How tall is Emma Watson - Page 3

Add a Comment1915 comments

Average Guess (138 Votes)
5ft 4.59in (164.1cm)
anonymous no-name said on 29/Oct/07
Good thing you didn't upgrade her Rob! lol

michael - I'm not sure but I think Anna doesn't post on here (Emma's page anyway, don't know about other pages) anymore because she's been proven wrong. On Rupert Grint's page she said she was leaving and that was only a couple of days after video's of the Pride of Britain awards (Emma and Jo) showed up. Anyway, even you say Emma is 5'6" max, and although most on here think she's a bit smaller than that, it's still nothing compared to the 'close to 5'7" in the morning' Anna claimed at one point. She was clearly proven wrong and that while she had been insisting that she was right and we'd see it when Emma gave Jo the award. All that proved (emma and jo) was that there is no way Emma is over 5'6". THEN she came up with the BS argument that Emma looked slightly taller than Jo when they hugged (er, no) and when they were walking away off-stage (again, er, no) and after that Rob 'outted' (sp?) her and said her IP says she's from Minneapolis and not from London like she's been claiming, so there you go.
Evanna said on 29/Oct/07
Michael, time to calm down, man. Everyone here's got the right to express his or her opinion, and if you don't agree with my estimations, go on and prove that I'm wrong, instead of just going mental.
For your info umad80 is from the US of A, and I'm from the UK of GB and NI. We've never met, I have no idea who she is. (But I'd rather be friends with her than with you, she's a much nicer person!...)
And you shouldn't worry too much about Anna, s/he'll be back soon, only with a brand new identity. ;)
michael said on 28/Oct/07
erm umad80?u said this?Oh, and I wouldn't ask Anna to come back and be your back up. This is the person who had a few different names beforehand (which were also male names), has changed her age practically every time she posted, and even claimed she was in the UK and Rob checked her IP to be from the states. So you might want to re-think that strategy. Of course, there is some wonder about who YOU are since you want Anna back so badly.
realy cant belive that u can be so sad?u think im anna?because i claim my opinion that emma is 5'5 or 5'6?realy your sad man sorry,and i dont know about anna,does she has other accounts or not on here,and i dont care,im fun of harry pottter who says hes opinion,i am from croatia,and rob please check my ip and tell this kid where im from?thanks?plz do that rob,and i only ask anna because im worried where she is,she dididnt tipe here for long time,i like here opinions thats all,and if u realy think that im anna than u need get help,and claiming that emma is under 5'5 is apsurd to me,she is 5'5 to 5'6 max not less,and its abious that u umad80 and evanna are frends,so u can agree with evanna and i cant agree with emma?and sorry about my spelling im so bad at it.
umad80 said on 28/Oct/07
Michael, please don't read one part of what I said and then run with it. That's what other people have done. This is what I said:

"I'd say that if I HAD to think Emma was shorter than 5'5", which I DON'T, the most I'd say is 5'4.5"."

I've said all along that Emma is 5'5". I was just saying that the only thing I could believe under 5'5" if I had to was 5'4.5".

Oh, and I wouldn't ask Anna to come back and be your back up. This is the person who had a few different names beforehand (which were also male names), has changed her age practically every time she posted, and even claimed she was in the UK and Rob checked her IP to be from the states. So you might want to re-think that strategy. Of course, there is some wonder about who YOU are since you want Anna back so badly.
michael said on 28/Oct/07
ye but evana and umad saying she is 5'4.5" or 5'4 thats stupid and thats so not true,so dont lie,she is 5'5 minimum 5'6 max
anonymous no-name said on 28/Oct/07
I don't think she's under 5'5" either, michael, but she isn't 5'6"! Seeing her next to Jo and Emma Roberts proved that. I think she's 5'5". 5'5.5" max, but only because she seems a tiny bit taller than Dan and he says he's 5'5".
michael said on 27/Oct/07
emma under 5'5?lmfao som ppl here are sad,emma is 5'5+ or 5.6 at least 5'4 is rediculous or 5'4.5". ?and btw anna where u why u stoped writing here...
Evanna said on 26/Oct/07
I agree 100%, umad80.
umad80 said on 25/Oct/07
The only problem I have with that is that doesn't explain as to why he wasn't that much shorter than the 5'9" Tom Felton. I mean, when you think about his slouching and shoe difference, it was definitely no full inch difference between him and Rupert.

Those heels look pretty solid. At least a half inch or more advantage I'd say. Emma looks about an inch taller, plus her knee is bent a bit. Thinking maybe Emma Roberts has about an inch advantage with all that? Something around there imo. I'd say that if I had to think Emma was shorter than 5'5", which I don't, the most I'd say is 5'4.5". At least one thing we can all agree on is that she is nowhere near 5'6". LOL
Evanna said on 24/Oct/07
Btw Emma Roberts' heels at Nick awards weren't that much bigger than Watson's, take a look: Roberts Click Here Watson Click Here and the two of them together, the straightest shot I could find Click Here
Evanna said on 24/Oct/07
umad80, I honestly don't see Grint as tall as 5'9". A strong 5'8" yes, but not taller, because I'm still not convinced that either Watson or Radcliffe are full five-fivers. But what do I know, you're the one who's seen them in person several times, not me. I do agree with you that Grint should be upgraded, but 5'9" is a bit too much to ask for him at the moment. Rob do you intend to promote Grint into a noble 5'8" club soon?
umad80 said on 24/Oct/07
I put Emma at 5'5" just because of what I've seen both at the GoF premiere and while promoting OotP.

Evanna, according to heel height truth, normal size heels give 2.3" over barefoot. Rob said he thinks that Emma's heels at the NMA's give her nearly 3". So I think it's safe to assume that JKR's could've given the same or a bit more because they did look nearly 4". Which would put her closer to 5'8" which would match up to Emma just being over 5'7" in heels.

Sorry Michael, but Emma is no where near an inch taller than Dan. I've always said the difference could be a half inch, but it's definitely no inch. Even with Dan's very flattering hairstyle for height, Emma is not taller. Again, for Emma to be 5'6", with heels she'd be about 5'8.5" and that would mean that JKR either had 5" heels on or is 5'5" thus putting her at 5'9". But I think that is definitely stretching it. Because it would also put Rupert at 5'10" because he was quite a bit taller than her at the Paris premiere and about an inch taller than her at the NMAs. So both put him at about 5'9" and Emma at 5'5".
Evanna said on 24/Oct/07
Well then prove it, Michael, otherwise your opinion hardly counts...
michael said on 24/Oct/07
lol emma watson is way heigher than 5'4 stop making her short evanna shes not 5'4 shes more than 5'6 to me than 5'4...
anonymous no-name said on 24/Oct/07
It's possible Emma R. grew, but I looked up some pics of her and next to Miley Cyrus (5'4") she doesn't look anything over 5'2". It's hard to judge the pics on gettyimage because they're both slouching and leaning, but even while doing that Miley is still obviously taller. I'd say the difference between Emma W. and Emma R. is less than Emma R. and Miley Cyrus (both in flat boots). Emma R. heels are quite a bit higher than Emma's though, at the Nick awards. Can't say how much they give her, but I think at least 3".
Evanna said on 23/Oct/07
Of course the bigger the heel, the taller you get, but not by the same proportion. I'm bad at maths, but say 2" heels give almost 2" over barefoot; 3" heels give just under 2.5"; 4" heels give barely over 3"; etc. Have someone measure you in various shoes and see for yourself.
I'm guesstimating again, but after seeing the JKR/EW video and the two Emmas pics, I must say that Watson is probably only about 5'4". But of course Rob's is the final word.
michael said on 23/Oct/07
emma is 5'6 for me,she looks that big comparing vs daniel...
Qwerty said on 23/Oct/07
Bigger pic

Click Here
umad80 said on 23/Oct/07
I saw someone say that Emma Roberts height hasn't been updated in ages. Is it possible that she has grown? I mean, that's only like an inch or so and Emma is closer to the camera...

Evanna, are you sure about the heels? I think it's kind of common sense that the bigger the heel, the taller you are. It'd be like standing on your tip toes. If you don't lift your heel too high, you won't get much taller, but the more you lift your heel in the air, the taller you'll be.

