The Royals Review: All Shine, No Soul in This Royal Rom-Com

The Royals Review– On paper, it was the sort of frothy, escapist binge Netflix is keen to sell — a desi Gossip Girl-meets-Bridgerton spectacle set against the sun-kissed opulence of Rajasthan. It had everything going for it in theory: a handsome prince with a sharp jawline, a self-made woman with drive, palace grandeur, and enough leheriya to dress a small town. But alas, this sparkling wedding invitation of a show becomes a half-hearted RSVP to melodrama and unfulfilled promise. Let’s break down what went wrong, and what nearly succeeded.

Also Read: Bhool Chuk Maaf OTT Release: The Real Reason Behind This Last-Minute Shift Will Shock You

Between Brocade and Buzzwords: Where's the Story?

From the beginning, The Royals appears to have been expensive. Palaces shine, wardrobes glimmer, and each meal appears to have been posed for a high-end magazine spread. But what it has in visual excess, it severely lacks in emotional resonance.

The series tracks Aviraaj “Fizzy” Singh (Ishaan Khatter), a polo enthusiast royal heir who’s allergic to shirts and tormented by family drama. He returns to his ancestral home in the fictional princely state of Morpur (read: Rajasthan with a Netflix filter) for the reading of his late father’s will. Waiting for him are fractured family ties, a crumbling palace, and Padmaja, his steely-yet-sultry mother played by Sakshi Tanwar, who juggles royal duties with a tangled love life.

Also Read:Karan Johar on Suhana Khan: ‘Not Just a Star Kid, But a Massive, Solid Artist

Meet Sofia Kanmani Shekhar (Bhumi Pednekar), a middle-class businesswoman and CEO of “Work Potato” (yes, that’s literally the name) — a start-up that tries to bridge the divide between the commoners and the royals. Their lives intersect. Fireworks erupt. Well, on paper.

Zero Chemistry, Maximum Chisel

The show’s core romance — Fizzy and Sofia — is meant to anchor the emotional progression of the series. But in place of swoons, there is stiffness. Their meet-cute reads like a script, their dialogue reads like a set-up, and their romance never quite simmers, much less sizzles.

It’s a pity because both leads are talented actors. Bhumi Pednekar, who is known for her versatility, finds herself trapped in a role that veers wildly between assertive business tycoon and cringing romantic interest, depending on the scene. Khatter, on the other hand, is all charm and pecs, but not much else. He’s wonderful in action — particularly on horseback — but the script gives him nothing to sink his teeth into.

Ironically, his most credible chemistry is with his horse, and we’re not even being snarky here — the animal has more emotional depth than a lot of the human ones.

Royal Dysfunction 101: The Family We Didn't Ask For

The supporting cast is an assortment of oddball personalities, each brought forth with the sweep of a soap opera but honed to the level of a dating app bio.

There’s Fizzy’s closeted younger brother Diggy (Vihaan Samat), who harbors culinary ambitions and a clandestine reality show audition. And there’s Jinnie (Kavya Trehan), the bisexual flirtatious sister who never quite chooses who she wants to be. Rani Maa alternates between steely determination and exhausted bewilderment in Sakshi Tanwar, while Zeenat Aman, making much-publicized return in the guise of the stoned grandmother Bhagyashree Devi, relaxes for the most part in designer attire, with jibes that never quite catch.

These characters need to be enjoyable. They need to bear the emotional burden when the leads fail. But the script doesn’t do them any justice. Many are fascinating on paper but cardboard cutouts on film.

Zeenat Aman Deserved Better

Now let’s discuss the elephant in the darbar: Zeenat Aman. Her casting as the grand matriarch was a coup — a move that retro Bollywood fans were abuzz about. But what a missed opportunity. She spends much of her time just floating around in fancy saris, some dry one-liners muttering here and there. The sparkle we get on her actual Instagram posts? Nowhere in this show. If only the writers had capitalized on her natural charm and wit. She could have been this show’s wise, sassy silver fox.

Opulence Overload: Drowning in Costume Drama

Each shot of The Royals yells “budget.” The series is a looker — from the royal surroundings and sherwanis with embroidery to dinner tables that are elaborate and bedrooms that are glammed up. Even breakfast has the look of a Vogue photo spread.

But when it’s all so glossy, where do the genuine emotions fit in? There is no grit, no dirt, no exposure. Even breakdowns occur with immaculate eyeliner and blow-dried locks. It’s less of a show about actual human beings and more of a fantasy Pinterest board.

Current Themes, Surface-Level Treatment

To credit where credit is due, The Royals attempts to grapple with current themes — queerness, female entrepreneurship, influencer culture. But these concepts are approached like a checklist, not an actuality.

Diggy’s queerness is hinted at rather than explored. Sofia’s “ethical business model” is confusingly vague (something to do with middle-class individuals paying for royal experiences?). And when a character shouts, “Do Gram the hell out of us,” it’s difficult not to cringe. These moments don’t ring true. They ring like the writers saw a few reels and decided that was research enough.

A Parade of Cameos and Half-Formed Subplots

The series jams in more personalities than it has an idea what to do with. Dino Morea, Milind Soman, Chunky Pandey, Sumukhi Suresh, and even Nora Fatehi show up, some more meaningful than others. But aside from the shock value, these cameos end up resembling fairy dust sprinkled on a poor script.

Some of the subplots — such as Padmaja’s love triangles or the financial collapse of the palace — promise drama but never quite deliver. Some, such as the influencer party or the fake-Masterchef competition, are cartoonish.

A Fleeting Flash of Warmth — And Then It's Over

To be fair, not everything is a wash. Vihaan Samat as Diggy brings an occasional tenderness to his scenes, especially in the final episodes. There are a few sweet moments between the siblings, and an unexpectedly sharp dinner table insult that earns an honest laugh. But by the time these sparks appear, you’re already drowning in eight episodes of glitz and mediocrity. It’s too little, too late.

Bridgerton Dreams, Daily Soap Reality

It’s obvious that The Royals wants to be India’s Bridgerton equivalent — a sultry, salacious royal saga with a twist. But whereas Bridgerton offsets its fluff with feeling, humor, and brazen storytelling, The Royals makes do with tropes, cringe-worthy writing, and visual overload. Even the character nicknames — Fizzy, Diggy, Jinnie — are fizzier than the scenes they’re a part of.

Final Thoughts: Crownless, Clueless, and Mostly Shirtless

The Royals is annoying to watch because it could have been effective. There is genuine promise in the premise of contemporary royals struggling with heritage, entitlement, and revolution. There’s a hungry audience eager for escapism drama with a heart that rings true.

But what we’re given in its place is a show that conflates wealth with complexity and believes bare chest are a replacement for chemistry. It photographs well in stills and reels — but the second you lean in, there’s nothing behind the curtain. The show may get clicks for its production value and pretty cast, but it won’t stick in anyone’s heart — or mind.

The Verdict: 2 Stars — One for the Horse, One for the Palace

If you’re just in it for the eye candy and background noise, The Royals may do. But if you’re looking for a show with heart, humor, and heat? Scroll on.

Rating: ☆☆☆

Watch it for: Vihaan Samat’s charm, one sassy insult, and perhaps the horse.

Skip it if: You prefer substance over set design.

The Royals is show all and soul none. With a fat budget, a great cast, and the potential for juicy royal intrigue, it fails on poor writing, manufactured romance, and superficial characters. A lost chance dressed up in designer finery.