How tall is Daniel Radcliffe - Page 3

Add a Comment1142 comments

Average Guess (212 Votes)
5ft 4.33in (163.4cm)
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.
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
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
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"....is 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.
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 height......so 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, plus...how 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 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.
Hugo said on 26/Aug/07
Speaking of genetics...here'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.
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.
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 well....by 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?
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?
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.
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 DanRadcliffe.com, 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
"loo:
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.
loo 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.
Luke99 said on 6/Aug/07
3, you are really Obsessed With Height dude. Does it matter how tall he is? If anything it shows that we can't choose height and that it isn't the deciding factor in someones personality/presence. You are living a shallow world.
3 said on 6/Aug/07
Yes, I agree, I would imagine Harry Potter to be anywhere from 5'9 to maybe 6'1, by books six and seven. But not 5'5, that is way too short, especially for book 5! I think we can all agree on that. He might be an okay actor, but the movies just arent even that good. And actually the directors could have had a very good idea of how tall Radcliffe would grow, just by looking at how tall his dad was, because height generally runs in the family. But the movies have many flaws, and the main character's height is certainly one of the biggest errors. Other characters heights are wrong as well, but they are not nearly as noticable because in the movies they are minor characters. Harry's height is a major flaw in the movies by books 5,6, and 7. In my opinion it is the biggest flaw because he is the MAIN character.
Anna said on 6/Aug/07
Yeah, I am guessing Ron is supposed to be around 6'3" in the end, like I said, since the first book he's always been described as tall and always growing. So, like JK stated, if Rupert were the twins height he'd fit Ron's description quite well, but that's definitley not going to happen. Maybe they should just switch heights, because the twins are supposed to be shorter and broader than Ron I believe. And, agreed, Jamie and Crabbe fit their descriptions as well. Malfoy is probably relatively close to, although he is described as slightly taller than Harry, so he may be more like 6' if Harry's 5'10" or 5'11". haha, none of this really matters, but it's just fun to talk about and see what other people drew from the books. But yeah, Bellatrix is supposed to be quite tall in the books because she is taller than Harry, so she must be close to 6 feet and the funny thing is, Helana Bonham Carter is only 5'2", so she is shorter than every member of the trio. I think it's sort of weird that Bellatrix is tall though, I've never thought of her as a tall character....
Arjun said on 6/Aug/07
Anna, Jamie also matches up perfectly sizewise with his book counterpart Crabbe. Not too sure about Dean - was he ever described as taller than Ron? Scarlett, Harry does'nt strike me as tall even as late as book 6 - Slughorn, who is short, is about the same height as him, and Snape who is of average height is still taller than him. Maybe 5'10" - 5'11" max as an adult. Bellatrix is described as taller than him even in book 7, so she is probably very tall for a woman - around 6 feet maybe.
Anna said on 5/Aug/07
And I just found this article that says, 'When he first got cast as Harry Potter seven years ago, at age 11, Daniel Radcliffe was about the same height as his costars. Not any more. ''They're all taller than me now, which is annoying,'' he says with a grin on the set of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
JK said on 5/Aug/07
Ron is really meant to be tall just like his onscreen twin brothers are in real life
mimi said on 5/Aug/07
Dan: 5ft5.5(min.) 5ft6(max.)
Emma: 5ft6(min.) 5ft7(max.)
Rupe: 5ft8 to 5ft9... very hard to tell, he slouches a lot!!
But thats what I think..
Scarlett said on 5/Aug/07
Yeah he is shorter than me Anna! But to be honest, altho i think he is v cute, i dont like lust over him...im too busy fixating on a "real" person, who is taller than me and the most beautiful man in the world! haha.
He certainly should be taller as Harry, but i dont think its reason enough to find a new one - just give him lifts, innit! Arjun, I think Harry is def meant to be taller than 5'9 by book seven - i'd say around 6ft. Just cuz his dad was always described as being tall, and in book 7 harry is desvribed as being "exactly the same height as him". And i dont think 5'9 can be classified as tall at all. I think Ron would be like 6'2 or something, hermione around 5'6.
Anna, no i havent tried messaging E.W's myspace again...i doubt she'd answer anyway! This might sound weird but add me on myspace if you like - i just like "seeing" the faces behaind the comments. If you think its weird thats fine too!
Anyway, im still sticking to 5'6 max for Emma. Thats a fine height!
Anna said on 5/Aug/07
Check this video of him at a press junket out Click Here If you don't want to wacth the whole thing, at around 2.15 Dan says something like "Well, that's one of the nice things about being short, because I'm around 5'5" or 5'6", well, let's get this on tape, I'm 5'6", so it's quite easy to blend into crowds...." What do you think this means? He says he's 5'6", does that mean he could be more like 5'5.5" or 5'6"? That would push up Rupert's and Emma's heights up of course becaue they are, of course, quite a bit taller than him, but when I think on it, Dan could be closer to 5'6" because that would be about 2 inches of growth since the third film (he seemed about 5'4" then, obviously), so it's not like 6 inches or anything. And, when you look at the London premiere after party, he is actually one inch to 1.5 inches taller than the 5'4.5"-5'5" Katie Leung and he is taller than her in the movie as well. And he was most likely 5'4.5" to 5'5" in the fourth film, so that's probably why he hasn't been saying he's grown much because 1/2"-1" is obviously not much to grow. So, I'd say 5'5.5"-5'6" for Dan and 5'6"-5'7" for Emma. As for Rupert, he's most likely 5'8.5" to 5'9".
Anna said on 5/Aug/07
I've concluded that the only one who "matches" their book height is the guy who plays Dean (Alfie something?). He's described as even taller than Ron and if Ron is tall, Dean must be quite tall. And Alfie looks to be about 6'2" or 6'3" now. At around 5'6", Emma is relatively matching with Hermione, although it may be a few inch difference; Hermione may be more like 5'3" or 5'4" if she is considered average. The only thing that gets messed up with Emma is that she is supposed to be shorter than Harry and she is most obviously not that anymore. But, like we've been saying, it's the quality of performance, not the height of the actor, that matters. Nevertheless, I really wish the crew would give Rupert some lifts or special shoes to give him so extra height because, throughout the books, Ron is always described as really tall and lanky. Also, it kind of is always something he has on Harry, he's taller than him. Again, it's not a huge deal, I just don't see why they couldn't give him a little boost. hha. And I would say that Harry is probably around 5'9"-5'11" by the end because James is described as tall and Harry is the same height as James.
Arjun said on 5/Aug/07
I think Harry (of the books) would be about 5'9" by the 7th book, when he's done growing. Ron is always described as tall, so probably 6'2" final height for him. Hermione is supposed to be average for a girl, so maybe 5'5"??
The actual heights of most of the actors do not "match" their characters in the books. Some are shorter, some taller. Dan and Rupert are shorter than expected for Harry and Ron. Gary Oldman at only 5'9" is somewhat short for Sirius , as the latter is always described as pretty tall. Alan Rickman on the other hand is about 6 feet, somewhat tall for Snape, who seems to be about average height in the books. The Phelps twins at about 6'3" are too tall for Fred and George Weasley .... the list goes on and on. Emma at 5'5" seems to be right about the same height as Hermione would be, though.
Anna said on 5/Aug/07
Oh, and by the way 3, didn't you say that the fifth film was the first harry potter film you've seen? I'm just curious because you said in your last comment he's looked really short in the last two, but then I thought how could this guy judge if he's only seen the last film? Maybe you mean it's the first one you've esen in theatres?
Anna said on 5/Aug/07
Honestly, who cares 3. He looks short, but it's not a big deal. There is no way he's going to get replaced, he's already signed for the last two and he's a great actor as well. But I don't really think they need to replace Bonnie for the reason of height. She looks to have grown a bit, but she's actually still shorter than Katie Leung, the girl who plays Cho. There was a scene where they walked right next to each other and Bonnie was actually about 1/2" shorter than Katie, which would mean she's still smaller than Dan. However, I've never really liked Bonnie playing Ginny, just for some reason I haven't. I really don't know what it is, but I just don't like her, she's not Ginny. It may be because she really hasn't had much of a part, so maybe in this next movie she'll be better, but whatever.
Ali said on 5/Aug/07
It is mentioned several times in earlier books that Harry is short and skinny, even if he has grown up several inches in the later parts, there is no point discussing that Dan is shorter or not. He is irreplacable now, no can be imagined to play Harry other than him even if Emma or Rupert are too taller than him. I think they have to replace or some how adjust Ginny (Harry's love interest) for him in last two movies coz it looks like Bonnie has also grown a bit taller than him.
CT said on 5/Aug/07
Actually, I think it makes more sense for Harry to be short because of the kind of childhood he had (malnourished, kept in a cupboard, etc) so that could have stunted his growth, wouldn't you agree? So it's okay for Radcliffe to be short, no need to replace him with a taller actor.
Anna said on 4/Aug/07
I still find her to be a strong 5'6" in the evening, but whatever, as long as you agree that she is taller than Dan because if one disagrees with that, I'm utterly mad. She looks at least an inch taller than him, however, if you choose to disagree, it's just a difference in opinions. But he is not a minger or munter in the least. He's gorgeous. And Scarlett, he's taller than you as he is me, right? Don't you find short guys insanely adorable?? haha, this is when I laugh at tall girls.
3 said on 4/Aug/07
Okay to all of you people who think I hate short people, I am only 5'9, 17 years old, so there goes that argument. ALL I'M SAYING IS THAT RADCLIFFE HAS LOOKED TOO SHORT IN THE MOVIES! Especially the last 2. Why cant anyone understand that? And you cant deny it either, he's 5'5 and he's playing Harry Potter. There's no way Harry would be that short because it is mentioned in the 6th book by Hermione that Harry has grown over a foot since the previous year, even if she is being sarcastic, she means to say that he has grown a lot. Well, in the movie he didn't grow at all, even 5'8 and 5'9 characters TOWER over him, not to mention those taller than that, and once again you can't deny this. I think he is too short for Harry, even if you thought he was shorter in the books, there is no freaking way he'd be only 5'5.
Anna said on 4/Aug/07
I'd say 5'5.5" at the most barefoot, but that doesn't mean that he can't get a lot more height with some shoes. e.g. his "dress" shoes at the London and LA premieres of OotP. Yeah? He is probably 5'7.5" in his dress shoes or at the very least 5'7". And, interestingly, even when Emma is slouching she is at the most 3/4" shorter than him, most likely only 1/2" if any bit shorter than him when she stands up straight at the LA premiere. I therefore stand by the morning and evening heights I said.
Scarlett said on 4/Aug/07
Franco, he's not a munter!! He's lovely - amazing bone structure!! And he's only 11 months younger than me, so i reckon I'm in! Haha.
I think Harry is meant to be tall by the end, but it doesnt matter THAT much. I agree, it sucks a bit having a really short Harry, but if they give him lifts and use clever camera angles it should be fine.
Anna, I LOVE your persistence! :) I still dont think she's any taller than 5'6, so I dont agree with your morn and eve heights - I think 5'6 in the morning and 5'5.5 ish in the eve. Dan i think is 5'5.5 in the morn and 5'5 in the eve. I looked at all those pics you recently posted Anna, and she is DEF taller than him. But honestly, i dont think its even by an inch. On average she looks about 0.5 taller than him.
Anna said on 3/Aug/07
Yeah, it's already been said kris, but it's okay. But, do you agree that his height really doesn't make a difference if his performance is good? That's what my opinion is. And upon thinking about it, I would guess that D-Rad's morning height is 5'5.5" and his evening height is 5'5". Also, I am guessing Emma's evening height would follow a similar suit and she would be 5'6.5"-5'6.75" in the morning and 5'6"-5'6.25" in the evening. Would these heights make sense? And I do know that I posted that video with Dan saying he's "still 5'5", which is so depressing", but he could very well be 5'5.5" or so and he just didn't want to sound extremely snobby/pedantic by saying that figure, so he just rounded. And one may say, "well why would he not just round to 5'6"?" i'm guessing he wouldn't do that becuase he knows Emma is taller than him and she would get suspicious if he said that? haha, I really have no idea, I totally just made that up, but it could be the case, maybe?
5'6at14kris said on 3/Aug/07
hmm...in the fifth one (harry potter films) he looks like he grew a bit so now i'm thinking maybe 5'5.5 or possibly 5'6 (if he's lucky)and by the way in the first few books he's short for his age and in the fifth book harry is described as growing a good deal. even in the sixth book hermoine agrees that he's grown a "foot"...just saying it and sorry if it's already been said...
Anna said on 3/Aug/07
I know, honestly, what's your bag man? Who cares if he is short? Harry's height is, like some have mentioned, rarely mentioned. I would think if you are such a lover of the books, you would be complaining about Rupert's height because from Book One he is metioned as tall. Right? But once again, it makes absolutely no difference. And I really don't think the movies are too terribly over-rated. The 4th one was not amazing, but this last one that has come out, the fifth, was actually quite good indeed. Radcliffe's performance was fantastic. And do you realise how many viewers the HP franchise would lose if they got a new Harry? Surely it's not worth the risk to lose that much over a petty thing like height. Ridiculous.
Anonymous said on 3/Aug/07
If Harry's height is indeed never mentioned in the book, the reader is left not knowing if he is short, average or tall. It therefore makes absolutely no difference whether Daniel Radcliffe is 5'5, 5'9 or 6'0. It only makes a difference if you are inherently heightist like 3. Grow up dude.
Chip said on 2/Aug/07
3, why the heck would you not see a movie because the main character is short? That's got to be one of the most ignorant statements I've ever read. By the end of the books, I imagine Harry being about 5'8" or so, so Dan isn't really far off. I do notice that Dan is quite short compared to a lot of the boys in HP, though. The only one who is shorter than him is Devon Murray, who play Seamus. Nearly all of the HP boys are average height-quite tall. Here are my opinions on how tall most of the young male actors are.