I still think that JKR's heels would give her more around 4" if Rob thinks that Emma's at the NMAs gave her closer to 3". Which means that JKR was about 5'8". and Emma was about 5'7.5" (probably a bit lower than that) which makes sense because that's how much taller JKR seemed.
Evanna said on 23/Oct/07
Here are the pictures of two Emmas: Click Here
Too bad we can't see Roberts' heels, but even so, one would expect Watson to look much bigger than Roberts if the height difference between them is really 3.5".
Evanna said on 23/Oct/07
umad80, JKR's heels probably were 4 inchers, what I was trying to say is that they gave her "only" about 3.25" over barefoot height. Rob's "Heel Height Truth" makes sense: I had my husband remeasure me in different shoes (despite his protests!) and 2" heels really gave me almost 2" over barefoot, but 3" wedges gave me less than 2.5". Seems to me that as the heels get bigger, the actual height gain decreases proportionally. I guess the only heels (without platforms) that can give a girl almost 4" are the ones as seen in Beyonce's new video, where the girls are basically standing on their tiptoes. Even watching them hurts my feet.
anonymous no-name said on 22/Oct/07
There are new pictures of Emma next to Emma Roberts. Emma Roberts is listed here as 5'1.5". There are pics at gettyimage but I don't have time to post them. I'd say Emma W. in 2" heels was about 2" taller than Emma Roberts in plateau-heels. Not sure how much they gave her, but even if they gave Emma R. a full 4", Emma W. still wouldn't be any taller than 5'5.5".
umad80 said on 22/Oct/07
Do you really think they were 3.25" heels? I was just curious because they look closer to 4". They're definitely bigger than what Emma wore to the NMAs though. (Guess Rob will have to give that verdict!) But seeing Emma in 2005 be around the same height as me at 5'5" I think she's definitely 5'5" now as is Dan (who may be just a tad shorter), but I think he might shrink at night which is why he looked so dwarfed at the NMAs. We've never really seen the trio together at night more grown (last time we did was PoA DVD launch), so I think it's possible he shrinks at night.

You know, I really have no problem with wanting to believe someone is taller and all, but when it's been pretty much proven otherwise... it's time to move on and play the hand you were dealt. lol If someone proved Rupert was under 5'8", then I would bow out. I'd be sad that I was wrong, but them the breaks. LOL
Evanna said on 22/Oct/07
Michael, since Anna's much regretted departure from this forum (sob... :D) you're the only one left convinced that Watson is taller than 5'5". But think again: JKR is no taller than 5'4" (see the pictures of her standing next to HP directors and adult cast members). Dan Radcliffe may well be under 5'5", Glenn saw him at 5'4" two years ago; and Radcliffe doesn't seem to have grown since then. As for Pride of Britain, Emma Watson in 2" heels looked notably shorter than 5'4" JKR in 3.25" heels. It's safe to assume that EW and JK are exactly the same height (shoeless), or EW just a little taller. No way is she 5'6". And if you compare Watson to Radcliffe, even if she's a tad taller, that still puts her in the 5'5"-max range.
What I don't understand with you and "Anna" is why you want Watson to be taller than she is. She's a perfect height for an actress - not too tall, not too short, so she can be paired with both shorter and taller actors.
umad80 said on 21/Oct/07
Heh. I meant 5'7.5" not 5'8.5". But Rob can check. He already checked to see that Anna was coming from the US when she was claiming to be from the UK. LOL But I do think that Emma and Dan are both 5'5" with the possibility of Dan shrinking at night. But at the ceremony he and Emma looked the same. Might've been a few centimeters difference, but nothing much to notice.
michael said on 21/Oct/07
emma is 5'6 and no im not anna?rob can check ip used?im from croatia?why u ppl dont like anna i mean whot she ever did to u or any of us?rob yes plz check my ip and tell them where im from,and where is anna,to much noobs in here,and about emma,she looks like 5'6 to me,jkr had bigger heals btw im sure,and umad im micheal not anna,.i dont know whot u got against her,if our oponions not same so what who cares,...
Luke99 said on 21/Oct/07
I bet Anna is Michael.
Rob should do a check of some sorts to find out. (if possible?)
I love her argument: 'Daniel is 5'5' lol that in itself is debatable.
He/She also argues JK must be 5'5 lol.
umad80 said on 21/Oct/07
Maybe Michael is Anna. lol There is no way she is 5'6" with JKR being taller than her. Emma wearing normal heels would be about 5'8.5" with them, which means that JKR at 5'4" would have to wear 5"-6" heels to be taller as she seems anywhere from a half inch to an inch or so taller. And of course if JKR is 5'5" she'd need 4" to 5" heels. But she didn't seem like she was around 5'10" in those heels. I think you need to face it michael, Emma is 5'5". lol
michael said on 20/Oct/07
emma is 5'6 for me,daniel 5'5 and i think future movies will prove it,she has to kiss rupert in movie 7,and daniel to ,if u read part where ron saved harry from river,and ron destroyes horarux,in that part image of emma kisses daniel,so 2 kisses in 1movie,gona be funny
Nora said on 20/Oct/07
Anna where are you? lool
umad80 said on 15/Oct/07
Actually, Rob said that normal heels give about 2.3" to 2.5" over barefoot and would probably be close 3" for those heels that Emma was wearing at the NMAs. But just imo, JKR was wearing heels that might've been an inch more than what Emma had. That's why it looked to be about an inch difference in height that JKR had over Emma. Just for reference I took some caps of the video: Click Here and Click Here - Just looking at it, it looks like it's about an inch difference. So if Emma's heels gave her about 2.3" over barefoot, then she'd be 5'7.5" (a little under obviously) if 5'5" which I do believe having seen her in person several times. And if JKR is 5'4", and those only gavie 3" she'd be 5'7" and thus shorter than Emma. So the only way for this to be logical is a few ways: Firstly, Emma would only be 5'4" (again, seriously doesn't work for me) and thus only 5'6.5" in heels and puts JKR at a half inch taller. Or Emma is 5'4" but 5'6.5" in heels, and JKR is 5'5" putting her at 5'8". Or, Emma is 5'5" and 5'7.5" in heels, JKR is 5'4" but has closer to 4" heels and thus 5'8". Or you add another inch to JKR and putting her at 5'9". I think those are the few logical sernarios, and my best guess is that JKR had 4" heels and they gave her around that. Emma is 5'5". I think that works because it looked like JKR was about an inch taller. So Emma is 5'5" and JKR is 5'4".
TJ said on 15/Oct/07
Agreed Anon. If it weren't for the fact that she looks about the same size as Dan Radcliffe, I'd say she was shorter than 5'5, let alone 5'6. If Dan is 5'5, she is about the same though.
Anonymous said on 15/Oct/07
People you should all read Rob's article "Heel Height Truth". No heels can give more than 3.15", unless platforms involved. JKR was getting barely 3 in. over barefoot in her massive heels (quite similar to those EW wore at the NMA). EW on the other hand was getting around 2 in. at the Pride of Britain, which means that if JKR and EW were both barefoot they'd be exactly the same height, or JKR slightly taller. Now whether they are both 5'4ish or 5'5ish is debatable, but 5'6" is already impossible, as they were both dwarfed by the host of the ceremony (I can't remember the lady's name).
umad80 said on 14/Oct/07
Michael, there is no way Emma is more than 5'5". If she were she'd be about 5'7.5" in the heels she was wearing to the Pride awards. JKR was still taller. She did have on massive heels, sure, but they'd have to give her at least 4.5 inches in order for her to be an inch taller. Rob would have to look at JKR's heels because I'm no good at judging, but I know they were probably bigger than the three inchers that Emma wore. They did look 4-5 inches. But that makes sense if JKR is 5'5" instead of the 5'4" then in 4" heels she'd be taller than Emma by an inch or two, which it looks like she was. And if they're bigger than that, they'd have to be 4-5" for 5'4". But either way, it's obvious she was an inch or so taller than Emma. For Emma to be 5'6", she'd be about 5'9.5" in heels, and that wouldn't make sense because JKR didn't look 5'10" or so in those massive heels. lol
michael said on 14/Oct/07
emma is 5'6...she bigger than daniel so if hes 5'5 or 5'5.5 she is 5'6 and idk about jkrowling she is probably 5'5
TJ said on 11/Oct/07
Anna. To watch that video and suggest Emma looks taller, you have to REALLY want her to be taller. Shoes may well be a factor, but JK is VERY clearly taller in that video. If you're going to have a sensible discussion about this, at least give equal weight to all evidence. In this case, it's a video suggesting Emma is shorter, no matter how you spin it.
Luke99 said on 11/Oct/07
Anna you're losing it. EW never had an advantage over JK.
Nora said on 11/Oct/07
lol Anna, you're done with it... stop claiming things that we all know and knew are false! Miss Emma Watson is 5'5 and to make you happy I'd say 5'5" bur just to make you happy ;)
Anonymous no-name said on 11/Oct/07
Did you watch the whole video, Anna? Emma doesn't look taller than JKR at any point in the video. The same height at the most as they are hugging, which usually isn't a good position to judge from. From the first moment after they hug she looks smaller, ranging from .5" to 2" smaller. 1/4" to 1/2" taller....LOL maybe you should have your eyes checked out.
umad80 said on 11/Oct/07
Anna, you need to face it. That video proved last night that JKR was taller. If Emma had regular heels on at 5'5" she'd be about 5'7.5" - give or take. JKR was taller. If she is 5'4" then most likely she had larger than 3". So I'm going to say that JKR is 5'5" and had 3" heels on and is 5'8". There is no way that Emma is 5'6" to 5'6.5". That video proves it because when they are standing next to each other (please, don't even go there with the hugging because you know perfectly well that could hurt height) JKR is taller. Face it, Emma is 5'5".

