Just before Gandalf breaks his staff and casts him out of the order of Wizards, Saruman has a minor meltdown in which he accuses Gandalf of grabbing power. He makes specific reference to a handful of symbolically-powerful objects (emphasis mine):

‘But you [Saruman] will first surrender to me [Gandalf] the Key of Orthanc, and your staff. They shall be pledges of your conduct, to be returned later, if you merit them.’

Saruman’s face grew livid, twisted with rage, and a red light was kindled in his eyes. He laughed wildly. ‘Later!’ he cried, and his voice rose to a scream. ‘Later! Yes, when you also have the Keys of Barad-dûr itself, I suppose; and the crowns of seven kings, and the rods of the Five Wizards, and have purchased yourself a pair of boots many sizes larger than those that you wear now. A modest plan.’

The Two Towers Book 1 Chapter 10: “The Voice of Saruman”

The Keys of Orthanc and Barad-dûr are pretty obvious, as are the “rods of the Five Wizards”1. However, who are the “seven kings”?

My first thought was that this was a reference to Gondor, not because of the “kings” or “crowns”, but because of the “seven”; in particular, it recalled this line (emphasis mine):

Pippin was silent again for a while. He heard Gandalf singing softly to himself, murmuring brief snatches of rhyme in many tongues, as the miles ran under them. At last the wizard passed into a song of which the hobbit caught the words: a few lines came clear to his ears through the rushing of the wind:

Tall ships and tall kings
Three times three,
What brought they from the foundered land
Over the flowing sea?
Seven stars and seven stones
And one white tree.

The Two Towers Book 1 Chapter 10: “The Voice of Saruman”

However, that doesn’t make a bucketful of sense: Gondor only has one King (two if you count the quasi-independent Kingdom of Arnor; four if you further count the subdivisions of Arnor: Arthedain, Cardolan, and Rhudaur).

My next thought was that this is a reference to the seven fathers of the Dwarves. Gandalf does explicitly say that Sauron gave seven rings to “dwarf-kings”:

The Three, fairest of all, the Elf-lords hid from him, and his hand never touched them or sullied them. Seven the Dwarf-kings possessed, but three he has recovered, and the others the dragons have consumed.

The Fellowship of the Ring Book 1 Chapter 2: “The Shadow of the Past”

However, Saruman’s statement seems over-broad if that were the case; in almost all other cases, when talking about a specific race the speaker will preface their statement with that race (e.g., “elf-eyes”, “dwarf-rings”, “dwarf-kings” above, etc.), so it would seem unusual that, had Saruman meant the crowns of the Dwarf-kings, he would not have said “the crowns of the seven Dwarf-kings”.

Has Tolkien ever been more explicit about which seven kings Saruman is referring to, or does anyone have a more educated guess?

1 Even if Saruman isn’t referring to five literal rods, there’s a symbolism here; Saruman thinks Gandalf is seeking domination over the Istari. This says quite a bit more about Saruman than it does Gandalf.

  • 3
    Checking my electronic copy, it just has "seven kings" (i.e without the "the"). I can cross-check with Hammond & Scull and HoME 8 later on today; this may be a second-edition change or one of CT's subsequent corrections.
    – user8719
    Commented Apr 7, 2015 at 13:29
  • 2
    "Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone"
    – Joe L.
    Commented Apr 7, 2015 at 13:49
  • 13
    More importantly... Who is the owner of those large boots? Commented Apr 9, 2015 at 12:31
  • 5
    @Ceiling Gecko: Tom Bombadil?
    – Joe L.
    Commented Apr 10, 2015 at 13:09
  • 7
    He means the King of the Isles and Rivers, the King of the Rock, the King of Mountain and Vale, the King of the Reach, the Storm King, the Prince of Dorne and the King in the North. Commented Jun 6, 2017 at 9:27

10 Answers 10


I've cross-checked this text with the following sources:

  • The original draft text presented in History of Middle-earth 8.
  • A 7-book edition of Lord of the Rings based on the 2004/2005 text.
  • The 2013 collectors edition of Lord of the Rings.
  • Discussion of the chapter in Hammond & Scull's Readers Companion.
  • Discussion of the 2004/2005 edition changes, also in Hammond & Scull's Readers Companion.

