How tall is Daniel Radcliffe

Daniel Radcliffe's Height

5ft 4.5in (164 cm)

English actor best known for starring in the Harry Potter series of films. He has also appeared in Woman in Black and Horns. He stated in 2005 he was was 5ft 5.5 (that half inch being important!) and in 2007 he claimed to have measured himself at 5ft 5.

How tall is Daniel Radcliffe
Photos by PR Photos

You May Be Interested

Height of Rupert Grint
Rupert Grint
5ft 7.75in (172 cm)
Height of Emma Watson
Emma Watson
5ft 4.75in (164 cm)
Height of Alan Rickman
Alan Rickman
6ft 0.75in (185 cm)
Height of Tom Felton
Tom Felton
5ft 8.5in (174 cm)

Add a Comment 250 comments

Average Guess (21 Votes)
5ft 4.36in
MJKoP said on 6/Dec/16
Even with PLATFORM shoes, Harry Potter still couldn't hit 5'9.75. :D
Sandy Cowell said on 28/Nov/16
I saw Daniel on QI and he has a fantastic personality and I found him very interesting and funny! He may only be 5ft4.5, but he is still a prime specimen of manhood and the ideal example of an attractive smaller man!
Gaza2121 said on 23/Nov/16
Mande2013, he actually looks under 5'4" in those pics lmao. But he's probably 5'4" range.
Sam said on 23/Nov/16
Same height as Tom Cruise he says, yeah right. Of course if anyone raises an eyebrow of Tom legitimately looking his listed height people will put it down to lifts as usual. To be fair to Daniel he can look 5'5 at most but maybe this listing is more accurate. I'm not sure.
CD said on 19/Nov/16
5ft 4 flat is definitely too low for him, he never looks more than 4 inches shorter than Tom Felton. In fact I too can still see the almost 5ft 5 argument because in many shots Felton seems to be standing with better posture...

Also 9 times out of 10 James McAvoy has a thicker heel on his shoes as well as likely being a little over 5ft 7.
mande2013 said on 18/Nov/16
Rob, where do you think his eye-level would be? Right around 5'0? Or 5'0.25?
Editor Rob: mande, probably a good 5ft, his eyelevel isn't that short for his height.
mande2013 said on 14/Nov/16
Radcliffe may be a small guy, but no way does he look 5'4 flat here: Click Here

I honestly still think he's a weak 5'5er.

I see a weak 5'5 guy here: Click Here
Realist said on 12/Nov/16
5'4 120 max
same said on 7/Nov/16
the more you look at them, the shorter they seem!
same said on 7/Nov/16
some people just keep getting shorter on celebheights!
NC said on 7/Nov/16
Rob I wouldn't be surprised if he was just 5'4 he looks rather short next to dave Franco
Editor Rob: NC, I think 5ft 4 flat is just too low, although I can see the argument - if you watched him with Tom Felton or Jesse Eisenberg, at times he looks not much over 5ft 4!
oliver said on 2/Nov/16
I would say 5'4 for him and 5'4.5 for Emma Watson. He looks half inch shorter than her.
VeryShortRussianDude said on 1/Nov/16
Strong 163cm IMO so 5'4.5 is like a roundup height for Radcliffe, I'd bet good money he dips a little under 5'4.5 on the nose.
RainbowBlaster5 said on 24/Oct/16
Zoe Kazan ssemed taller than him in "What if" and she was in flats and he was in shoes , it's the scene where the postmans letters go flying all about and they help him if I'm not mistaken.
S.J.H said on 1/Oct/16
5'4.5 is right also 5'4.25 could be lowest
Pita ji said on 16/Sep/16
He is no more than 5 foot 3.5 out of bed dave franco is 5 foot 5 he look almost 2 inches shorter than dave.
heightmaster3000 said on 29/Aug/16
I really think 5,4.5 might even be pushing it a bit. I was shocked how tiny he looked next to Eisenberg and Franco in the movie as well as red carped pictures. As low as 1,62 is not out of the question if you ask me. BUT I have to say I think it's amazing how comfortable he seems to be with his height. There never seem to be any attempts to make him look closer to his co-stars and as far as I can tell he doesn't seem to wear lifts either. He reminds me of MJF in that regard. That shows alot of confidence.
www said on 25/Aug/16
at least shorter people have less of a height loss than taller ones. good for harry.
mande2013 said on 24/Aug/16
McAvoy has a clear footwear advantage in all those pictures with Daniel. I'm telling you people, he's a weak 1m65.
mande2013 said on 24/Aug/16
Okay, I'm gonna say it. I still think DR looks close to 5'5 here: Click Here

Dave Franco is quite obviously sporting lifts. But come on, assuming Ruffalo and Eisenberg are 5'7 and changers, nowhere is Daniel pushing 5'4 flat. The 5'4.75 listing may have been more on the money. MJ Fox would look smaller in this picture. It's Daniel's thin frame that gives the illusion he's closer to 5'4 than 5'5.
d,ml said on 23/Aug/16
how low will rob go on daniel radcliffe? that is the question.
Editor Rob: if he reaches 80 he'll be 5ft 3
Jazz said on 15/Aug/16
I wasn't sure Rob would downgrade him again or Emma. Even though I always thought Emma looked a fraction taller.
Aditya. said on 13/Aug/16
Height is always not a problem, Generosity is.
Talent and hardwork beats hollow appearance all the bloody time.
Alex91 said on 12/Aug/16
Hey Rob, I appreciate that you downgrade Daniel's height because 5ft 4.5 seems correct. But near James Mcavoy, Tom Felton and Dave Franco Daniel seems to be 5ft 4.25 or 5ft 4. Personally I think Daniel is around 5ft 4, what do you think Rob?
Editor Rob: I think he probably measured 5ft 5.5 in a shoe, that is believable and why he joked about rounding up to 5ft 6. 5ft 4 he can look at times, but then a guy like mcavoy ain't a weak 5ft 7, he might be like me a little over the mark but nobody is going to say a tiny amount like that.
Word1234 said on 9/Aug/16
@mat very interesting photos, Daniel with his Harry Potter cast seems to hold up to those weak 5'5 claims, but when you see him with Macavoy, Franco, joe Jonas he looks like he's barely pushing 5'4.
Must be witchcraft and wizardry :p
Aaron Zamora said on 3/Aug/16
I believe that Radcliffe is 5'4 flat.
Editor Rob: I wouldn't go that low but I think 5ft 4.5 is quite realistic.
Leonardo said on 20/Jul/16
He and Emma Watson are 5'4.25 (163 cm) and no more.
Mat said on 13/Jul/16
Oi check this out! Daniel guilty of tip toeing! ;-) Click Here

To be fair to Daniel, there is no way he would only be a flat 5'4, but he also fails to pass for a 5'5 man in every photo out there. A weak 5'5 man should pass sometimes for 5'5 but he never does. He is just definitely over 5'4 but unknown how much over it. Click Here Click Here

Unless Tom Felton hasn't grown since the editor met him ( to me he has the proportions of a 5'10 man, he could even look tall amongst the small cast of HP ), then I can see Daniel as 5'4.5 on the dot! He and Bruno Mars may be the exact height.
lol said on 8/Jul/16
some people just keep getting shorter on celebheights...
miko said on 7/Jul/16
In Cruise is in lifts he could well be looking over Dan's head!
Alex said on 3/Jul/16
I met him some years ago. He was like 30 cm shorter then me. I think 164 is right.
ND said on 2/Jul/16
Rob do you think 5'4 on the dot would be a better listing and more accurate? After seeing him in now you see me 2 it seems unlikely that he would be closer to 5'5? What do you think, a slight downgrade in the possible future?
Editor Rob: 5ft 4.5 may well be closer for Daniel...I think he can struggle to look near 5ft 5 half the time.
ND said on 29/Jun/16
Hey rob I just saw now you see me 2 and when Daniel stands next to dave Franco, Dave Franco has him by a couple of Iniches Daniel looked more 5'2-5'3 compared to Franco who is 167cm do you think that's possible?
Editor Rob: Radcliffe wouldn't be that short, although I'm sure he can look 5ft 4 at times.
Mat said on 23/Jun/16
Rob is 5'4 flat possible? He looks really short.
Editor Rob: at times you could say he looks 5ft 4-4.5 zone
Lee said on 19/Jun/16
He's not a lot shorter than tom cruise. Tom is scraping 5'7 maybe even a weak 5'7 and Daniel is 5'5" at the shortest. 2 inches isn't exactly a big gap
Word1234 said on 11/Jun/16
Click Here
Not the best picture but Dave Franco looks quite a bit taller than daniel Radcliffe.
For some reason every picture of Daniel Radcliffe he looks like 5'2. I struggle to see him anywhere close to 5'4.75. Honestly.
tiny said on 10/Jun/16
145-149cm: impossible
150-154cm: weak
155-159cm: probably
160-164cm: probably
165-169cm: weak
170-174cm: impossible
L said on 4/Jun/16
I am just bit under 5'6. I've stood next to Daniel and 5'4 might even be stretching it. He is quite small.
Mat said on 22/May/16
Hey Rob, apparently Daniel thinks he is about the same height as Tom Cruise, who is 3 inches taller? From Playboy

Does being short limit his career? “I don’t think so. Dustin Hoffman and Tom Cruise have very different careers, and they’re both about the same height as I am.''
Editor Rob: Daniel's in for a big shock when he shakes Tom's hand for the first time!
Mat said on 14/May/16
I think that he would have been an alpha male if he was 5'10 (or above of course). Height plays a major role in appearance unfortunately. If he wasn't famous, any girl would pick an average (or even below average) looking 5'10 guy over him any day.
ND said on 26/Jan/16
hey Rob,
do you think 164,5 could be daniel's end of the day height or his out of bed height?
mande2013 said on 23/Jan/16
@MD, In that last picture that you pronounce the killer, I see a 3.5 inch difference between Radcliffe and McAvoy, but it's possible the latter's wearing lifts while DR has normal footwear on, because in other picture with the two of them the difference didn't seem that large.
MD said on 13/Jan/16
@Rob & @Ouch,

Some better photo from one of the events pictured in the article you linked to. Notice McAvoy is not standing to his fool height in just about any of them, and we know he's only 5'7".

Click Here

Click Here

At another event. McAvoy may have a bit of a footwear advantage, here:

Click Here

The killers, though:

Click Here
plus said on 31/Dec/15
No more than 164,5 and he is very similar to Pablo Motos. Both removed their shoes for a test in a program. Pablo Motos claims 167 cm, some years ago in an article about shoe lifts it said he was 166 cm, but Motos is 165 cm.
Lol said on 21/Nov/15
I always assume people are a half inch or so taller than they are listed on this site
Ouch said on 15/Nov/15
Several new pics of Radcliffe with James McAvoy: Click Here There seems to be at least 3in difference between them, maybe even more.
jordydecke said on 15/Nov/15
Click Here

Daniel Radcliffe clearly wearing lifts ^ - very short guy, as most child actors tend to be. I think this is because casting directors would choose younger looking children as they're more likely to stay looking younger throughout shooting.
MJKoP said on 8/Nov/15
Lawrence194cm said on 26/Oct/15
Daniel Radcliffe seems a pretty tall and wiry bloke. When he stood next to Severus Snape he can't have been more than an inch or taller smaller than him. I'd put the lad somewhere between 178 and 181 cm. The character Harry Potter was always meant to be around 6'1" in adulthood so I guess they did the casting pretty well.

As hilariously wrong as this may be, I almost find it to be refreshing after all the ridiculous downgrading that takes place on this site!
Lawrence194cm said on 26/Oct/15
Daniel Radcliffe seems a pretty tall and wiry bloke. When he stood next to Severus Snape he can't have been more than an inch or taller smaller than him. I'd put the lad somewhere between 178 and 181 cm. The character Harry Potter was always meant to be around 6'1" in adulthood so I guess they did the casting pretty well.
Ron said on 11/Sep/15
He's always looked a little taller to me... I think he may actually be the 5'5 he claims, maybe with the half out of bed. He just seems to edge Watson out very slightly and he never looks that much smaller than Grint who I peg at 5'8. His height suits him, he's got the right build for it! And he never has problems asserting screen presence either, so all in all a pretty impressive stature!
Josh said on 8/Sep/15
Hey Rob, isnt 5'4.75 more like 164,5 so 165cm? Or am i wrong?
[Editor Rob: 164.465, so since that mark is nearer 164 than 5 I display the closest cm.]
mande2013 said on 20/Aug/15
I guess this downgrade was inevitable, but in most Western countries, I'd say males in the 164-169 range are all treated pretty much the same socially anyway.
CD said on 5/Aug/15
Rob, now that I have grown a fraction do you think I'm as tall as Daniel yet? I'm a good 5ft 4 5/8ths (well last time I measured a week or so ago), and at worst around 5ft 4.5 on the dot. Out of bed a fraction over 5ft 5.

I know you haven't measured him, but could he still edge me barefoot?
[Editor Rob: CD, I think radcliffe probably falls into the 5ft 4.75-5 zone if you measured him.]
CD said on 23/Jul/15
It looks more like 2.5 minimum shorter, maybe 3 at most. So he's over the 5 foot 4 mark, probably close to 5ft 4.75 given the footwear. Daniel looks more than an inch above James's eyes, so I can't see the difference being in the 3.5 inch range.
the shredder said on 21/Jul/15
With James MCavoy he looks 3.5 minimum shorter , even if James has boots he can't be more than 5'4.5
Parker said on 19/Jul/15
Same height and build as Michael J Fox. 164 is my guess.
Pedro said on 15/Jul/15
He confirmed in this interview that he is 5'5": Click Here
CD said on 6/Jun/15
I think finishing growth at 17-18 is average more than say 15-16, but at the latter age you're most likely to be within a few inches of your final height. From what I've seen it isn't common to get a large spurt between 15 and 18 but some growth is usually there. Needless to say, Daniel has looked the same height since he was 18.
Voiceless Dental Fricative said on 31/May/15
Radcliffe looks in the 5'4-5 range. 5'5 is the absolute highest he could be. 5'4.5 is probabilistically the best choice.
Amaze said on 27/May/15
I know so many boys that grew a lot after 18
One boy was 5'1/5'2
Now at 18 hes 5'8
Another was 5'8 now 6'0
Another was 5'10 now 6'1
Another was 6'1 now 6'4.5
MrTBlack said on 16/May/15
@celebheights 6'1.5"

Most boys growth plates will close at late 15 to mid 16 so they might squeeze in a little growth after their closed but not much so pretty much by the time your 15-16, your done growing but if not, you'll usually have a good idea of what your final height will be.
Chris said on 14/May/15
@mande2013: OK that whole "since people such as you seem to get so defensive, as if your whole world were to crumble if you were proven wrong" bit was especially unnecessary. If you don't agree with something, fine, but don't attack the person because of it, otherwise it makes YOU look like the defensive one, not me.

Also, you're putting words in my mouth, I never said that "every living soul is meant to fall within a standard deviation" of an average, all I said was that height growth after 21 is very uncommon, that's all. Of course it's possible some people like yourself may have picked up some height after 21, but the amount of people like yourself are by and large in the (very small) minority.

To try and steer this back on topic, I'll say that Daniel Radcliffe measuring just under 5'5" wouldn't be too surprising, if not today, then definitely decades from now ;).
mande2013 said on 12/May/15
@Chris: I could be wrong, but I sense there's some vested interest in people maintaining growth is impossible after X age, since people such as you seem to get so defensive, as if your whole world were to crumble if you were proven wrong. I get it, men generally reach their full height by the late teens, but do people go around saying all men are 5'9/5'10 no ifs ands or buts just because that's the average height or that all women go through menopause by 45 end of debate, etc. There are averages for everything, but that doesn't mean every living soul is meant to fall within a standard deviation of them. Some men are five inches below average, some are five inches above. Some stop growing at 14, some grow until 23, and so on.
Mick said on 8/May/15
@pinkfish: Most of the heights on this site are guesses backed up by pictures, and sometimes (from my experience of pictures of myself), they don't tell the whole story. Of course, the 100% reliable ones here are the ones that show Rob with some celebrity, but the listings without it aren't 100% reliable. Perspective could be off, shoes on one person could be heftier than the other, etc. For all we know, Daniel Radcliffe could be shorter than listed, while Chalrie Day could be taller than listed, or vice versa. The heights listed here have a lot to be backed up with, even the ones without Rob/Jenny pictured, but expect some variation (1 inch at most). It's not like people who aren't 5'5 1/8" don't exist just because they the listings here are in 0.25 inch increments.

