross”.

It quickly became clear that the regicides were a dark force which became a state within a state – the éminence grise of King Peter the First. This coalition of the Karađorđević dynasty and a revolutionary government brought liberalism and democracy to Serbia. The same dark forces^[10] would, not long after, bring about the Sarajevo assassination of the Austro-Hungarian heir to the throne Franz Ferdinand. The regicide that brought about World War I decimated the population of Serbia.  On the global scale, World War I realized the Judaeo-Masonic plan of the destruction of the two greatest Christian monarchies – the Russian and the Austro-Hungarian. The same spirit of revolution also abolished two Serbian kingdoms, Serbia and Montenegro, for the purpose of creating Masonic Yugoslavia. The coup d'état on the 27th of March 1941 was a national suicide that opened the doors of hell: the Ustashe-Communist carnage of Serbs and the AVNOJ Revolution,^[11] with which the evil fate of Serbia was sealed.

On one occasion, Metropolitan of Belgrade Mihailo, who governed the Serbian Church during the reign of the four Obrenovići, said:

“Know this, O Serbian people: Whoever undermines the authority of the Anointed One of God as the bearer of supreme power in the country is destroying the foundation of the country, exposing the nation to danger, and threatening its security and happiness. The Lord Himself said, “Touch not My anointed…” (1 Chronicles 16:22).

 After the murder of the Anointed One of God, King Aleksander Obrenović, the Metropolitan’s dark prophecy was completely fulfilled and is still being fulfilled.

We will conclude with the words of Voivoda Vasilije Trbić which he spoke in 1943 in Cairo to the Division General Petar Živković, the former president of the Yugoslavian government who lost his honor of an officer as a conspirator in 1903:

“Do you know, Mr. President, where all the misfortunes which overcame our land in these these recent years come from? They come from that day when you opened the palace gate on the 29th of May 1903, when the conspirators entered and murdered their king, to whom they had sworn loyalty. And instead of immediately, the day after the regicide, you all be put under court-martial and be executed for that disgusting murder, the National Assembly of the Kingdom of Serbia and the Senate proclaimed you the savior of the fatherland.”

HRM King Alexander I Obrenović

The Mission of the Katechon^[12]

King Aleksander, a Christian autocratic ruler, had to be removed by order of the mystery of iniquity^[13] i.e. by global Judaeo-Masonry, to realize the plan of the complete destruction of Christian autocracies. He was an obstacle standing in the way of the foundation of liberal democratic “monarchies” built on the ruins of real monarchies (as was later the Karađorđević parliamentary, partocratic, pseudo-monarchy), or secular democratic republics (such as the communist AVNOJ Republic or the contemporary liberal Republic of Serbia).

When the Orthodox ruler and the anointed one of God, King-martyr Alexander I Obrenović was removed, he became the protomartyr of the katechons – the first martyr of “those  who restrain” the progress of the mystery of iniquity.  In other words, he was the first of those martyred who prevented the coming of Antichrist. Fifteen years later, the Godfather from his wedding, the Russian katechon, Orthodox Tsar-Martyr Nicholas II would follow on his martyric path.

Dostoyevsky prophesied such developments in his “Writer’s Diaries” in the 1870s: “Godless atheism is close – our children will see it. The Internationale (Judaeo-Masonry –Ed.) has decided that revolution should begin in Russia, and it will happen, for there is no certain resistance among us, neither in government nor in society. Atheism will give birth to revolution. Yea, a new spirit will come, an evil spirit, and a new society will triumph over the old.”

Though his prediction was in essence correct, Dostoevsky was wrong on one detail:  the first revolution would be carried out in Serbia, not in Russia.  It was the May regicide in Belgrade at the turn of the 20^th century that would arise as a dark, ominous sign showing the mystical and eschatological transition, of darkness overcoming the light: But this is your hour, and the power of darkness. (Luke 22:53)

About the threat of the removal of the anointed one of God, “the one who restrains”, and the expansion of evil, only a year before the murder of the royal Obrenović couple (1902) spoke the great Russian prophet and Saint, John of Kronstadt.