Rob, I wouldn't even worry about judging Evanna's pics. They show feet - which Anna always advocates for, and everyone is standing pretty good. She just doesn't like them because it proves Rupert is taller than Emma while she'll pic that picture of the camera focused on Emma as proof that she is taller than Rupert. LOL
Anna said on 11/Oct/07
I watched the video and when JK and Emma hugged and then looked at each other, it looked as if Emma had a slight advantage - 1/4" to 1/2" so, I'm wondering how people are getting these ideas that JK was 1 to 2 inches taller....it looked as if they were at least the same height, Emma maybe being slightly taller like I said. Hopefully some photos come out because in the video I saw, they were posing together for photos as well. And when they walked out, after Emma had given the award to JK, they were quite close in height, and I would say JK had at least a 2 inch heel advantage. So, if JK is 5'8" in those heels and Emma 5'8.5" in hers, JK would be 5'4" and Emma 5'6" to 5'6.5". And another thing to think about, JK has stated 5'5" before, so she could be that tall, although if Emma is 5'6", JK doesn't look more than 5'4" considreing those photos.
Luke99 said on 11/Oct/07
Anna, have you even looked at umad80's post...
More proof that EW is 5'5 but go ahead and ignore it.
michael said on 11/Oct/07
jk rowling looks like 5'5 or 5'6 woman to me not 5'4 ...
Anna said on 10/Oct/07
I'm open-minded, but please enligthen me Evanna, how are ANY of those photos proper for judging heights? Each angle clearly favours Rupert - simply look at the floor and you will see this. hahaha, I'm either utterly mental or those photos are a bit unrealistic for judging heights. Although the first seems more plausible to you (Evanna), I think those pictures are pretty dodgy for judging heights. Rob, can you help me out? Are they not?

[Editor Rob: at moment I don't want to look at much pics.]
umad80 said on 10/Oct/07
Well, Anna wanted to see how Emma and Ms. Rowling measured up... well, JKR definitely had the heel advantage. The heels look like the massive things that Emma wore to the NMAs. But still, if she was 5'6"ish, they should've been the same height if JKR is 5'4". Click Here - You have to go about two minutes in to see it. And a picture of her heels: Click Here So if Emma is 5'6" like she claims, she'd be 5'8"ish in the heels (they did look normal heels this time around) thus for JKR to be taller than that, they'd have to be 5" heels. She looked to be about an inch taller to me though putting both at 5'5" imo as Emma does look 5'5". Though they'd have to be 4" heels to make sense. So maybe Emma is 5'4" but that doesn't make sense because back in 2005 she was pretty much the same height as me. Maybe JKR isn't 5'4"? Either way though, I think it's obvious that Emma is not anything near 5'6"! For reference though, here is Emma's heels: Click Here
TJ said on 10/Oct/07
Anna said - "Tomorrow ITV will be showing the 'Pride of Britain' awards in which Emma will present an award to JK Rowling, whom people believe to be 5'4"...Hopefully the photos/footage will settle the EW is 5'4"-5'5" versus EW is 5'6" to 5'7" debate once and for all. Granted that we can agree that JK Rowling is 5'4"...."

Just watched the show and strangely Emma looked up to 2 inches shorter than JK Rowling on the stage, and the camera was on them for quite some time so it was easy to judge. Couldn't tell the heels either were wearing though. One thing is for sure, for 5'4 Rowling to look clearly taller than Emma, she would have to be wearing massive heels if Emma is 5'6. As with the Dustin Hoffman appearance, Emma looked shorter than any of us have suggested. Based on that footage alone, most people would guess Emma to be nearer 5'3. Other evidence, however, suggests she is taller than that, so Rowling must have had a big heel advantage. Can't imagine her over 5'5 though after tonight.
umad80 said on 10/Oct/07
If Emma is wearing 3" heels and 5'5" that'd make her 5'8" and thus Rupert would be closer to 5'9", wouldn't he? We know she has on massive heels and give around 3" so if Rupert is still taller, and it's obvious that he is, then Rupert is definitely closer to 5'9". I think a lot of photos with Tom prove that. And Emma is definitely a legit 5'5".
TJ said on 10/Oct/07
The last pic you posted Evanna is the best for a clear head to toe shot. Even then I think Grint is slouching. He appears to be the biggest sloucher of just about anyone on this site.
Evanna said on 10/Oct/07
Anna you never give up, do you? If I ever decided to get divorced, I'd love to have someone like you as my lawyer...
Now let's take a look at some more realistic pictures. First of all, in the group photos from the NMA Grint is not standing straight, his body is rotated towards Watson, thus he loses some height - look at his feet: Click Here Click Here etc. Still if you compare their eye levels, or shoulders, it's clear that he's slightly taller than her, up to an inch. If she had a hairdo similar to his, or to Bonnie's, that would be more obvious. (In fact, Bonnie Wright looks taller than Emma in all NMA pics, although Emma's got the hairdo advantage - I'm not sure about their shoes though). Anyway in pictures like this one Click Here Emma is not even bending her (in)famous knee, and Grint still looks taller. Again, compare their eyes. She's 5'5", he's 5'8", end of it.
The cool thing about Grint is that, unlike many 5'8" blokes, he seems quite pleased with his height, and never bothers to make himself look taller - he's never out of chucks, wears an extremely height-unflattering hairdo, and I've never ever seen him strike a military pose when photographed.
Anna said on 9/Oct/07
Tomorrow ITV will be showing the 'Pride of Britain' awards in which Emma will present an award to JK Rowling, whom people believe to be 5'4". Now, some photos of just Emma have come out and her heels look to be about 2 inches at the most, definitely shorter than the ones at the NMA and just to emphasise my point that I was making regarding that show, look at this photo Click Here Emma may be standing slightly further forward, but nevertheless, she looks easily 1.5" taller (if not more) and you can tell the angle is favouring neither by the banner in the background. And i do not even think Emma is standing that much in front of Rupert, so, she has got to be at least 1 inch taller than Rupert in those heels, most likely closer to 1.5" or 2 inches though - so the heels will most likely be the same height if not slightly shorter than JK's. So, we will be able to see once and for all how tall Emma really is and, the trio took photos with JK during the PoA premieres, so we will be able to see if Emma has grown any since that time. Hopefully the photos/footage will settle the EW is 5'4"-5'5" versus EW is 5'6" to 5'7" debate once and for all. Granted that we can agree that JK Rowling is 5'4"....
umad80 said on 9/Oct/07
Emma is not 1"-2" shorter than Rupert. The ceremony proves that. He's got like 4". Emma's head in every shot of them standing arm and arm is right at Rupert's eyebrows. You discredit them because you do not like what they prove.