That being said, it's not that hard to believe Daniel Radcliffe is shorter than Charlie Day. Given the former is Harry Potter, he's given so much focus that we are made to think he's bigger than he really looks, while the latter is, well...a wildcard (the type of character, using 'It's Always Sunny' as a reference, that doesn't typically get the same type of focus as Harry Potter).
pinkfish said on 7/May/15
he is shorter than charlie day? That is impossible.
Click Here
Chris said on 6/May/15
@mande2013: So you did, you don't have to believe it, but height growth after 21 is indeed very uncommon, it's just how it is.
spainmen191cm said on 23/Apr/15
Rob we will see a downgrade to a weak 5ft5 soon?
[Editor Rob: 5ft 4.75 might be possible, I've always said it might be one day.]
mande2013 said on 23/Apr/15
I grew after 21. I was 5'4.5-5'5 all through college and now at age 26 I'm 5'6 late in the day and a little over 169 cms first thing in the morning. Still short for a male, but even so...
Phil said on 22/Apr/15
@Chris: True, in fact, even growing after 18 years of age is uncommon (though not rare, I'd say about 1/3 of guys from age 18-21 will still grow), so I too find it hard to figure why anyone would think height growth after 21 is common.
Chris said on 22/Apr/15
@Celebheights 6'1.5"-6'2":

A lot of people don't grow at all after 21, that applies to the minority actually, I don't know where you're getting your logic from because it's simply not true.
Height183 said on 19/Apr/15
I have a hard time believing he's over 5'4''. But I'm sure the millions and millions he has in his bank make him forget about his height problem.
Sean said on 15/Apr/15
Rob look at this recent pic with James Mcavoy. Mcavoy is 5'7 and Daniel looks like a dwarf next to him. He needs to be brought down to 5"4. What do you think?

Click Here
[Editor Rob: I wouldn't call him a dwarf, although I've always said a weak 5ft 5 for him is very possible, James has thicker heels on his shoes there.]
b-mint1994 said on 11/Apr/15
Strong 5'4"-Weak 5'5". He's a great guy and has had an incredible career despite his height.
Arch Stanton said on 19/Feb/15
Celebheights 6'1.5"-6'2" says on 19/Jan/15
If he measured at 5'5" when he was 18, then it's possible that he grew a bit. I think that a lot of people pick up .25"-.5" after 21 with nobody noticing it due to the fact that most people are unable to notice 1 CM. It's also possible that he stopped saying '5'5.5"' just because of the fact that '5'5" is easier to remember. That being said, he does appear a bit above 5'5" to me. Is it possible that he's 5'5.25"-5'5.5"?

You kidding? Even 5'5" flat is generous, I'd put him at 5'4" range. I'd list him at 164cm max personally.
FlameBoy said on 14/Feb/15
when your being comfortably beat by Dave Franco then you know your short

Dave franco i can not see being much over 5 ft 6 Radcliffe has to be more 5 ft 4 than 5 ft 5 Looking at that Pic unless franco is wearing lifts.
CD said on 12/Feb/15
It's easier to see Daniel anywhere 5ft 4.5-5, never as low as 5ft 3! IMO he's probably leaning more on 5ft 4.5 side, but not under that.
MD said on 12/Feb/15
That is a bad picture with bad angles with people standing in front of and behind other people. It's an overall bad shot to judge anything off of.
jd said on 9/Feb/15
do you think radcliffe can be 5'3? as seen in this pic 5'5 dave franco has a solid two inches on radcliffe? what do you think? it does look like franco is wearing thick boots though.

Click Here
Adam said on 24/Jan/15
All the people debating over the heights of Harry Potter characters in the books - In another of her books (The Casual Vacancy) J.K. Rowling describes two late teen boys in a throw away line as being 'nearly six foot' in a way that implies they are meant to be seen as tall. I think she defines tall as being 5'10 or over - by her own admission, she doesn't like maths and doesn't obsess over how all the statistics of her books match up.
CD said on 21/Jan/15
In every shot Daniel looks 3.5-4 inches shorter than Tom Felton who Rob has met in person and can say is near 174cm. If you watch the video with Jimmy Fallon Daniel also looks 7 if not 8 inches shorter. I really don't think he clears 5ft 5 unless you count out of bed. He can be a weak 5ft 5, probably 5ft 4.5-4.75 range. A guy like Josh Hutcherson has more chance of being a little over 5ft 5.

Very few guys gain anything after 21, a percentage do between 18 and 21 although I suspect on AVERAGE most guys gain 1/4-1/2 inch after about 17.
Celebheights 6'1.5"-6'2" said on 19/Jan/15
If he measured at 5'5" when he was 18, then it's possible that he grew a bit. I think that a lot of people pick up .25"-.5" after 21 with nobody noticing it due to the fact that most people are unable to notice 1 CM. It's also possible that he stopped saying '5'5.5"' just because of the fact that '5'5" is easier to remember. That being said, he does appear a bit above 5'5" to me. Is it possible that he's 5'5.25"-5'5.5"?
cd said on 14/Dec/14
Fallon can look 6ft so 5ft 11.75 for him and 5ft 4.75 for Daniel might be on the money.
Recovered Data said on 12/Dec/14

The Exorcist says on 10/Dec/14

Daniel looks about 7" shorter than (5'11.5" listed) Jimmy Fallon in this video.

Click Here

So if Fallon's listing is correct (which I think it is), that would put Daniel at around 5'4.5".

Greg (6'0'') says on 7/Dec/14

@Ray: Of course 11'6'' is twice the height of 5'9''. The question isn't 'How tall is twice the height of the average man' as that is a ridiculously simple computation to solve, but rather over whether this description by Rowling is a hyperbole or not, and I am inclined to believe that it is.

jamie179cm says on 7/Dec/14

@Height182 i agree i think he could as low as 5ft3 but 5ft4 is the max

Ray says on 7/Dec/14

@Greg: Actually Hagrid was 11'6", which is actually twice the average man's height of 5'9", calculate it yourself if you don't believe me.

Height182 says on 7/Dec/14

I really can't see him any taller than 5'4''. I wouldn't even be surprised if he was 5'3.5''!

jamie179cm says on 4/Dec/14

also 6ft1 is the start of legit tall imo

jamie179cm says on 4/Dec/14

@Greg thats weird 5ft11 isn't tall

Greg says on 30/Nov/14

@Tania: No need to apologize, I'm really into Harry Potter as well, and enjoy discussing it with fellow fans; in fact, I guarantee you my list of Harry Potter characters' height will qualify much more for 'getting carried away' than yours, so don't worry. And yes, Ron is referred to as the tallest of the trio throughout the series, although the reference you cited is likely the most important since Harry, Ron, and Hermione are presumably fully-grown at that point, thus confirming that Harry didn't "catch up" to Ron in height with his growth spurt in the latter books of the series.

I would concur with you on the point of Ron being in the very tall range, but I arrived at my conclusion via a different line of reasoning than yours. Rowling's usage of terms such as "tall", "gangling", and the like to describe Ron's physical appearance throughout the series could certainly be referring to a guy as short as 5'11'' or so (given a 5'9'' British male average). The tip-off to me that Ron is very tall is that he is taller than Harry, who is implied as being tall in the seventh book when he is described as exactly the same height as his father James who is referred to as 'tall' throughout the series.

From reading through the series numerous times, I do not recall Bill and Ron being described as having the same build. I do recall the descriptions of Charlie being built like the twins, and Ron and Percy having similar builds. I actually have precise height estimates on all of the male Weasleys as there is very good evidence in the Goblet of Fire excerpt, which you have already presented. Charlie is shorter and stockier like Fred and George, and Ron and Percy are longer and lankier. Bill's build and height isn't mentioned, leading me to believe that he is somewhere in the middle, but he is described as tall, giving us a valuable reference point. I'd guess 6'0'' for him, a solid tall height, with Charlie, Fred, and George being shorter, and Ron and Percy being taller.

Going back to Harry's height, you say that maybe Harry isn't described as being tall because Ron is taller, and that 6'0'' isn't a freakish height. The latter point is easy to refute: James was exactly the same height as Harry and he gets described as tall throughout the series. As for the former point, it's not like Harry's with Ron every waking moment, it just doesn't make any sense to me that Rowling does not refer to Harry as 'tall' even once given that he is the exact same height as another character, James, who gets described as tall regularly.

The conclusion I've come to is that Harry simply wasn't fully-grown until the very end of the seventh book. That would explain why he's never described as tall, that would explain how he was shorter than Fred and George when they drank the Polyjuice Potion early in the seventh book, it fits. Anyway, here is a comprehensive list of my estimates for each character's fully-grown height:

Harry: 5'11'' [described as tall, but when he transforms into Runcorn who is 'over six feet tall' (implying not much over it), it is stated that 'there was a lot more of his body than he was accustomed to'; also, he is described as shorter than Bellatrix, even when fully-grown towards the end of the seventh book]

Ron: 6'2'' (described as taller than other tall people like Harry, and likely Bill)

Hermione: 5'4'' (height never mentioned)

Mr. Weasley: 6'0'' (described as tall)

Mrs. Weasley: 5'1'' (described as short)

Ginny: 5'1'' (described as short)

Fred/George: 5'10'' (described as shorter and stockier than Ron and Percy; however, it is stated that they had to shrink in order to transform into Harry in the Polyjuice Potion scene early in the seventh book when Harry was likely in the 5'9'' range)

Percy: 6'2'' (described as long and lanky like Ron)

Charlie: 5'10'' (described, along with the twins, as shorter and stockier than Ron and Percy)

Bill: 6'0'' (his height is neglected when the comparison between the rest of the Weasley kids' heights is made in the fourth book, suggesting that he lies somewhere in between the 'shorter and stockier' Charlie, Fred, and George, and the 'longer and lankier' Ron and Percy; is described as tall)

Dumbledore: 6'4'' (described as tall as well as very tall on occasion)

Voldemort: 6'4'' (described as tall as well as very tall on occasion)

Sirius: 6'1'' (described as tall)

James: 5'11'' (described as tall)

Lupin: 5'9'' (height isn't mentioned)

Wormwail: 5'2'' (described as short as well as very short on occasion and barely taller than Harry in the third book when Harry was only thirteen)

Snape: 5'7'' (described as noticeably shorter than Sirius)

Moody: 5'8'' (height isn't mentioned)

Bellatrix: 6'0'' (described as taller than Harry in the seventh book)

Malfoy: 6'0'' (described as barely taller than Harry in the seventh book)

Hagrid: 8'6'' (descriptions of 'twice as tall as the average man' were likely hyperboles)

Tania says on 28/Nov/14

Greg (October 2014), JKR does mention Ron as being the tallest of the trio (in the 7th book when they're trying to retrieve the tiara) and he's also described as "tall, thin and gangling" so I'm guessing Ron would be in the 6'3" and above range. Bill and Ron have the same build so I'm guessing they're the tallest of the brothers. Charlie is described as being "built like the twins, shorter and stockier than Percy and Ron, who were both long and lanky". I always thought the height order among the Weasley boys went: Bill/Ron, Percy, followed by Fred, George and Charlie.

So as far as the heights of the characters are concerned, here's how I imagined them to be:

1) Ron - Around 6'4"

2) Harry - A few inches shorter, around 6' ish? Maybe the reason nobody calls Harry tall is because Ron is so much taller in comparison (and 6' isn't a freakish height)

3) Hermione - 5'4" or 5'5". Not short/tall enough to be remarked upon so probably around average.

4) Fred/George - 6'1"

5) Bellatrix - 6'1" her height has never been stated explicitly in the books so I imagined her to be a larger-than-life, imposing figure.

6) Malfoy - 6'2". Taller than Harry, shorter than Ron either way

7) Ginny - 5'2"? She is described as "small" in the second book at age 11, maybe she grew a bit after that but maybe not much.

8) Voldemort/Dumbledore - 6'7"? IDK, just NBA level tall.

Sorry for getting too carried away, it's nice to discuss Harry Potter for me coz I'm a superfan :P

Arch Stanton says on 28/Nov/14

I doubt you'd think the same about Daniel if he wasn't a super rich famous movie star Kitty. In fact if you passed him in the street you wouldn't bat an eyelid.

kendalljennergreatestfan says on 27/Nov/14

I thought he was like 5ft 7.

Bad Kitty says on 27/Nov/14

I think Dan is adorable just the height he is! Someone in the comments mentioned about women not wanting a guy who's shorter than her. I am 5'4", but I don't care how tall a guy is. I would date Dan any day of the week!

cd says on 27/Nov/14

5ft 4.5 is definitely arguable for him. 5ft 5 might be like his 9-10am height... he could drop to 5ft 4.75 or even a hair below that. But if that's true he'd measure 5ft 4 7/8 on a typical afternoon which is near enough the 5ft 5 mark.

Voiceless Dental Fricative says on 23/Nov/14

5'4.5 for Daniel

Perseus D. Shira says on 20/Nov/14

I am happy to know that Daniel's height is same as me yahoo!

Bryan 6'3 says on 19/Nov/14

@David F.

Also Dave Legeno is 6'3

David Thewlis (Remus Lupin) Alfred Enoch (Dean Thomas) James y Oliver Phelps (los gemelos) Todos son exactamente 6'3 (191cm) y Daniel Radcliffe 5'5 Lol

lollipop95 says on 19/Nov/14

Rob, how tall do you think the Irish actress, Sarah Greene is? Click Here She appeared in the Cripple Of The Inishman with Daniel and is standing next to him on the right. Her agency lists her as 5'4. Here is another photo at a different angle. Click Here

[Editor Rob: 5ft 4 is quite optimistic, I'll add her, I'd go with more somewhere in 5ft 2.5 range than 5ft 4!]

GrasserpOpinion says on 18/Oct/14

Hello,I think Harry/Daniel is about Like 4"10 or 5"0",Because i am a 4"2" 10 year old that grows height pretty fast,Daniel is too short for his actual Age,He is 25+ and he is Really small,I see him in Comic-con and He's like Estimately 8 Inches taller than me,He is pretty small,I measured it using Matthew Pattrick/Game Theory's Way to measure People by pixels,So i think Daniel is about 4"8",Pretty much that's a good and Accurate Estimate,Daniel's Genes are just not fit to grow up to 6 feet,About maximum of 5"1"

cd says on 18/Oct/14

@Greg (6'1")

I read that maths is not J.K. Rowling's strong suit (in her words), so perhaps that is the reason for the inconsistencies in the height of various characters.

Greg (6'1'') says on 13/Oct/14

I've always found Harry's fully-grown height to be a bit of a mystery. Emil 183 cm is right, Harry's father, James, is described as 'tall' throughout the series, and when Harry sees James via the Resurrection Stone towards the end of the seventh book, Harry is said to be the exact same height as his dad. What's strange is that Harry himself is not once referred to as tall, even in the latter books when he's presumably near or at his fully-grown height.

When Fred, George, and others drink the Polyjuice Potion early in the seventh book so that they will all turn into Harry in an attempt to thwart Voldemort and his Death Eaters, lest they attack the group while they're traveling to the Burrow, it is said that Fred and George had to 'shrink'; we can deduce from this that Fred and George were taller than Harry. So if Harry's tall, but Fred and George are taller than Harry, and Ron is described as taller than Fred and George, then god, how tall is Ron? The thing is, Ron is never described as very tall; Dean Smith, a fellow student is described as taller than him. And it's not like JK Rowling doesn't mention when a particular character is of imposing stature because both Dumbledore and Voldemort are described as very tall at one point or another.

Also, when Hermione transforms into Bellatrix Lestrange, she is described as taller than Harry. This adds to the case of Harry not being as tall as some may think.

The most compelling evidence, however, for Harry's height is when he transforms into the Ministry employee, Runcorn, who is described as 'over six feet tall', which seems to imply somewhere in the 6'1''-6'2'' range, and yet when Harry (as Runcorn) gets to his feet upon arrival at the Ministry, it is stated that 'there was a lot more of his body than he was accustomed to'. This makes it difficult to imagine a 6'0''+ Harry.

David F. says on 29/Sep/14

David Thewlis (Remus Lupin) Alfred Enoch (Dean Thomas)James and Oliver Phelps (twins)

All are exactly 6'3 (191cm) and Daniel Radcliffe 5'5 Lol

Emil 183 cm says on 22/Sep/14

Potter was describes "as tall as his dad" in the final book and his dad was always described as tall.