Dan: 5'5"
Devon: 5'3"
Rupert: 5'8.5"-5'9"
Matthew: 6'0"-6'1"
Tom: 5'9"-5'10"
Joshua (Goyle): 6'1" (A lot of sources say he's 6'4", but he doesn't look like it)
Jamie: 6'3"-6'4"
Alfie (Dean): 6'2.5"-6'3"
Harry Melling (Dudley): 5'9"-5'10"

Yeah, pretty much, Dan and Devon are quite short, but what does it really matter? Short people are cool, lol. 3, I don't agree with you on your last posts. A lot of fans who LOVE the books can't stand the movies. I really like the books, and I like the movies, but not because they're Harry Potter movies. I think the books are way better, though. w/e
Dean said on 2/Aug/07
I think 3 has a phobia of short people. :D

Also, if you "don't care" about what we say, why would you write such a long response. I know if I genuinely don't care I wouldn't write that much. :

To top it off, most fans of books usually hate the movies that come from them. If what you said was true, you would have to like the movies. Don't be contradicting.

P.S. - Don't be so defensive. It makes you look bad. ;)
ShorterthanDR said on 2/Aug/07
His height is right for his character. It fits his movies part extremely well for a kids' movie...........
Now watch the actor from Lord of the Rings. Are all male actors supposed to be as tall as a basket ballplayer to be making NINETEEN MILLION DOLLARS SO FAR!
This is just a macho type's prejudice.
3 said on 2/Aug/07
Look guys, say what you want, I dont care. I am saying that Radcliffe is too short for the part, and they need another actor. And 5'5 isn't average height anywhere for a man, its short. Therefore, in the movies 5'5 looks terribly short especially when your playing the role of a growing boy like Harry Potter. But 5'5? That is the average height of a girl, and like I said it's very noticable on screen. Harry Potter is never described as really tall in the books, but still by the end of the series he would be over 5'5 and my guess is that he'd be 5'9 or 5'10, which is normal. And Radcliffe's height is just one reason that I not seeing the next 2 movies, another reason is that the movies aren't that good. These movies are very over-rated by so many Potter fans, just because they like the books they like the movie series automatically. I have loved all the books, but the movies are just hyped up, fans watch them, and because the books were so good they dont want to say anything bad about the movies.
Sam said on 1/Aug/07
kinda funny im too inches taller than him including about 4 years older,but i would still show him a couple of things im sure he doesnt know!! hahahaha im kidding,he seems pretty cool,i hope he does well, im looking forward to December Boys he's new movie apart from HP.Good Luck!
Anna said on 1/Aug/07
haha, this is great. It's nice to see people yelling at someone else for a change. Brilliant. But I do agree, that was quite an ignorant comment. Height really doesn't matter to me, it's just fun to discuss and irritate others on here. In a friendly fashion I hope.
TJ said on 1/Aug/07
Wow, what an ignorant and prejudiced statement from 3. Did you switch off Back to the Future too because Michael J Fox was too short to be the hero? Newsflash, there are real life heroes who are short. Take Audie Murphy as an example. He was the most decorated United States combat soldier of World War II, and ended up with a successful movie career as a result.
Arjun said on 1/Aug/07
Harry is'nt supposed to be tall in the books, about average height by the time he is done growing in the last book. Ron is supposed to be tall, but Rupert is somewhat short.
Dean said on 31/Jul/07
3, you're going to miss out on a good movie because of someone's height?
That's probably the most ignorant thing I have heard in a long time.
"Hey, you going to see the new HP movie? The acting is brilliant!"
"Hell no, the main character is too short!"
I never pictured Harry Potter being tall anyways. 5'5-6" seems great to me.
Kasey said on 31/Jul/07
I agree with 3. But keep in mind that this measurement was taken two years ago. He may have grown another half an inch or so. I still think that I am going to see the next two movies even if the heroic character of Harry Potter is played by a shrimp because his acting is good, I LOVE the books, and Radcliffe is cute!
Anna said on 30/Jul/07
This is the bit from the movie that really stuck out for me - the hug scene. Click Here Emma is constantly looking down at Daniel and in turn Dan is looking up at her. Which probably means she is taller than him, correct? Plus, when you see them standing side by side, Emma looks nearly 1" to 1.5" taller than her, that's why I would call her a strong 5'6".
Anna said on 30/Jul/07
I agree Scarlett! His acting was fantastic and he did look quite attractive throughout and I didn't even mind the haircut, although in more recent photos I like his hair more. It's almost perfect for Harry, I think. And, like I've been saying, he's still two inches taller than me, so I'm not fussed and I love short guys. They are just so much cuter than the crazy and awkward tall ones. Anyway, have you read the seventh book Scarlett?
Scarlett said on 30/Jul/07
Just cuz he's short doesnt mean the films arent good! yeah he's short, but his acting was great in OOTP and he looked pretty hot (apart from that horrendous hairvut! lol)
I dont think Emma's eve height is a strong 5'6 Anna...I think she's prob just under 5'6, maybe 5'5.75. I dont think we can call that a strong 5'6.
Anna said on 29/Jul/07
Ah, come on, the movies are still great, the books are absolutely amazing, but the movies are quite good as well. And I really don't understand why it fusses people so much that Dan is only 5'5". I do agree with the problem that Harry is supposed to grow about a foot between the fifth and sixth books and I don't really know how they are going to deal with that or if they will even take that into consideration, but I think his performance makes up for his lack of height. And the only main female character that he seemed shorter than was Emma/Hermione; he seemed taller than Cho/Katie, Ginny/Bonnie, and obivously Evanna/Luna. That's why I again believe he is his claimed 5'5", Emma is her claimed 5'6", and Bonnie and Katie are around 5'4"-5'4.5". Bonnie actually seems a bit shorter than Katie though, so maybe she is 5'4". Thoughts? And you can give the film producers one thing: They do make Emma slouch more than the other girls. Case in point - the DA photos. All of the girls are standing utterly straight whereas Emma is slouching horrendously. This tells us that Emma must be taller than Dan, whereas the other girls are not. It does not take much brains to figure that one out.
3 said on 28/Jul/07
I saw the Harry Potter and the Order of the Pheonix movie yesterday and this guy was noticably short. I am just a normal Harry Potter fan, this was the 1st movie from the series I saw, I do read the all books though. But they should have considered how short Radcliffe was going to look in the movies because everyone in the movie was taller than Harry. And my guess is that this guy is done growing by now so his final height will be only 5'5 and he will look even more rediculously short in the next 2 movies, especially because it is mentioned in the book that Harry had grown about a foot between the fifth and sixth books. Just another reason to like the books over the movies.
Anna said on 27/Jul/07
Okay, well, I guess overall it looked like a strong inch advantage for Emma at the ceremony and in the film, so I guess I'm content with agreeing with you John: evening height for Dan=5'5", evening height for Emma=5'6". That may explain why she sometimes looks taller than 5'6". A strong 5'6" is her evening height, agreed? And Anon, you may grow a bit more if your dad is 5'11" (which is relatively tall for a male) and your mum is average at 5'4". You'll probably grow an inch more at the least... I think waht stunted Dan is how short his mum is, I've heard she's barely 4'11"....And just an add, Emma looked at the least .75" taller than Dan at the ceremony in even the worst photos aand this was without considering Dan's hair, which added at the very least .25"-.5", which would make Emma about 5'6"-5'6.25": A strong 5'6". It's all making sense now.
John said on 26/Jul/07
Anna, no way was she 2 taller inches him in the film I'd say an inch in some shots - at most. You are overestimating the tiny difference.

She is 5'6 and he is 5'5 - both evening heights. I'd say so anyway.
Anonymous said on 26/Jul/07
tell me people is it normal for me at 15 to be 5 ft 6 i mean my dad is 5ft11 any my mum is 5ft 4 is it possible for me to get as tall as my dad pllzzz im in a crisis ps im a male