If you also look at the NMA pic that Evanna posted, Rupert is clearly an inch taller or there abouts. Emma is standing pretty good as is Rupert and he's got pretty much an inch on her in massive heels. As I said, if Rupert can be 3"-4" taller then Emma and Dan in regular shoes/barefoot it'd be quite impossible for her to tower over him in 3" heels.

If Rupert is only just 5'8" then Emma is 5'4". But I don't believe that. She's definitely a legit and strong 5'5" with the possibility of being a bit taller. (Tallest being 5'5.5" but I think that is a stretch.)
michael said on 9/Oct/07
emma is 5'6 no less.that pictures dont prove anything
Nora said on 9/Oct/07
Evanna, love your explanation! lol anyway, I totally agree with you!! Anna you really need to get over it! and as long as you don't meet her, you can't say she's 5'6" and even if you do I won't believe you cause even if she was 5'3 you'd say she looked 5'7...
Nora said on 9/Oct/07
Evanna, love your explanation! lol anyway, I totally agree with you!! Anna you really need to get over it! and as long as you didn't meet her,
Evanna said on 9/Oct/07
Anna whenever you say "honestly" that means you are being completely dishonest, you've done that a million times here. You've been around for more than 18 months now, going under at least 4 different names and posting approximately 150-200 comments every month (if one counts all HP pages). 99% of these were related to Emma Watson's height in one way or another. Don't go denying that you're an obsessed fan of hers, nobody will believe you anyway. And what mission are you talking about, you are a 17 year old kid with no professional or private or any other affiliation with Watson, her family or any other HP cast member, in fact you've never met any of them. Still, for the past 18 months you have posted approximately 3500 comments, pleading for Watson to get upgraded, without any results. Obviously you've got nothing else to do but to visit celebheights, Emma's fanpages, forums and such.
And do you really think that Rob's stupid, that he'll upgrade her based on the photos you post? The man's probably seen all those HP galleries many times, that's his job!
Unlike many other actors, we've been able to see the Trio in socks, and Watson is as tall as Radcliffe, maybe a hair taller, but the difference is really barely noticeable, no way is she 2 in. taller than him Click Here Click Here Click Here etc.
As for the NMA, her heels gave her at least 3 in. over barefoot. Need a proof? Here she is in flats next to David Heyman Click Here Click Here - mid-nose area at best, that's a clear 5-6 in. difference. But in mega-heels she looks only about 2 in. shorter than him Click Here These heels gotta give her at least 3 in., maybe more.
Conclusion: Emma Watson is 5'5" at the very best. Get over it.
Luke99 said on 9/Oct/07
Actually no Anna, it's quite clearly the same street and due to the angle, you can see how the pathing would look the same. Regardless, check the picture I posted where she has a considerable advantage and she is still not taller.

Fact of the matter is all the other photos show a 5'5 EW. No one agrees with you because the evidence points the other way.
Anna said on 9/Oct/07
umad80, Rupert is 5'8", nothing more. I think those photos of Maria and Emma prove it because the gap looks the same as the one between Rupert and Emma - 1 to 2 inches. And Rob, will you answer my question?
Anna said on 8/Oct/07
To be honest I do not care if you call me obsessive because firstly I am not even a fan of Emma Watson and secondly, I am on a mission that has nothing to do with an undying love for Emma Watson. But you are speaking crap Luke. The angle is perfectly fine in my photo and the photo you posted could be on a totally different street, which would mean the sidewalk would be levelled out differently, right? lmao, it's quite obvious that in my photo the sidewalk was not like that, am I right? You would be able to see if the sidewalk was like that. And what I find quite funny is that you just keep posting non-sense to make me look like a fool, but, seeing as I really do not care what you lot think of me, you are the one looking like a fool in my eyes, not that you would care obviously. But it's just a bit funny that you think that I am picking and choosing whilst you are doing what you state I am doing. Ridiculous is what that is. And it's funny, so keep it up man. Keep it up. Rob, from your professional point of view, what do you think of my EW/MM photo?
umad80 said on 8/Oct/07
See, Anna posted one where they're walking too which could possibly favor one person rather than the other, so you have to take it into consideration. But if you look at others, Maria looks to be massive standing next to Emma. Like 4-5 inches taller!

Anna, if Emma is 5'6"ish, then Rupert is not 5'8". Emma is wearing 3" heels that Rob concluded gave her around 3". That means she'd be 5'9"ish in those heels. And if Rupert was - and that's a big if - shorter then he'd be closer to 5'9" then 5'8". Oh, and I don't care if Emma is 5'10". We're discussing our views and I don't have a need to make someone shorter than they are.

Anonymous, Matt is at least 6'. Click Here - Rob even said he looked a legit 6' in that photo (just to put some perspective to it). And he does look about 3.5" shorter when standing behind them, so it'd make sense that he'd be at least 6'. He could even be taller considering he had a bit of a lean too.

But yeah, barefoot Rupert had a good 4" on all of them, so unless they're only 5'4" which I don't believe having met them, then Rupert is around 5'9". And like with Tom, if he's 5'9" like the claim, then Rupert is right there because Rupert wasn't standing all that straight and Tom probably had the advantage with shoes!
Luke99 said on 8/Oct/07
Sorry for the third post in a row (merge into one?) but Anna; you are picking and choosing.
Click Here

See how that is a straight shot (just before the one you posted which was the same but different angle). Because it is straight you can clearly see the slope which would give Watson a massive boost.

But I'll wait for another odd pic to argue your case. :)
Luke99 said on 8/Oct/07
Also, if you look at the countless other photos on her site with Maria, she is always around 2 inches smaller... but it's the bad angles, right Anna? Get over it. You're obsessed.
Luke99 said on 8/Oct/07
Anna, give it up already. You find one picture and then claim 'This proves X'. No, it doesn't. And don't argue odd angles; the picture you're going on about is certainly of an odd angle.
Anna said on 8/Oct/07
Firstly, Maria is standing in back of Hilary, which means she would be taller if standing on the same plane and secondly, how do you know what footwear they were wearing? I'm assuming you've seen the whole video? And I really do think my photo is better because A) they are on the same floor level and B) it is a straight on shot, so one does not have to deal with odd angles. In your photos, Emma seems to be standing behind Maria and it's hard to determine how much she loses from that disadvantage. So, that's why I think the previous post is better to determine heights. And, furthermore, Maria is obviously standing properly whereas Emma is bending and slouching again, causing her to lose height. So, if Emma looks 2 inches shorter than Maria whilst slouching/bending, she would easily only be 1" to .5" shorter when standing properly. Which would mean, if Maria is 5'7" to 5'8", Emma is 5'6" to 5'7.5", the latter listing probably pretty unrealistic. Nevertheless, you get what I mean.
TJ said on 8/Oct/07
Yes she does look about 5'6" against Maria in that shot, but it's not very conclusive because she looks shorter in most other pics with her, including these:
Click Here
Click Here
Click Here