The character heights in the books would probably be something like this:

Harry Potter: 6'0-6'1

Ron Weasly: 6'4-6'6 - always described as very tall lol

Hermine: 5'5

lelman says on 9/Sep/14

@Steve I hear a lot that I look like Daniel Radcliffe, I need to cash in on those women seeking that look on a slightly taller guy...

cd says on 6/Sep/14

If I had to guess his height exactly I would say 5ft 4 and 7/8ths. Gut feeling I guess.

Parker says on 5/Sep/14

Same build and height as Michael J Fox

Voiceless Dental Fricative says on 5/Sep/14

He's long in need of a downgrade. He consistently looks 5'4.5. Can look 5'4 flat on occasion.

Steve (5'10) says on 29/Aug/14

Firas says on 29/Jul/14

Click Here

"According to most of the people in the comments section the woman in the relationship should not be taller than the man!"

Every time there's an article about Daniel Radcliffe on that site the comments are always the same 'Good looking guy, shame he's so short'. I wouldn't worry about it too much, it's just women being shallow.

Magic says on 28/Aug/14

He claims his height?I read a interview where he said of being 5'7"-5'8".

Many People think he is 5'6

Here a photo with Tom Felton(174 cm with Rob):Click Here

Rob should he be 5'5 or 5'6?

[Editor Rob: 5ft 5 is his maximum I believe, I would say if he measured a little bit shy of it, there wouldn't be much of a surprise.]

Mehran says on 15/Aug/14

He is a good guy and 165cm is enogh and its normal

Surprised short says on 15/Aug/14

Potter in book is tall Radcliffe actor is very short 5'2-5'4 good camera angles in movies

Sam says on 7/Aug/14

He could be rounding up to 5'5" least he seems to accept his posture for what it is and never appears to wear lifts unlike a lot of leading actors.

tony says on 30/Jul/14

160 would be fair enough.

Firas says on 29/Jul/14

So how tall is his girlfriend, Erin Darke?

Click Here

Here she looks quite a bit taller but I think she's wearing heels. According to most of the people in the comments section the woman in the relationship should not be taller than the man!

Realist says on 25/Jun/14

Definitely taller than Josh Hutcherson. Spot on Rob, Hutcherson is more 163-64. This guy is 165 so a 5'5 listing is good enough. He is closer to Al Pacino in height, Hutcherson is the same as Hoffman. This guy is a fine actor.

mande2013 says on 11/Jun/14

Unless you're ultra short, like say 5'2, I'd say height's a bit of a non-issue if a guy's ultra good-looking. If you're as good-looking as James Dean (I'm not necessarily implying Dan is that good looking)girls don't really care whether you're 167 or 176, and in fact many taller females may fear he'll find her too tall for him, the same way short men think 'oh shux' when a woman they find attractive is taller than him. Likewise, whether Salma Hayek is 5'2 or 5'8 isn't really important. Either way, a man with a 9+ face doesn't need to be six feet. It's the average looking guys who benefit from being above average height.

tom says on 26/May/14

I think he's closer to 5'4" - if you look at him compared to somebody like Aziz Ansari, who's a genuine 5'5"-5'6" guy, and I doubt he's that tall.

Mike T says on 15/May/14

5'3" MAX. Dane Deehan towers over him and he's about 5'8".

Bhati says on 13/May/14

I think his real height is 5'4".......

Giantss says on 6/May/14

Tall men look awkward jumping out of buildings or cars...........thank God for those cute short guys! :)

Cerium says on 4/May/14

I wouldn't be surprised if he was a little under 5'5, comparing him to 6'5ish John Larroquette

Click Here

Seems about a foot difference, maybe a little more.

jamieorr4 says on 25/Apr/14

i think hes more like 5ft3 or 5ft4 i don't know why but i wouldn't be surprise if he was 5ft2

jamieorr4 says on 9/Apr/14

Greenbolt 5ft11 is average or silght above average but not tall im that height i feel average

mande2013 says on 30/Mar/14

At least to me, it makes sense that the height distribution of leading men should mirror that of the general male population, most of them being 5'9/5'10 with a few 5'5 and 6'4 guys thrown in for good measure.

mande2013 says on 30/Mar/14

As for 5'5 precluding leading roles, Pacino, Hoffman, and Ladd would all like to have a word with you.

avi says on 27/Mar/14

@miko says on 10/Dec/13

He didn't need to be tall to portray Harry Potter, although it will be tough for him to ever get any huge lead roles at 5'5 or just under. Michael J Fox did ok for himself at 5'4 but Radcliffe doesn't have the star quality of Fox.

hes okay but in the book Harry Potter is probably 5'9-5'10 at least by 17 and may finish at close to 5'11. it would have been nice for a 5'7-5'9 Potter and 5'10-5'11 Ron. but it doesnt really matter i enjoyed most the movies.

Realist says on 8/Feb/14

5'5 since Order of Phoenix. Miko u rock. Up top.

BRUTAL says on 31/Dec/13

@ Miko

You're right. 5ft 5 Al Pacino and 5ft 4 Dustin Hoffman have had terribly difficult careers in crap roles.

Injo says on 29/Dec/13

As a boy his height is really shot, but he is still my favourite actor. and i am a big fan of him.....

Angel says on 16/Dec/13

He's definitely around 1.65m. I'm like 1.74m and there's no way he could be "almost" as tall as me as some people are claiming he's 1.72m.

miko says on 10/Dec/13

He didn't need to be tall to portray Harry Potter, although it will be tough for him to ever get any huge lead roles at 5'5 or just under. Michael J Fox did ok for himself at 5'4 but Radcliffe doesn't have the star quality of Fox.

divincodino92 says on 9/Dec/13

159-160! Like Emma Watson! Katie Holmes towered him

Emily says on 9/Dec/13

Dane Dehaan is not 5'8. get your facts straight

mande2013 says on 6/Dec/13

Under 5'5 barefoot is certainly feasible, but I sincerely doubt Daniel struggles with something as low as 5'4 flat.

Voiceless Dental Fricative says on 1/Dec/13

Getting towered by 5'8 Dane Dehaan. Click Here

There's footwear advantage, but still.

Rob: downgrade time.

Hola says on 27/Nov/13

Rob: Any chance he's closer to 5'4 than 5'5? He really does look shorter than someone like 5'5 Josh Hutcherson.

@ James Crowley Meridius

Cosmetical Limb lengthening is very much a newer procedure, and one that is not only painful, but risky. I strongly suggest you do not read reviews of the surgery from one of the forums specifically dedicated to it, they profit off of doctor's referals and are heavily moderated, and even then - there stories of people who consider themself 'paralyzed' on there.

marla singer says on 22/Nov/13

Looks a lot shorter with 5'8" Dane DeHaan here Click Here either Daniel is 5'5" and Dane 5'10", or Daniel 5'4" and Dane 5'9"!

ben says on 21/Nov/13

not bad enough for a famous personality

James Crowley Meridius says on 19/Nov/13

Rob i never thought he was 5ft 5in i thought he was at least 5ft 9in since he has loads of money he should get leg lengthing surgery that will increase his height by 4 inches.

[Editor Rob: I think he's probably happy enough with his career - he's done very well being 5ft 5...and as he says he can blend more into public at times and take longer for people to spot him.]

James Crowley Meridius says on 19/Nov/13

@white guy at white guy 5ft 5in is short for a white guy nowhere near average height average height for a white guy is between 5ft 9in and 5ft 10in 5ft 5in is well below average 5ft 7in and 5ft 8in are below average height for a white guy which is not too bad.

Lurk says on 18/Nov/13

I just saw a clip of him on the Graham Norton show. He was towered over by 5'10-listed Cuba Gooding Jr. Not sure he's even 5'5.

Matrix says on 11/Nov/13

And in this picture he looks taller than 5 foot 8 john krokidas Click Here

5\'5.5 says on 21/Sep/13

Looks my height proportionally. I can look 5'4 and even as low as 5'3 at times due to slouching and general bad posture as well. I don't think his 05' claim of 5'5.5 is a stretch (no pun intended). He could wear lifts if he cared, I think the fact that he has been open about his lack of stature proves that he does not care much. I don't think he's in the habit of lying.

Kay says on 9/Sep/13

@Carlos: You're joking, right? There is NO way on God's green earth that Daniel Radcliffe is 6'2. You're either mistaken about your height or that wasn't Radcliffe that you met because the guy is VERY short. Look at this pic and tell me that man is 6'2. Sorry, I'm not trying to be mean, but if he's 2 inches taller than you, that makes you 5'3, which is incredibly short for a man.

oops. I forgot the link. Sorry for the double post.

Click Here

Kay says on 9/Sep/13

@Carlos: You're joking, right? There is NO way on God's green earth that Daniel Radcliffe is 6'2. You're either mistaken about your height or that wasn't Radcliffe that you met because the guy is VERY short. Look at this pic and tell me that man is 6'2. Sorry, I'm not trying to be mean, but if he's 2 inches taller than you, that makes you 5'3, which is incredibly short for a man.

The Mighty Chandoc says on 8/Sep/13

Ratcliffe's publicity height of 165cm (5ft 5in) is totally fake. He's around 5ft 2in. Not much use in a fight.

Will says on 8/Sep/13

He looks comparable to Emma Watson. 5'5 sounds right. Lol at the person claiming 6'2.

Carlos says on 10/Aug/13

Daniel Radcliffe is 6'2.

I met him at a convention in London, and he was a good two inches taller than me. Plus he was wearing Birkenstocks and I was wearing cowboy boots. Me theory is that he has very bad posture and likes to crouch down for photos

prince says on 5/Aug/13

as im 5'8 he was short by about 2 or 3 inches as seen

Vivi says on 31/Jul/13

Wow, after seeing those pics with Kstew he's shorter than what I thought... 5'4.5" max! Isn't she in flats in those pics? Those dress shoes have a pretty big heel that he's wearing! I'd say he's 5'4" since she's slouching...Maybe 5'4.5"...maybe.

marla singer says on 15/Jul/13

@Arch, he does look about 1 inch taller than her indeed - but in 1" shoes!

Arch Stanton says on 14/Jul/13

Mmm but he's in dress shoes with footwear advantage. I think at some point Rob will lower him to 5'4.5" if he sees something more conclusive, and I'd agree with a 164cm listing. Rob do you have a feeling that he wouldn't even hit 5'5" if you measured him on a stat? I think he'd come up somewhere around the 164 mark.

Arch Stanton says on 14/Jul/13

He does actually look just about 5 ft 5 next to Kristen Stewart but I think he'd measure 164 at some point in the day.

cd says on 12/Jul/13

I agree I'm starting to doubt if there's any chance Daniel is a full 5'5". I reckon he could measure a flat 5'5 straight out of bed then maybe 5'4 1/4 to 5'4 1/2" depending on how much he loses.

marla singer says on 11/Jul/13

Even in 1" dress shoes, Daniel struggles to appear taller than a slouching 163cm Kristen Stewart who was in completely flat ballerina-shoes ( Click Here ) : Click Here Click Here Click Here Click Here Click Here barefoot, they're very likely to be the same height

cd says on 10/Jul/13

Anyone else think he has quite short legs? He seems taller in the torso than the 'ideal' man's proportions (not as extreme as Michael Phelps obviously). Maybe it's just the suits he wears though? Lol, anyway I could argue as low as 5'4.25" (163 cm) up to 5'5" (165 cm).

FATTYBUMBUM says on 8/Jul/13

Fkin midget

Emil says on 12/Jun/13

He seems like a nice guy but I seriously don't think he's a mm over 5'4

n1st says on 8/May/13

He looks 5'4 - 5'4.5

Laur says on 5/May/13

I meet him 2 weeks ago he looks 5.3

Irish guy says on 5/May/13

Rob there is plenty of evidence that he's 5'4.5" barefoot so change his height please.

K says on 28/Apr/13

I bet he's 5'4.5" and was measured with shoes on and that's why he claims 5'5.5". I don't even think he reaches 5'5". Funny how Harry Potter was so tall in the books and how much shorter Daniel turned out to be. But I'm so glad they were able to keep the whole cast the same during HP (except DUmbledore)!

marla singer says on 23/Apr/13

Here he stands shorter than 5'1" listed Holliday Grainger, who's in heels (about 2" more footwear than him). Holliday looks a bit taller than Christina Ricci who is 5'0.25" so 5'1-5'1.5" for her is truthful, but Daniel honestly looks no more than 5'4" Click Here

Arch Stanton says on 22/Apr/13

5'5"-5'5.5" in shoes.

Arch Stanton says on 22/Apr/13

That's because he isn't 5 ft 5 SAK, I mean just look at that Daniel Day Lewis photo.

Arch Stanton says on 22/Apr/13

Rob, he looks shorter than 5'5

Click Here

Looks same height as M J Fox.

SAK says on 16/Apr/13

Click Here

Radcliffe listed as 165/5f5 and Lewis as 186/6f1.25. The difference of 8.25" looks huge.

marla singer says on 23/Mar/13

Bieber easily looks 2 big inches taller than Daniel if you see them with Pablo Motos. You'd suppose that either JB is 1.70-71 or Daniel 1.62-63 but don't forget that Bieber wears lifts so I don't think JB is over 1.5in taller than him.

Arch Stanton says on 21/Mar/13

Rob, is the 5'4.5" camp located in the field outside Hogwarts? 5'5" is the tallest he could possibly be....

[Editor Rob: his range is likely 5ft 4.5-5, somewhere in that. Above that, well, that would require the use of some magic.]

The Fan says on 11/Mar/13

Rob, if you had to pick....would you say he's taller or shorter than Emma Watson?

Pedro says on 8/Mar/13

On another site he is being listed at 5ft 5.25in. Maybe this is a realistic middle ground concerning his both statements in 2005 and 2007.

[Editor Rob: I'm in the camp that there's more chance he's under 5ft 5 than over.]

Tom says on 27/Feb/13

I've seen him in numerous award shows & events, he's always been shorter than even those short guys. Seems like he's stuck with young Harry Porter's height. No more than 5'4, bare feet.

Arch Stanton says on 22/Feb/13

Nah, he's shorter than Pablo Motos Rob, have you seen that guy next to Justin Bieber? Not a chance Bieber is only an inch taller than Radcliffe. I think he's 5'4' range, needs a downgrade to 5'4.5" at least.

Divi says on 18/Feb/13

I thought 5.5 is the perfect height, he's always cute baby

white guy says on 18/Feb/13

5'5 .. the average height for white guy

Mikey T says on 28/Jan/13

lol filmbug thought that he was 5'8"

Arch Stanton says on 14/Jan/13

5'4.5", anybody agree?

Pooja says on 11/Jan/13

Are harry potter tu to bohot hi tingna he teri hight to 5.5 he to tera land to bhut chota hogo yar

truth says on 16/Dec/12

Ross is a good 6ft1 like 186cm, which makes Radcliffe 164cm or 5ft4.5. 5ft5.5 (166cm) is probably his morning height.

Amelia says on 22/Oct/12

5'5 is OK!

topas says on 5/Oct/12

So what if he's 5'5? 5'5 is as good as of an average you can get. He's got way more money than you do and OH! Harry Potter really is 5'5 and not in the 5'11 books.

Women stop the heightism, you lot wear heels just to be average.

Greenbolt says on 2/Oct/12

Danimal says on 17/Sep/12

Harry Potter at 5'9"???????

Fully-grown, Harry Potter is actually tall because his father, James, is described as tall and Harry is described as exactly the same height as James towards the end of the seventh book. So Harry is 5'11'' at least.

Sunny O_o says on 12/Sep/12

Is doesn't matter to me I respect him as he is . . n he is smart n handsome man I M big fan of his n he will be always harry potter for me

Varun says on 5/Sep/12

Yaa... I does not matter how tall or how small he is.. Matter dat what he achieved in such z little age.. And am a big big big fan of Daniel... Respect

Joe says on 26/Jul/12

Even small ones can have milions and milions of dollars... Yhea... I agree he's around 5ft5(165cm).. maby closer to 163-164cm, but nobody can say that he hasn't risen high on life. :-)

That5'9Dude says on 14/Feb/12

Damn, he's only 5'5!? That's a huge shocker. I thought he was at least 5'9!

Voiceless Dental Fricative says on 6/Feb/12

He looks 4 inches shorter than Tom Felton, which is the best evidence he's 5'4.5ish.

Silent d says on 29/Jan/12

I got towered on the jonathon ross show. Some people say jonathon ross is 180cm. That'll make daniel 158cm. People make me laugh sometimes. Daniel is 165cm.

