Here's why baby Archie isn't coming back to the UK with Harry and Meghan

The coronavirus has certainly had a devastating impact on just about the entire world by this point. The most tragic aspect of the disease, of course, is the fact that it has killed thousands of people. Even those lucky enough not to have had direct exposure to this public health emergency are still being affected by travel bans, production delays, and shortages of everything from gaming consoles to Diet Coke, and even the potential cancellation of this summer's Olympic Games.

One world leader who's been dealt a severe blow on account of this deadly disease is a 93-year-old grieving granny once again denied precious time with her youngest great grandbaby — Queen Elizabeth II, who is said to be "very sad" that baby Archie won't be accompanying Prince Harry and Meghan Markle on their latest trip to the UK. While the (non-royal) Duke and Duchess of Sussex have not released an official statement, the Daily Express speculates that part of the couple's decision to leave their baby safe in Canada is possibly due to the spread of coronavirus. There have been 24 confirmed cases of the virus in Canada (and 36 in the UK), but Archie should be quite safe if he remains at home. Traveling overseas, however, could well have exposed him to danger.

More reasons to keep Archie at home in Canada

Harry and Meghan have also spoken often of their desire to protect Archie's privacy and raise him outside of the royal fishbowl that has given the two of them such headaches. A relaxing time at home with his nanny will probably do the baby more good than the media frenzy that would undoubtedly have erupted should he have returned to England with his mama (Daddy's already over there, hanging with Jon Bon Jovi amongst other about-to-be-non-royal duties).

There has been some grumbling from the British taxpayers — or at least the British media (The Sun, in particular) about the added cost of a separate security detail for Archie while his parents are away, which may run up to £50,000. Still, most will admit that it's not really about the money — after all, this sum amounts to just a fraction of a cent per taxpayer. The true cost, according to one unnamed Sun source, will be the one paid by "senior royals who are despondent at not seeing the baby for so long."