Arjun said on 26/Jul/07
All depends on where Dan's skull top is under his hair .... they look very close in height.
Scarlett said on 25/Jul/07
Anna, he didnt look not 2 inches shorter than her in OOTP! I think she IS a bit taller, yes...but no more than an inch at most! Those pics from the wand ceremony gave me the impression that she was about .75cm taller than him...an inch at MOSt. I'd say he's 5'5 and she's 5'5.5 or 5'75.
Anna said on 24/Jul/07
And one last thing, John, how can you say he doesn't wear lifts? His height "status" in premiere photos seems a bit dodgy to me and, curiously, he wears dress shoes to those events. hmmmm....
Anna said on 24/Jul/07
Well, yeah, I suppose he could grow more, but it's just that he has said ~"my mum is under 5 foot, so those expecting me to grow any taller are in for a rude awakening" (again, something like that, obviously not those exact words). And yeah, he really does look quite short in the new movie, like I've said, nearly everyone but Cho, Ginny, and Luna are taller than him and at times, that is to say when they are both in Converse-ish shoes, Emma looks nearly 2 inches taller than him, which makes me think that either a) Dan is more like 5'4.5" or b) Emma has underestimated her height and is slightly over 5'6". Whatever though, I will believe both of their words: 5'5" for Dan and 5'6" for Emma. Click Here I mean honestly, how can you dispute? She's genuinely taller than him, poor guy. Dan, you're still taller than me and I would most definitley not mind if you came over. Oh and by the way, I cannot wait until the sixth and seventh films come out, holy ****.
Anonymous said on 23/Jul/07
John, maybe Daniel thinks there are more important things in the world than trying to look taller than he really is.
John said on 22/Jul/07
One thing I don't get is why Radcliffe doesn't wear lifts. I can't because I already have long legs relative to my torso but Radcliffe doesn't. His torso is long compared to his legs so he could use 2 inch lifts quite easily.
whatever said on 21/Jul/07
Well Ann i disagree about it being odd if daniel does grow. Because guys grow until like 21 and he is only 18 and he could grow a little more. And he is really short like 5'5- 5'4.5. Becuase in the new harry potter an dlooks really short compared to everyone in the movie.
Anna said on 20/Jul/07
I'm not trying to get cocky, I just find it quite pleasing that I have been insistant upon Emma being taller than 5'5" and she now gives her official height as 5'6", so I was right all along. Maybe not with the 5'7", but definitley with the taller than 5'5". And, come on, you are not going to convince anyone that Rupert is taller than 5'8" or 5'8.5" with the new photos and knowing that Emma is 5'6"ish unless he comes out and says "I'm 5'10"" or something like that, that would at least get people to reconsider, but at this point, I would say 5'8" or 5'8.5" is the highest I would say for him and I think many other people agree.
Anna said on 19/Jul/07
Yeah, I saw that Details article too and actually, when you read articles a surprising number remark on how short he is....but, I mean he could be extremely odd and grow still, but I highly doubt he will because he even stated himself "I haven't grown at all", which means he is probably done growing. And here, I'll just give you my little synopsis on the stroy of Daniel Radcliffe and company. I think that he was not terribly short when the HP series began (especially compared to the other actors) and had his major growth spurt between the 1st and 2nd films, but just grew a very small amount from that point onwards, whereas Rupert and Emma continued to grow considerably. When you think about it, in the first movie Daniel was slightly taller than Rupert and quite a bit taller than Emma and in the second movie he was again quite tall compared to the others, but then in the third movie Rupert really began to tower over Dan and Emma was only about an inch or two shorter than him. Then in GoF he looked about the same height/slightly taller than Emma and in OotP he just looked so short because Emma is now an inch or more taller than him. I think he's still taller/around the same height as the girl who plays Ginny though. And he's around the same height as Katie as well. Sorry for plugging, but I just thought about how sad this really is for him - he used to be so much taller than Emma and now he's shorter than her by more than an inch, honestly, how depressing is that? Poor guy. But, no matter, I saw the cover of Details and I must say, he looked quite attractive, so he has got nothing to worry about. "looks like someone who's never ventured past second base" we all know that is rubbish (Jonathan Ross).
umad80 said on 19/Jul/07
Yes, it is Anna. Because they are standing right together. With even Tom in the front giving Tom more of an advantage. And I wouldn't get all cocky, you're the one who was insistant that Emma was 5'7". And the only reason you don't do it now is because of Emma's official site height listing. lol!
dmeyer said on 19/Jul/07
when someone rounds up 1 to 2 cm it is ok since he might have get mesured in the morning until 2 years ago i didnt know we were taller in the morning a bunsh of people dont know i use to claim 182 cm since i got mesured at the doctor twice at 9 am i was 5'11.75 barefeet and 6'1 in timberlands
jayem said on 19/Jul/07
According to a DETAILS article, the interviewer remarks, "In real life, Radcliffe looks like someone who
Anna said on 18/Jul/07
I once again appreciate the effort umad80, but really, do you think that is a good photo to judge heights (Pride of Britain one)? It's a completely odd angle and we cannot even see their feet. I would appreciate it if you post a picture that it be one where we can actually see everyone's body. It's just my opinion though. And 'I wonder', that is a good suggestion. Not that I mind short guys, but it may affect his acting career....but I suppose Elijah Wood is doing well and he's Dan's height, right? And, as seen in even the HP movies, footwear can deceive people extremely.
umad80 said on 18/Jul/07
Arjun, Rupert is NOT wearing dress shoes. He's wearing converse. LOL Trust me. See? Click Here
Arjun said on 18/Jul/07
JK, I do think he's at least a little taller than 5'7" compared to Dan's 5'5".
JK said on 18/Jul/07
Rupert looked 5'5'' to me in the 3rd movie, and now he looks 5'7'' Maximum
Arjun said on 18/Jul/07
Pic number 9 is poor to gauge height differences - very bad angle. Pic 10 is better, it's a full body shot, and Rupert seems to have the same shoes as Tom does (both look to have black dress shoes). Tom is about an inch taller than Rupert - who has a slight head tilt, but is a little closer to the camera too. Since Tom is 5'9", that makes Rupert 5'8" on the dot. I think that is where he should be left .... I don't reckon he's much more or less than this. About an inch taller than he was in the third movie/2004, where he looked about 5'7" compared to Dan's 5'4" (now around 5'5"), I would say. That was the first movie where he looked considerably taller than Dan.
I wonder said on 17/Jul/07
It is unlikely that he'll grow taller if he hasn't grown much in the past year. I was his height at 15 but grew to 5'8 - 5'9 range (in the morning) and only grew one inch from 17 to 18 and then stopped. Aren't their some growth hormones he could use to get a few more inches? Might come in handy for his future acting to be at least 5'7".
umad80 said on 17/Jul/07
Arjun, you're still forgetting that Tom has the footware advantage with the shoes. It looks maybe that footware advantage is what Tom has on Rupert. He's at least the same height as Tom. Don't forget this: Click Here - you can see in some other pictures there is not much difference between them. I also posted a video on Rupert's page that gives you a better look. Pictures aren't always that good. If Dan is 5'5" like he said in that interview, then Rupert's got some inches on him. And it's more than just that 5'7.75" everyone thinks (unless you're someone who thinks he's 5'6.5" lol). There was also a fan who says he's 6'3" and Rupert come up past his eyebrows. I also once posted a picture of this guy at the same awards as Rupert, they were at the same sign and Rupert was taller. This place gave the guy (Dermot O'Leary) 5'8.5" listing and he gives himself 5'9", but if you looked at the sign behind them, Rupert was taller. But it was a slightly different angle. And Rupert was around Craig Ferguson's eyebrows too.