Only a year before the murder of the royal Obrenovic couple, in 1902, the great Russian prophet, St. John of Kronstadt, reflecting on the removal of the anointed one of God, the one who restrains, wrote:

“By means of the Orthodox autocrat, the Lord preserves the well-being of the earthly kingdoms… And the greatest worldly villain who will appear in the end times – Antichrist, cannot appear among us because of the existence of the autocratic power of the anointed one of God - the One who restrains. Only when the autocratic tsar is removed, then will the lawless one will appear, whom the Lord Jesus will consume with the spirit of His mouth (2 Thess. 2:7-8)”.

Great Orthodox saints of the 19th and early 20th century insisted on the necessity – the religious necessity – of loyalty to the autocratic ruler. Saint Seraphim of Sarov said that, after Orthodoxy, loyalty to the Tsar is “our first Russian duty and the foundation of true Christian piety.”  Saint John of Kronstadt also said,

 “Autocracy is the main requirement for well-being in Russia; if there is no autocracy, there will be no Russia; the Jews, who greatly despise us, will take over the government…” And Metropolitan Makarios, the Apostle of Altai, said: “If you don’t want your Russian government, you will have a government of strangers rule over you.” (By the Russian government, Met. Macarios meant autocracy, and for the foreign – parliamentarism – Ed.)

The ritual murder of numerous stabs with daggers, bayonets and sabers, i.e. the ritual shedding of the royal/imperial blood, which removed the Serbian king and the Russian tsar, began the modern era of democracy and parliamentarism. All of these together were part of a great apostasy that would form a political-metaphysical springboard for the reign of Antichrist (2 Thess. 2:3).

 Saint Theophan the Recluse wrote,

 “As long as an autocratic Christian government exists, she will prevent the nation from taking the path of apostasy. When the imperial autocracy falls and a republican-democratic order is implemented everywhere, that is when the forerunners of Antichrist will operate without hindrance. Satan will, as in the time of the French Revolution, lead people into denying Christ. Nobody will want to listen to the preaching of the faith. At the democratic elections, many will vote for Antichrist and against Christ. The Christian monarchy does not allow for atheists to freely fight for power; only when the monarchy falls can 'anyone' come to power. And the last one, the much desired 'anyone' who will be willingly accepted by the sinners, per Holy Tradition, will rise up against the Church of God.”

In the same spirit, St. Philaret of Moscow warned the Russian nation that the abolishment of monarchy will unavoidably cause turmoil, weakening of piety, and the spread of atheism.  When traditional customs are abandoned, great troubles and foreign conquest would follow. Such a pattern, St. Philaret points out, has happened since Biblical times: “In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes. (Judges 21:25).”

The same saint writes in another place that those who oppose the old order of the country which was founded on the blessing and the law of God, thinking to build themselves a monument of human society according to new a taste, build on the sand of the people’s opinions.  Such a structure will have to be maintained in endless storms of political crises. People poisoned with the foreign ideology of democracy deem the God-given, fatherly, and rational power of the autocrat as a yoke.  In its stead they advocate for the blind, cruel, opportunistic power of the national masses, for endless discord and arguments. They deceive people, convincing them that they are leading them to freedom, while actually distancing them from a lawful freedom of self-will, all the better to suppress them.

The God-established autocratic government of the anointed ones of God, to which the Christian nation gives her loyalty and obedience through loyalty to God, is the only God-pleasing, God-ordained government. For that, the tsar, king or prince, as we already mentioned, receives particular help from God through the grace-giving power of the Holy Sacrament of Chrismation. This grace-giving energy which acts through the anointed one of God contains such power, that, per the teaching of the Church, it even prevents the appearance of Antichrist–”the mystery of iniquity” (2 Thess. 2:7). That is why every devout, autocratic, anointed one of God, a katechon, takes up the mystical mantle of one who restrains the spreading of evil and the coming of Antichrist.

It should be noted that Church interprets the word “Antichrist” in two ways. It does not only refer to rebellion against the God-Man Christ, but also rebellion against an anointed one of God, against a Christian tsar/king/prince, because the Greek word “Χριστός” (Christos) means “anointed one.”

From a historical perspective, the autocratic, unrestricted power of the anointed ones of God from Serbia’s Nemanjić period is the most valuable heritage in the state-building tradition of Serbia.