Kashfia says on 29/Jan/12

That girl is the same height as Daniel Radcliffe in her bare feet. Click Here

Jenna says on 29/Jan/12

When I met him at How To Succeed he looked 5'6"

Jenna says on 29/Jan/12

When I met him he looked 5'6"
Shaun said on 4/Aug/12
Met him last year. I'm 167cm and we were wearing similar footwear and he was at least an inch shorter ! I say 163cm at most.
Blue Owl said on 29/Jul/12
It doesn't matter how tall he is,it matters what he has achieved.he is enriched with millions of his's not easy to have at all.
Joe said on 26/Jul/12
Even small ones can have milions and milions of dollars... Yhea... I agree he's around 5ft5(165cm).. maby closer to 163-164cm, but nobody can say that he hasn't risen high on life. :-)
That5\'9Dude said on 14/Feb/12
Damn, he's only 5'5!? That's a huge shocker. I thought he was at least 5'9!
Voiceless Dental Fricative said on 6/Feb/12
He looks 4 inches shorter than Tom Felton, which is the best evidence he's 5'4.5ish.
Silent d said on 29/Jan/12
I got towered on the jonathon ross show. Some people say jonathon ross is 180cm. That'll make daniel 158cm. People make me laugh sometimes. Daniel is 165cm.
Kashfia said on 29/Jan/12
That girl is the same height as Daniel Radcliffe in her bare feet. Click Here
Jenna said on 29/Jan/12
When I met him at How To Succeed he looked 5'6"
Jenna said on 29/Jan/12
When I met him he looked 5'6"
umad80 said on 8/Oct/07
In that particular photo? I think it could give an inch or so spiked up like that. But the hairstyle he was wearing in LA probably wouldn't give as much as it's not as radical. So probably a half inch or so in LA imo. Just a guess though cause it's hard to tell. But his hair definitely is poofed up a bit compared to the straight hair styles that Emma and Rupert wear. Which is why I'd give Emma around 5'5.5" at the most.
Leung said on 7/Oct/07
I watched Rove last night and Harry Shearer was similar in height to Rove McManus. Rove was only very slightly taller. Rove is looking real short these days, definitely nowhere near the 5’8” he claims.

Harry Shearer is listed on this site as 5’5.75” and was clearly closer in height to Rove compared to Daniel Radcliffe.
Before I thought that Radcliffe was possibly 5’6”, now I have to say that 5’5” seems right.
Anna said on 7/Oct/07
umad80, how much height do you think his hair gives him after viewing that photo, if you did? And you still have not seen those photos I posted? They are on getty and, if you haven't seen them I'll send a link, but honestly do not really want to, Getty is so slow for me, it's ridiculously annoying. rob, how tall do you think D-Rad's father is?
umad80 said on 7/Oct/07
Emma's never looked 1-2" taller than Dan. If you don't count his hair which it is quite obvious that he wears a flattering hairstyle for his height and Emma might be closer to a half inch or so, but who knows. I haven't taken a rule to his head to see how tall his hair makes him. lol
Anna said on 7/Oct/07
And, I just had to mention this, Luke, note that he is a male, says he is 5'6.5" at night (which is his shortest height) yet when people ask him how tall he is, he says 5'6" because he feels like he would cheat them if he were to round up to 5'7". Now, I am not saying this with 100% authority, but when one thinks of it, could this not be the case for someone like, let us say, Emma Watson? She may really be 5'6.5" or over 5'6" at night, but she doesn't want to round up to 5'7" or list 5'6.5" (again, that would make her look really stupid in my opinion) so she puts 5'6" on her official page? I mean, if a guy does this, then the possibilities of Emma, being a female and looking slightly uncomfortable with her height, doing the said are quite plausible. I mean, just when you think about it, it makes sense and plus in photos she looks easily 1", if not 2" taller than Dan. I posted some barefoot photos of them and Emma looked to be 1 to 2 inches taller when both stood properly. And this was not even considering Dan's hair, which, if you look at this photo by enlarging it Click Here seems to give him about 1 to 2 inches easily. Yeah? Nevertheless, have you seen his eyes? Wow, they are amazingly blue and gorgeous.
5'3" Aix said on 7/Oct/07
Yes Anna, 5'10" or more. At max, 6'2.5"?
Anna said on 6/Oct/07
His dad looks suprsingly tall, even if his mum is 5' (could be taller you were saying?) the dad still looks 5'10" or more. Yeah?
umad80 said on 6/Oct/07
I don't think Dan is growing any more. He's over 18 now... not that he can't of course, I think guys can grow beyond the age of 18. But it doesn't matter who is what in a family. I've said before that my family, everyone is 5'10" and under but my brother was like 6'3" to 6'4". And the only person who came remotely close to that was apparently my great grandfather on my father's side. But my dad is (was?) only 5'10" and my mom is (was?) only 5'5.5". I'm 5'5". So it doesn't matter...

Glenn on here said that in 2005 Dan looked 5'4" which I thought he looked short too when I saw him from a distance that year at the GoF premiere. So if he's only 5'5" in 2007 that means he's only grown an inch in two years. So unless he has a major growth spurt alluvasudden, I don't think he'll grow much beyond 5'5".
5'3" Aix said on 6/Oct/07
Generally, he's 5'5" but still can grow taller. He mentions in the Ellen show that his mom is 5'2" (more like 5' to me though). But I saw in one pic that his dad is tall. Dunno, but looks like his mother is taller than he says. I just found this picture somewhere Click Here which text says that it's his parents. Yep, his dad looks tall, well, taller than my 5'8" dad.
Luke99 said on 5/Oct/07
Hmm, I'm 5'6 and a half at nighttime (my very shortest) and when people ask I say 5'6 because I feel like I cheat if I round up to 5'7?

I wonder if in celeb world I would be considered 5'7/8?
Anna said on 4/Oct/07
Kie, yes, UK guys are usually taller, Dan is just on the, how shall we put it, shorter side. He's somewhere between 5'5" and 5'6" and the average height for a guy in the UK is somewhere between 5'9" and 5'10". Just as a note, it says the average height for females is around 5'3.5" to 5'4".
umad80 said on 4/Oct/07
Dan doesn't seem the type to short change himself. He's been saying 5'5.5" since GoF and then tried to say 5'6" and then admitted to 5'5". He seemed to want to make himself taller, so I don't get why he'd round down. I do think that the reason he looks taller is posture and shoes. Oh, and hair! He stands very, very straight. There is some talk about his shoes possibly being dodgy. Plus he has a really flattering hairstyle. I think all three factors tend to make him look taller than the 5'5" he even admitted to being after initially saying 5'6".
Kie_Jenx said on 4/Oct/07
Hey! He's only 5 ft 5 in?? It means he's as tall as me! I'm a girl and I'm from Indonesia, I think UK boys are more taller! He's 18, right?
Anna said on 3/Oct/07
yeah, people, search youtube for that Rove appearance and maddie, I kind of feel what you are saying. I mean, yes he indeed does look short, but he looks taller than people I know of who are 5'5". I dunno.
Leung said on 2/Oct/07
Hey guys,
Search Youtube for ‘Daniel Radcliffe on ROVE’.
maddie said on 2/Oct/07
i dont think daniel is 5'5. lots of my guy friends are 5'5 and just by looking at him in ordinary pictures, he seems maybe an inch or so taller.
umad80 said on 1/Oct/07
I've said numerous times that he wears lifts. He might be "ok" with his height enough to joke about it... but I don't think he likes to be dwarfed any. I'm not sure he was wearing lifts that night. He just seemed shorter than normal. Emma was like two inches taller with her large heels. Rupert was at least 3" or more taller than him. And we know that Matt had to be at least 7" taller. Bonnie was in the same boat as Rupert as she only seemed a half inch shorter than Rupert. I think only Evanna was shorter than him. LOL But if he was wearing lifts then... it throws a monkey wrench into everyone's height because it'd make everyone taller.
anonymous no-name said on 1/Oct/07
They have indeed a very high front, about 2"? They must be pretty hard to walk in haha. I don't know how high Radcliffe's lifts are, but he seems to be wearing his 'normal' dress shoes (I suppose he has a slight lift build in?) Compared to Rupert it looks like it gives him more than normal dress shoes, but I'm not a 100% sure.
anonymous no-name said on 1/Oct/07
Click Here here is the link to Mirren presenting the award to Dan. In the video she looks at least 2" taller, not at all the same height! Her heels give her what? 4"? Dan's lifts got to give him about 2"? That would make him 5'4"! Or maybe he is wearing regular dress shoes wich give him 1", or Mirren's heels give her more like 5" (not very likely?!) either way, Dan is probably really not more than 5'5".

[Editor Rob: they've got a thick front, 4.5 inch they'd give. Radcliffe wearing lifts?]
umad80 said on 30/Sep/07
So if she was 5'7" with them and noticably taller than Dan than he wasn't wearing lifts? But it puts him at 5'4" really... depending on how much taller. But maybe he shrinks at night because he looked 5'5" everywhere in LA. Although I think I'll have to agree with Anna on this and say that Helen is bending her knees. It's a bit noticable in high-res pics. See: Click Here

Also, I know Rupert is a bit more forward in this pic, but if you measure the top of Dan's hair to Rupert... Rupert has like 3" inches. Click Here So if he ends up 5'6" in dress shoes Rupert would be at least 5'9".
Evanna said on 30/Sep/07
Thanks, Rob. I guess that pretty much clarifies the situation.
Evanna said on 30/Sep/07
I watched the award ceremony yesterday (well, some bits of it) and I have to agree with Rob, I think that Mirren actually did take her shoes off for the photos, because she was notably taller than Radcliffe when she presented him with the award.
I still believe that the photos of all three of them barefoot are the best for judging heights, because we can never know how much they actually get from footwear. Rob please enlighten us here, how much would heels like these give Click Here ? I'd say about 3 inches, but I'm not sure, I'm no expert on high heeled shoes.

[Editor Rob: they look above average, I think they would give a good 3 over barefoot.]
Anna said on 30/Sep/07
You are from Maryland, US or something, correct umad? I think I remeber that because I thought you were from Los Angeles, CA because you said you went to the LA premiere of OotP, but you just flew across the whole US of A to attend. Dedication, nice.
Anna said on 29/Sep/07
Actually, I think what happened is she bent at her knees. Could this be it? If you look at the photos, it looks like that is what she could be doing. Nevertheless, in a video I watched where both were standing up properly and they looked essentially the same height. So, that would mean Dan would be 5'7" or 5'7.5" in those shoes, right?
umad80 said on 29/Sep/07
Uh, there were no photos of Dan looking as tall as Rupert. He looks 3 inches shorter most of the time. I'll have to go with Rob and say that Helen Mirren slipped of her shoes so Dan didn't look so short. Which might be why you see photos of her showing off her shoes.

But there you go again, Anna. You look at a photo and don't even check to make sure. I drew a line for you. Click Here - Rupert is clearly taller by at least an inch and they're both leaning into people in that one. She looks a little taller than Dan with that lean. If Dan is definitely not wearing any dodgy shoes, then he is 5'6.25" in them. She looks like she's got close to an inch on Dan even with that lean. Maybe a little more as Dan's hair is a little wild so it's hard to tell. I put her at 5'7.5" with that lean. Rupert is leaning to and still an inch taller putting him at 5'8.5" or there abouts. This meaning standing up straight puts him closer to 5'9".
Anna said on 29/Sep/07
haha, yes I "claim" to be from the UK. Just to let you know, I've been saying that I am from London ever since I came to this site, so I guess you just generally do not read what I say? Just joking, but honestly, that's a good idea. I'll just waltz into her house and measure her, that sounds like a great plan. All I have to say is I hope her brother is there, I don't care if he's young, he's sexy. But, yeah, I really don't know what is up with those Helen Mirren photos, but I don't think she has shrunk anything considerably because I believe she was just added to this site after the making of 'The Queen', am I right Rob? But I think Dan may have been wearing some intense lifts because in some photos he looked nearly as tall as Rupert and the angle does look to be blatantly favouring him. Here it is. Click Here As for your change in opinon umad, I am guessing you now think Emma at least 5'6" because, if you think Rupert is 5'9" and he would be "closer to 6'" and Emma would be "in the 5'9" range", then in actuality, Rupert would 5'9" and Emma 5'6". Dan would be 1 inch shorter than Emma as well by your conclusion. Nice.

[Editor Rob: I've not been paying attention but just looking at radcliffe and mirren, I'm certain she has slipped out of her heels. He probably joked 'yer making me look short with those hooker heels ma lady!' or something.]
umad80 said on 29/Sep/07
Helen Mirren is listed as 5'4" here. There are photos of her showing off platform shoes. Easily giving 2-3 inches. So either Dan is wearing major lifts which would make every single person very tall. You know, putting Matt Lewis around 6'3", Rupert closer to 6', and Emma in the 5'9" range... or Helen has shrunk below 5'4". I think the later seems to be more true.