Oh, and I figured Mark Williams was over 6' because he never seemed that much shorter than the twins in GoF.
Anna said on 17/Jul/07
I agree with you about Rupert completely Arjun, 5'7.75" is his barefoot height and I guess he could be 5'8.5", but that's the absolute maximum. And I'm just curious umad80, why do you want so much for Rupert to be that 5'8.5" or 5'9"? He really does not look that tall in recent photos, specifically the printing ceremony. And I respect that you've seen the trio in person, but honestly, some of these photos are pretty good and if you are going to say 5'9" for Rupert you would have to say, at the very least, 5'7" for Emma and you are clearly not. So, for the last time I will state, 5'7.75"-5'8" is a good listing for Rupert, 5'5" is absolutely perfect for Dan, and an upgrade to 5'6" seems right for Emma because it's pretty obvious that she is a strong 5'6". However, if it pleases people on here, an upgrade to 5'5.75" is fine. I'm still convinced she's 5'6" + a few centimetres though. Whatevs.
Arjun said on 17/Jul/07
Woops, turns out Mark Williams (Arthur Weasley) is listed at 6'1" here!!! I thought 7 inches tops between him and Daniel. However, IIRC, he did'nt look taller than Jason Isaacs (who does look close to his 5'11" listing IMO) in the second movie, Chamber of Secrets.
Arjun said on 17/Jul/07
Tom has more than a half-inch on Rupert there, umad80. I see nothing less than an inch. Rupert could stand straighter, but so could Tom .... that still puts Rupert at 5'8 1/2" absolute max. 5'7.75" (or 5'8", not much difference) looks spot on for Rupert's barefoot height.
umad80 said on 17/Jul/07
Emma is not 5'6" or 5'6.5", she is 5'5". She's the same freakin' height as Dan. And Rupert is taller by several inches, not just by 2 inches.
Anna said on 16/Jul/07
Yeah, Arjun, I would agree with the 5'8" for Rupert, which Rob basically has got. And Stephanie, Dan has been varying with his statements, but in an interview that I posted, he said that it's so depressing because he hasn't grown at all, he's till 5'5". So, I think that pretty much settles it for Dan. The confusing ones are Emma and Rupert, but I feel pretty confident in saying that Rupert is 5'8", 5'8.5" at the most, and Emma is 5'6" or possibly 5'6.5" because if you look at the full body shots from the ceremony she looks at least 1/2"-3/4" taller than Dan disregarding his hair (his hair is poofy whereas Emma's is flat), so when you actually find the top of Dan's head, he is more like an inch, possibly a 1.5" shorter than Emma. Plus, if you look at their eyes, you can really get an idea of how much extra height that hair is giving Dan. Ergo, I think the 5'5" is correct for Dan and an upgrade to 5'6" for Emma is sufficient for now, even though she's probably a tad over that. Yeah? Another thing to think about with people saying that Rupert's 5'8" then that would put 5'6" at the very least for Emma because, remember, when she wore about 2 inch heels to the London premiere and photo call, she was taller than Rupert. She also was taller than him in 2 inch heels at the Paris premiere.
umad80 said on 16/Jul/07
I was saying 4 inches because I was looking at Rob's picture with Amber Benson who is just slightly taller than 5'4", she was around his eyebrows - well just marginally more than that since she was over 5'4", and Rob being 5'8". So, since we know that Dan is definitely 5'5", and comes to around Rupert's eyebrows (Rupert is a leaner too, and slouches, so they have very similiar posture). The reason I did pick that one photo wasn't to discount the other ones, but it seemed the best in the way the trio are standing.

Also, here is Rupert and Tom at the UK premiere. There are other photos where Rupert looks shorter (and one where he looks taller) but you can clearly see he's leaning into Tom or the angle is bad. Any ways, as you can see, Tom is only a half inch taller or a bit more, but he does have the footware advantage being in dress shoes. Click Here So if Tom is 5'9", he'd be 5'10" in dress shoes, a little more than that, and Rupert is just a touch shorter. And with footware Tom probably had a half inch to 3 quaters of an inch advantage.

But one thing is for sure, it seems that Emma and Dan are pretty much the same height at 5'5".
Arjun said on 16/Jul/07
Oh yeah .... shot 51 is revealing. Rupert is marginally closer to the camera , but has his head somewhat tilted. Even so, he looks a good bit taller than Dan, and this is a full body shot ..... Emma looks marginally taller than Dan too, about 1/2". Interesting ... maybe, just maybe 5'8.5" for Rupert. I still say 5'8" though. He certainly does not look over 5'8" compared to others though......
Arjun said on 16/Jul/07
Hmm umad80 ... those shots are something to think about. Mind you, Rupert does not quite look 4 inches taller in all those shots (save one). But these are'nt full body shots, and it seems to me as though Dan has a relaxed posture (for once), you can't tell what his body position is. In shot 53 for example, he looks taller compared to Rupert than he does on shot 55 (where he looks the shortest, 4 inches shorter than Rupert). Undoubtedly Dan's posture is varying, you can't take shot 55 as the real height and discount all the others. However, I will say one thing: Rupert is definitely not under 5'7" from these shots. I still say that Editor Rob's almost 5'8" listing is spot on .... barefeet , Rupert would have close to 3 inches on Dan, not 4 though. I can buy 5'8" based on these shots .... still does'nt look 5'9" though. And Tom is still a little taller than Rupert.
Stephanie said on 15/Jul/07
Emma Watson and Daniel Radcliffe are both (or at least both claim to be) 5' 6" now. I saw Dan's inteview in Entertainment a few weeks ago and he said he was among the shortest of the guys at 5' 6". Emma's official site also puts her at 5' 6": Click Here
umad80 said on 15/Jul/07
I'm sorry, but did you people NOT see them in their bare feet? C'mon. You're all blind. Click Here They are in their socks!! And both Dan and Emma come up to Rupert's eyebrows. (If you try to count the top of Dan's head and not how high his hair goes.)

I was right in the press "box," Anna. And what I mean is, when Rupert smiles, his chin goes into a point. It's the cutest thing. lol But yeah, you could say his face gets longer in that respect.

JK, I'm pretty sure it was you. It's been awhile, but someone said the twins have a longer face and therefore their face would be maybe an inch longer than a regular-sized face.