In all cases the text states "crowns of seven kings" (i.e without the "the"), and there is no discussion of any changes made to this paragraph, in any edition, in Hammond & Scull's book.

The only reference to "the seven kings" I can actually locate is, in fact, in Peter Jackson's movie; for example in this clip:

I don't have a First Edition to cross-check with, but it seems irrelevant on account of the original History of Middle-earth 8 text: the correct reading is, in intention, "crowns of seven kings", and any case where "the seven kings" may be mentioned is in error, perhaps quoting the movie script rather than the books. It's also notable in this regard that, in the original text, "Five Wizards" is capitalized whereas "seven kings" is not.

The correct answer is therefore: there are no specific seven kings.

  • 1
    I could have sworn that my copy of the book said "the seven kings", but I guess that was just my mind playing tricks on me. Fair does Commented Apr 7, 2015 at 22:53
  • 17
    While noting the textual detail is worth doing, I don't think this invalidates the question in any way. Even lacking the definite article, a plain reading of the text still insists that Saruman has something specific in mind. It might be symbolic rather than referring to a literal seven kings, so it might refer to a "what" rather than a "who." Regardless, I think the answer to this question necessarily needs to include the interpretation of the phrase.
    – jpmc26
    Commented Apr 8, 2015 at 1:03
  • You may very well be right; it does seem odd to me include a non-specific "seven crowns" in the middle of a list of specific, powerful items. Commented Apr 8, 2015 at 17:42
  • 6
    Seems reasonable enough, really. He's freaking out and accusing Gandalf of things at random. The number was probably the first that came to mind larger than maybe 3. He probably sees each accusation as more grave and serious than the last. Power over Barad-dûr < Power over some selection of kings < Power over the Istari. Commented Apr 10, 2015 at 1:39
  • 4
    I'm utterly befuzzled at downvotes for an answer that's based on direct citations from the source texts and with no personal opinion or speculation in it, but hey-ho, it's not like I need the rep.
    – user8719
    Commented Apr 11, 2015 at 11:02

There are a number of good candidates for The Seven Kings in The Silmarillion, but I don't see anything definite.

  1. The Silmarillion, Valaquenta:

The Great among these spirits the Elves name the Valar, the Powers of Arda, and Men have often called them gods. The Lords of the Valar are seven; and the Valier, the Queens of the Valar, are seven also. These were their names in the Elvish tongue as it was spoken in Valinor, though they have other names in the speech of the Elves in Middle-earth, and their names among Men are manifold. The names of the Lords in due order are: Manwë, Ulmo, Aulë, Oromë, Mandos, Lórien, and Tulkas; and the names of the Queens are: Varda, Yavanna, Nienna, Estë, Vairë, Vána, and Nessa. Melkor is counted no longer among the Valar, and his name is not spoken upon Earth.

  1. The Silmarillion, Quenta Silmarillion, Ch. 2 Of Aulë and Yavanna:

It is told that in their beginning the Dwarves were made by Aulë in the darkness of Middle-earth; for so greatly did Aulë desire the coming of the Children, to have learners to whom he could teach his lore and his crafts, that he was unwilling to await the fulfilment of the designs of Ilúvatar. And Aulë made the Dwarves even as they still are, because the forms of the Children who were to come were unclear to his mind, and because the power of Melkor was yet over the Earth; and he wished therefore that they should be strong and unyielding. But fearing that the other Valar might blame his work, he wrought in secret: and he made first the Seven Fathers of the Dwarves in a hall under the mountains in Middle-earth.