I think Maggie Smith, at least in 2004/2005 - for when GoF was filmed, or the shoes she could've been wearing? We never see what McGonagal is put in really. Anyways, I think she was 5'7". And in 2005, Rupert was not 5'9". That's rediculous. That's the time I was talking about with Maggie Smith. And Emma is nowhere near 5'7". Since you now claim to be from UK, go look for her so you can measure her. lol
Anna said on 29/Sep/07
So umad80, how tall do you think Maggie Smith is? You seemed to think her taller than her 5'5" listings because, surprise, rupert didn't look 5'9" next to her if she was that height. I'd say she is 5'5" at the very least and 5'7" or 5'8" in normalish sized heels, like she was wearing in OotP. LIke I said, Emma looked at the most one inch shorter than Maggie whilst Maggie was in heels and Emma in flats, so that puts Emma Watson somewhere between 5'6" and 5'7". What I find quite interesting is that Emma actually looks taller compared to people when the other members of the trio - Dan and Rupert - are not in the picture. Examples being Maggie Smith, Evanna Lynch, Bonnie Wright, and Emma Thompson, just to name a few. I think what happens is she actually stands up straight because she doesn't care if she's taller than other ladies, whereas she doesn't want to tower over guys like Dan and Rupert. It could be total rubbish, but I think it may be true. I know people hate it when I say this, but she looks close to 5'7" when standing next to the said people and her brother, Alex Watson, who is actually quite tall as well. Rob, come on man, you have got to upgrade her. She's no longer 5'5", I think everyone has come to realise, some people are just to stubborn to put it into words.
Anna said on 28/Sep/07
Okay, so I was just looking at some photos from the 'national movie awards' that took place today and was quite suprised by some of Helen Mirren and D-Rad. Click Here You can see more on Getty if you care to do so. Now, here's the deal. Helen is listed on here as 5'4" and, if you look at other photos from the event, is wearing 2 inch or so heels that would make her about 5'6". Now in the photos both look to have good posture, yet even with Helen's footwear advantage, Dan still looks about an inch or even two inches taller. How can one explain this if he is only 5'5"?
Anna said on 28/Sep/07
That's probably true, although I think he was closer to 5'5" when the film was released and probably a solid 5'4" during the filming of GoF. Like I've said before, he was probably 5'4.5" or 5'4.75" and then grew 1/2" or so from there. And Emma was probably around 5'4.5" during the release and grew more than Dan - nearly 2 inches or more one could argue.
umad80 said on 27/Sep/07
I think Dan was 5'3"/5'4" in 2004/2005 because Glenn said he saw Dan and thought he looked 5'4" back in 2005. When I saw him, I thought he looked short too but I thought maybe it was one of those things where someone looks taller on screen. Plus he was pretty far away from me. My guess is that he was probably around 5'3" or so when they filmed GoF. (You can really see how true this is when you see him next to Robert Pattinson or even Maggie Smith!) And then when it was released he probably was closer to 5'4". And probably grew his final inch between 2005 and 2007. That's not too out of the realm of possibility. I think he's pretty much a solid 5'5" just like Emma is. But as I said, she's probably just slightly taller.
Hugo said on 27/Sep/07
My OPINION of Dan is that I think he could be at the tall end of 5'3" so I'm not exaggerating Leung--because it's my OPINION. It is a fact that he wears lifts and has military posture and is still shorter than some of the cast. Umad80, I did no such thing of the kind of "spun what Dan said." What I read was(I can't find it--what someone wrote), was someone wrote something like this,"Dan is 5'5" IN THE MORNING." <-----The person even emphasised capital letters, so that people on this site could see that Dan is 5'5" "in the morning." But I will say, I do find this site rather annoying in the sense of everyone's entitled to their OPINION--yet noone will let the person have their opinion. It's like, I could say in my opinion my favorite color is brown and someone would disagree with me and say,"no, it's not! The best color is red." That's like me saying I think Dan is at the taller end of 5'3" and that's my opinion, yet some people don't agree with that. They have to comment on my OPINION and tell me I'm exaggerating or my opinions are absurd and then going to tell me I'm "getting fussed." It's not like I'm writing it's a FACT everyone, Dan is 5'3" and that's that. No, I'm saying, I BELIEVE he's at the taller end of 5'3". It should be I write my opinion and the next person write theirs without depicting mine, but then again this site probably wouldn't operate if everyone kept to their own opinion and didn't judge the next persons opinion. I just gotta say it's ANNOYING and if you believe everything you read I'm 6'7".
Anna said on 27/Sep/07
Yeah, I think that's essentially correct umad, I think Dan could actually be 5'5.5" or 5'75.75" in the morning though, and thus a 5'5" or 5'5.25" in the evening. And I actually do not think he even said morning, I think he said today, which is why I'm wondering where one gets that he's 5'5" in the morning. And does anyone know if Dan and Seth Green took a photo together? I know Seth went to the LA premiere of OotP. I wonder if they took a shot together.
umad80 said on 26/Sep/07
Oh. I can clear that up for you Hugo. I think you inadvertantly spun what Dan said. In an interview during the photocall he said, "Everyone says 'my how tall you've gotten!' but I just got measured this morning and I'm only 5'5". It's quite dressping really." I think that might be slightly paraphrased... but the point is, he said he got measured in the morning, but that doesn't mean he wasn't up and walking around and was measured at a correct 5'5". He looks 5'5" to me. As does Emma. They're both a solid 5'5" imo with Emma possibly having a slight advantage. And Rupert is more in the 5'9" range for sure.
Leung said on 26/Sep/07
Daniel is a short dude but you are really exaggerating, 5’3” is getting into Seth Green territory.
Anna said on 26/Sep/07
In no way am I trying to say your opinions are terrible, absurd just sort of came out. I'm just kind of used to speaking that way without people getting fussed, sorry. You are totally entitled to your opinon, I'm just thinking that Emma would most likely not upgrade her height by two inches. If she cared, she could stand up straight. Right?
Evanna said on 26/Sep/07
Hugo, it's just Anna, she's always like that, she's been around this site for more than a year urging for Watson to get upgraded.
Anyway you might actually have the point; the reason why I came back to his forum is because I had a chance of meeting Mr Pedja Bjelac (Igor Karkaroff in GoF), and he said that Radcliffe was really small, barely over 5'3" when they filmed GoF. At first I found that weird (especially coming from someone as tall as Bjelac, I guess everyone looks short to him), but it actually made sense, sort of a put things in a new perspective. And Radcliffe surely doesn't look like he's grown much in the past couple of years. He could well be 5'5" in the morning on a good day, and closer to 5'4" for the rest of his living. Emma Watson might be slightly taller than him, but only up to quarter an inch, and she's surely not over 5'5".
Hugo said on 26/Sep/07
Firstly, I'm not going to going scouting to find who said this, but someone said that in an interview, Dan admits to being 5'5" IN THE MORNING. Secondly, it's my OPINION that I think Emma is a little above 5'4"--with Dan being shorter. Now, if that puts Danny boy into the 5'3" area, so be it. Lastly, Anna, I don't know why my opinion of Emma and Dan's height bothers you so much that you have to say my opinions of their heights are "absurd." I'm not being sensitive, I'm just wondering why you can't handle the fact that someone(me) might find them to be shorter than what they are posted for?
Brent said on 26/Sep/07
on the ellen show she made a joke about him standing oon a chair to talk to a tall girl in the audience.....................bitch
Anna said on 25/Sep/07
Did Dan actually say 5'5" in the morning? Because I highly doubt this, I would actually have to see and/or hear the interview to believe this. I'd say he is easily 5'5.5" in the morning and shrinks down to just over 5'5" in the evening. As for Emma, we all know she is easily 5'6" in the evening. And it's just blatantly absurd to say 5'4" for Emma and Dan shorter than that (although you have got the Dan being shorter bit right). If Emma were 5'4", Dan would be 5'3" or below and Rupert would be barely 5'6". None of the said are remotely true in my opinoin.
umad80 said on 25/Sep/07
I don't think Dan is 5'5" in the morning. I think he's 5'5.5" in the morning. I know that one interview took place and it was obviously early, but we don't know how long Dan was actually up. But having seen them in person, they're both definitely 5'5" with Emma possibly being taller. Nothing more than a half inch.
Hugo said on 25/Sep/07
If Dan is 5'5" IN THE MORNING, he will shrink from this. How much shrinking, I don't know, but whatever it is he's shorter than Emma. I believe Emma is a little above 5'4" with Dan shorter.
Anna said on 24/Sep/07
Yeah I know Rose, I care not if Dan is short, just so long as he is not under 5'3" (like I am), which I highly doubt is the case. Unless he shrinks absurd amounts.
Rose said on 23/Sep/07
thats ok. im short 2 so i no how u feel. i have a girl who is 3 years younger than me and she is taller than me. =p but hey, dan is still taller than me.
Anna said on 23/Sep/07
Yeah, I guess that's logical umad, but do you not also remember how he said all of the cast are taller than him now? I mean, I know he likes to joke about his height, but I am quite sure he wouldn't be saying that EW was taller than him if she really wasn't. Do remember that the 5'5.5" came from the "1/2" taller than Emma Watson". At least that is what I've heard. It's just ridiculous to say that he's still taller than EW. I'm sorry, but it is.
Evanna said on 23/Sep/07
Folks, Editor Rob saw Harry Melling (Dudley) couple of weeks ago, and confirmed that Melling's only about 5'9", and he absolutely dwarfed Radcliffe in OotP. Conclusion: Radcliffe probably wears lifts in his TV appearances, premieres and such. It's never too early for a short actor to start wearing them. ;)
umad80 said on 23/Sep/07
Sorry guys, but Dan has stated in two interviews - one recently being one for December Boys, that he's 5'5". Just prior to that he was giving himself 5'6". Why would he suddenly short change himself a whole inch? I mean, if the actor is willing to say he's 5'5" after trying 5'5.5" in 2005 and 5'6" before he finally admitted 5'5"... I think it's safe to say he's 5'5".
Anna said on 22/Sep/07
Yeah, Rob and viewers of this page, you should really watch that Rove interview, at least the first bit where Daniel walks in - he looks just under 5'6" like Leung said and, surprsingly, Dan's shoes look less dodgy than Rove's.
Leung said on 20/Sep/07
After the Rove appearance I really doubt he is as low as 5'5" flat. Anna knows what I'm talking about. I think he's probably a shade under 5'6"
Anna said on 20/Sep/07
Yeah, I'd say he is 5'5.5", maybe 5'5.75" in the morning and just a tad over 5'5" throughout the day. Actually, I'm guessing 5'5.25" or even 5'5.5" would be perfect listings for him. Also, I think he can get close to 5'7" or 5'8" in special shoes.
umad80 said on 19/Sep/07
Dan is 5'5". In a recent radio interview he apperantly stated this again. I had the link before, but I guess my comment never went through... My guess though is that Dan is 5'5.5" in the morning and just a normal 5'5" throughout the day.
Anna said on 19/Sep/07
I'd honeslty say anything under 5'5" is unreasonable for him, seeing as he looks closer to 5'6" in more recent photos.
Anna said on 19/Sep/07
You saw Equus Aix?? Do tell. And, honestly, how is one going to be able to tell if someone is either 5'5" or 5'4.5" when he is on stage? lmao, look at a ruler, it's a quite small increment. Do you know what I'm on about?
5'3" Aix said on 19/Sep/07
5'5" is him at his tallest, I think. He looks like 5'4.5" barefoot *in equus i mean*.
Anna said on 17/Sep/07
Has anyone looked at those recent photos and recent footage of Dan looking closer to 5'6" than 5'5"? By the way, is Teresa Palmer really 5'5.75"? She's not on this site....
Anna said on 16/Sep/07
No, yeah, you are completely right Hugo. I wasn't trying to offend anyone, I was just saying that it's quite uncanny to think that we are chatting with people who are out of uni and in the real world, I just never really thought on that. It's fine though and I completely understand. And I completely understand where you are coming from with your mate. I have friends who are much older than me, so it is definitely not strange. And, yeah, you definitely, without a doubt, do not need to say how old you are. Quite petty and unnecessary.
Hugo said on 15/Sep/07
First off, I'm not 30 years-old, my buddy is. I do not have to disclose how old I am. Someone can be 39 and have a 60 year-old buddy. Or, someone could be 20 with a 35 year-old buddy. You don't always have to have the exact same age group of friends. People may find they get along better. Secondly, Anna you've just insulted people who really are 30 years-old who come here. You make it sound like they don't have anything to do all day but comment on heights. There isn't an age requirement. Some might say to you, you seem like a teenager, why aren't you doing teenager things like going to the mall, or doing your homework or attending your after school job?.....instead of commenting on heights.
Anna said on 15/Sep/07
JK, I really don't think that's true. The dad being 5'9" is definitely true seeing as I saw the show, but that would definitley not mean Dan would be, at a minimum 5'8" and a max 5'10" or 5'11". His mum being 5' certainly messes things up a bit, does it not? I feel like you are just disregarding that fact completely. And, like others have said, (Chip, are you serious, 5 inches after college? that's ridiculous, but I guess things can vary like that) things are quite unpredictable. You can't really make minimum and maximum guesses, in my opinion. And gyp, I was quite surprised as well when I found that out. When you think of it, it makes sense that not everyone on this site is still in high school or uni, but I just never really thought 30 some year olds would come on here. Quite surreal. And, yeah, I really think Dan is probably over 5'5", more like 5'5.5" or 5'6". I know I keep changing, but with during his recent promotional tour he really does look to be closer to 5'6". And that would definitely make sense because there is absolutely no way Emma is anything under 5'6" (when you see recent photos of her with actors/actresses who aren't RUpert Grint or Daniel Radcliffe), so that would put her at 5'6.5" or 5'7". I am guessing she is a weak 5'7" to be honest, she's barely shorter than the 5'8" Rupert Grint. I wonder what they're going to do to downplay that mistake in casting. And, as for the age subject, I think Dan does indeed carry himself in a more mature fashion than, especially, Rupert, but I think he literally looks older too. And, think about it, in PoA Dan looked easily 15 or 16 years old whereas Emma was struggling to look like a 13 year old. And Rupert looked quite young as well and, remember, he is 2 years older than Emma. And, although I love Rupert, I really wish he would act more professionally like Dan, such as at premieres and stuff. Jeans at a world premiere of your movie, not Dan always looks cute and fashionable, props to him.
JK said on 15/Sep/07
Dan said on Jonathan Ross that his dad was 5'9'', So the minimum Dan should really been was 5'8'' and the max was like 5'10'' or even 5'11''
Godyoupeople said on 15/Sep/07
Oh gosh.
If Hugo's not a teenager, I've been lecturing a (insert age here)-year-old on Buddhism(thianks for the tip Anna)???? Wow. Oh gosh.

Ok, moving on. I think that maybe Dan IS over 5'5.5". That old post from Anna about the Goblet of Fire movie is actually quite realistic, now I think about it. Hmmm.

On the age-related subject: I think the reason Dan seems more mature is because he kind of takes acting more seriously. I mean, with the premieres he wears suits and everything, while Rupert wears jeans or something. Also he acts a bit more serious sometimes, while Rupert and Emma are at times more relaxed. I don't know, it's just my opinion.
Chip said on 15/Sep/07
Lol, Anna, if I could find a tape measure, I wouldn't have gone through all this other trouble. I have no idea why I can't find one lying around.

Anyway, even though Dan probably does want to be taller, he tends to make a lot of jokes about his height. When he was on Ellen recently, he stated that it's a good thing he didn't have a huge growth spurt, or he probably would've been too large for the role. Dan also says that it's a good thing his mother is only 5 feet tall, which is related to the comment on his own height. What I find strange is that Dan never mentions how tall his dad is. I mean, my own mother is only 5'0", and my dad is about 6'0. When I was born, the doctors predicted that I would be 6'3" (I hope that they're right on that one). My birth record says that I was 21 inches long when I was born, which I think is kind of tall for a baby (I know that sounds funny, a tall baby, that is).
Still, it seems that Dan uses his mom being 5'0 tall as an excuse for his being 5'5.5" or 5'6", but how tall is his dad? I know a guy in his early 20s whose mother is even shorter than Dan's. His dad, however, is about 6'4", and he is 6'1". Just because you have a short mother doesn't mean you'll be short, and Dan doesn't seem to know that, lol.

btw, in response to Hugo's statement, it seems that a lot of short people do look young, but there are tall people who look young, too. I'm currently in my first year of high school, and I already see a variety of kids, different shapes and sizes. I wouldn't say I look very mature; I mean, I'm kind of broad in the shoulders and chest, but I don't look much older now than I did when I was in 7th grade. I am taller than I was then, though, and my voice has changed. But anyway, I don't look to young or too old, and even though I'm not tall, I'm actually taller than some of the Sophomores and Juniors. I look older than some of the Sophomores too, because there are some of them who still look and sound like little kids. Anyway, I think I'll still grow; I mean, I haven't gotten perfect sleep in the past, but I overall do sleep well, eat healthily, etc. There are actually some guys who grow about 5 inches after they finish college, and they're not all necessarily late bloomers. Anything can happen, I guess.
Anna said on 13/Sep/07
Yeah, I assumed as much seeing as Rob is definitely not in his teens, sorry, the God just sort of came out. Let me rephrase that, how old are you Hugo? If you want to answer, but if you don't, you need not answer.
Evanna said on 13/Sep/07
Anna, we aren't all teenagers here.
Anna said on 12/Sep/07
Wow, that is quite severe. My God, how old are you then Hugo?
Hugo said on 12/Sep/07
If I had to best describe my buddy's youthfulness, it would be that of Dan Radcliffe in "Prisoner of Azkaban," only skinnier. Imagine Dan being nearly 30 years-old in "Prisoner of Azkaban"....that's what my friend is dealing with. My friend's youthfulness is that ridiculous. He looks 14, but is nearly 30--I kid you not.

My buddy keeps telling me he's tired of people telling him, "You're so blessed. You're going to look good at 50." My friend says that sometimes he thinks he was bitten by a vampire--which preserved his youth--like Kirsten Dunst's character "Claudia" in the movie, "Interview with the Vampire." "Claudia" looked like a child(because she was bitten as a child and could never age or change appearance from that moment on), but was really an adult as the years progressed.

My friend tells me, "People say I'll look good at 50, but what if I have a heart attack in a public place at 50? A bystander will call for an ambulance saying, "There's a teenager having a heart attack!"
Anna said on 12/Sep/07
Well, I have always thought that Dan has looked quite mature for his age. He's looked quite adult-like ever since CoS really. Rupert and Emma have always looked more youthful in my opinion, especially Emma, she still doesn't look like a 17-year-old at all.
Hugo said on 12/Sep/07
Has anyone ever noticed that short men are sometimes youthful looking? Take Dan for example; I know he's still in the process of aging into becoming more looking like a young adult. But for his height, in my opinion, he appears to be youthful. It's like if you're short, somehow it won't age the face.

I have a buddy who's almost 30 years-old and is 5'5". He doesn't have the gene to grow a beard and he's real thin, I mean holocaust thin and he doesn't look a day over 14 years-old. This is no hyperbole. Dressing older doesn't help him either. He doesn't get taken seriously and everyone treats him like he's a teenager. He told me a story that once he was standing in line at the store, behind a busy lane and he looked up and saw an empty lane available, with the cashier coming out from their post to stand in front of the conveyor belt--to look for customers, who are ready to check out. The cashier notices my buddy had 2 items and looks away, instead of telling him that he(the cashier) can help him. Staying in the same lane, it's my friend's turn for service. He places his 2 items up on the conveyor belt and the cashier doesn't even say, "hi". The cashier then rudely throws his items into a bag and then tosses the change into his hand. As my friend grabs his sack, he glanced back to see the next customer in line, who appeared to be a 30-something year-old. The cashier all of a sudden was all smiles and greeted the 30-something year-old with, "hello! Find everything you were looking for?" My friend constantly gets this rude service because of his youthful looks. And his short height doesn't help, either. People distinguish shortness for a kid and tallness for an adult. People don't take teenagers seriously, but people don't realize is my friend ISN'T a teenager--he's a grown man who gets treated like a teenager.

