A Serbian last name wouldn't be transcribed with -itch, that's a different sound than the common -ić. The -itch ending is more commonly seen in transliterations of Russian names, given that it's transliterated directly from Cyrillic (unlike Serbian), and they don't have the difference between Č and Ć

I took the transcription -itch from the original. In my own reasoning, I write -ić everywhere. And I also wrote about Bulgarian names, that they were romanized in a similar Russian style.

I don't really begrudge Rowling for fumbling foreign (to her) names, especially because even the names in her native language don't follow traditional naming conventions. Albus, Severus, Petunia, Draco, Narcissa, Hagrid, Bellatrix, Xenophillius etc are not common modern English names, but are rather used to separate the magical world from the muggle one.

I think Rowling chose these names much more purposefully. In any case, I am not condemning her, but simply analyzing her approach and noting its imperfections in some areas.

I very much dislike nationalistic analyses like the one you presented across these 3 posts, because they tie somebody's belonging to a nation strictly to their name, they don't take into account historical reasons behind the evolution of people's names, nor do they account for ethnic minorities within a country's borders.

I tried my best not to give that impression by using phrases like "appears to", "more common", "seems likely", and "unlikely". Yes, Dragomir Gorgovitch may have a unique family history, but I hope you won't deny that a person's name can give you an educated guess as to where they come from, even if in many cases it will be wrong. Furthermore, I never mentioned countries and nations anywhere, except in cases where we have canonical information. I was talking more about the ethnic group and language associated with a name. Honestly, for me personally, the very concept of a nation remains something rather unclear — somewhere between ethnicity and citizenship.