Oh, Arjun, did you see the pictures of Rupert and Tom Felton from OotP London premiere? When they were good pics - you know, neither of them leaning into each other - Rupert was like about a half inch shorter, maybe a bit more. And if you count the the footware advantage Tom had, they seemed about the same height, Rupert probably coming out on top. (I'm surprised you went back to the "pushing it with 5'8"" thing when just about a month ago you were willing to give him 5'8.5" when I showed you those pictures from the Pride Awards...)
Anna said on 15/Jul/07
When he smiles his face gets longer? How would you know that or why would you even care? And, I'm sorry, there are just too many photos from the printing ceremony where Emma looks more than an inch taller than Dan to believe your word. I do know that you saw them in person, but maybe you were far away.
JK said on 15/Jul/07
I never said that lol, Rupert has 2 inches on both of them though,
Arjun said on 15/Jul/07
umad80: Rupert is nothing over 5'8", please, even that is pushing it.Dan is no more than 5'5" - Rupert simply does not look that tall compared to him. There is not a single shot , not a single camera angle in the movie where Rupert has 4 or 5 inches on him , 2 - 3 inches in all of them.
umad80 said on 15/Jul/07
Seeing the full bodyshot of that picture, Matt is leaning a bit and behind the twins. So it's possible that adding an inch or so to Matt for those reasons could work. Also that 5'10" for Matt has been around since like PoA. :

Emma is not 5'6" she was shorter than the 5'5" Dan at the ceremony. Dan and Emma both came up around Rupert's eyebrows when they had no shoes on. He had a good 4 inches on them. And when Rupert smiles, his face does actually get longer. I know that sounds weird, but it does! I think it was 6'3" JK who said that the longer the face, the more inches you have to deal with... hah!
Anna said on 14/Jul/07
I've posted this interview on the other two pages, but I wll post it here as well. Click Here At around 40 seconds I believe the interviewer says something about how the trio have grown and Daniel is first to say "I haven't....no I really haven't. It's so depressing, I just got measured today and I'm still 5'5"." This is followed by laughter on Emma's and Rupert's parts, but they don't say anything about their heights. Seeing as that's what Daniel's listed as on here, he seems that height in photos, and he most likely got measured at the doctor's office or something of that sort and then told the interviewer this, I would say that 5'5" is probably exactly what he is - no more, no less. This should put an end to the debate of Daniel's height, shouldn't it? Now, the only question is how tall are Rupert and Emma? Like I have said and shown in photos of the ceremony and photos of Maria and Emma, I would say 5'6" or maybe even a bit more than that would be reasonable for Emma, 5'6" definitely being the minimum. And for Rupert, Emma really doesn't look much smaller than him, so I would say 5'8"-5'8.5" for him. Do these listings sound reasonable and what of that interview with Dan?
JK said on 14/Jul/07
Sorry Matthew Lewis dosen't look 5'10'', I just seen a recent picture of him and he looks more 5'10.5'' 5'11'' MAX, the twins look to have 4 to 4.5 inches on him Click Here
JK said on 14/Jul/07
Matt is NOT 6'0'', you people stop trying to make him taller! on his website somewhere he said by himself that he was 5'10'', that picture with Waylett is probably photoshopped or something must be wrong with the camera angles, Lewis does not have a solid 3 inches on Felton, also Harry Melling who plays Dudley looked quite a bit bigger aswell in the new movie.
umad80 said on 14/Jul/07
Matt Lewis is not 5'10". Standing next to the twins and Jamie Waylette he looks a legit 6' or more. He is definitely nothing under 6' for sure. Dan looks to be 5'5", maybe 5'5.5" and Emma at 5'5". Rupert's height will continue to be debatable because of his laid back posture. He leans into people, etc. But there are a few pictures of him with Tom, and when they have similiar posture, there is much height difference at all. And Tom had footware advantage.
Anonymous said on 14/Jul/07
Saw the pic of Dan with Arsenal Forward Theo Walcott who is 5 9 Dan looks tiny standin next to him
Chip said on 13/Jul/07
I think Tom is about 5'10", and Matt is about 6'0".
Arjun said on 13/Jul/07
Saw Order of the Phoenix today. Daniel looks nothing over 5'5" to me in the movie. How tall is the actor who plays Arthur Weasley (don't know his name)? My guess is that he's 5'10" - 5'11". He still has him by 6 inches, watch when he escorts him to the hearing. In fact, I don't remember the difference between them in Prisoner of Azkaban being much greater than what I saw today, maybe an inch at most.
Oh yeah, and Rupert looked a bit over 5'7" to me, and Emma about the same height as Dan - 5'5".
liz said on 13/Jul/07
I'm 5'3" and whn I was at the Order of the Phoenix prmiere in London, I got to get close enough to compare heights. He's definitly 5'4". He didn't looked taller to me at all!
JK said on 13/Jul/07
Matthew Lewis looks around 5'10'' to me, He is only a bit taller than Felton
carl said on 13/Jul/07
does anyone know how tall matthew lewis is.there,s nothing on him on celeb heights.i wonder if his character isn,t important in the movie.anyway i think he,s a six footer.dan,s about 5,6 and emma 5,5.and rob,i think matt should be added in this site
Anna said on 12/Jul/07
Yeah, I saw the premiere of 'Order of the Phoenix' last night I cannot see how people still say that he is an inch taller than Emma, at the very least Emma looked 1" taller than him, but in many scenes, she looked close to 1.5" or even 2" taller. And the hand print ceremony proves it I think, Emma has got to be at the very least 5'6" and Dan is most likely 5'5". I just don't see why it really matters if they're not the same height, who cares if Emma is taller? I mean, I would definitley not care if Dan was taller, but it's not a reality, it's clear that Emma's taller. I will once again post what I think is one of the most proving pictures ever taken in the history of 'celebheights'. Click Here I mean, come on, stop denying it....even with Daniel's poofy hair, Emma still looks taller than him and you are not going to find a better photo than that. I just don't see how they can both be seen as 5'5". For Daniel I think that's accurate, but even Emma's official site says she is 5'6" and in that photo she easily looks 1" taller than Dan and is wearing flatter footwear. And in some of the footage/photos of the trio when they have their shoes off, Emma looks nearly 2 inches taller than Dan and 1" shorter than Rupert. So, like I've been saying, 5'5" for Dan, 5'6"-5'7" for Emma, and 5'8"-5'8.5" for Rupert.
Karmabelle said on 12/Jul/07
In Sunday Magazine two weeks ago he said he was 168cm. He does look shorter than most everyone in the Order of the Phoenix.
thegreatbeyond01 said on 11/Jul/07
What got me interested was when I saw Kristin Holt, a 5.5ft tv host, talking to Daniel at The Order of the Phoenix red carpet opening. Holt, likely wearing high heals had to bend down for the quick 'hi' to Daniel as he walked past.
hello said on 11/Jul/07
Click Here

Around the same height I reckon
Helen said on 10/Jul/07
actually emma and daniel are about the same height:D when they saved their hand and footbrindt in the cement they stood beside eachother and were about the height so...
but still, he's so short..even i'm 2 cm taller then him:S never would've quest.
Georgia said on 10/Jul/07
OMG I didn't know that he was so short wow! he is still hot though :) LOL maybe he will grow after all he is on 18 (almost) he could still grow still he is short for his age
Ariella said on 9/Jul/07
He's an inch taller than Emma, so if he was 5'4 she would be 5'3, I think he's 5'6 and she's 5'5 I think on her website, she just rounded, even though 5'6 and 5'5 are not different at all.
Anna said on 9/Jul/07
Ah, no way, where have you heard that JohnP? He always seems so nice in interviews, I've always quite liked him because he's never seemed conceited or crazy like so many other child stars and (although you can most likely and hopefully not share in this opinion) is extremely cute and attractive. But Scarlett, the LA premiere photos aren't reliable because his shoes are definitely a bit dodgy, to say the least. Have you seen the photos of the hand, foot, and wand print ceremony? Emma looks a fair deal taller than him and don't tell me that she's only 1/2 of an inch taller; she has at least 1 to 2 inches on him.
Dunken said on 9/Jul/07
looks maybe 5'4.5 max.
Scarlett said on 9/Jul/07
He def looks taller than 5'5 in the new LA premiere pics...without the shoes, i think he's around 5'6 now.
JK said on 9/Jul/07
JohnP youre right, He is 5'5'' MAX or could be 5'4'' as glenn said, The height listing of him on this website is spot on!
Anna said on 6/Jul/07
Well, like I've said, I think Daniel's posture and footwear give him an advantage over others. I think I'll have to go with Rob, he hasn't grown, 5'5" is what he is.
Scarlett said on 6/Jul/07
Emma Watson's official website has just listed her as 5'6, so i'd guess she's around that height, maybe 5'5.5 min. If that is the case wouldnt Daniel need an upgrade of at least half an inch? here's her website link:
Click Here
Kevin said on 4/Jul/07
check this pic, daniel and his mates, he can look 5'6 to 5'7,
Click Here
Anonymous said on 4/Jul/07
I'd say compare this years pictures to GOF pictures. He's taller than Emma now, so unless they're going to downgrade her, I think he deserves an upgrade of at LEAST half an inch, if it isn't 1".
Ariella said on 2/Jul/07
I believe Dan is either 5'5.5 or 5'6, he is an inch taller than Emma, because in that picture Emma is a little taller than Dan and her heels are 1-3 inches, so she's not the same height as her, Emma is 5'5 max and Dan is most likely 5'6.
Scarlett said on 2/Jul/07
I think its time to upgrade him....to 5'5.5 if not 5'6! I really dont think he's a as small as 5'5, it looks like he's def grown at least HALF an inch...upgrade him!! :)
umad80 said on 2/Jul/07
Anna, you wouldn't be taller with your head down, you'd be taller with your head up. I was being a bit fecious with the three feet, but still, she's all the way in the front.