I know I've gotten a little off subject, but it has to do with height--in a way.
Anna said on 11/Sep/07
He was also on the US TV show Ellen and he didn't really look that much shorter than her and she is supposed to be 5'7" to 5'8" (she has actually said 5'8" herself...) He looked around 5'6" compared to her.
Anna said on 11/Sep/07
i think he is at the very least 5'5" and, judging by the new photos and Rove show, he could be closer to 5'6". Honestly, check out the show on YouTube, it's surprising. And the photos with Teresa almer, they're just quite interesting and odd. Is it possible that he could have really been 5'5.5" after GoF and then grew like 1/2" to 5'6"? Or maybe he was 5'5"ish and then grew to be 5'5.5" or slightly over? I know for sure that Emma would be easily 5'6" to 5'7" and Rupert a strong 5'8".
Evanna said on 11/Sep/07
Barely over 160 cm means somewhere between 5'3" and 5'4", and that was in 2004. I do believe he is around 5'5" now, but nothing over it.
5'3" Aix said on 11/Sep/07
Barely over 160 cm? Likely 5'2" or 5'3" you mean? So I guess we have the same height! *LOL* but not likely, he looks like a reasonable 5'4" to me.
Evanna said on 11/Sep/07
Come on guys, Radcliffe said himself that he's only 5'5". And when I met Mr. Pedja Bjelac he mentioned that at the time GOF filming Radcliffe was barely over 160 cm.
Leung said on 10/Sep/07
yes Anna, I was expecting Rove to dominate him but was surprised that there was only a small difference between the two, the difference really was only 1.5”.
Radcliffe looked about 5’6”.
Anna said on 10/Sep/07
Yeah, that's what I was speaking of Leung. Maybe it was only 1.5", thus Dan would be 5'6"-5'6.5"? DOes anyone else know what we are talking about?
Leung said on 9/Sep/07
Radcliffe was on Rove last night, and interestedly he was only 1.5” shorter than Rove McManus.
Anna said on 9/Sep/07
And I forgot to mention that I saw Dan Radcliffe on Rove Live (who is listed as 5'7.75" on this site, but looks and says a genuine 5'8") and Dan was honestly not 3 inches shorter. Both were in dress shoes (although I noticed that Rove's were a bit sketchy looking?) and Dan really looked 2"-2.5" shorter. I was quite surprised by it to be honest.
Anna said on 9/Sep/07
Good for you Chip, how did you come to that conclusion, use a tape measure? haha because I think that would be the way to measure one's self the most accurately, obviously. But, anyway, I've just seen some new photos of Dan and Teresa Palmer (who is listed at 5'5.75" at nearly every site on the internet) and she is wearing about 2 inch heels and Dan regular tennis shoes and he really looks to be taller than 5'5". Click Here Okay, so Teresas would be about 5'7.75" in these heels and honestly, Dan looks only one inch shorter here so if you consider Teresa losing 1" for leaning, that would put Dan at around 5'5.5" or 5'5.75" it possible that he really is that tall now or do you think Teresa is lying about her height?
Chip said on 9/Sep/07
I've come to the conclusion that I'm 5'7", but I don't know or care whether it's right or not. I'm just going to say I'm 5'7" from now on until I grow some more.
Anna said on 9/Sep/07
even if you spelt Buddhism wrongly.
TJ said on 8/Sep/07
JK, that pic is from the 2006 awards. I think she has grown a little since then.
Anna said on 8/Sep/07
JK, first of all, why would you use an out of date photo when there are plenty of more recent photos that are better and well, more recent, to judge from? It's proving umad's point exactly and thank-you very much gyp, that was nice of you to say. YOu seem like a cool guy.
Godyoupeople said on 7/Sep/07
Hugo, no need to explain karma to me. I'm already familiar with Budhhism, thanks. Yeah, I KNOW all that enlightment, meditation, karma, peace stuff. Oh, and also, Budhhist people tend to kind of believe in heaven and hell, if you know what I mean. When you die, you're supposed to go to heaven/hell, but when your goodness/badness pretty much runs out, you're either a human or an animal, and when you die, the same thing happens, again and again, until you reach enlightment (in which you supposedly get many perks, e.g. special eyes, being able to see into the future vaguely, flying, seeing angels and demons, etc.), and then when you die you reach a state of being AND non-being at the same time. You see? Ha.

I guess when people judge Emma, Rupert and Dan's heights it's from their perspective - how tall they are and how tall Emma, Rupert and Dan look in their eyes. Unless you get some advanced laser beam to do some complex measurement, I say we stick to more or less what we came to earlier: Emma is around 5'6", Rupert around 5'9" or 5'10" and Dan within half an inch of 5'5".

P.S.>>give Anna some credit, guys, she's been here a l-o-n-g time. She seems reasonable enough. You KNOW she's about right.
JK said on 7/Sep/07
Are you kidding me by saying Emma looks 5'6'' - 5'7''? she looks more 5'4'' - 5'5'' Click Here
Anna said on 6/Sep/07
hahahaha, Ken, that is such a good conclusion. I think that may actually be the case, however, I am certain that he does try to downgrade nearly every celebrity's height and it is bloody annoying. I mean, I see maybe questioning the 5'8" listing of Ben McKenzie or Drake Bell, but honestly, he is questioning like Rupert Grint whom many people who have seen in person believe to be a strong 5'9" if not 5'10" and JK is saying he is a weak 5'7". haha, I know I am persistent with Emma being 5'6" or more, but at least that's plausible and some people actually agree with me. And she genuinely does looks 5'6"-5'7".
JK said on 6/Sep/07
Ken i have no idea of what you said, but its up to you if you want to believe if im 6'3'' or whatnot, this has absolute nothing to do with "celebheights", Dan really looks 5'5'' i doubt he is going any taller than that anymore
Ken said on 5/Sep/07
hey man "u so-called 6'3" JK" i hav searched many threads on this website. I've noticed that you are the one, who always tries to cut short any celebrity's height. and always tries to demonstrate that u r a way taller than them.
Coming to business,i wanted to tell u that i have configured out one thing.........that you yourself are no way 6'3" person, but a 5'6" or 5'7" shorty........
Thats why you try to reduce any celebrity's u get a satisfaction that the celebs ain't too much taller than u.......
Anna said on 4/Sep/07
Yeah, I knew you were being sarcastic GYP, I just had to question your wording choice, it was just a bit odd....I got the main point nevertheless. And I'm glad to hear you think Emma is taller, but what are you talking about in the last bit that you wrote? Something with this "leaky cauldron' and Dan and .25" not really counting?
Hugo said on 4/Sep/07
Godyoupeople, how do you explain bad things happening to GOOD people and good things happening to BAD people? It has to do with their previous lives. Some people do find out who they were, which has KARMIC overload. Some people don't find out who they were and just wonder why their lives are so shi**y. KARMA does work that way. Here's an example of KARMA: Let's say you are walking down the street and a mugger comes running up beside you and grabs your wallet out of your back pocket. The mugger was OWED your money inside your wallet because you mugged him in your previous life. But, KARMA will STILL get on the mugger because he mugged you, and that built up BAD KARMA for him--although he was owed your money. The mugger had a "choice" and he "chose" to repeat the cycle. Therefore, KARMA will punish him. He chose to put in another quarter and repeat the cycle. So, in the next life, you'll have a "choice" to mug him because he mugged you, but one has to be smart enough NOT to repeat it. That's how you build up GOOD KARMA. And you can't cheat or fake goodness. For example: Let's say you cover a homeless person with a blanket and you hope to get rewarded or hear a thank-you, KARMA will see it wasn't genuine. You should just cover the homeless person because you WANTED to, because you care. You shouldn't want a "thank-you." You should just do it. As for Dan Radcliffe being short, perhaps in his previous life, he was well above 6 feet tall. He's short for a reason. Everybody is made the way they are--for a reason. If you're GOOD in this life, you don't have to fear your next. Some reach enlightenment; some don't and will have to be back. If people still don't believe in reincarnation and KARMA....we are floating. That's sci-fi right there.
Godyoupeople said on 4/Sep/07
Oh sorry, I haven't been paying attention. Anna: I was being sarcastic...oh well. Chip: No offence, but you seem rather height-obsessed, other than that you seem fine.Hugo/anybody else who knows: I don't think that karma works that way, the hell do you know that you're going to know who you were in your last life? Any suggestions? Cos if you remember your last life and how you died, awesome. I for one would really love hearing all about it *scoff* No offence meant, by the way.

Hmmm...not to actually spoil your fun, but I don't think 0.25" really counts in "official" measurements. I heard there's something on the Leaky Cauldron site that has an interview with Dan. He's supposed to be promoting December Boys or something. I don't know where but I know it's there. Sad, I know.
Anna said on 3/Sep/07
Yeah, I think he should be listed at 5'5.25", which is essentially a strong 5'5" in my opinion. And thus Emma should be listed at 5'6.25", following the same pattern, therefore a strong 5'6". It makes so much sense. And, off the topic of height, does anyone know what the release date of December Boys is? And, CHip, you do that.
-V- said on 3/Sep/07
To Anna: I guess Emma Watson wears heels.
Chip said on 3/Sep/07
Anna, lol, I really have no idea. I'm going to do the same thing, but using a ruler (because I've found one now), and try to get it as accurately as possible.

Back to THIS topic, I don't think Dan is anything under 5'5", but I'm really not sure.
Anna said on 2/Sep/07
I honestly quite doubt that he will grow more. Maybe a centimetre, but most likely not. I do think he is probably 5'5" or 5'5.5" though now....definitley a strong 5'5". If Luna's listed at 5'2.25" Dan should be listed at 5'5.25", right?
jhonny said on 1/Sep/07
do you guys think he is gonna grow some more?i mean as far as i know at that age you growing cartilages are closed if not are closing and that means that thats gonna be hes taller heights ?
Anna said on 1/Sep/07
Oh, and so sorry, I meant to write 6'7" in that wonder quote from gyp and Hugo, that was a brilliant post - very necessary indeed. It was actually quite entertaining. Anyway, duccy, we've sort of gone over this a while ago, but I am guessing Harry is supposed to be 5'9"-6', Ron easily over 6' - most likely 6'3"ish, and Hermione of average height - probably 5'4". So, none of them are really the perfect height for their characters, but Emma is the closest, although, like I've said, it's a bit messed up by the fact that she is taller than Dan, who is supposed to be 5-8 inches taller than her. And the fact that she is now barely shorter than this supposedly really tall character, so she is basically the one who messes everything up. Damn you Emma Watson! haha, I suppose Daniel and Rupert could be a little taller, but no, let's point the blame to Emma Watson, but let us remember that she is "like totally lying" about her height and is most likely 5'2", but Dan and Rupert are still 5'5" and 5'8" or more. haha absolute rubbish. It's because she slouches God dammit and the directors are probably promoting it in order to not completely ruin the tale of Harry Potter!
Anna said on 31/Aug/07
Is a size 12 men's shoe really 12 inches in length? I never knew this....I took out the in-sole of my ladies' size 6 shoe and it was not 6 inches, where did you figure that Chip? And gyp, thanks for agreeing, although I think 5'5.5" is probably Daniel's morning height, although he could be this tall. I am saying he's 5'5" to 5'5.5" and Emma is 5'6" to 5'7" because at times she can look less than an inch shorter than rupert and significantly taller than Dan. And for your middle bit, I don't really get what you're saying...."they walk around saying they're 5'7" the good old 5'5.5" can't be too far off their REAL height." What? haha...I guess I'm missing something.
Hugo said on 31/Aug/07
Yes, but you might end up being too tall in your next life for wanting to be tall because of KARMA. KARMA might make you too tall, what's called pituitary gland disorders. Pituitary tumors make you grow and grow and you'll be over 7 feet tall. Maybe KARMA recognized you want a greedy goal to be tall, so instead it gives you a "different tall." Just because you make fun of a 6'2" person in this life because you wish to be 6'2" in the next, KARMA will recognize your motives behind it and either make you very short(so you appreciate your current height) or it will make you very tall. Now, like I've said, the 5'2" man was made 5'2" in this life because he made fun of a 5'2" man in his previous life. He didn't recognize KARMA and didn't think KARMA would make him 5'2". He thought he could put someone down for being 5'2" with no repercussions. Now, if KARMA sees you make fun of someone who is 6'2" because you want to be 6'2" in your next life, KARMA might see that as a greedy gain and will make you over 7 feet tall or it might do the opposite and make you shorter than you are now. It DEPENDS on what KARMA will do.
duccy said on 31/Aug/07
how tall are the harry potter characters supposed to be?? i mean harry should be about 5 foot 10 (just aguess) and ron like over 6 foot (which rupert clearly isn't...) any other ides for the rest of the characters?
Godyoupeople said on 31/Aug/07
If Karma has a factor in height, then, wow, awesome. Height is what I need at the moment and I made fun of a tall guy in my class...although where is the proof of a next life, I wonder? Any witnesses? Right...

Moving on I agree with Anna, because I do believe Emma is 5'6" and Dan is around 5'5.5". It doesn't really matter though, because even if they walk around saying they're 6'7" the good old 5'5.5" can't be too far off their REAL height.

Oh, and Chip, your head is supposed to make up about an eighth of your adult height (you times your head by 7.5 actually) unless you are an alien so go have a happy time finding out how much more you need to grow your face and/or shrink your body. We in my Art class actually did have to do this head thing, so...but other from that, yay, congrats. on the happy news.
Slh said on 30/Aug/07
radcliffe isn't 5.8 i think....
in this photo Click Here
dan is 1-2 inches taller than emma watson (165cm,mistake? and she wears flat
Click Here
Anna said on 29/Aug/07
Very fascinating Chip, I was very elated by that, so glad that you did post it. I particularly enjoyed the part about you taking out the shoe-pad in your old shoe and marking every bloody foot on the wall, very enjoyable indeed. But, just back me up here for making me read that somewhat irrelevant post, you don't think Dan is anything under 5'5", correct? You think, like me, he is somewhere between 5'5" and 5'5.5", right? And Maya has also been pestering me saying that I am the only one who thinks Emma is taller than Dan, I'm not the only one believing that either, am I? I do remember you agreeing that she is at least 5'6", maybe even 5'6.5"?
Chip said on 29/Aug/07
Wow, I have fantastic news (for me at least)! Based on MY measurements, I am 5'8", not 5'6." I know it'll sound mediocre, but I'm sure my results are accurate: I basically took a shoe-pad out of my old size 12 shoe, held it straight against the wall, and put marks and labeled them "1 ft", "2 ft", etc. (I can't find a tape measure anywhere, lol). When I had reached "5 ft", I took my ruler and marked inches all the way up to 6'0. Standing up as straight as possible, NOT holding my head high or low but looking straight ahead, the top of my head stopped at 5'8". I then measured my face starting from my chin to the the top of my head, and from that I concluded that my face is 8 inches long. If I didn't have a head, then I would be 5'0, so I touched the top of my neck and was amazed: my mom, who is 5'0, reaches the top of my neck. Also, looking at the mark labeled 6'0, I realized that my dad does indeed look to be 6'0 or 6'1", so he hasn't lost any height That's why he hasn't looked so tall to me lately, because a 6'0 person doesn't look huge from a 5'8" point of view. I'm positive that I measured extremely accurately, and that I am 5'8". That explains why people I know who are about 1 inch taller than me say they're 5'9". They're actually telling the truth; I used to think they were adding inches.