After the Radicals’ political victory over King Milan, with the adoption of the liberal Constitution from 1888 and then his abdication, transferring power to his son King Alexander, the young Obrenović immediately entered the struggle for the preservation of autocratic power. After the counter-revolutionary coup in 1893 and the return to the Constitution from 1869, King Alexander managed to take power into his hands the next year with the help of his father. With the successful application of his October program (1897-1900), today known as the October regime, the supremacy of the Court was established. Thus, the last Obrenović confirmed the continuity of the Obrenović autocratic policy in the political life of Serbia.

When Queen Draga joined her husband on the throne, she only entered into an already- existing conflict between the reactionary Obrenovići and the progressive revolutionary powers lead by Pašić’s Radicals. She found herself in a conflict which she did not cause, neither because of her character, her “lowly origins,” her “shady past,” nor her “childlessness.”   Such slanders were merely an excuse for the revolution, a smokescreen to cover up the real reason for removing the Serbian Katechon, the Obrenović king.

The cause of this conflict, which seemed merely political, but was in reality metaphysical, did not originate from the unsuccessful Timok Rebellion (1883), but actually far earlier.  It began during establishment of modern Serbia under the anointed autocrat Prince Miloš Obrenović the Great and his son Mihailo. That conflict was an eschatological clash with the powers of darkness which are preparing the coming of the son of perdition, the man of iniquity, Antichrist.  The first revolutionary, the first rebel against the divine autocrat God himself, Satan, will give Antichrist world power through revolution. 

Therefore, it is vital that every Orthodox Serb understand the horrifying mystical significance of the May regicide: it was not simply a political murder, only one of countless other insignificant political assassinations in history. On the contrary, the murder of an anointed king of God – regicide - is a graver sin than any other. First of all, it is a metaphysical, religious act, for it is God, and not the people, who delegated the authority to the King as the anointed one of God. In the medieval Christian doctrine of the symphony of powers, the diarchy over the God-fearing laity, we see one essence with two faces. Besides the patriarch/archbishop to whom God delegates religious power stands the tsar/king to whom God delegates worldly power.  In such a society, overthrowing or murder of a Christian king is a serious form of God-fighting, a sacrilegious opposition to God’s will.

This thesis is also confirmed by the anathema included by the Russian Church Abroad in the Synodikon of Orthodoxy: “To those who reason that Orthodox sovereigns are elevated to their thrones not by God’s special good will for them, and that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are not poured out upon them during the anointing for the fulfillment of this great calling; and who likewise dare to rise up against them in revolt and betrayal, ANATHEMA!”

The commandment of Holy Scripture is very clear: “Touch not My anointed ones…” (Psalm 105:15).

The analogy between Russian and Serbian history suggests that the sin of murdering King Alexander and Queen Draga in 1903, similar to the sin of murdering the Romanov imperial family, represented a deep spiritual fall and the acceptance of revolutionary currents. Just as the canonization of the Romanov family was seen as an imperative of national repentance and a means to lift the curse that brought tragic consequences to the Russian people, so too would the canonization of the last Obrenovići represent an act of national repentance by the Serbian people and enable the lifting of the curse and stopping the national disaster that the May regicide brought with it.

This is exactly what Father Seraphim Rose spoke about in his lecture "The Future of Russia and the End of the World," in 1981:

"Of course, regicide—the murder of the Anointed Tsar—is not the only sin on the conscience of the Orthodox Russian people. That crime is, in fact, a symbol of Russia's entire falling away from Christ and true Orthodoxy—a process that covered much of the 19th and 20th centuries, and is only now beginning to be reversed. It is very interesting that in today's Russia itself, the question of canonizing the Tsar, along with the other New Martyrs, is inseparably linked to the removal, literally, of the curse that has lain on Russian soil since his martyrdom."

            From this, it follows that the murder of the Anointed One (the king) is the cause of the 'curse' over the entire nation, and that canonization is the only church and spiritual instrument through which this knot can be untied. Without official recognition of their martyrdom, the people remain in a state of silent approval of the grievous sin of 1903. Their canonization would not be just an 'administrative' act of the Church, but an expression of collective change in consciousness. It marks the moment when the nation, by acknowledging that the king's murder was a turning away from God and the Christian order, starts to reverse the process of national ruin.

