Assembly of First Nations National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak travelled to Buckingham Palace this week and emerged with a warning for Alberta's growing independence movement.

"The King was there with us in unison, that First Nations are foundational partners in the creation of Canada, and our relationship cannot be changed or moved just from politics," Woodhouse Nepinak told The Canadian Press.

She then added: "We've got a beautiful country. If you don't want to be part of it you're free to leave. You won't be taking any land with you."

There are a few problems with that claim.

First, Woodhouse Nepinak is not an Alberta First Nations leader. She is a Manitoba-based national political representative elected to lead the Assembly of First Nations, an advocacy organization. She does not speak on behalf of every First Nation in Alberta, nor does she possess any constitutional authority over Alberta's future.

Second, King Charles has no role in deciding Alberta's constitutional status.

Canada is a constitutional monarchy. The King reigns, but he does not govern. He cannot veto a referendum, redraw provincial borders, or determine whether a province remains part of Confederation. Any future discussion about Alberta's constitutional status would be resolved through Canadian law, democratic processes and negotiations among the parties involved, not by declarations made at Buckingham Palace.

Third, the claim that Albertans would somehow be unable to "take any land with you" ignores the legal reality of Alberta's treaty history.

Unlike much of British Columbia, most of Alberta is covered by the numbered treaties, including Treaties 6, 7 and 8. Those treaties involved the cession of Indigenous title to the Crown in exchange for specific rights, protections and obligations. Treaty rights remain constitutionally protected today, and any future constitutional change would require negotiations regarding those obligations.

That is not the same thing as saying Alberta ceases to exist as a territorial entity or that its borders automatically disappear.

The Supreme Court of Canada addressed similar issues in its Quebec Secession Reference. The court concluded that a clear democratic mandate for secession would trigger negotiations among the affected parties. It did not suggest a province would lose its territory or that one group could simply veto the process.

In fact, Alberta First Nations themselves would have their own voices in any future negotiations. Their interests, rights and treaty relationships would undoubtedly be central to any discussion. But those discussions would involve Alberta First Nations directly, not be settled by a national AFN official from Manitoba meeting with the King in London.

The same constitutional framework that allowed Quebec to hold two sovereignty referendums without anyone claiming Quebec would be forced to surrender its territory would apply to Alberta.