Sorry for going off the Daniel Radcliffe topic, and I know most of you probably aren't interested in my height, but I'm really happy if my measurement were correct. I still want to grow, and after filling out a chart on the internet (can't remember the name, but it's supposed to be accurate), I might grow to be 5'10". So, although I might not grow any more than two inches, I don't care all that much. All this time, I've been thinking that I'm shorter than I really was, but I actually did grow during my 8th grade year, since I started off being 5'4.5". I guess I just didn't notice my growth, lol.
Anna said on 27/Aug/07
What the hockey was that Hugo? haha, very reasonable indeed. And Maya, you'd end up 5'5" in your next lifetime because I refuse to believe that Dan is anything under 5'5"! haha, sorry, I'm stressed. He's not 5'4", what sort of rubbish is that? Rob won't believe that for one second I daresay.
Maya said on 27/Aug/07
Hugo that's a great way to look at the things, I love it! So, everyone here, be careful not to call Dan a dwarf, midget, hobbit or so, otherwise you might end up 5'4" in your next life!
Hugo said on 26/Aug/07
Speaking of's what I think. I think SOMETIMES someone can follow either parents' height or they could follow one of their parent's side of the family. But something I bet no one thinks of, but me is, is that KARMA can play a role in height. A 5'2" guy was probably made 5'2" in this life because of his previous life. Maybe he made fun of a 5'2" guy and now has to see how it feels to be 5'2" and now he's getting made fun of. That's why Karma specifically made someone a certain height that wouldn't follow their parents' height or their parent's side of the family.
B said on 26/Aug/07
I think 165cm is dead on for Dan, and Emma does look a little taller. By the way on the subject of genetics, it does not matter if you are a boy or a girl when it comes to who's height you will recieve it could be your mothers or your fathers. I am a prime example of this because my father in his prime was 168cm and my mother was 171cm. My dads side of the family is very short and my moms side is average. I am 176cm just over 5' 9'' and I am a guy so I got my height from my mom not my dad.
Anna said on 23/Aug/07
She's not the same height as Dan, she only looks slightly taller at times because Dan stands up completely straight whereas Emma slouches terribly - I think that is why Dan convinced some that he grew to be a full 5'6" (the first London photo call with just the trio....) And I would say Dan is slightly over 5'5" for most of the day and 5'5.5" or maybe a bit more in the morning and I still think Emma has an evening height of 5'6" at the very least.
6'3'' JK said on 23/Aug/07
why do you think that Emma is 5'6'' - 5'7'' when she is the same height as Dan, and we are looking for afternoon height the height you are for most part of the day
Anna said on 23/Aug/07
Yes, I think that's right john, although I've heard Ron is supposed to be about 6'3", but that's quite close to the 6'2" you stated. And I agree wtih you "godyoupeople", I really don't think Dan's height is going to affect him much and, like you said, he can wear lifts and speical shoes and, to be honest, I think, like Maya has said, he already uses such things at public events and they do help him quite a lot. And the 5'10" listing for Rupert is not plausible in my opinion, unless Emma were more like 5'8"+ and, although I've heard a few people who believe the 5'8", I think she is 5'6"-5'7". As for Dan, I think he is 5'5.5" or slightly more in the morning and, without trying to sound utterly stupid, which one are we looking for, morning or evening? I've asked this before and no one has answered and sense quite a few people are talking about it now, I thought I should ask....?
lil john said on 23/Aug/07
test - harry's ment to be about 5'10", 5'11", cus he's ment to be quite tall, bellatrix about 6' and Ron about 6'2", who are both ment to be very tall, and Hermione's ment to be average height, cus the author never mentions her as either being short or tall so she can't be exceptional.
6'3'' JK said on 23/Aug/07
Ruperts 5'10'' listing has been on the Internet since 2005, I actually thought he was 5'10'' back then
Godyoupeople said on 23/Aug/07
I just checked today and Rupert is 5'10", it's all over the internet. And Emma is 5'6", it's on her website. I know Dan IS pretty short, but when he said he was 5'5.5" it really COULD have been measured in the morning. I am kind of short myself and I find I'm nearly an inch taller in the morning than I am in the afternoon. Bonnie is 5'5", I think, I saw that somewhere official...but guys, Emma and Bonnie and Katie and whatever are GIRLS!!! Girls wear heels, so that might explain it. But I don't really know...still I fail to see how the hell it matters if they're good (and they are) and also when there are other ways of boosting someone's height than a growth spurt! I had a GUY in my class (until recently) that had about one million girlfriends (seriously) and guess what??? He didn't reach up to 160cm!!!
Anna said on 22/Aug/07
hmm, interesting "Idontknow", I've not heard of that, but it could be quite plausible. And, just to put it out there, if Dan were a girl, he would be about 5'-5'2", correct? So, what I don't understand is why actresses like Kirsten Bell, Rachel Bilson, and others don't get ridiculed such as Dan does? And if Emma were a guy, she would be 5'10"-6', correct?
Idontknow said on 22/Aug/07
I see that there was a discussion about the genetics of growth - if it's girls after their fathers or their mothers and so on. It's very easy. The expected hight is for boys: (Fathers hight plus mothers hight in cm)/2 plus 6,5 cm. FOr girls: (Fathers hight plus mothers hight in cm)/2 minus 6,5 cm.
So if are a girl and your father is 180 cm and your mother is 160 your expected hight is: (180+160)/2 =170cm - 6,5cm= 163,5cm. For a boy it would be 170cm + 6,5cm= 176,5cm. That is the general rule, and as you know, every rule has exeptions, so there is no need to come with examples that there are exeptions. Yes there are, but if you want to know what hight you may expect, you can use this rule.
anna said on 21/Aug/07
Yeah he did change the caption for Dan, that's weird. I think when he said that he meant to say still 5'5.5", but I dunno. He sometimes looks that tall, but 5'5" is probably right.
Chip said on 21/Aug/07
Anna, of course I was joking about Leonardo Dicaprio, lol. He's not even British or anything. But he is 5'11" and all (I know there are some young actors who are that tall, too, but w/e). My comments are drifting away from height, but I can't think of much else to say about Dan. He's around 5'5"-5'5.5".
Maya said on 21/Aug/07
Hey folks, haven't you noticed that Rob changed his comment on Dan? Dan DID admit after the hand/print/wand ceremony that he was only 5'5", that he actually measured himself and was sort of a surprised that he was still that height. But obviously with his spiky hair, military posture and good choice of shoes he can look 5'6"-5'7" on occasion. So 5'5" is probably his final height, as he hasn't grown at all in more than two years.
3 said on 20/Aug/07
Yea, I agree they will never replace him because they know it would be wrong. But still he looks very short in the movies, and thats about all there is to say. I just wish that he could somehow be 5'10 or so like he would be in the books. I guess thats why I'm sort of bitter about him being short- I like the books a lot and I didn't honestly think the movie was all that great like it was supposed to be. That is just my opinion, but I really dislike all of these people who automatically love the movies just because the books are very good.
Test said on 20/Aug/07
Stephanie, how did you tell that Harry was supposed to around 6' tall? If that's the case, then Bellatrix was supposed to be around 6'2'', and Ron should be about that height as well.
anna said on 20/Aug/07
haha, Leonardo Dicaprio Chip, how'd you come up with him? I'm assuming you're joking, seeing as he is in his 30s, but....and, yeah, your comments are kind of drifting away from Daniel Radcliffe's height, but ah the way, if you have size 13 feet, you are most likely going to grow some. That's a huge size, wow. I wear a size six. Have you grown lately because that's also a good way to tell. Like I've said, I haven't grown since the age of 13 and I am nearly 17 now, so I'm nearly positive I won't grow more haha. And did Entertainment say that Stephanie? I didn't know that. I know that he's been saying 5'6" lately, but it's just hard to tell because he's also siad 5'5", which confuses me and I think others as well. I think he could be 5'5.5" though. Definitely a strong 5'5" and Emma's definitely 1"-2" taller than him. And yeah, Rupert really isn't that much taller than Emma or for that matter Dan any more.
sean said on 20/Aug/07
3 i think that for genetics it usually goes guys take after their moms side for height and girls take after their dads side. example my moms 5'1.5 and my dads 6'0 im 5'6 so who do you think i take after.
Stephanie said on 20/Aug/07
Daniel is 5' 6" according to Entertainment from a few months ago. Emma is also 5' 6". Rupert isn't much taller. I'd say he looks no taller than 5' 8".

Dan is short to play Harry, considering Harry is supposed to be five or six inches taller than Daniel is now in book seven (age 17). But they shouldn't recast him. He is the Harry that we all know and that would be stupid to replace him now for the last two films.
Chip said on 19/Aug/07
3, I think my feet have grown slightly lately. I mean, my feet have already grew rapidly, and I currently wear size 13. An old pair of size 13 shoes are too small for me now, but that could be how the shoes are made. But my feet have grown in those shoes, because they were much more loose when I first started wearing them.

btw, I'm sure my dad is 6'1", but he could be 6'0. I'd say he's no less than 5'll". If my dad is shorter than 6'1", then he's lost some height. On some older pictures of him, he really looks tall, but now he looks a bit shorter (he has gained weight, though). The funny thing is, as short as my mom is, she told me that when I was born, the doctors said I would be taller than my dad, about 6'3". Now, it seems very unlikely that I'll be that tall, but who knows? My dad is actually quite short compared to most of his side of the family. A lot of people of my dad's side are 6'3" or taller. My mom has more short people on her side of the family; I'm as tall of taller than nearly all of my uncles and aunts on her side. It's normally quite hard to determine your final height when you have a tall parent and a short parent, so I don't know. I think it's likely that I'll grow at least two inches more, though.

btw, I'm sorry that I'm making you sick with my comments, too, but whatever. 3, even if people do agree with you on Dan being replaced (which just about everyone won't), he's not going to be replaced. He's already signed on for the last two. Besides, it would be a really poor idea to replace the main actor after 5 very successful movies. I mean, honestly, height isn't that important of a factor. I'm not "defending" him, as you put it, but I'm saying that it doesn't matter so much that he's short. Sure, I wouldn't mind a taller Harry, but it doesn't bother me very much. It's not like I say, "I don't want to watch this because Daniel Radcliffe is too short." Besides, what actor could you think of to replace Dan? Leonardo Dicaprio?
3 said on 19/Aug/07
Chip, if your only 14 and your 5'6, then there's a good chance that your still growing, unless you are very very mature for your age. One way to tell if you are still growing is if your feet are still getting bigger, in other words, if you still have to buy bigger shoes. Another more obvious thing you could do is see your doctor for a check-up and he'll tell you. But your 14 and I think there is at least 3 more years that you could grow, so I'd say you'll be 6'1 just like your dad, but I don't think you'll be taller than him because your mom is short. My mom is only 5'0 and my dad is 5'9. I'm a male, so I'm 5'9. And my two sisters are both 5'0. That's about all the proof you need to see that you could end up 6'1. But your dad may not really be 6'1, he might be adding a inch or two (nearly everyone does), unless you have measured him. You may want to check that so you don't get your hopes up for being 6'1, and then realize that your dad is really only 5'11 or 6'0, you see what I'm saying?
I keep staying my point about Radcliffe to see if anyone agree's with me that they might consider another actor. Anna, putting him in lifts wouldn't be that bad, but it would be noticeable and then he'd be almost the same height as Ron... creating more problems. Your telling me to stop saying that, well why don't you all stop defending him. I'm sick of what your saying too, no offense, but it is just fun to argue.
Chip said on 19/Aug/07
3, I don't know if you read my last post (it might not have been up yet when you posted), but I told you I was just poking fun at your username. However, that does not change the other part of my comment. I think you ought to give it a rest about Dan being short. You make him sound shorter than what he really is (even though he is short), and I think we all understand your opinion. You don't like it that Dan is short. Big deal. You also say that you don't like the movies very much. If you don't care much about the movies, then why do you care so much about Dan's height? Anyone else see what I mean?

Nobody is defending Radcliffe and saying that he's not short. We're just saying that you need to let it go. I mean, seriously, you seem like the kind of person who judges a person by their height the minute you meet them (I'm not saying that's the case, but it seems like it is). btw, quite a few of the HP boys are tall (huge, in fact), so of course Dan would look a lot shorter than them, even if he was a bit taller. I find it funny that you insist that people are arguing with you. I am aware that Radcliffe is 5'6" (although even that could be pushing it), but you don't see me rambling on about how he's too short for Harry. Big deal. Would you tell him all this stuff to his face? I highly doubt it.

Anyway, I have yet to see how much height I gain from each parent. My mom is certainly not tall, being 5'0. My dad is about 6'1". I am currently 14 and 5'6", so I'm somewhere in the middle of both of their heights. I started my growth spurt when I was about 12-and-a-half, and I was 4'10", I think. So, I've already grown a lot. I'm not sure if I will grow anymore, but I hope that I will. I'm already filling out in the chest and all that, but I think I could grow at least two more inches. I think I could still be having my growth spurt, though, because I've had a major increase in appetite lately. Even when I started my growth spurt, I was eating about the same as before. But now, two years after I started, I'm always hungry. I mean, maybe guys get hungry during a strength spurt, too, so that could be the case. But I hope it's the growth spurt this time.
anna said on 18/Aug/07
Well, yeah, I see why you would do that 3, it is quite amusing to see how people respond when one makes a ridiculous comment, but I myself try to be less rude and it seems to be working quite well as of recently. And, to be honest, if I were you I would tone it down a bit and, like I said, I do agree that Dan is short, but I wouldn't really say he is too short for the part of Harry Potter. Can't the producers give him lifts and such? What do you think of that? They can just give Emma flats and if Dan wears lifts he will have a good few inches on Bonnie. I just don't understand what your purpose is, it's not like you're going to convince us or the Harry Potter people to get a new Harry Potter while we are more than halfway through the series. Do you know what I mean? And, I wouldn't call people on here unknowledgeable because I would reckon that offends people. Just because people don't completely agree with your comment that guys get height from their dads and ladies from their mums doesn't mean you have to insult them. Wouldn't you agree that one cannot really predict height because it is so random?
Maya said on 18/Aug/07
jed's right. My mum is 5'4" and dad 5'10", but I'm 5'9" and I've been this height since I was 14 (I'm 20 now). Everyone thought I was going to end up 7 ft. tall, I was growing up so quickly at the time, but fortunately it didn't happen.
3 said on 18/Aug/07
I use the name 3 because it is my favorite number, and I didn't want to use anything common. Anyway I saw the last Potter movie, and noticed that Harry was a head shorter than many characters and shorter than many girls, so I got on this site and said he looked ridiculous, and I wanted to know if anyone was thinking that along with me. But that obviously was a dumb thing to do because 99% of the living souls who visit this site want to defend Radcliffe for some reason not known to me.
So now I keep coming back to this site, after posting that one comment about Radcliffe looking very very short- too short for the part. I have to defend my opinion because nobody else is agreeing with me. Plus, it has been fun to see all of these unknowledgeable Radcliffe fans come on this site and argue against me, so I keep coming back.
By the way, I am a average movie go-er. I am 17 years old, 5'9, and a male. My point in telling you that is that I am just an average person, and that to me Radcliffe's height really did look too short. So go ahead and try to defend him some more, but it's not going to effect how I feel about Radcliffe!
jed said on 18/Aug/07
wow...3 maybe u r just young but if ure not u have some serious growing up to do. About the children taking height from the fathers most of the time is not true. Most of the time it is an average of both. I don't mean that if your mom is 5'4 and dad is 5'9 than u are going to be 5' 6 1/2 regardless of gender. I mean that if u are a guy u take the mothers height and add 5 inches and average it with your dads height. u add or subract 5 inches because that is the difference in average height between males and females. It also could be true that u end up your mothers height (meaning your mothers male height) or your dads height depending on your dominant and recessive genes. grandparents,uncles,aunts also influence ones height.
Anna said on 17/Aug/07
Sorry, I just realised when I clicked on my URL link that it's to the Snitch website, I thought it was the actual picture. Anyway, here is another photo that came out Click Here and you can see much better because you can see the heels and their whole bodies. And they look roughly the same height and I believe Bonnie has a little heel advantage because she is wearing those huge ass heels again. haha, she quite likes those, doesn't she? Still think 5'4" is correct for her. Plus, in OotP she looked noticeably shorter than Rupert and Emma.
Anna said on 17/Aug/07
Yeah, I agree Chip, I dunno what 3 is trying to prove?? It's not like anyone here is denying that Dan is short, 5'5"/5'6" is obviously short for a guy and no one is ever going to be able to prove that it's not. The thing that I think people are getting annoyed at is that you keep rambling on about it. I really don't think his height will make much of a difference because people don't really care. And as for Bonni, I think it's hard to see in the photo because we don't see their feet or the angle of the shot really. It looks as if she's still around 5'4".
Chip said on 17/Aug/07
3, if you come across my last post, I want to say that I'm sorry for sounding so rude. Even though I was getting irritated with you (and I will if you keep going on about Dan's height), some of those comments in my last paragraph (like you being 3 feet tall, etc.) were just rude. To be honest, I was mainly just poking a bit of fun at your user name. I couldn't resist, lol. No harm meant, though.
Chip said on 16/Aug/07
3, being short doesn't make you look like a sixth grader. How ignorant can you get? YOu can tell that Dan's not a little kid. He's short, but his body is developed and all. Seriously, I am not mad at you for saying that Dan is short, because he is, but I am irritated that you keep complaining about it. I honestly don't care very much that he is short, and I'm certainly not paying attention to height the whole time I see the movies.