            As Fr. Seraphim Rose said about the murder of Russian Tsar Nicholas, likewise the May regicide represents a symbol of Serbia’s shift from a traditional, Orthodox path to an era of revolutionary ideologies and nihilism. Canonization would mean not only a symbolic, but also a mystical return of Serbia to its true identity. Also, through canonization, the respect for the institution of the katechon, the one who restrains evil, is restored. By recognizing the holiness of the last Obrenovići, the Serbian people spiritually renew the katechonic defensive shield against the advancing force of the mystery of iniquity.

In short, this canonization is necessary not because of the past, but because of the future: it is crucial for the Serbian True Orthodox Church because we see in it the only path for the spiritual revival of Serbia.

 

Part Two 

THE CANONIZATION - NUMBERING THE ROYAL COUPLE AMONG THE SAINTS

Are the conditions for canonization met?

Canonization of the saints (Greek - κανονίζω - set, place into lawful order) is the legitimization, through a certain process of a higher Church authority, of the ecclesiastical veneration of a struggler for the faith, martyrs for the faith, or someone known for his piety and virtuous life as a Saint.

In Greek theological terminology, there was no special word that would fit the Latin word canonisatio, rather, the term in Greek was explained like this: Κατάταξη εις τον χορόν των αγίων, i.e. “the classification into the assembly (choir) of saints.”

A liturgical characteristic of the veneration of canonized saints is comprised of the annual service conducted for them – i.e. a certain service, in their honor and to the glory of God. Supplicatory canons are sung to them and the faithful pray to them.  Churches are dedicated to them.  Their artistic representations are venerated as icons. Their relics are brought forth in churches for the faithful to venerate them.

Unlike for the Venerable and Righteous Saints for whom the procedure of their classification to the choir of saints requires testimonies of miracles, of incorrupt or myrrh-gushing relics, etc., the Church venerated martyrs immediately after their death as saints and a certain service with their lives was immediately written to them.  It was not necessary to declare martyrs saints nor to question their holiness.  They undoubtedly became saints simply by enduring torture for Christ unto death, regardless whether or not their lives before that were exemplary. They could have even been open sinners like the Holy Martyr Boniface (December 19th/January 1st).  Martyrdom for the faith makes a sinner into a saint.

In the case of holy Christian rulers, in the Eastern Roman Empire, the rulers were declared saints either for their great labor for the Church or for their exceptionally pious life and Christian virtues. In the latter case, miracles were requested as evidence of holiness. All other holy emperors were classified into the choir of saints because of their exceptional merit in service of the Church.

Proto-presbyter and professor of Liturgics at the Belgrade Seminary, Lazar Marković, thinks that Serbian rulers of the Middle Ages were already respected as saints in their lifetime, being anointed, devout kings, protectors, and benefactors of the Church. They were called “saints” and “saintly-reposed.”  The descendants of St. Simeon (Prince Stefan Nemanja), mention their predecessors as “holy,” their  “holy fathers and forefathers” and they also call themselves holy.  Living rulers (Uroš I, II, and Stefan Dušan) were titled “of holy lineage.” Almost all Serbian monarchs have a halo on their frescoes as a sign of sainthood, even though most of them were not canonized at the time of the painting. Thus, Fr. Lazar continues, there was no great hindrance in canonizing anointed monarchs, for they were, as anointed rulers, exalted protectors, and benefactors of the Church, considered saints already during their lifetime.

Even though we have already mentioned that the martyric death of an anointed ruler itself implies their classification into the ranks of holy martyrs, we would like to address two other disputed issues from the angle of Church law and tradition that were raised against the royal couple by their opponents even during their lifetime.

At the time of the wedding of the royal couple, opposers of the marriage pointed to the difference in age between King Alexander and Queen Draga as a marital obstacle. The difference between them was 10 years. This does not contradict the canons of the Orthodox Church, which place a 15 year age difference between two adult persons as an allowed limit.