Then there are questions over whether Maria does really reach 5'8. Here's the pic of her with 5'6 Hilary Swank (from the Maria page on this site), where they look the same height Click Here and were wearing similar footwear. Rob thought Maria looked maybe one inch taller in the video, but that would still have her under 5'8 if Hilary is 5'6.
Anna said on 7/Oct/07
Click Here Have you seen that photo Rob? Keep in mind that you have Maria listed at 5'8" and both look to be in equalish footwear. How can she be anything less than 5'6"? She looks 2 inches shorter than Maria whilst slouching and with a straight on shot and an even surface...does she not? I mean, I am totally touched if the above are not true....
TJ said on 7/Oct/07
Michael, I don't need to learn how to put links in, because they work just fine. Must be a problem at your end. umad80, I was just showing evidence that Hoffman doesn't seem to be a habitual lift wearer, if he even wears them at all. The only reason lift talk has even started is because we expect Emma to look taller against him. I didn't say I think she is shorter than 5'5 though. She could be, but I think 5'5 is about right, but also the max. And Anna, I wish should stop with the "poor Dan" and how "depressing" comments when talking about these guys being short. You make it sound like being short is akin to having a disease.
Anna said on 7/Oct/07
umad80 - "I can't imagaine that if Emma is supposedly taller than Rupert in these photos how she could lose that much?" Have you ever even considered that Rupert could be 5'8", not 5'9", and Emma could be 5'6"ish+? lmao, I love how you just assume that one could not lose that much because for some reason you do not want Emma to be 5'6" and you want so much for Rupert to be 5'9". Rupert is 5'8" at the most and I just realised that Tom is bending his legs a bit in that photo, so, unless you post a better photo of the two, I'm sticking with my conclusion that he's one inch shorter than Tom. And as for the NMA photos, the first two are good and do effectively show that Emma is about 1/2" taller than RUpert whilst bending, which would make her at least one inch taller when standing properly, again fulfilling and exceeding her stated height from the official site. And as for the last photo, come on, that's ridiculous. Dan is barely up to Rueprt's eyes there and in other, straight on and better photos, he is almost as tall as rupert! Obviously because of shoes, but nevertheless, proving that that angle is favouring Rupert. lol. You must see that. You can even see it with the wall in the background.
anonymous no-name said on 7/Oct/07
how tall is Matthew Lewis? Because if he's really just 5'11", Rupert would have trouble reaching 5'7" as he looks to be about 4" smaller while Matthew is bending forward! So I suppose Matthew grew? Because if Rupert is 5'8", Matthew would have to be over 6'?

Anyway, the pictures of the ceremony that umad80 are again pretty good proof that, Dan and Emma don't have more than an inch difference in height.
umad80 said on 7/Oct/07
Nope. If Tom is 5'9" then Rupert is 5'9" - Click Here and Rupert is leaning a bit and Tom *may* have the shoe advantage, so they are the same height. And what about barefoot at the ceremony? Click Here and Click Here , but hey... what about in the cement with shoes? Click Here - Rupert's at least 3" taller when they all have shoes on.

But lets look at the NMAs. When you actually do correct photos, and not ones that favor Emma, then you can see that Rupert at the very least is the same height. Click Here , Click Here - and if you look, I know Emma's posture isn't all that, but again, if she was taller than him, she wouldn't be two inches or so shorter than him just because she's bending her knee a bit and whatnot. You're asking her lose over 2 inches by doing that and that's a little illogical. Click Here - and in this photo she seems to only be leaning forward. Again I think it's crazy to think she'd lose that many inches just by doing this.

I don't know. Rob, how many inches could some lose just by leaning or bending a knee, or slouching? And she's only bending one, not two. I realize that any of these could lose maybe 1-2" but I can't imagine that if Emma is supposedly taller than Rupert in these photos how she could lose that much?
Anna said on 7/Oct/07
I actually kind of agree with you micahel. Depressingly, Rupert looked quite short at the NMA. I was starting to think that he actually may have been a strong 5'8", but his listing as of now seems quite right if Emma is 5'6"ish+. Sad, but, true.
michael said on 7/Oct/07
nah no way that rupert grint is 5'9,tom felton is 5'9 who looks much heiger than rupert,so i cant agree that those 2 same or simular height. and emma is definitly 5'6,ruper is not even close to 5'9...hes 5'7.5 or 5'8 max.
umad80 said on 6/Oct/07
Well, wearing what seems to be the same thing doesn't necessarily mean that he wasn't wearing lifts that day. That's a little absurd. No offense TJ! But Emma was wearing 3" heels, so Hoffman was most likely wearing lifts. Which puts Emma at 5'5", Rupert around 5'8"-5'9" and Dan at 5'5". Which I think works and makes the most sense. As I said, in 2005 she was definitely around 5'5". Whether she grew then is debatable, but I don't think she's anything under 5'5".
michael said on 6/Oct/07
tj first learn 2 put links,your links dosent work,and i agree with anna emma is 5'6 in 2007year...
TJ said on 6/Oct/07
Anna. What kind of concrete evidence do you need? It's like looking at a pic of Bill Clinton and saying "how do we know it's not Al Gore? Is there concrete evidence?" People just know, not least because Hoffman is one of the most famous actors of all time. I'm sure 70 yr old Hoffman would be quite flattered to be confused with 49 yr old Baldwin though. Anyway, here is the evidence just in case you still have doubt - a pic of Hoffman (on the left) and Baldwin. Click Here This other pic of Hoffman Click Here taken earlier in the month (and wearing what looks like the same outfit as on the awards show video) doesn't suggest he is one for wearing lifts on these kind of celebrity occasions. He's clearly much shorter than De Niro, who is thought to be a little under 5'9. Given how short Hoffman always looks, I really don't see how Emma can be anything above 5'5 barefoot. Even at 5'5, I'd expect her to look taller than him with those heels. If 5'6 or 5'7, she'd be starting to tower him.
lila said on 6/Oct/07
So ANNA IS SEE YOU AVOIDED MY QUESTION! Why can't you ever argue against anybody's observations. It's because most people think Emma is 5' 5" and that is the truth. You're too scared to argue against the truth so you just put up crap and it's really annoying.
Anna said on 5/Oct/07
Okay, so if this is indeed Hoffman (in advance, sorry for my stupidity, but how do we even know this. they look very similar, is there some concrete evidence), that would mean Rupert is struggling with 5'6" and Dan struggling with 5'3" or 5'4". Have you guys ever thought of that? lmao. Emma is actually taller than Rupert by about an inch in 2 to 3 inch heels (to me they look 2.5", thus, Rupert being 5'8" in his Converse, and Emma 5'9"ish in her heels, which would also explain why she looked so much taller than Dan when standing properly. That would also explain her awards clip. I think she is just under 5'7" in reality, but an upgrade of even .01" for her would be acceptable.
umad80 said on 5/Oct/07
I think it's possible for anyone to wear lifts. A lot of stars do admit their height, but that doesn't mean that when they go out they don't try to appear taller to look good. But when I saw Emma back in 2005 we both had shoes that gave us at least an inch in height and she was never that much smaller than me. It's hard to remember that far back, but she may have been a touch shorter, but I can't tell you which one of us had the better footware. On that note, seeing her in 2007, she looked a legit 5'5" just like Dan. So I definitely think Hoffman was wearing lifts.
TJ said on 5/Oct/07
Ok, well if they are giving her a legit 3 inches and Hoffman was the same height as her, she must be struggling with 5'5, unless Hoffman had lifts.
umad80 said on 4/Oct/07
They probably don't give her *exactly* 3 inches, but I think they're bigger than the normal woman's heel that gives about 2.3" inches. I'm assuming that we're all saying "3 inches" because of how huge they are. They're not normal heels, they're larger. What do you think Rob? Gives 3" or less? Or even more? Click Here

[Editor Rob: they look higher than the ones 2.3-2.5 range, I think close to 3 inches.]
TJ said on 4/Oct/07
If Emma is 5'5, those heels might only take her to 5'7, as 3 inch heels don't add 3 inches to height. Assuming Hoffman is taken to around 5'7 with his shoes, that would fit with Rob's assessment of her height.
umad80 said on 4/Oct/07
Yeah, I don't know where that came from. We've all said they're pretty much the same height with Emma having the advantage. (Well, I'm saying she might. It's hard to tell.) Btw, is Hoffman a lift wearer? I was just wondering... because Emma definitely looked 5'8" at the very least in those heels. And if he is 5'6", regular shoes would put him at 5'7", so wearing lifts would most likely put him at 5'8".
TJ said on 3/Oct/07
The Dustin Hoffman clip is pretty revealing. She has a definite heel advantage of maybe 2 inches and they look the same height. And yes Anna, it it Hoffman, not Baldwin.
Evanna said on 3/Oct/07
Michael noone here says Radcliffe is taller than Watson, give us a break! They are both around 5'5", Watson might be a hair taller than Radcliffe, and that's it. Watson looks 5'8" in 3 in. heels, do the maths yourself.
umad80 said on 3/Oct/07
I think Emma and Dan are the same height with maybe the slight advantage to Emma. But she is nowhere near 5'6". I think, like Rob said, that she thought it because Dan had been going around saying 5'6" so that's what she figured since they're pretty much the same height. She probably doesn't obsessively measure herself. And he has admitted to only being 5'5" therefore Emma is 5'5" or so. Also, if Emma was 5'6" or 5'7" she'd be 5'9" or 5'10" in those heels at the NMA's and be around the height of Matt Lewis when he was in the background. He's like 6' at the very least and he was still taller than Emma. And she'd really be towering over Dan but as it stood she was usually 1-2 inches taller. And Rupert was usually anywhere from a half inch to an inch and a half taller than her. Usually it was just an inch in most photos.