If you want a pretty good picture to guage on... Click Here - Emma is bending down slightly so she probably has around two inches on Dan. Making her 5'5" and Dan 5'5.5" because if her heels are 2.5" like they look, she'd be 5'7.5" and two inches on Dan would make him 5'5.5".
Anna said on 1/Jul/07
umad80- are you joking? Look at the picture closely, Emma and Dan are at bascially the same plane! It's ridiculous to say that he is three feet in back of her! Plus, when you bend your head down you stay the same height, if not get a bit taller. Wow. I've noticed that you do that in a lot of Rupert photos as well, you say he is a lot farther behind when he truthfully isn't. Maybe they are honest mistakes, but honestly, look at that photo, Emma and Dan are at the same position. She is not in front of him at all, if anything a bit behind.
Linda said on 1/Jul/07
Isn't it about time that Dan be upgraded to 5'6 as it's obvious that he has had a small growth spurt. I respect that he is honest about his height and even jokes about it. Does this site have an issue with the young man's honesty or perhaps a little jealousy that he has beaten everyone to the punch and acknowledges his height?
umad80 said on 30/Jun/07
I think Dan is definitely 5'5.5" now, or just a touch over. He looks it now as opposed to looking only 5'5" before. I think that is why he has not been wearing dress shoes like he did for GoF. He's become more comfortable with the height because he's convinced himself and others that he is 5'6" and seems comfortable with that. Which is fine.
Evanna said on 30/Jun/07
Telegraph mentions Radcliffe's height as 5'6":
"His height - 5ft 6in - would probably preclude a career as an action hero, but then his ambitions lie elsewhere. He has a keen sense of humour and a quick wit and, with Peter Sellers as his role model, has his sights on dramatic and light-comedy parts."

Click Here

Editor Rob
he's convinced a lot of these publications on the 5ft 6 now. The guy said he is 5ft 5.5 but will start saying he's 5ft 6. It's exactly what he started to do...he followed through on his claim. Not sure about that one button thing for appearing taller...
17,181 said on 30/Jun/07
this guy is very short. We'll see if he's a full 5'6 in the 5th one,cause it was filmed in early to mid 2006. when Dan was close to age 17 just like me.He may even be a full 5'7 now at 18 in july.though I doubt it.
umad80 said on 30/Jun/07
Anna, you've got to be kidding me. LOL Emma is like 3 feet in front of Dan and he has his head down! And Emma with her head up is giving her some height! And she is wearing heels! You can't possibly be thinking that this is a good way to prove your point. Hell, look at Rupert all the way in the back, head down, and he's only about an inch shorter than Emma. If that because her head is tilted up.

I mean, this is probably the best picture to show the height difference between Dan and Emma: Click Here - that looks to be about an inch and a half and looking at it, if Emma was wearing the same shoes, she'd probably be the same height or just a touch shorter. But really, her heels are making her taller and not anywhere near 5'10", but around 5'7". Probably just a bit over looking at those heels. (Katie seems to have larger ones.)
Anna said on 30/Jun/07
Yeah, I know, I have trouble condensing things, but I'll attempt to do so in this post. So, here is a photo of David Heyman (who looks a legitimate 5'10") and Daniel at the Tokyo press conference. Click Here They seem to be in equal footwear and Dan looks to be about 5'5.5"-5'6" seeing as he is up to David's eyes. Now here is the photo where Emma and Dan both have good posture (keep in mind that Dan's tilted head adds to his height).... Click Here Like I've said, Dan's barely up to Emma's eyes, more like the middle of her nose, which would lead one to believe that Emma is as tall as David Heyman when she wears those 2 inch heels and, moreover, she is 5'8" or so barefoot. Now, even leaving room for error, Emma would easily have to be 5'7" barefoot and when you actually look at the photos closely, Dan looks a tad bit smaller compared to Emma than he does to David, interestingly, which makes it almost blatantly obvious that Emma is certainly no smaller than 5'7" now, more likely closer to 5'8", however I am willing to agree with the 5'7". I just do not see how you could go against this, she absolutely towers over Daniel in that photo. Also, if you read the last bit of the other post, it's a quote from Daniel talking about how only buttoning the top button of one's jacket gives off a taller image and, what do you know, in the photo with Emma he has only his top button buttoned. I just thought it was interesting that he thought about this stuff, it certainly means that he is aware of height "strategies" and what is even more interesting is that he talked about them in an interview....
JK said on 30/Jun/07
Anna nobody has the time to read that post, just make it short and effective
Anna said on 30/Jun/07
Oh my goodness, Rob, you actually believed that Ariella rubbish? I mean I know you probably don't read every comment word for word, but that was just ridiculous....you think she would actually say something as dull and repetative as that? haha, at the least, it gave me a good laugh when I saw that you actually posted it. But I have to say umad80, I just don't really understand your logic. You don't even mention the pictures I posted (and now that I think of it, you probably wrote your comment before mine was posted, so if that's the case, I understand....) but if you really look at the pictures I really have no idea how you could possibly say that Emma is not more than 3 or 4 inches taller than Daniel in those photos....when she actually stands at her full height in those mere 2 inch heels, she certainly does tower over him and if you're saying he is 5'5.5" to 5'6", that would make Emma easily 5'7". And I have an explanation. I looked at the how to measure poster and saw that the eye to the top of the head is 4.5". I then enlarged the fourth photo and even when I just went straight across from the top of his head, he didn't even make it past Emma's eye, he was about midway through her nose, which would be about 5 inches and this is not even counting his head tilt, which, like I said, actually makes one appear taller than they really are. So, if you even consider the head tilt, that would probably mean that Emma is 5.5" taller than Daniel with those 2 inch heels. So, nobody's going to believe that, so even if you subtract some inches for no apparent reason, Emma still has 3.5"-4.5" over Daniel in those heels and if you subtract her heels (I'm just doing two inches, but it's probably less when you take Daniel's footwear into account) she would be 1.5" to 2.5" taller than Daniel when barefoot. So, that would mean that if Daniel were 5'5.5"/5'6", Emma would be 5'7" at the very, very least: that's giving Daniel 5'5.5" and Emma 1.5" over him. So, seeing as I subtracted random inches from Emma's height and the distance between even the eyes and the top of the head is 4.5", I think that picture proves that Emma is easily 5'7" more likely upwards from that. And I'll say 5'8" to 5'9" for Rupert seeing as Emma really does look quite a bit taller than him (in the heels) when both of them stand to their proper height. And I just have to add that Emma is probably standing at her tallest because she is making fun of Dan slightly about how he always stands up stick straight. I definitely do not know for sure, but Katie and Emma sort of have the smirks on and Daniel looks a bit embarrased. Also, I read this recent article about Daniel and found the following quote very interesting. I am not saying that it proves anything, but I just thought some people would like to hear it. "Daniel Radcliffe turns up first, still smart in suit and tie. "You've got to make an effort," he says, though he reveals that the bottom of his tie is rammed into the top - "it slipped out during the press conference." He agrees that he presents a very different look to Rupert. "He's more casual - but I like to dress up. I am a suit man - and it makes you feel slightly taller. Plus -" and he nods to his waistcoat, "if you have three buttons on your waistcoat and only tie the top one, people's eyes go up there and it makes you look taller. But if you're small and you wear a baseball cap, it's actually easy to slip into a crowd and not get spotted."
umad80 said on 29/Jun/07
Ariella, I'm in complete agreement here with Dan and Emma. Dan is definitely the height he is saying now or there abouts. Looks like he was lucky enough to have one more growth spurt, but not much of one. Half inch to an inch. Probably somewhere in between. Emma is definitely still looking 5'5". For argument sake, I can see growing a centimeter or two, but doubtful, but just for argument sake I can see it...