Also, some questioned the validity of the marriage of an anointed ruler to a widow, referring to Church law in regards to the marriage of a monarch. These accusations are without basis, for unlike the strict canons that apply to candidates for the clergy, where marriage with a widow is explicitly forbidden by the canons, the rules for laity, which includes monarchs, according to Church oikonomia, allow for second marriage and the marriage of a king with a widow.

In regards to their the veneration of their relics: their honorable remains lie in Belgrade, in the crypt of the Church of the Apostle Mark at Tašmajdan.  We deem them as martyric holy relics that are worthy of being venerated and honored.

The place in Belgrade where the royal martyrs were killed, the site of the former palace complex which is found on the space of the modern Andrićev Venac, i.e. the plateau between the current Assembly of Belgrade and the Presidency building, on which the Royal Palace– the so-called Stari Konak (Old House) was once found, we consider a place of pilgrimage.  In some happier times, a Belgrade “temple-on-the- blood” should be built – a Church built in remembrance of the place where the anointed ones of God were murdered, as has been built in St. Petersburg and Ekaterinburg.

The blood-soaked, woolen palace curtains which were wrapped around their butchered bodies have also been preserved in the Vrachevnici Monastery and in the Rudnik-Takovo Museum in Gornji Milanovac.

Conclusion

            Taking into consideration everything aforementioned, we deem that the Church has no obstacle to classifying the martyric royal couple into the choir of saints, all conditions for their canonization being met.

            According to Church tradition, a general ecclesiastical canonization can be done only by the whole Church, by the decision of its own Hierarchical Council. Since our Hierarchical Council of the STOC is only a part of the Serbian Church, our act of canonization holds a local character of glorifying saints within our dioceses.

            Local canonization of saints is in alignment with ancient Church tradition. Saints who were initially venerated only in the places they suffered, or where they practiced asceticism, or where their relics lay, gained church-wide respect over time as their cult spread.

            Therefore we consider it appropriate that, after the Hierarchical Council of the STOC’s  decision, the royal martyrs King Alexander and Queen Draga be included in the dyptichs of the Saints of our Church for the following reasons:

1.     For their devout and righteous anointed ruling service to the Christ-named Serbian nation.

2.     For their extraordinary care for the Serbian Church and its holy places.

3.     For their righteous and devoted life overflowing with acts of evangelical love and charity.

4.     For their zealous defense of the autocratic ruling covenant of Saint Sava and their katechonic resistance against the mystery of iniquity – the apostasy of liberalism and democracy, for which they were “removed,” enduring many discomforts, disgusting slander, and a terrifying, essentially ritual martyric death.

The service to the devout royal martyrs King Aleksander and Queen Draga which we are publishing was written in Church Slavonic according to the traditional hymnographic model and following the example of other services to Serbian saints.  It is indicated as a middle level feast day of the first rank, which is marked with a red cross in the red half-open half circle above, e.g. those that have an All-Night Vigil with Polyeleos.

            Along with the service, we present an icon of the holy royal martyrs depicted according to traditional iconographic canon, which was done according to their existing photographs. King Alexander is portrayed in his blue guard uniform, while Queen Draga is portrayed in her  festive gown which she designed herself after those of medieval Serbian queens. Together the royal couple hold a cross, symbolizing their martyrdom and their unwavering loyalty to Christ and each other.  The icon may be used during the act of canonization.  It can also be reproduced to be shared for the wider veneration of the newly-glorified saints.

            We consider it appropriate that the act of canonization to be performed on the day of their martyric end, when the Church celebrates the memory of the First Ecumenical Council and the Eastern Roman Empress Helena Dragaš, Ipomonia^[14] in monasticism, on May 29th/June 11th 2026, which coincides with the 150th anniversary of King Aleksandar Obrenović’s birth (1876-2026), in the Church of the Holy and Life-giving Spirit the Comforter of the Utesiteljevo diocese, at Utesiteljevo Monastery (Ralja, Sopot).

            The evening before, on May 29th/June 11th at 6PM, the last memorial service to the martyrically killed royal Obrenović couple will be performed. Immediately after, at 6:30 PM, an All-night Vigil will be served, during which the act of canonization of the Holy Royal Martyrs Alexander and Draga will be performed. The next morning, on the 11th of June at 9:30AM, a Divine Liturgy will be served with a festive procession (litia) for the Holy Royal Martyrs Alexander and Draga.