Carla, you just proved a point I've been making awhile. Everyone who has met them put them at 5'5" and Rupert in the 5'8" to 5'9" range. People who have said they were 5'8" have said he was taller than them.

Michael, we can talk about anyone's height on here because it's a height discussion. And talking about Rupert's height helps us determine not only his but Emma's as well. :) Like I said too, just look at all the pics from the hand/foot/wand ceremony and you can clearly see they're pretty much the same height. I don't feel like posting because I've posted so many. Plus anyone can argue an angle.
michael said on 3/Oct/07
lila emma is 5'6 for sure,i ask evryone who claims that emma is shorter than daniel to prove me that-show me picture,of daniel and emma together in 2007year,prove me that shes less height than him,than il stop tiping here that emma is 5'6,she is 5'6 and definitly heiger than daniel,shes not 5'7 and i doubut she will be...thanks
carla said on 3/Oct/07
how tall is Bonnie Wright (Ginny). Emma is actually a little bit shorter than Dan. (I have met them!) Rupert is 5"8..
Ariella said on 2/Oct/07
OMG Anna you are getting really annoying Emma is 5'6 MAX, otherwise she would of put 5'6 1/2 on her website she knows how tall she is better than you, she is not close to 5'7 and I doubt she'll grow anymore because of her age, she is 5'6 MAX says so on her website, Dan is around 5'6 apparently because he is the same height as Emma and Rupert is quite a bit taller than Emma and Rupert is 5'10 actually and this is all fact Anna your wrong I'm sorry, but ON HER OFFICIAL SITE IT SAYS EMMA IS 5'6 NOT 5'6 1/2 SHE IS NOT CLOSE TO 5'7 AND I DOUBT SHE EVER WILL BE SHE IS 5'6 MAX. And this is reality...
lila said on 2/Oct/07
I think we have pretty much proved Anna wrong. Thank you ladies and gentleman here on celebheights. No thank you to Anna for not knowing anything, and I think whether her height be in the morning or in the evening I still think we all stand behind a 5' 5" Emma.
lila said on 2/Oct/07
Good job umad80. Emma is between 5'4" and 5'5". If she is wearing 3 inch heels and she is 5' 6", how come Ruperts is still taller than her in the NMAs? ANSWER THAT LILA! HOW COME RUPERT LOOKS TALLER THAN HER WITH 3 INCH HEELS IF SHE IS REALLY TALLER THAN 5'6"!!!! DON'T AVOID IT DON'T LOOK FOR OTHER RUBBISH TO POST ANSWER THIS QUESTION.
michael said on 2/Oct/07
we speaking about emmas heigh here not ruperts,and if u want prove me than emma is not bigger than daniel who is 5'5 than emma is definitly 5'6,show me picture -evidence umad im speaking to u and to evanna,show me evidence,picture,-where emma and daniel together ,same camera engle etc,if u show me that im wrong il stop claiming thats shes heiger.thanks...
umad80 said on 2/Oct/07
It's Hoffman. I don't know where anyone got Baldwin??

See guys, if Anna was smart, she'd be putting Rupert taller than I am. Because when Emma isn't wearing heels, Rupert is always quite a few inches taller. Like 3" to 4" taller. So if she's 5'6" to 5'7" in barefoot as she claims, then Rupert would be anywhere from 5'9" to 5'11". Thus if she wants Emma to be 5'6" then in those massive heels she'd be at least 5'9" but then that wouldn't make Rupert shorter than her in heels cause he'd be at least as tall as her if not taller. And the same goes for 5'7". So really folks, Anna lives in a world where we should question her sanity because logic dictates that Rupert would be as tall as or taller than Emma in heels because of how much taller he is when they have the same shoe.

Truthfully anonymous, the acceptance speech footage is rubbish. Rupert and Dan are standing behind Emma while she's up at the microphone giving a little speech. So of course she would be taller. LOL Of course, she didn't at all. Look: Click Here and Click Here - and of course if you look, he looked 4" taller than Dan! At the very least Rupert and Emma look the same height with her 3" heels. But in every shot except a few where the camera angle favored Emma, he was always a solid inch or more taller. If they looked to be standing the same it always seemed close to an inch. If she was bending a knee or tilting her head it could look anywhere from 2" to 3" less.

And if some of you want it where Dan and Emma look the same height then just look at the hand/foot/wand ceremony. They pretty much looked the same. Depending on the angle sometimes he looked taller, sometimes she looked taller, and other times it was the same. Even barefeet they looked the same or one was taller than the other.
Luke99 said on 2/Oct/07
Anna you seriously are deluded! I mean watch the National Awards. Watson is in 3 inch heels and in no way taller then Rupert! Check the photos. Rupert always slouches and even then she isn't taller. Seriously, I think you're the one who is living in their own world.
anonymous no-name said on 2/Oct/07
if it's Hoffman or Baldwin? You mean the one who gives Emma the award? Dustin Hoffman!! I don't even think they look that much alike? Or were you talking about something else because everyone here has been saying it's Hoffman and you seem to be the only one who thinks it might be Baldwin?