Rupert is hard to tell all the time. For one he never stands straight as opposed to how Dan stands which is very straight. He is usually always in the back with Dan and Emma more in the front. (I don't know how much you'd take off for that. I really don't know how that would work. An inch? Two inches?) And he has a habit of leaning his head either downward or to the side. I think that is why Rupert tends to "appear" 5'7" or around there. I'm still going with at least 5'9".
Anna said on 29/Jun/07
Although it seems as if some of my comments have strangely disappeared (don't worry Editor, it's really all right) I have found some photos that basically summarise what I was trying to say in these previous comments. Click Here Click Here Click Here Click Here These are what I consider good photos to compare the heights of Emma, Katie, and Dan. Why? Because both girls are standing up straight and although Dan does have head tilted forward, this really does not affect his height or anyone's height who tilts their head in that fashion. If anything, it actually makes you look taller than you really are. As one can easily see, Emma looks loads taller than she does in the other photos where she is slouching, which proves that 1) she must have been slouching considerably in those other photos and 2) even though a girl wears heels doesn't mean she is automatically always going to be the tallest she possibly can be in those heels, heels are not some magic cure to make shorter girls appear taller, in fact, smaller heels like Emma's (note that if you enlarge these photos, you can see that Emma's heels are only about 1.75"-2" and Daniel's shoes have quite a bit of sole on them) really don't give you much of an advantage over the other people around you, especially when someone, Katie Leung, is wearing heels that are 1"-1.25" taller than yours. Now Emma is standing in back of Daniel and Katie, yet still looks 1 inch taller than Katie and easily 3 to 4 inches taller than Daniel, if you disregard his hair poof (Emma's and Katie's hair-styles seem to be less poofy), he is barely up to Emma's nose and that is with the height adding tilting of the head and straight legs. And, by the way, the distance between the bottom of the nose and the top of the head is more than even 4 inches, I'm just downgrading it to satisfy people. So, what of these photos?
Ariella said on 29/Jun/07
Emma has not grown. Like someone tried to post a picture from the photocall so that she, like, looked like she had grown, but she has not grown. Emma has not grown. That's just because blah blah blah, the truth is Emma has not grown. I mean I really have no proof and I just kind of like posting the same exact thing in response to anybody's comments to make myself look like an idiot (as does Anna, or so it seems), but like, Emma has not grown and I am too stubborn to see that Emma is now taller than Dan, but Emma is not taller than Dan, she has not grown. She is the same exact height as she was 3 years ago, even though she was only 14 then and barely 17 now. I just refuse to believe that she has grown and I am right and that's final. Oh and Anna may be making a bit of sense, but I'll pretend like I didn't see or read her comment (I mean why would anyone, they're ****ing novels and, well, admittedly I've not really learnt how to read as of now; as a matter of fact I've never read a Harry Potter book or seen a Harry Potter film, I just like to comment on these pages for no apparent reason....and by the way, even though I've never looked at a picture of Keira Knightley, Emma's not as tall as her. No way, for a 14 year old to grow 2 inches in the span of 3 years is simply unheard of, honestly, what are you smoking? Emma hasn't grown. Emma is not taller than Daniel. Oh and lastly, I don't know how to spell the word photocall, for some reason I believe it is spelt photo call again proving my dullness....Emma hasn't grown.
Ariella said on 29/Jun/07
Emma is 5'5 not 5'6 she hasn't grown and is done growing, someone actually tried posting a picture from the photo call where she was in heels so she was clearly taller than Dan, but they posted a picture from the waist up so it looks like she's grown, but she hasn't she's still 5'5 and Dan is either 5'5.5 or 5'6 and Rupert, I have no idea. 5'7 maybe?
... said on 28/Jun/07
he's still not growing?
Anonymous said on 26/Jun/07
Okaay correction: I
umad80 said on 25/Jun/07
Oh, Arjun, those were taken in in December of 2005, just to give you a rough estimate. :) I agree he was 5'8" there, *maybe* 5'8.5" because he doesn't look that much shorter, but definitely around 5'8". But two years later, we can guess that he's grown taller. When he stands straight up he is taller than Emma and Dan (whois wearing the same type shoe for a change) and behind them. Dan is I think between 5'5.5" and 5'6". The latest photos have me back down closer to 5'5.5" but I think close to 5'6" is possible. (I posted a photo on the Rupert part so you can see what I mean... it was hard to tell because Emma is in heels and Rupert was standing behind both of them, but he was still taller than her.)
Scarlett said on 25/Jun/07
UPGRADE DAN! He's never gonna be a tall boy, but i think we should give him that extra inch. He looks a legit 5'6 now. Emma Watson looks about 5'5/5'6, and Rupert around 5'9. I do think Dan needs an upgrade.
Anonymous said on 25/Jun/07
I think we all agree he needs an upgrade in height! Unless you believe Emma Watson shrunk of course. I think 5'6" and maybe even 5'7". I don't think Emma grew a lot, maybe 0.5", making her about 5'5.5" and I've never been able to estimate Ruperts height, but 5'8" or 5'9" looks about right.
hoss said on 25/Jun/07
I've seen him, and he looks around 168-9, no more.
Chip said on 25/Jun/07
Whoa, Emma is SO hot on those new pictures! btw, I'd say 5'6" at the most for Emma, and Rupert is probably about 5'8"-5'9". And Matthew Lewis is quite tall, yes. In PoA, he was only about 2 inches taller than Dan, yet he was one of the tallest HP boys around that time. In GoF, Matt was about 6 or 7 inches taller than Dan. And Alfie Enoch, who plays Dean Thomas, had a HUGE growth spurt after GoF had been finished. He was probably around 16 when he grew so much.
Arjun said on 24/Jun/07
Tom has at least an inch on Rupert, umad80. That still puts Rupert at 5'8" max, no way is he 5'9" or more.
JK said on 24/Jun/07
Dan is 5'5'', Emma is 5'4'' - 5'5'', and Rupert is 5'7'' when he is standing as tall as possible, There is Still No way Rupert is even near 5'9'' LMAAAO
umad80 said on 23/Jun/07
I like how I've shown you pics of Rupert standing next to Tom - being slightly shorter - and he still can't be anywhere near Tom's height. lol It amuses me to no end.

I'm starting to think the 5'6" for Dan might be legit. I know he was more forward and standing straighter in the recent pictures, but he was definitely looking at least an inch taller than the 5'5" Emma. Or very close to it. And Rupert looked at least 4 inches taller than Emma.
Idontknow said on 23/Jun/07
Look at these new pictures from a press conference. Even though she doesn't stand straight, Emma definitively looks smaller than Dan now. Click Here

Editor Rob
they had to shove dan to the front there, but he doesn't seem to care about height there if he's wearing such sneakers.
JK said on 19/Jun/07
EXACTLY ARJUN!! I couldn't have said that any better myself!
Arjun said on 19/Jun/07
Next to the twins, Rupert looks nothing over 5'8" and likely a bit under.
5'7.5" - 5'8" max can be argued for him, but 5'9" - 5'10" - not a chance.
JK said on 18/Jun/07
Rupert is not even near 5'9'', Because i just can't see him being same height as Tom Felton and i know a lot of people will agree with me on that
umad80 said on 18/Jun/07
I realize Dan is going to have a little more advantage. I expected him to be at least an inch taller with difference of shoe. But he's almost two inches. You don't think that picture shows pretty big heels? I know it's not the easiest thing in the world to tell, but those heels don't look normal. Like they added an extra heel to the heel.

Oh yes 6'3" JK, now that Rob has said it, it must be so. Sorry, but there is no 2-3 inch difference between Tom and Rupert at the Pride of Britian Awards. Unless inches have become smaller since I went to school. Click Here - side by side there and Rupert is maybe a quater inch shorter. Like 5'8" or so there. Same shoe advantage and everything. There is definitely no 2-3 inch difference there unless, like I said, inches has changed since I went to school.
umad80 said on 18/Jun/07
I don't know. These heels look pretty big to me: Click Here They look a bit monstoserous, don't you think? Heh. I mean, I looked around after that at some dress shoes on the twins and other Potter people and they look nothing like those. Maybe I'm wrong, but they definitely look like they could give a good two inches or so. (Radcliffe's parents are in the biz, so it wouldn't surprise me if they could get the best for him in elevator shoes...)

As for Rupert being shorter than Laura Linney. I have to disagree. I showed a picture before where Laura was wearing regular woman's dress shoes - probably giving her about two inches, and if you factor in the fact that Rupert leans into her and her hair stood up past her head, they were the same height. Which means Rupert was around 5'9", maybe a tad under, but I'm going with 5'9" at this point. And I still disagree with Rupert not having bad posture in late 2006. Maybe not bad, but he leans into people when taking photographs. I don't know why, but he's always done it. But yes, Dan definitely has extremely good posture. He's always standing straight at attention, pulling himself up to his full height.

Editor Rob
she's wearing a converse at the event and dan will have at least 0.5 inch footwear advantage, it could be 0.75, hard to say exactly because there isn't a good shot to see exactly his heel size, although there was one shot where you can see his ankle is sitting in a typical position and not raised much higher than the leather.
JK said on 18/Jun/07
There you have it! as i have said all along Grint ain't nothing over 5'7'', Even Rob agrees with me on that, U must be blind if you can't see a 2 - 3 inch difference between Felton and Grint. I hope that just puts the Case of Rupert being 5'9'' (lol!!) at rest, He trully isn't anything above 5'7''
umad80 said on 18/Jun/07
Uh, he is too around the same height as Tom Felton. At the Pride of Britian Awards back in in December of 2005, he was maybe just a smidgen shorter than Tom. Click Here - of course, I'm not sure what kind of shoes Tom was wearing. But they were probably on the same height. Rupert was almost as tall as Tom there.

Dan does wear 'em. That picture proves he's almost two inches taller. A regular male dress shoe, per this site, is only suppose to give you about an inch or so. He's almost got two and a half inches on Emma. And the way he stands is NOT normal. He's hiding larger heels.