            Up until the day of canonization, all parishes and monasteries should be notified to multiply their prayers for the repose of their souls, bringing forth pan-national repentant memorial services and commemorations as preparation for their canonization, with faith that the holy martyrs are praying for all of us who venerate their holy memory.

            In all general commemorations of the departed on Saturdays of Souls, as well as on all  Saturday commemorations of the departed we decree that at the Proskomedia their names be always commemorate names before all other names of the departed.

Also, during every Liturgy, to commemorate them during the Great Entrance according to the following model:

            “For the martyrically-killed pious King Alexander, the anointed, and his wife, the pious Queen Draga, may the Lord remember them in His Kingdom, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages, Amen.”

The Ecclesial Condemnation of the Regicides

            Our pastoral duty also orders us, as hierarchs of the free part of our Church, along with the canonization of the royal martyrs, to condemn the God-fighting regicides that dared to raise their hand against the anointed ones of God and spill their blood that crieth unto God from the ground (Genesis 4:10).  We feel it our duty to address the injustice that these men have never been given over to judicial, ecclesiastical, or historical judgement, whether during their lifetime or posthumously.

            What is worse, the regicides are respected in our nation and are celebrated as national heroes, liberators and saviors. This means that the revolutionary, God-fighting, terroristic murderers of the anointed ones of God in our nation have not only been institutionalized and legitimized, but proclaimed as virtuous.

            The fruits of such evil are a terrible curse upon an entire nation until it decisively condemns this crime that crieth unto God along with its unrepentant perpetrators.

            Correcting this lawlessness that crieth unto God, we are obligated to separate our whole flock and all pious Orthodox Christians from this terrible slander by proclaiming public condemnation of the May regicide.  We give to the judgment of God: to its organizers, the immediate perpetrators, the regicides, their helpers, accomplices, and all those who support or justify this iniquity – ANATHEMA!^[15]

           
Utesiteljevo Monastery, March 2026

Icon of the Royal Martyrs Alexander and Draga, the work of Bp Akakije

HOLY ROYAL MARTYRS ALEXANDER AND DRAGA, PRAY TO GOD FOR US!

           

Troparion and Kontakion to the Holy Royal Martyrs Alexander and Draga

Troparion, Tone 4

Today doth Orthodox Serbia radiantly celebrate the God-anointed royal martyrs, Alexander and Draga, who at the hands of their own Jew-like subjects received a bitter death for the righteousness of God, and thereby obtained boldness before Him. Let us with love cry unto them: Hear ye, O holy and God-crowned martyrs, the repentant voice and sighs of your people; strengthen the Serbian land in Orthodoxy and deliver it from foreign darkness; entreat God to grant peace, and unto our souls great mercy.

Kontakion, Tone 8

Chosen by the King of kings, ye noble scions of the Serbian pious princes and voivodes, ye bearers of the noble Serbian crown in the latter days, having for God’s righteousness endured betrayal, slander, torments, and death,  ye were crowned with heavenly wreaths. Unto you, our heavenly protectors, with love and thanksgiving do we sing: Rejoice, O royal martyrs, fervent intercessors before God for our much-suffering people.

Basic literature used:

“Small memorial from the 50th anniversary of the Vidovdan Slava in Kruševac and the anointing of King Aleksandar in Zhicha, Novi Sad”, 1889.

Saint Philaret of Moscow, “The Christian Teaching on the Royal Authority and the Duties of Loyal Subjects”, Moscow, 1906.

Živan Živanović, “The End of the Obrenović Dynasty”, Belgrade, 1925.

Viktor Kobilin, “Anatomy of Treason, Origins of the Anti-Monarchist Conspiracy”, St. Petersburg, 1988.

Ana Stolić, “Queen Draga”, Belgrade, 2000.

Suzana Rajić, “Aleksandar Obrenović, the Ruler at the Turn of the Century – Conflicting Worlds”, Belgrade, 2014.

Novak Jovanović, “Insult, Anger and Blood, the Serbian Press and the May Coup”, Belgrade, 2014.