I couldn't open the video you posted earlier, Anna, but I've watched other video's of the acceptance speech and I didn't notice Emma looking taller than Rupert in any shot. So maybe the one you were talking about is shot from a different angle? I don't know.
Anna said on 1/Oct/07
Exactly michael, good question, best guess is she can't. Or she'll post something that is complete crap and say that the angle is fine. Evanna, you certainly do make me laugh. I'll give you that. But I guess nobody knows if it's Hoffman or Baldwin? Anyone? Rob, do you know? It makes a huge difference if you couldn't figure....and Bob, your best mate's brother knows Emma? Wow, that's convinient. How does he know her? And if he truly does, tell him to ask her how tall she ****ing is, it's causing chaos on celebheights. And to answer your question, dan is 5'5"/5'5.5", Emma is 5'6"/57", and Rupert is 5'8". however, let it be known that this is in reality. In umad80's world, Dan and Emma are 5'5" and Rueprt 5'9", even though Rupert is shorter than Emma in no more than 2 to 3 inch heels, which really makes me question her saneness...does it not make you question that as well?
Luke99 said on 1/Oct/07
Anna, you have pretty much been proven wrong. Emma in 3 inch heels and Hoffman, (in 1.5, 2.5 inch max) means Emma is 5'5[.5?] at the very maximum in the evening. Rob has made the right decision not to upgrade because I would bet that she is not 5'6.
BOb said on 1/Oct/07
sorry how tall is Emma and Daniel? and guess what my best mates brother knows
emma, who wants an autograph or more?...
michael said on 1/Oct/07
evanna can u put picture that shows daniel heiger than emma waton in 2007year?can u post it so i see it,and from same camera engle.thanks
umad80 said on 1/Oct/07
Dan stopped claiming 5'6". He's claimed 5'5". As I said, back in 2005, Emma was definitely 5'5" or there abouts. Hard to tell when you might have shoe advantage. But she and Dan look to be a legit 5'5".
Evanna said on 1/Oct/07
Michael, Daniel Radcliffe can claim anything he wants, but he is not 5'6". Even 5'5" might be too generous.
michael said on 30/Sep/07
ye but thing is daniel claiming hes 5'6 if thats true than ema is heiger or at least same...
Nora said on 30/Sep/07
Hoffman 5'7-5'8? where did you get this? Rob said he was 5'6... anyway, he's not very tall but I agree with you, Emma is probably 5'5 barefoot :)
michael said on 30/Sep/07
no emma is 5'6,if daniel claims hes 5'6than emma is 5'7 thats whot anna is claiming,daniel is not heigher than emma,thats fact,and she does looks like shes 5'6 to me,...
Anna said on 30/Sep/07
Is that Dustin Hoffman or Alec Baldwin? haha, one is 5'6" and the other is 5'11"....
umad80 said on 30/Sep/07
Emma is definitely 5'5" and maybe slightly over. I always say a half inch is possible. But she is definitely 5'5". I don't think she's anything under. She looks the same height as me. Even back in 2005 she looked it as I said. But she had on 3" heels. Bonnie's heels I haven't looked at, but I noticed that her dress shoes have a bit of a platform. So if she had regular heels she'd be adding to them. And Emma is not one inch taller than Rupert... I've looked at the video and she is standing fine and he is taller. In fact, I'd say he'd have the inch on her before she had the inch on him.
Evanna said on 30/Sep/07
Yeah, 1 inch lift plus 1 inch heel (if he's wearing standard dress shoes) puts Hoffman in the 5'7.5"-5.8" range. Which means that Emma barefoot is 5'4.5" to 5'5". Makes sense to me.
Nora said on 30/Sep/07
Evanna, even if Dustin is wearing 1 inch lift, it would have been the same thing...
michael said on 30/Sep/07
i dont emma is 5'6 not 5'4 if emma is 5'4 daniel is 5'3
Evanna said on 30/Sep/07
Nora, Dustin Hoffman might be wearing lifts there.
JK said on 30/Sep/07
chris, i agree
Nora said on 30/Sep/07
I found this video where Dustin Hoffman is giving Emma her award and they're same height! knowing that Emma is wearing shoes 3 or 4 inches and also knowing that Dustin is 5'6! Nobody can't say now that Emma is 5'6 tall when she's 5'6 with heels!!!!
here's the video Click Here
Anna said on 30/Sep/07
Look at danielemmaradson.blogspot.com and watch the video of the acceptance speeches. Emma is actually standing up properly and she is 1 inch taller than Rupert.
Anna said on 29/Sep/07
Look at Bonnie's heels more closely. I'm not going to say I'm 100% positive, but I think they are close to 3 or 4 inches seeing as they look about an inch or two inches more than Evanna's and Evanna's look roughly the same as Emma's. Plus, Emma is not standing up properly whilst Bonnie is and they look the same height so if Bonnie is 5'4" to 5'5", that makes Emma 5'6" at the very least, possibly more as very least implies.
TJ said on 29/Sep/07
These are the first pics where Emma in heels looks even noticeably taller than Dan, but it's certainly not 3 inches as Anna suggests. More like 1.5 inches in the shot where we see head to toe. Anna, on the pic you showed, look again. That is NOT 3 inches or anything like it, unless Emma has a 6 inch forehead! It's also difficult to know how good or bad Dan's posture is. Taking footwear into account, I still don't think the pic offers any proof that Emma is more than half an inch taller than him barefoot, and they could be the same height.
chris said on 29/Sep/07
5'6 - 5'7!?!?!? hahahaha people give me a break! the girl's only 5'4!!! don't be fooled by heels. ron and harry are small actors. you have to see them in person to realize how tiny they are. emma is 5'4, you have to change that info above.
umad80 said on 29/Sep/07
That's what I'm saying Evanna. And if you look at that picture, Emma is bending her knee and has her head tilted to the side, but Rupert looks almost 3 inches taller than Emma there. Thus meaning if she stood up straight, there is no way that Rupert would be shorter than her. That would mean that she is losing over 3 inches to him and that seriously lacks logic imo. And it's not like she's bending both knees so I doubt she's losing much at all. As an experiment because I'm that bored... lol I stood on my tiptoes to be 3 inches taller and bent a knee. It was basically about a half inch to an inch. And titling the head depends on how much you tilt it. That particular picture doesn't look that much... basically I think Emma might lose maybe 2 inches with all that she's doing. Which means she'd probably be 5'6" or so in those heels with that posture and Rupert looks close to 3 inches taller which still puts him around the 5'9" range.

Michael, Dan recently admitted that he's only 5'5" so the most Emma could be if she is taller, and I think she is slightly, then she'd only be 5'5.5".
Luke99 said on 29/Sep/07
All these recent pictures, (especially the Movie Award ones which I've just seen), Emma Watson appears no more then 5'6 and I would place her evening height at about 5'5.5

Anna you need to get over it, she is not 5'7.
Anna said on 29/Sep/07
Umad80, why do you say 3 inches for Emma's heels yet on Rupert's page you ay 2.3"/2"? That's a one inch difference and I really think 2 inches is more of what she's getting from them. And, Evanna, come on, what are you playing at? That picture is horrific! If you cannot tell that Dan and Emma are losing "height" from that angle which favours Rupert, you are obviously hallucinating majorly. Plus she is slouching whilst Rupert is standing properly. Furthermore, you can see that the angle is really affecting Dan and Emma because Dan looks like he's barely up to Rupert's eyes, whereas in other photos he looks to be only 1" to 1.5" shorter, most likely because of his shoes. You must see that you are an educated adult, are you not? And just changing the subject, I think Bonnie's shoes could give her more like 3 or 3.5 inches because I saw them from a side view and they looked gigantic. Just if you wanted to know. But, honestly, Rob, what of these photos? Isn't it quite hard to say that rupert is 5'7.75" or even 5'8" and Emma anything below a strong 5'6"? honestly, if she stood properly, she would be noticeably taller than Grint. She is indeed as tall as him when slouching uncomfortably.
michael said on 29/Sep/07
emma is heigher than daniel thats the point,if daniel is 5'6 than emma is bigger,is hes 5'5.5 she is 5'6 thats point here,we are not discusing rupert heigt here,emma looks heigher than daniel.
Evanna said on 29/Sep/07
Well Anna, pictures like this one Click Here pretty much bomb your theory that Emma is only 1-1.5 in. shorter than Grint. I mean, if she has to wear heels like those to look barely as tall as him in cons, she must be at least three inches shorter.
umad80 said on 29/Sep/07
Holy crap! Those are definitely going to give her 3 inches. Now I wish I had seen those... if she's taller than Rupert in pictures that favor her, that's because she's got huge heels. Now I need to put that on the Rupert page. I wish I had seen that. LOL But I guess when you see pics like this: Click Here - then 5'9" for Rupert doesn't seem so far out now!

Anonymous, no Emma has never said 5'6" that I know of. It was her official website that put that down.
anonymous no-name said on 29/Sep/07
Emma's heels at the NMA's are actually about the highest heels she's ever worn to a premier, maybe similar to OoP London premiere, but higher than the photocall and black strappy ones....anybody else noticed Bonnie Wright is now actually about the same height as Emma? And not too long ago she didn't look anything over 5'5" in boots next to Matthew Lewis.

Anyway did Emma actually SAY 5'6" somewhere? so not her website but in an interview or something?
umad80 said on 29/Sep/07
Emma is 5'5" probably a little taller.