  1. The Silmarillion, Quenta Silmarillion, Ch. 3 Of the Coming of the Elves:

But at the bidding of Manwë Mandos spoke, and he said: ‘In this age the Children of Ilúvatar shall come indeed, but they come not yet. Moreover it is doom that the Firstborn shall come in the darkness, and shall look first upon the stars. Great light shall be for their waning. To Varda ever shall they call at need.’
Then Varda went forth from the council, and she looked out from the height of Taniquetil, and beheld the darkness of Middle-earth beneath the innumerable stars, faint and far. Then she began a great labour, greatest of all the works of the Valar since their coming into Arda. She took the silver dews from the vats of Telperion, and therewith she made new stars and brighter against the coming of the Firstborn... And high in the north as a challenge to Melkor she set the crown of seven mighty stars to swing, Valacirca, the Sickle of the Valar and sign of doom.

[Valacirca - The Sickle of the Valar, name of the constellation of the Great Bear]

  1. The Silmarillion, Quenta Silmarillion, Ch. 5 Of Eldamar and the Princes of the Eldalië:

The seven sons of Fëanor were Maedhros the tall; Maglor the mighty singer, whose voice was heard far over land and sea; Celegorm the fair, and Caranthir the dark; Curufin the crafty, who inherited most his father’s skill of hand; and the youngest Amrod and Amras, who were twin brothers, alike in mood and face. In later days they were great hunters in the woods of Middle-earth; and a hunter also was Celegorm, who in Valinor was a friend of Oromë, and often followed the Vala’s horn. [Fëanor and his sons instigated a lot of the events in the Second Age, both good and ill]

Considering the bombastic nature of Saruman's taunt to Gandolf, I tend to think he's speaking figuratively, symbolically, rather than literally. As I think about it more, I think the symbolism of the seven stars of Valacirca (possibility #3) is a very strong possibility, more fitting for an overblown insult than any literal set of kings.

  • 2
    But the seven sons were very definitely not kings. Commented Apr 7, 2015 at 14:42
  • 26
    The Seven Lords of the Valar seems to me to be a likely one for two Maiar to goad each other with.
    – user8719
    Commented Apr 7, 2015 at 14:56
  • 3
    @Darth Melkor: A valid point, but given the bombastic nature of Saruman's taunt to Gandolf, I tend to think he's speaking figuratively, symbolically, rather than literally. That's what makes me think the seven stars of the Valacirca are more likely to be the subject of the "seven kings" reference.
    – Joe L.
    Commented Apr 7, 2015 at 19:13
  • 1
    Gandolf? :P
    – Federico
    Commented Apr 7, 2015 at 19:40
  • 3
    Gondolf the Woke Commented Aug 27, 2017 at 11:41

These are rulerships over the land and people within it.

The line, "...the crowns of seven kings..." is spoken in contrast to several other items Saruman supposes Gandalf wants:

  • Keys of Barad-dûr
  • crowns of seven kings
  • rods of the Five Wizards

The keys of Barad-dûr refer to Sauron and all his evil followers - they bow to no kings, but they bow to Sauron.

The rods of five wizards refer to the only Maiar on the world - and their attendant power. They also bow to no kings.

And finally, the seven kings simply refers to all the contemporary kings, kingdoms, and races of that time - those who held power over all else on the world. King of Rohan, King of Dale, King of Gondor, etc. - there are many kings in Middle-earth ruling over portions of the land. There are many races, each with their king or kings - Elves, Men, Dwarves, Hobbits, etc.

In other words, Saruman was accusing Gandalf of gathering enough power to rule the entire world and all within it - becoming the ultimate ruler/king/etc. The very same thing Saruman was actually doing.

