Did Meghan and Harry get married three days BEFORE Royal Wedding that cost taxpayer millions?

The Duchess of Sussex Meghan Markle has suggested that she wed Prince Harry three days BEFORE their Royal Wedding, which reportedly cost British taxpayers millions in security costs.

Much of the cost for the extravagant affair – whose total bill has been estimated at around £30m – came out of royal funds, but Police commissioner Anthony Stansfeld estimated the policing costs, covered by the taxpayer, at between £2m and £4m.

But now it emerges that the heavily policed affair may not have been the couple’s first wedding, with Markle revealing that they held a private ceremony with the Archbishop of Canterbury three days prior.

During the course of the interview with US TV celebrity Oprah Winfrey, Markle said: “I was thinking about it, you know our wedding—three days before our wedding, we got married. No one knows that.

“We called the Archbishop and we just said: look, this thing, this spectacle, is for the world. But we want our union between us, so the vows that we have framed in our room are just the two of us in our backyard with the Archbishop of Canterbury…”

Harry interjected: “Yeah, just the three of us.”

Top AFP journalist Jerome Taylor responded to the news, saying: “Just a reminder that the wedding that, we now know, wasn’t an actual wedding cost the British tax payer millions” while another social media branded the wedding a “waste of taxpayers money.”

Another said: “So, Meghan and Harry wanted a personal wedding by themselves in the back garden, yet they were happy to accept a multi million pound extravaganza 3 days later paid for by the UK taxpayer? Disgusting!”

This site has already reported today on the anger of top TV presenter Piers Morgan, who dubbed the pair’s Oprah interview “contemptible”.

Some have questioned whether the private ceremony involving just the couple and the minister could be official, under rules that require two witnesses sign the marriage register.

Church of England rules also require open access to weddings to enable individuals to raise “valid objections against the marriage”.