Ana M. Lunjevica, “My Sister – Queen Draga”, Belgrade – Šabac, 2019.

Bishop Sava of Zhicha (Dečanac) – “Collected works”, Prizren, 2021.

Miloš Timotijević and Aleksandar Marušić, “The rejoicings of sincere enthusiasm, the Travels of King Aleksandar and Queen Draga Obrenović across Serbia in 1901”, Čačak – Gornji Milanovac, 2025.

Addition

Salutatory speech of the MP Pavle Smiljanić to King Alexander and Queen Draga Obrenović in Takovo, September 7th/20th 1901:

Your Majesties, it is my greatest joy that on this solemn day in my life, as an old member of Parliament, and now honored with trust, I greet Your Majesties with a welcome, in the name of the faithful and loyal Takovci to you. I was a deputy, Sovereign, during the reception of your great grandfather Miloš the Great when he came back to his beloved Fatherland.  I awaited in this holy place: your ever-memorable grandfather Prince Mihailo, your exalted father of blessed repose, King Milan, but how joyful I am this day, how joyful this nation is to see you in its midst, Sovereign.  We are so happy to greet alongside you, with boundless submissive love, our dear Queen Draga, the grandchild of the famous Serbian voivoda from Rudnik, Nikola Lunjevica. Dear Sovereign! As the old Takovci responded to the shout of the Great Miloš, as they warred alongside him for liberation, so their descendants, the descendants of the Takovo heroes, always loyal to You, loyal to the Serbian hope, will help you to create Greater Serbia, that under the scepter of Tsar Dušan you may unite all of Serbdom. On behalf of Your loyal Takovci, in the name of the committed people of Rudnik, welcome, Sovereign King, welcome to our exalted and dear Queen. May you live many years!

(Serbian Newspapers, No. 203, September 13/20th, 1901, pg. 2-3)


RESOLUTION FOR THE CANONIZATION OF THE PIOUS ROYAL MARTYRS KING ALEXANDER AND QUEEN DRAGA OBRENOVIC

---

^[1] Autocrat (autocrat) is an inviolable and unlimited ruler in Christian states, traditionally considered the Anointed One of God in the Roman and Byzantine Empires, medieval Serbia, Russia, and other Christian states. Autocracy is a form of governance in Christian states that existed from the 3rd to the 20th century, until the emergence of the democratic doctrine of constitutions, "popular" parliaments, and political parties.

^[2] The Constitution, or charter, represents an anti-monarchist institution based on the principles of parliamentarism and democracy, whose primary goal is to limit the power of the monarch. The origins of these principles can be found in the English Magna Carta (1215), the American Declaration of Independence (1776), the French Revolution (1789), and other historical documents.

^[3] Here we should also add two autopsy reports on the murdered royal couple. The first one, conducted immediately after the murder and signed by the renowned European gynecologist Dr. Eduard Michel, was kept secret from the public because it confirmed that the queen's fallopian tubes were patent. The second report, published in Vienna during the First World War, yielded different results. At that time, the Austrian occupying authorities exhumed the royal couple, and a professional team of Viennese doctors performed an autopsy on their remains. The most important finding was that traces of a fetus were found among the queen's bones, unequivocally indicating that she was pregnant on the night of the murder.

^[4] Dvorska Bogorodica was preserved to this day through the providence of the great love of the abbot of the Vraćevšnica Monastery, Mikhail Urošević, towards the martyred royal couple. Abbot Mikhail purchased the icon after 1903 from a reseller, at a time when, following the regicide in May 1903, the stolen treasures of Queen Draga and King Alexander were illegally sold in Serbia and at public auctions in European capitals by the regicides. In addition to this icon, he managed to acquire the woolen curtains from the Stari Konak soaked in royal blood, with which the regicides wrapped the mutilated bodies of the slain royal martyrs. Traces of their blood are still visible on the curtains today. Abbot Mikhail entrusted these relics to the Vraćevšnica Monastery for safekeeping, where they are kept in the monastery treasury among other valuable items related to the Obrenović dynasty to this day.