  • 1
    Except there aren't many kings in Middle Earth. Hobbits and Elves don't have kings (the Elves have Lords and Ladies, a nod to the Fey but not kings or queens), the Dwarves have but One king and man at most five, two of whom rule beyond the generally acknowledged borders of Middle Earth, leaving only the King of Dale, the King of Rohan and arguably the King of Gondor, although at the time there isn't one, plus the dwarven King Under the Mountain, 4 kings. If you stretch the borders and include Harad and Rhun you get 6.
    – Ash
    Commented Nov 20, 2017 at 12:59
  • @Ash I stated, "all the contemporary kings, kingdoms, and races of that time - those who held power over all else on the world." - He's not talking only about official kingdoms, but also races and similar seats of power and control. The elves don't have "kings" but they clearly have a leadership structure, for instance. If you can control the "seven kings" along with the other two items in his list then you are in control of every individual in Middle Earth.
    – Adam Davis
    Commented Nov 20, 2017 at 13:44
  • You stated " there are many kings in Middle Earth" there aren't.
    – Ash
    Commented Nov 20, 2017 at 16:23
  • 2
    The very last paragraph is valid on its own. Full of resentment, bitterness, contempt. He knew that Gandalf wasn't doing these things - they were mere reflections of what he - Saruman - would have liked to have accomplished but knew he had failed on that part.
    – Pryftan
    Commented Jan 17, 2018 at 1:10
  • 1
    Supported by the fact that "kings" is not written capitalized, I think that this does not refer to literal kings but leader in any sense. This would also not include any people following Sauron, as Gandalf would've gained control over them by controlling Barad-dûr. This leaves the "west" with three elven populations (Galadriel, Elrond, Thranduil) one dwarven population (Dain) and three larger populations of men (Dale, Rohan, Gondor). Other rather small populations are not included and the Hobbits would not be included as Saruman might think Gandalf already has control over them.
    – trikPu
    Commented Oct 19, 2020 at 10:00

I think the emphasis here should be on the number seven rather than "seven kings". The number seven has had a cultural significance since ancient times. For example, there are seven deadly sins, seven days in a week and seven celestial bodies visible with the naked eye (the Sun, the Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn).

I think Tolkien used the number seven here not because there were a group of seven kings in Middle-earth's history - there isn't - but because Tolkien recognised the number seven as traditionally a significant number, and used it here to give Saruman's goading of Gandalf a bit of extra impetus.

  • Yes, it's a figurative rather than literal 'seven'. Commented May 16, 2023 at 8:27

The crowns of seven kings just uses the significant number of seven in relation to exalted and important things which are usually hard to get, the crowns of kings.

It is not supposed to be The Crowns of THE Seven Kings.

There were more than seven kings in Middle-earth in Third Age 3019. There are seven kingdoms in Europe today, even though it is very royalty-poor compared to previous eras, and most of Middle-earth was inhabited by allies and worshipers of Sauron who would use his magic to increase their numbers, not decease them. So there would be many kingdoms in Rhûn and Harad and beyond in Middle-earth, beside possibly seven kings of the seven races of the Dwarves, the King of Dale, the King of Rohan, and the King of the wood-Elves.

I don't remember ever hearing of a set of monarchs called The Seven Kings of (something) ruling seven kingdoms at the same time that were classified together.

For example in 154 BC Han Dynasty China fought the Revolt of Seven Kings as I remember it from a course in Chinese history. It is true that the Wikipedia article calls it "The Rebellion of the Seven States" or "Revolt of the Seven Kingdoms".

But those names for the event using "the" are clearly inaccurate since the article itself mentions five other kingdoms that didn't join the revolt. Thus the correct name must refer to "the Revolt of Seven Kingdoms out of the twelve or more kingdoms", not "The Revolt of the Seven Kingdoms".

So The Seven Kings would be an entirely new expression in Middle-earth or our modern Earth.

  • "Elves don't have kings (the Elves have Lords and Ladies, a nod to the Fey but not kings or queens)" The leader of the elves of Mirkwood is refereed to throughout The Hobbit as simply "the Elvenking".. In LOTR he has a name, but still the title of King. . Let us not forget the song that starts "Gilgalad was an elven King" Finwe was "King of the Noldor" and one of the disputes between the sons of Feanor and their cousins was the passing of the title of King from the line of Feanor. Amroth was King in Lorien. It was unusual that Galadriel and Celeborn claimed no title. Commented Jul 20, 2022 at 17:54

One possibility is the seven kingdoms of men who fought against Sauron and his allies. This excludes any kingdoms in Rhûn, Umbar, Harad and Far Harad, Khand, and Númenor, because at one point or another they all allied with Sauron. However, it leaves these seven:

  1. Gondor
  2. Arthedain
  3. Cardolan
  4. Rhudaur
  5. Rohan
  6. Dale
  7. Rhovanion

But I think the most plausible explanation is the movie got it wrong and Tolkien simply meant to refer to seven random crowns. The full quote is

"Yes, when you also have the Keys of Barad-dûr itself, I suppose; and the crowns of seven kings, and the rods of the Five Wizards, and have purchased yourself a pair of boots many sizes larger than those that you wear now. A modest plan. Hardly one in which my help is needed!"