btw, why do you call yourself "3"? Are you 3 years old, or are you 3 feet tall? Maybe you're just mad because a short person like Dan is taller than you. Anyhow, I didn't mind your opinion as much when you had mentioned it only about once or twice, but now, you just need to shut it.
3 said on 16/Aug/07
Anna, after looking at those pictures that you gave of Bonnie and Katie, it looks like Bonnie is 1/2 inch to 1 inch taller than Katie, although it is hard to tell because of their heels?? or shoes. Still I believe Bonnie is taller, which would put her right about 5'5, the same height as Dan. But I guess we can still give Dan the benefit of the doubt and say he is still taller than Bonnie for now anyway. But only one character now is noticably shorter than Dan (Evanna aka Luna) also Dean but I assume he is 5'4 or so.
And to all those who get mad at me for saying Dan is so short, you have no room to argue because you cannot deny that he is very short in real life and the movies. Can you?
Anna said on 16/Aug/07
And 3 (by the way, do you have to use that name? haha I just feel absolutely ridiculous when I type that, it's not a big deal though), I am glad you are convinced so easily. haha. "Okay, so 2 characters are shorter than Harry in the movie, Ginny and Luna." haha that was so simple, and I am quite happy that you are so willing to listen because many others on this site are, well let me just say, less open-minded. I am glad you actually listen to what others have to say, but I still think your too concerned about Dan's said shortness. I really don't think you ought to fuss and, to be honest, the crew can just put Dan in lifts and heeled shoes and he will be close to 5'8". I still think it doesn't really make anyone dislike the movies more - there are much more important things to dwell upon. And I wasn't trying to say that I was bull****ting anything with Bonnie's height, these photos that I've seen really make me believe she is still slightly shorter than Katie Leung who is 5'4.5". And, just for the record, I saw an OotP promotional photo of Katie and Emma Watson in their flat shoes and Emma was seriously 2 or 2.5 inches taller than Katie because she was standing up straight, contrary to how she was standing in the DA photo. I am willing to bet that the crew made Emma slouch to look around the same height as Dan, whereas the other girls could all stand in a straight line with good posture because they are all shorter than Dan. If Emma were still the same height as Dan or even only 1/2" taller, she would most likely have stood in that line, but she didn't. And in the second DA photo that was released, she just looked hilarious. haha, she was bending her legs and slouching her shoulders crazily, did anyone else think that looked a bit odd?
TJ said on 15/Aug/07
Get over it 3. If you think it's weird that the hero of a movie is short, that's your messed up problem.
Anna said on 15/Aug/07
Yes, good point Hugo, Devon is definitley still around 5'3", and 3, you made some good points and I can't say that I don't agree with some of them, but don't you think it would be worse if they got a new Harry this late in the series? Plus, I don't think other people are nearly as height aware as the people, including me, on this site. I don't think they really care if Dan's shorter. And a photo of Bonnie and Katie has surfaced and, although you cannot see the ground or their feet, they look to be around the same height. Click Here
The angle is also a bit weird in Bonnie's advantage, so I am guessing they are almost exactly the same height, Katie may still be a 1/2" taller though. Rob, are you ever going to add Bonnie to this site?
Hugo said on 15/Aug/07
Another character I believe, who is not taller than Dan is Devon Murray, who plays "Seamus Finnigan." He got listed as 5'3" years ago and still gets listed as that today.
3 said on 15/Aug/07
Okay, so 2 characters are shorter than Harry in the movie, Ginny and Luna. And we can assume that they will be shorter than Harry for the next 2 movies, unless they do grow any. Thats only 2 characters, both girls, and Ginny won't be much shorter than him at all, an inch or so. I don't like him being that short for several reasons. 1- He is obviously around average height, 5'9 or 5'10 in the later books. 2- He is 'hero' of probably the most popular series ever, yet gets towered over be everyone. 3- He will not have grown at all through movies 5-7. 4- He is noticably short, next to anyone over 5'9 or so, he looks like he is still in 6th grade. 5- His height creates a problem, such as with Hermione being taller than him. 6- It's just very annoying, and if you notice him next movie, you will see what I mean.
Anna said on 14/Aug/07
First of all, thank you very much indeed, 3, for the ages. I was overall relatively close with my estimats. And, yeah, I understand that they finished filming in late 2006 (I think nearly everyone but Dan was finished in October of 2006), but remember that we have seen all of them very recently: at the premieres. And I don't deny that Bonnie and Evanna can grow 1 or 2 more inches in these next few years, but honestly, Bonnie was wearing huge ass, chunky (not to mention ugly) heels at the London premiere and she still looked shorter than Emma, who was wearing normal, roughly 2 or 3 inch, heels. Honestly, Bonnie's look to give her nearly 4 inches of height. Click Here Those are some of the largest heels I've ever seen. And in this photo I saw, Emma looked a good 1.5" taller than her, so one would presume that Bonnie is still around 5'4". Also, Bonnie and Katie have actually attended some events together recently and Bonnie is still shorter than Katie, who seems to be about 5'4.5". And Evanna, I'm really not sure. She really did look quite short in those photo call shots, but she was the only girl not wearing heels. However, Emma's only gave her about 1.5"-2". She did look quite a bit shorter than Dan still and when she took a photo with Emma, Emma was literally bending at her knees. I am guessing she is 5'2" at the most, so she definitely will not get taller than Dan if she is already 16. So, I am guessing he will always be taller than her and, therefore, he will not be the shortest. Plus, there are plenty of other "extras" who are shorter than him and, come on 3, he already looked short in the fifth movie. It doesn't matter at this point. The performance is much more important, why can't you let his shortness go?
Anna said on 14/Aug/07
I'd also like to mention that some of the other guys could grow, but they are already so much taller than Dan that at this point, it doesn't matter much. They probably wouldn't grow loads anyway. And I highly doubt that Rupert will grow anymore, he is 2 years older than Emma, which actually makes quite a difference. He is nearly 19 years old I believe.
3 said on 14/Aug/07
I do still believe that some characters could grow more, like I said in a previous comment. One thing to remember here, is that filming for 5th movie was probably done in 2005 or mainly 2006, which would make the characters one year younger than they are today, allowing those who still would be growing to grow more over the year we havent seen them. But today's ages for Anna...
Evanna Lynch (Luna Lovegood)- 16 years old in a few days, has probably grown since the 5th movie, recorded in 2006, she would have only been 14 or 15
Katie Leung (Cho)- 20 years old, done growing
Emma Watson (Hermione)- 17 years old, most likely done growing
Bonnie Wright (Ginny)- 16 years old, could grow another 1-2 inches, once again considering that she was only 14 or 15 during the 5th movie filming.

So from that I would say that both Bonnie and Evanna could have grown since the 5th movie. Bonnie would only need an inch to catch Radcliffe, and with 2 inches she would be taller. Evanna could have grown a inch or more, its too hard to tell. Given that these 2 characters may have grown, and that Cho is basically out of the series, all characters are taller than Dan or around his height. Once again proving my point that Dan will look very short in the upcoming movies.
Anna said on 13/Aug/07
I'd just like to point out that I was actually not the one who said girls "take" their height from their dads and guys from their mums, I don't think either of those sides can be debated. That's why I agree with Hugo and Tales - genetics, especially for height, are totally random. There are just too many cases that differ and such that it's impossible to tell and I really don't know how we got to talking about this? It's rather pointless in my opinion, but other people may disagree, I dunno. But, yeah, I agree that if you are going to say something like 3 did, that it is "common knowledge", you should at least go and look for a source to cite because I know that I'm not really going to believe you if you don't have a source. And I'd just like to add that I've never heard of that and I think I have quite a vast supply of common knowledge....not meaning to brag, but I think I do. So, is it agreed that the genetics for height vary and differ so much that it's hard to tack something on like that? As for the cast growing taller than Dan, I basically agree with TJ....I think most of them are done growing or will only grow at most a 1/2" or an inch more. I know that Bonnie and Evanna are younger than the trio, but I am not exactly sure how old they are. Evanna is about 5'1" or so now, so I don't think Dan should be too threatened by her and Bonnie seems to be about 5'4" and bascially done growing. She is still definitely shorter than Dan because I saw shots in the movie and she didn't even come up to the twins' shoulders either and she was shorter than the 5'4.5" katie Leung. I don't think Dan or Emma should be too threatened by her. Katie, who probably doesn't have much of a part anymore except for maybe a small appearance in the last film, is 20 I believe (actually not sure, I know she is older?), so she will probably grow no more. Everyone else is, like 3 said, taller than Dan so it wouldn't make much of a difference if they grew more. However, the only one who I think could grow more is Emma, but only an inch or 1.5" at the most. So, I guess she would really tower over Dan, but whatever, Jo never seemed to care about either Harry's or Hermione's heights much. And they can put her in flats, not that they don't do that already. haha. but yeah. I think Emma is actually around the same age as Bonnie? Not sure.
Hugo said on 13/Aug/07
I would just like to point out that sometimes people don't always follow their parents' height gene. There are many people who can't even come close to their parents' height or they will exceed well over their parents' height. On A&E's reality show, "Airline," there was a lady named Yolanda who said to the camera that she is 5'8" and her mother is 4'11". There's a good example right there.
Tales said on 12/Aug/07
Erm, I don't know where you get your information from, but guys don't take height from their dad, and girls height from their mom. That is just ridiculous - I don't mean to be rude here, but are you a geneticist? Last time I looked, a child is born from both parents, and has inherited genes and traits from both parents - height included. It all comes down to genes that go back generations, not the heights of the parents in general. My mom is short, my dad is tall, yet I am taller than my mother. If you look genetically, there are tall women in my gene pool, though my mom is not in that category. Please, get your facts right before telling other people they are idiots.
TJ said on 12/Aug/07
No 3, because most of the cast is pretty much done growing now.
3 said on 12/Aug/07
Thanks Carl for proving my point, I just thought that everyone knew that guys took height from their dad and girls from their mom. And there will be cases when this doesn't happen but like I said, genetics are probably the case 80 to 90% of the time.
And I still think that Dan is very short for the role of Harry Potter. All of the girls are getting taller than him now, its almost embarrassing. The only character who I can think of who was shorter than him was Luna Lovegood, but she is only 5'0 maybe, I don't know if she has grown. But I still think I have a good argument that Daniel Radcliffe is almost too short to be Harry Potter. And by movies 6 and 7 Harry will be so short, nearly every character taller than him, it's only going go get more noticeable. Anyone agree?
carl said on 12/Aug/07
guys take their height from their,s a common knowledge while girls take theirs from their mom.there,er a lot of celebrity examples ie lil romeo is 18 now and 6,1,his father master p is 6,3.i take it that,he,s still growing.micheeal jordan,s two sons are 6,3 and 6,2 respectively,though both far from their dad,s height of 6,6.,they are still 19 and 17 respectively.their mother seems 5, for dan,i think he,s 5,5.emma,s the same height.rupert is 5,7.75or 5, are my revised estimates
dan 5,5
emma 5,5
rupert 5,8
matt 6,1
devon 5,3
jamie 6,3
alfie 6,2
the phelps 6,3
tom 5,9.5
katie 5,5
bonnie 5,5
3 said on 11/Aug/07
Anna, it is just common knowledge that nearly all guys take their height from their dad and girls from their mom. What you are saying doesn't make sense. If guys took from their moms, then most guys would be shorter. If girls took from their dads then they would be the taller gender, in many cases. Taller moms do normally result in taller children. But one example of a guy taking his height from his mom is nothing, I would say 80 to 90 percent of guys take height from their dads, same for girls. Its how most genetics work, sometimes they are random, most times not though.
Yes it is pretty obvious Emma is about 5'6 and Rupert is around 5'8. And I think those heights could vary a half inch or so, its hard to tell for 100%.
But yes I do agree with you on that subject, Anna.
Anna said on 10/Aug/07
And, 3, I can't say that I have never been rude to people on this site, but honestly, say your opinion in a bit more nice of a way. "If you disagree then you are very stupid. It's genetics." LOL, Bungle just said that his father is 5'6" and his mother is 6'1" and he is 6'2", so it's pretty easy to see that genetics are a bit random when it comes to height. And you can't say that "guys take their height from their dads"....Bungle would definitely not be 6'2" if that were the case. You are just being extremely rude, tone it down a bit would be my suggestion. Nevertheless, I am happy to see that you generally agree with me. At least that's what I've concluded form your suggestion taht Emma would be 5'9" and Rupert 5'11" if Dan were 5'8". Ergo, you must think that she is 5'6"ish and Rupert 5'8"ish?
Anna said on 10/Aug/07
Yeah, I am beginning to think that Dan is probably 5'5.5" in the morning (barefoot) and then in the evening he is more like 5'5.25" or 5'5". But, after all, isn't the morning height what we are looking for because that's a person's true height, like, the most that they can possibly be? I'm not sure, but I'd just like to know because Rob has said every centimetre is a big deal. And, yeah, like I just said, Dan is probably 5'5.5" exactly, he just rounds up to 5'6" because what 5'5"/5'6" 18 year old guy wouldn't? And what really confuses me is these sites have somehow gotten 5'8", but I do not know of any place where Dan says he is this tall, do you? The highest I've ever heard him say is 5'6", but, what confuses me more is why he is not consistent with the 5'6"? Have you guys noticed that he said something about being 5'5.5" so he just rounds up to 5'6", but then we found that interview where he says he's still only 5'5"?? Why doesn't he just keep saying 5'6" if he's already committed to it? Does anyone else find this odd?
Bungle said on 10/Aug/07
Can you actually prove that it's genetics because my father is 5'6 and my mother is 6'1 and i'm 6'2. By the way I'm male.
There is no definate way in which you can tell where your height has come from either it be your mother or father.
3 said on 9/Aug/07
Anna, short guys like Radcliffe tend to lie about their heights, so its not that surprising to see Radcliffe claiming 2 or 3 inches more height than he is. I trust this site to have an accurate height for celebs, so I believe Radcliffe is truly 5'5, no matter what he claims. It's not that this site can never be wrong, but Glenn and others who run this site obviously know what they are doing. And there is no way he his 5'8 because that would make Emma 5'9, haha, and Grunt about 5'11, and thats a joke.
By the way, guys dont take height from their moms, thats stupid. Guys take their height from their dads, girls from their moms. If you disagree then you are very stupid. Its genetics.
6'3'' JK said on 9/Aug/07
Okay i do have to admit Emma could be 5'5.5'' in the morning right after she wakes up just like Dan or maybe even 5'5.25'' but throughout the day just like Dan she is 5'5''
Anna said on 9/Aug/07
You're absolutely correct Luke and guys take after their mums and girls their dads?? I've not really heard of that before.....but, anyway, I searched "Daniel Radcliffe height" on Google and many sites have him listed at 5'6",5'7", or 5'8", whereas some have him at 5'5" or 5'5.5", where did they get those 5'7"s and 5'8"s? Actually, the 5'8" is supposedly from, a site that "works very closely with Dan and his family". If Dan said he was 5'8" to them, why would he not just say that to every person that interviews him? I'm so confused and could he really be more like 5'5.5" or 5'6" now? If he's 5'5" then Emma's 5'6.5" and if Dan's 5'5.5", Emma's 5'7". She looks easily 1.5" taller when she stands up straight. And on a similar note, I haven't been using many of the barefoot photos because she is slouching in everyone of them. There are only a few "non-posed" shots and, not surprsingly, Emma looks taller than Dan in those. However, people just laugh at those photos, but once again, I say watch the fifth film. Dan and Emma are both in Converse shoes and Emma looks at least 1.5" taller than him, 1 inch even when she is slouching. There is no way she is anything less than 5'6" even if Dan is only 5'5", but I am guessing he is a solid 5'5.5" in the morning at least.
Anna said on 8/Aug/07
Yeah, that's what I was talking about Chip, in the first book it says Dean is taller than Ron, so he fits his description quite well. And on top of it, he is quite attractive :P. Anyway, I would suppose Dan is around 5'6" now. And you lot are right, height is totally random and it's not a big deal, other things are much more important.
Luke99 said on 8/Aug/07
Of course it's random. There isn't just a 'height' gene; genetics work nothing like that. A number are involved with height, such as genes for growth hormone, genes for the receptors on the outside of cells for growth hormone, genes for bone proportion, genes for the timing of the release of hormone factors... etc

It's very naive to think genetics are simply 'Get height gene from mother'.
tony said on 7/Aug/07
i think guys usually take after their mum and girls after their dad, so if u have a taller than average dad, u would have a taller than average girl kinda thing."

No it doesnt always work like that. I'm a guy and my dad is 5'2 and im 6" taller than him. My mom is only 5'0. I think it's random what genes we get from which parent.

Heights are barefeet estimates, derived from quotations, official websites, agency resumes, in person encounters with actors at conventions and pictures/films.

Other vital statistics like weight, shoe or bra size measurements have been sourced from newspapers, books, resumes or social media.

Celebrity Fan Photos and Agency Pictures of stars are © to their respective owners.