^[5] Referring to St. Stephen Nemanjic the First-Crowned, first king of Serbia (+1228)

^[6] The Tsar's brother-in-law and namesake, Grand Duke Nicholas Nikolaevich Romanov, who was the commander-in-chief of the Russian Imperial Army, had a very negative opinion about the Tsar's wife, Empress Alexandra Feodorovna: "All evil is contained in her. If they would at least imprison her in a monastery and make her a nun, everything would turn for the better, as then the Tsar would be freed from her bad influence. Otherwise, she will destroy us all."

[7] Apis - a pagan bovine deity.

^[8] In 1613, news spread that the Zemsky Sobor (the national assembly of estates) had chosen a young sixteen-year-old boyar named Mikhail as the Russian tsar. The Poles tried in every way to prevent him from ascending to the throne, as their prince Vladislav wanted to become the ruler of Russia. Polish-Lithuanian military units occupied the Kostroma region with the intention of capturing and killing the newly elected Russian tsar. In the vicinity of the village of Domnino, they captured the village elder Ivan Susanin, who, as a trusted servant of the newly-elected tsar, must have known his exact place of residence. After rough interrogation, Ivan Susanin pretended to agree to lead them to the residence of Mikhail Fyodorovich. In the meantime, he managed to send his son-in-law Bogdan Sabinyin to inform Mikhail Fyodorovich of the mortal danger, advising him to hide in the Ipatiev Monastery. To buy time, Ivan Susanin lead the Polish unit in the opposite direction into impassable swamps and dense Kostroma forests. This selfless act of an ordinary peasant saved the newly-elected tsar from certain death. When the Poles realized they had been deceived, they cut Susanin into pieces with their swords.

^[9] The term "voivoda" is a Slavic title that originally denoted a military leader or warlord. It comes from the roots "voi" (war) and "vod" (to lead), meaning "war leader" or "warlord" in Old Slavic. In the Kingdom of Serbia it was the highest military rank.

^[10] Here we are not speaking of just some abstract “dark forces;” the Young Bosnians who were behind the assassination of Franz Ferdinand were supported by The Black Hand, a secret organization founded by Dragutin Dimitrijević “Apis,” the leader of the Obrenović assassination and 1903 coup.

^[11] AVNOJ: Antifašističko veće narodnog oslobođenja Jugoslavije, in English, the the AntiFascist Council for the National Liberation of Yugoslavia – the revolutionary body let by Tito that established Communist Yugoslavia in 1943.

^[12] Katechon( Greek: ὁ κατέχων – the one who restrains, 2 Thess. 2:7) – a Christian ruler, the anointed one of God, the mystical bearer of the mission of prevention of the spreading of evil and the coming of Antichrist.

^[13] Opposite the mystery of godliness (1 Tim. 3:16), as the divine plan for human salvation, stands the mystery of iniquity (2 Thess. 2:7) – the satanic project of humanity's destruction. It works through undermining faith, devilish scheming, and systematically twisting the truth about the Incarnation. This anti-Christian process is growing unstoppable, leading to general godlessness which, according to Scripture, will be present at the Second Coming (Luke 18:8). The ultimate goal of the mystery of iniquity is the destruction of the Christian world: it prevents the survival of Christian monarchies in order to establish, through bloody revolutions, on their ruins a godless order based on lies, evil, and absolute lawlessness.

^[14] The Church celebrates Venerable Ipomonia (empress Jelena Dragaš, the wife of Emperor Manuel II Palaiologos and mother of the last romaic Emperor Constantine XI Palaiologos) on May 29th according to the old calendar, which is her main feast day. This date is symbolically linked with the fall of Constantinople, which happened on the same day (May 29th 1453), even though Venerable Ipomonia peacefully reposed a few years earlier, on March 13th, 1450. Her memory is also commemorated on the March 13th, the day of her repose..

^[15] The main purpose of an anathema is not a curse as in calling upon evil, but a formal confirmation that the person or group in question has departed from right-believing teaching and the unity of the Church by their stances or actions. Since the Church does not have the authority over the eternal destiny of an individual (that is exclusively God’s prerogative), by an anathema, that soul is, figuratively speaking, given over to the immediate and final judgement of God, without the intercession of the Church on earth.