So I think Tolkien was having Saruman juxtapose two random and probably useless things with two specific and ideally useful things to illustrate how ridiculous his goals were. Otherwise he would've referred to Seven Kings as a proper noun like he did the Five Wizards.


I believe that "the crowns of seven kings" is a metaphor for the palantíri. There are seven of them and they were scattered across the kingdoms of Gondor and Arnor. As they were brought from Númenor by Isildur and his sons who became rulers of these kingdoms, you could even consider the palantíri to be the 'crown jewels' of Gondor and Arnor.

(They would also be the "seven stones" Pippin heard about in the song you quoted.)

  • 3
    Tenuous at best. Commented Apr 8, 2015 at 8:59
  • 11
    I'm not convinced ... besides the not-so-obvious metaphorical meaning, there is the fact that owning all the seven palantiri would make them less useful, as their inter-communication ability would be pointless.
    – lfurini
    Commented Apr 8, 2015 at 9:30
  • 11
    @lfurini --- Maybe Smeagol could use two at once. Commented Apr 8, 2015 at 9:39
  • I think that it would be very uncomfortable to wear a Palantir on your head! Commented Jul 8, 2015 at 2:50
  • I thought of the Seeing-stones too but that's only because of the number. Nobody knew (maybe Gríma did but nobody else - unless you count someone in Mordor, that is) that Saruman was using a palantír and he wasn't at all impressed when Gríma threw it. He even shrieks when he realises what Gríma had done. So I seriously doubt it has anything to do with the palantíri.
    – Pryftan
    Commented Jan 17, 2018 at 1:15

Whilst I agree with the answer provided by user8719 in that the seven kings are not specific and given Tolkien's reliance on the number 7 for several things, from seven kings of the Valar and seven queens of the valar to seven dwarf-lords and seven seeing stones for example (which I appreciate has also already been pointed out), it could be any group of kings being referenced by Saruman.

However, in the context of Saruman's dressing down of Gandalf's "power grab," as he sees it, I find it rather unusual that Saruman wouldn't have a specific reason to mention "crowns of seven kings." He mocks Gandalf asking if he would bid Saruman to hand over specific items of great value or importance. Most of these are fairly straight forward, the key of Orthanc (Saruman's tower and seat of the Istari given Saruman's position as leader of the five wizards), the keys of Barad Dur (Sauron's ancient fortress where he currently dwells), and the rods of the five wizards (namely Saruman, Gandalf, Radagast, Alatar and Pallando). These all make reference to specific items that are in play within The Lord of the Rings story directly.

Both Orthanc and Barad Dur are the primary abodes of the villains of the story (Saruman and Sauron), the five wizards are directly (or supposed to be) in direct opposition to Sauron and working to rally the free peoples against him (only Gandalf succeeds in this task as Saruman falls, Radagast focuses on nature (though his purpose is less clear due to the Valar that sent him), Alatar and Pallando journeyed east into the lands of Rhun (home of the Easterlings) and it is unknown what became of them - though given that the Easterlings rallied to Sauron's call, the blue wizards were likely either corrupted or killed). Therefore these items are in direct reference to elements that are ongoing with the story of the Lord of the Rings rather than referencing ancient persons or artifacts.

