Peter II and King Nikola lived after creation of modern Serbian nation, and felt as part of it. Your objection is irrelevant.
Which one. :D He was Metropolitan of Montenegor and Hills (and Boka), so one group, smallest should lead two other bigger. Its again logical fallacy.
No no, mister. Half of this is not artwork at all, but private and official correspondence. And besides it artwork is legitimate historical source. You obviously have no training in academic meotodology.
Well, we use, for example Ovid's poems to have insight in Roman society of his time. I am citing this banal example, since in Schoolbooks of History for Primary Education, this poetry is taken as example of historical source. So, with all due respect you are clueless on historical methodology.

So I would say that Peter II was the spearhead of the creation of the Serbian tion, and Niukola nothing less. So my objection is cardinal importance.

Peter and explicitly lists the Montenegrin nation, will say that he knew nothing? And in fact no one mentions any Serbs but of course I know that the Serbs there, so I do not see anything illogical. Actually everything is perfect cyano, as plain as day.

I do not really have. I am an engineer and these things are unfamiliar to me. On the other hand I know very well as songs and as works of art. Artworks are complete product of the imagination of artists, who with reality have nothing to do. Artworks have to manipulate the nature of consciousness and conclusions user artworks.

It is clear that when examining the past should analyze each finding of an era, no matter how insignificant or amazing, because it is a product of that era. But the songs that are propaganda leaflets to be the crowning evidence of absence Montenegrins and their state is not nonsense.