I don't know Rob, what do you think? To me it's obvious. Dan looks short in person, but he's definitely at least 5'5" or 5'5.5". His shoes make him almost 5'7" to 5'7.5". And in any promotional picture with Emma, he is NOT that much taller. He's usually around the same height or a smidgen taller. But he is not that many inches taller like he appears in the photos at the GoF photocall.

Editor Rob
Dan I don't think wears obvious elevators, he may be pulling good posture a lot but Grint in late 2006 really wasn't. You'd need to catch shots of him walking up stairs - a bit like how brad pitt has been caught - to really see thickness of heel and of leather. But compared to isaacs and laura linney, grint really wasn't looking over 5ft 7. Isaacs, whom Dmeyer said recently looked 5ft 11 towered over radcliffe and grint.
JK said on 18/Jun/07
Just because someone wears normal dress shoes, how can you know that they wear lifts? If Dan is taller than Emma, then He is taller than Emma you can't do anything about it lol, Quit with Rupert being around the 5'9'' mark man because there ain't no way he is the same height as Tom Felton, That is a ridiculous claim even on its own level lol, Rupert isn't nothing more than 5'7''
umad80 said on 17/Jun/07
6'3" JK I've posted several shots proving he does. Back in November of 2005 he is clearly two inches taller than the 5'5" Emma Watson. Now I think it's obvious Emma was 5'5" back then, and probably still is. But if you look: Click Here - Dan is 2"-2.5" taller than her! And unless Emma was only 5'3", I think it's safe to assume Dan is standing 5'7" or there abouts in that photo. This is why people get SO confused about Rupert's height. They think Dan is standing at his regular height and he isn't! And this pic is SO good because Rupert is standing straight for a change.

Also, a little indication is by how he stands. Look at how he stands at attention, legs together. This isn't normal. He is definitely hiding bigger heels.
Maya said on 17/Jun/07
JK, don't these high heeled shoes look suspicious to you?! Click Here Even if they are not elevators, they are at least 2 inches high
bam said on 17/Jun/07
its highly possible that Radcliffe has grown. He could be his claimed height.
JK said on 16/Jun/07
wait a minute....... now how do we know that Dan wears lifts Umad80????... Because i don't think he does
umad80 said on 16/Jun/07
Jamie is definitely tall. And I think Rupert was close to 5'9" November of 2005. But like I said, Dan was only 5'5.5" at the most, but his shoes gave him an extra two inches. But Rupert was at least an inch and a half to two inches taller than Dan. I think that again is where the confusion comes in with Rupert. Dan wears lifts/elevator shoes giving him around two inches extra, and Rupert is so laid back and leans a lot, that he never shows off his actual height.
anna said on 13/Jun/07
Yes he is. Jamie looks quite ingens and Daniel (and even Rupert) looks so small compared to him.
Arjun said on 13/Jun/07
Jamie is a pretty big guy all around as well as tall.
anna said on 12/Jun/07
Who cares if he slouches sometimes. It's not all of the time. And when you're taking a photo with a guy who is 6'3" and absolutely gigantic, my guess is you most likely will not slouch. He is leaning his head, but he is definitley not slouching. Sorry, it's just annoying how you always presume that Rupert is slouching just because he often slouches. Like I said, it doesn't mean he slouches all of the time.
JK said on 12/Jun/07
forget november 2005 when they were at the premiere, today i say Jamie is nearly a 6'3'' and nothing under 189cm
Arjun said on 12/Jun/07
Jamie looks 6+ inches taller than Rupert, with whatever bad posture he has in that pic. I agree with JK on Jamie's height, he is not less than 6'2".
Maya said on 11/Jun/07
Editor Rob, you could add Matthew Lewis to this site (Neville Longbottom). He might be a six footer, I think.
umad80 said on 11/Jun/07
Rupert is freakin' slouching too! Rupert is a sloucher. But I said I was wondering Jamie's height because there was a picture of him with the twins and he looked a LOT shorter than them. That is all I said.

Carla, are you saying Rupert was only 5'5" at the DL premiere?

I think people get REALLY confused on height because of Dan. I've proven countless times that he wears elevator shoes. He's like freakin' two inches taller in those shoes and Rupert is STILL taller than him. Rupert slouches so freakin' much that he seems to lose about two inches. He has terrible posture. Whereas Dan stands straight at attention, always standing at his fullest height.
JK said on 11/Jun/07
Umad80, i can't believe the fact that you can't see how much Jamie is slouching with Rupert and because of this Jamie is losing 1 - 2 inches lol, Jamie is a Legit 6'2.5'' - 6'3'' today, he isn't a centimeter under 6'2.5'' today lol
carla said on 11/Jun/07
Yeah, he's short. I met him at the premiere for 'Driving Lessons', he seemed around 5'5, although he must have grown!
Arjun said on 11/Jun/07
In a premiere photo, Jamie seemed nearly as tall as the twins and 6'3" David Thewlis (Lupin). He is definitely around 6'2".
Arjun said on 11/Jun/07
At least 6 inches, closer to 7. No way only 5. Rupert would only reach the bottom of Jamie's ears or thereabouts if both stood straight. And top-of-head to bottom-of-ear is way more than 5 inches, more like 7 inches, especially for Jamie as he has a large head.
umad80 said on 10/Jun/07
That is what Jamie claims, but I don't think it's true. I saw a pic of him with the 6'3" twins, around the time he claimed 6'2.5" and he seemed a lot shorter. But it could've just been the picture. But here is Rupert and Jamie at the NY GoF premiere. Click Here - Rupert looked to be around 5'9" - give or take.

Here is a picture of Jamie with Dan too, but it's hard to tell height. Jamie is leaning considerably and as I said, Dan gives himself two or so extra inches with his shoes. Click Here

And are you talking about that OotP photo? I'm a little confused at which one you're talking about. lol But if you are, I wouldn't pay attention to that. Tom looks like he's 8 inches taller than Rupert! It just seems really weird. LOL
Arjun said on 10/Jun/07
Umad80, if Jamie is 6'2", Rupert looks only 5'8" as Jamie looks at least 6 inches taller than him in that photo.
umad80 said on 9/Jun/07
Truthfully I think we will only see a difference for when the trio do the ceremony. I doubt very much Dan will be wearing his elevator shoes to that event considering he'd have to put them in cement! And then all the world would know... But then stranger things have happened. But I do believe that is when we'll see true heights.
anna said on 8/Jun/07
But we can just take the elevator shoes into consideration. And I agree with 3/4 of what Anonymous said; I think when we see them at the premieres Emma and Rupert will look noticeably taller, but Dan will look quite short unless he has some mega elevator shoes....
umad80 said on 7/Jun/07
Dan is definitely not 5'7". Aside from a recent mention in US "Twist" mag putting him at 5'6" (because Dan rounded up from his 5'5.5" height - something he admitted to), he's been 5'5.5" in most things. Even the webmisses of major Dan sites have confirmed the 5'5.5" thing.

Rupert tends to slouch so badly. They also tend to put him in the back too. This all makes him appear a lot less shorter. And of course you have Dan wearing elevator shoes to give him extra height. So people who think Dan is standing exactly at 5'5"/5'5.5" think that Rupert is only bordering on 5'6". But Rupert's been several inches taller than Dan and Emma in practically every promotional image. We haven't seen the trio together off the set since the empire awards (suspiciously these were around the time they were filming forest pics where Rupert looks his tallest!), but I have yet to find a picture of Rupert standing straight and where he is together with them. He's always behind. They were doing odd things I think because Rupert looks suspiciously short with David Heyman, but when you see pics of them at the stage, he is around the same height. And during the Japan premiere stuff in 2003, he wasn't that much shorter than him. So something odd was definitely going on!

Oh, and Emma was wearing converse at the 2005 photocall, and flat shoes at the UK premiere, but that little wedge shoe at GoF US premiere. Interestingly in the former she's 2-2.5" shorter than Dan, but only about an inch shorter (sometimes a little less) than him at the US GoF premiere.

And Dan wearing elevator shoes... we'll never be able to tell how tall he truly is come July. lol
Anonymous said on 7/Jun/07
i wouldn't be surprised to see they've all grown when we see pictures of them together at the premieres and photocalls of film 5...most guys grow till they're at least 19 or so, right? And I read in a recent article that he is 5'7", so I'd say right now he's at least 5'6", but we'll see in July :p
anna said on 7/Jun/07
Yes, it's all very confusing because, I agree with you, I really do think Dan wears elevator shoes to the majority of public events. However, judging by some OotP photos, he seems to be wearing Converse for a good portion of the upcoming film. If some images come out of the trio that are straight on and non-controversial, maybe we will be able to get some insight on their heights. But yeah, it's quite confusing because, with the GoF premeire, Dan was definitely wearing elevator shoes and Emma was probably wearing shoes with a 1/2" to 1" heel (they look basically flat to me, but I'll say this anyways) and Emma looks taller than Dan in some photos, so what would that mean? Also, Rupert doesn't even look that much taller than either Dan or Emma, so what's with that? My advice would be to just wait for a photo with all even footwear or something?

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 or shoe 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.