When the "crowns of seven kings" are mentioned it is very easy to immediately be drawn to the ring verse and the mention of the seven rings given to the dwarves. I admit upon my first reading of it, that's where my first thoughts went, but, having thought about it the ring verse actually is pretty clear in its terminology. "Three rings for the Elven-Kings," "Seven for the Dwarf-Lords," and "Nine for Mortal Men." So immediately there in the text Tolkien specifically mentions the Dwarves as Lords not Kings. Now, I know it's basically nitpicking, but in Tolkien's case he was a linguistics professor, his use of words were just as important to him as anything else. In that respect given that Tolkien makes specific mention of Elven-Kings, why not say Dwarf-Kings if that was the intended implication? Instead he says "Dwarf-Lords." Thus it seems to entirely discount the Dwarf-Lords as having crowns of any kind, let alone be relevant enough for Saruman to consider them important to mention in mockery of Gandalf becoming head of the Istari.

So then, as you mentioned, could it be a reference to Gondor because of Gandalf's song that Pippin hears? But, as has been pointed out, at best you could draw four Gondorian or rather Numenorean Kings by including Arnor and its broken down components, but then that's three short, even if you were to include other free peoples of the race of men such as Theoden of Rohan it still falls short. So Gondor doesn't really fit unless it were the crowns of seven previous kings of Gondor, which might be relevant for Gandalf intending to crown Aragorn King, but then why would Gandalf need seven crowns to coronate Aragorn? Surely one would be enough. Maybe if one were Earnur's crown or Arvedui's, but then why would Saruman not be more specific? So again it doesn't seem to be relevant given the context.

Looking at some of the other possibilities like the potential crowns of the Valar for example, it seems a little far fetched for Gandalf to go to Saruman to obtain the crowns of beings vastly more powerful than Saruman and more than likely still in the possession of their owners. Whilst Saruman is referencing items he doesn't technically have, namely the "rods of the five wizards," they are still under his power and direct influence until Gandalf casts him out of the order of Istari. Therefore, it would seem strange for Saruman to mock Gandalf by offering to fetch him something that is beyond Saruman's power to offer. This goes the same for the Palantiri. Whilst Saruman did posses one, we know for a fact Denethor had one in Minas Tirith which allowed Sauron to drive the steward to madness and despair. Sauron himself had claimed one, which he used to corrupt Saruman and torment Denethor, which had been gifted to him by the Nazgul after the fall of Minas Ithil. The others were either lost or marred. Gandalf himself mentions that the stones were lost. In addition, whilst the palantiri are often referred to as the seven seeing stones, there was at least one other, the Master Stone, in the Tower of Avallone in Tol Eressea and so the seven only refers to the palantiri present in middle earth.

As for the dwarf fathers, there is a more compelling case here given they each founded a specific line of dwarves. Though again, it seems peculiar as to why Saruman would possess a crown for any of these dwarves or why he would see it as a specific thing to mention to Gandalf. Where the other three have a relevance to the story and could be of use to Gandalf, hence Saruman's choice to mock Gandalf with them, the crowns of the dwarven fathers don't really aid Gandalf. The dwarves are already committed to the war against Sauron following their attendance at the council of Elrond. Furthermore, the dwarf fathers were sacred to the dwarven peoples, so much so, their tombs were jealously protected as the dwarves believed the spirits of the dwarven fathers would return to their bodies and so the dwarves purposely preserved them. In this instance, for Saruman to gain even just one heirloom from any of the dwarven fathers seems to be highly unlikely.

The sons of Feanor is another interesting possibility, but again, their relevance to Saruman and Gandalf in this moment is lacking. Not only this but not all of Feanor's sons ruled as kings of the Noldor and their stories were far more entwined with the silmarils than their succession to Feanor's crown. Maglor, the only supposedly surviving son of feanor, was not crowned as a king, nor were his brothers Amrod and Amras who didn't live long enough to be crowned as kings due to their deaths in the third kinslaying. Whilst there were all princes, they were not all kings.

So considering then that this dialogue is a mockery of Gandalf by Saruman with items that could be considered useful to him. The key of Orthanc gives Gandalf the Tower of the White Wizard, the keys of Barad Dur allow Gandalf direct access to Sauron, the five rods of the wizards give Gandalf dominance over the Istari, the seven crowns must therefore have some usefulness to Gandalf. This could be a reference to seven Gondorian Kings and the line of succession to crown Aragorn as King, something Saruman despises and would mock Gandalf over, though why would he offer Gandalf seven when one would suffice? There are also no specific Gondorian or Arnorian kings mentioned elsewhere that these crowns could belong to.

The only other possibility that could be considered is if it is in some way connected to the Nazgul, the third antagonist faction beside Sauron and Saruman. With the other three offered items, Saruman is referencing both himself and Sauron so in some ways it would make sense to reference the Nazgul who have been plaguing Frodo since he left the Shire. Whilst there are nine Nazgul, it is not specifically mentioned by Tolkien that all these men were once kings. The ring verse itself only refers to "Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die." Tolkien was also vague with the identities of the Nazgul, naming only two, the Witch-King of Angmar and Khamul the Easterling. The rest are described as "mighty in their day, kings, sorcerers and warriors of old" and we are also made aware that three of their number were Numenorean - with the Witch-King being implied to be one of these Numenorean's.

Given Tolkien's vagueness around the identities of the Nazgul, even his named Nazgul, it is possible that only seven of them were ever kings in their time. All were powerful men, as Sauron sought out power that he could corrupt, but Sauron was also devious. It would make sense for Sauron to seek to corrupt those that could attain power and influence that he himself could then dominate. He also didn't focus solely on one group of people. Khamul, the only other named Nazgul, is specifically mentioned as being an Easterling, thus it would make sense for Sauron to have targeted powerful leaders in the realms of Rhun, Harad and Khand where he had considerable support during the Third Age.

Now, whilst this is certainly an interesting possibility and Gandalf coming into possession of seven crowns that could have once belonged to Nazgul is intriguing, it is by no means certain. Whilst what we know of the Nazgul does allude to a few of them not being Kings, we have no specific number. Perhaps only five of them were kings, or maybe even only two, the fact is Tolkien didn't say. If the seven crowns are connected to the Nazgul it certainly adds more to their mystery and makes some sense in Saruman's mockery of Gandalf. How could Gandalf utilise the crowns of seven Nazgul? Would naming them grant Gandalf an influence with them? Who knows. But it is clear that Saruman intends to sneer at Gandalf assuming his position and the things he decides to mock Gandalf with pertain to things that Saruman seems to believe Gandalf would find a value of power in.

I agree the "Crowns of Seven Kings" are from seven unspecified kings, but could it be possible that they have a deeper connection to the opponents of the free peoples? It certainly swings that way under the context of the dialogue. Whether it relates to the Nazgul or not, we probably won't know unless we somehow unearth any more commentary from Tolkien himself.


Is it possible the 7 kings he was referring to were the seven sons of Fëanor? Fëanor, who (likely) made the Palantír. All but one of said sons are dead/presumed dead, making this an impossible task, therefore potentially aligning with the intent of Saruman. i.e. 'Once you've achieved the impossible, then I'll give you the keys.'

Just as an aside, I was also thinking that it could be the 7 High Kings of the Noldor. If we start with Finwë, include Maedhros and conclude with Gil-galad, then there were 7 High Kings of the Noldor. This seems remotely plausible...

  • 2
    Can you post a quote or reference to back this up? Commented Aug 18, 2017 at 0:30
  • I'm not sure I understand how I'd do such a thing.
    – Raz
    Commented Aug 18, 2017 at 2:44
  • 1
    If memory serves me rightly Fëanor did indeed make the palantíri. But I don't think there is any evidence that Fëanor's sons are what Saruman was referring to. Saruman is at this point bitter and resents Gandalf very very much. If anything the suggestions Saruman makes here is things he himself would have liked to have accomplished. He wanted Gandalf's help (despite not knowing that Gandalf knew the location of the One Ring) but that was for his own purpose rather than for them (and Gandalf points out to Saruman that there is no need for the word 'we').
    – Pryftan
    Commented Jan 17, 2018 at 1:20

Weren't there seven rings given to the most powerful seven dwarf kings? Maybe its a reference to those?

  • 1
    Do you have any evidence to back this up with? If you edited this to include some quotes it could be quite a nice answer but as it stands this reads as a stab in the dark.
    – TheLethalCarrot
    Commented Jan 23, 2021 at 20:10

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.