Anna, you need to stop focusing on pictures that make YOU look good when it obviously is a bad picture. You're only giving one. At least I've given several at different angles. Take for instance the picture you posted. Rupert and Emma are about the exact same height. Click Here However the camera angle leaves a lot to be desired. Because then you can look at this one: Click Here - you can clearly see that Rupert is taller. In fact, the boy looks like he's got 2.5 inches on Dan if you can't Dan's hair, so he could be 3 inches taller and that is Dan in dress shoes. Rupert looked really a lot taller than I've seen him in sometime. And Emma looks to have a half inch on Dan, but who knows how the shoes would work...
Evanna said on 29/Sep/07
Anna, Emma is wearing rather high heels, Click Here - these probably add approximately 3 inches. If you call these "smallish heels"...
Nora said on 29/Sep/07
I'm sorry Anna but saying that Emma is 5'7 is a real and huge mistake! but hey that's your opinion...
To me she's obviously not taller than 5'5" MAX! I'd even say 5'5! look this picture! Click Here even with 3 or 4 heels shoes, she doesn't look like a 5'6 tall girl! look the women around her :/
Hugo said on 29/Sep/07
Anna, you even said Tom Cruise is notorious for exaggerating his height so how do you know Emma is exaggerating hers? Just because 5'6" came out of Emma's mouth doesn't mean it's true. An example would be Drew Lachey. He got listed from 5'6"-5'7" by his agency and he even admitted to being those heights, but in reality he was nowhere near it. So he said it and/or his agency told him to say those given heights when doing interviews because maybe the agency thinks that will help their client. And they want to represent their client at the height they see fit. My point is people lie about their height--some of them. What I'm saying is, just because Emma said 5'6" doesn't make it true.
lila said on 29/Sep/07
Hey Anna, if Emma is 5' 7" barefoot, then hy does she barely go up to 5' 10" Matthew Lewis' eyes. That would mean that in heels she is in fact 5'6" meaning that withough those heels she is 5' 4". Oh, btw all you're tehories are ridiculously stupid. Just wanted to get that out.
Anna said on 29/Sep/07
Evanna, that's not really true in my opinion. Many celebrities downplay their height and I've posted examples before. Mischa Barton is listed as 5'7" on many sites and is close to 5'10" in reality. Even on her agency listings ehs's listed at 5'7". And as for Grint, he's agency lists 5'10" but he said 5'8" and Emma literally said 5'6" from her own mouth, it's not an agency listing it's her own words. And, by the way, she doesn't even have an agency listing. Her official website is different than an official agency. She really did not upgrade or round up, I'm quite sure of that and I think the new photos prove that, if anything, she rounded down slightly.
Evanna said on 28/Sep/07
umad80 I believe you, obviously I haven't seen any of the trio in person, so I'm just guesstimating, based on photos and such. I try not to make estimations like "this or that celebrity is 5'5.875" tall", that's pointless, it's hard to tell someone's exact height. I'm not even sure I know the exact heights of my closest friends. Emma Watson could be 5'5" max, but definitely not taller than that.
Anna ALL celebrities are shorter than they say (except maybe Tim Robbins and Vince Vaughan, for obvious reasons). And most of them say they weight less than they actually do (my favourite examples being Serena Williams and J Lo). And, as Hugo says, it might have to do with their agencies. Take Grint for example: he might not care about his height, but his agency obviously does, because they advertise him as a 5'10" guy, which he isn't.
Anna said on 28/Sep/07
Interesting photos from the National Movie Awards, let us just hope that more come out. Fristly, here is one with the whole group. Click Here So, let's just talk footwear first. Emma is wearing smallish heels that give her about 2 inches, Rupert is wearing Converse that give 1/2", Bonnie is wearing larger heels that probably 2 to 3 inches, Evanna is wearing smallish heels that are around 2 inches however not quite sure, possibly 3 inches, and Dan is wearing dress shoes that probably give 1 to 2 inches. I'm not even going to try Matt's height because he is standing in back. As for posture, I'd say all are standing quite well, excepting Evanna and Emma. And umad, do not even try to say Rupert is losing height in any way, his posture is quite good, his legs are as straight as Dan's in fact. Now, for angle, the people on the right (from onlooker's point of view) are obviously at a disadvantage, look at the floor. Now let's attempt to analyse this, Evanna is supposedly a strong 5'2". Yet, even with the angle favouring her, she is up to Emma's eyes at best, which would consitute a 4.5" difference, which would make Emma, wa wa wi wa, 5'6.5" and this is disregarding slight footwear and angle disadvantages for Emma. Furthermore, Bonnie and Emma look roughly the same height, yet Emma has all the disadvantages - slight footwear, posture, and considerable angle. So, Bonnie is 5'4" or 5'4.5" let us say, and Emma is losing what is amountable to 2 to 3 inches (considering everything), so that again puts her between 5'6" and 5'7". Now, umad80 this is for you, Emma is as tall or taller than Rupert in 2 inch heels. These photos undoubtedly prove that fact. Emma has about a 1/2" angle disadvantage and is slouching, yet still looks only 1/4" to 1/2" shorter than Rupert, which would mean that she is easily the same height or 1/2"ish taller than him whilst standing up straightly. As for Dan, he has about a 1/2" to 1" footwear disadvantage to Emma, yet he is still looking consistently 3 if not more inches shorter than her, which would mean he would still be at least an inch shorter than her if both were barefoot. Here's another photo of the trio Click Here and whilst we can obviously not see posture or angle, Emma looks obviously taller than Rupert (nearly an inch actually) and almost 3 inches taller than Dan, disregarding his hair. Very interesting, it seems that Emma could actually be 5'7" barefoot if Rupert is 5'8.5" in his converse.
michael said on 28/Sep/07
nah ppl i saw pictueres to and ye i agree with all, but i cant agree that emma is shorter than daniel,thats so apsurd,shes half inch taller at least,i wont even tipe here any more i think its waste of time,emma dosent care about her heigt i beat to,means nothing to her,but its apsurd to say that daniel radclife is taller than emma when hes not,she looks same height as him in evry picture i see,not even same,she looks bigger,and hugo if emma is 5'4 than radclife is 5'3,thats so not true,shes like 5'6 ...movie definitly proves it,somthimes she looks 2inches heiger in same camera angle with daniel,so i dont know,and i wont waste my time on this any more,its not my life problem to make her upgraded because i can see it wont happen because of som ppl here who claim that shes 5'5 and that she didnt grow,ppl who claim that she couldent grow from 2005-to 2007 year is buncha crap,ppl can grow 2inches+in that time,no matter if shes girl or not,your forgeting that shes younger in trio,danniel and rupert bouth older than her,she was borned in 1990,i dont claim im write,maybe im wrong to,but saying shes 5'4 thats total crap and im sick of reading it,go watch harry potter and order of the pheonix,check out ceremony pictures litle better,on youtube there is so much pictures with her and daniel and in 2007year she looks at least half inch heiger when she stands in military posture same as daniel.Anna u shuld stop trying rob will never upgrade her,but im hoping for new movie,and new pictures,we will see difrence in there...thanks and good bye...maybe il post again if i see less blind people in here...no offence.
Hugo said on 28/Sep/07
Anna, just to clear some things up....Yes, Emma has grown, but many people don't agree with you that it was from 5'5" to 5'6". In my opinion, I think Emma grew from 5'3" something to a little over 5'4". And Emma bends a little at the knees, probably not by choice, but because Emma's agencies told her to slouch to accomodate Dan's height so Emma isn't taller than him. I've seen photo's of Emma standing alone and she is still slouching and that could be out of habit and is second nature for having to accomodate Dan's height. I think that's why Emma slouches, not because she is worried about her height. I bet Emma doesn't give two coffee beans about her height. There can be many explanations as to why Emma would say 5'6". One could be that her agencies told her to say that(agencies do this). Or maybe Dan said 5'6" and Emma figured they're(Emma and Dan)not that far off in height and thought if Dan said 5'6", then Emma must be also.
umad80 said on 28/Sep/07
Oh, I never disclaimed that I wasn't bias. But you certainly are with Emma as well, though you try to act like you're not. But I think everyone can agree here that it's obvious that every photo I posted, which I purposely did as many as I could to show different angles because I knew you'd find an excuse, shows that Emma is shorter than Rupert even in heels. If she were 5'7" she'd be just above 5'9" in heels, making Rupert 5'10.5" to 5'11.5" or more. If she is 5'6" she'd be 5'8" making Rupert around 5'9.5" to 5'10.5" or more. She's a strong 5'5" and possibley 5'5.5" thus making her 5'7" to 5'7.5" (or a touch taller since her heels probably do give her that 2.3") in heels putting Rupert in the 5'8.5" to 5'9.5" range. I still say that he's definitely 5'9" and being taller than 5'5" or so Emma in heels proves it.

Evanna, we usually do tend to agree, but back in 2005 she was pretty much my height at 5'5" and I think I had the shoe advantage so I was taller. But in 2007 she looked to be a legit 5'5" (along with Dan) but possibly taller.
Anna said on 28/Sep/07
Just open your mind. And I know when I say this people are going to be like "oh, bolloks, you don't open your mind, etc." but I don't think that's necessarily true. For example, I used to think Rupert was barely 5'7" and now I think him at least 5'8", maybe even 5'8.5", which in my opinion requires an open mind to change an inch to 1.5" like that. And I just am going to say one thing about Emma's suppossed "lying" about her height. Okay, so firslty I really find it quite unbelievable to say that Emma hasn't grown at all and is "not even 5'5"" because in 2005 she was not at all afraid to say she was 'about 5'5"'. And then in 2007 she says 5'6", a whole inch to 1.5" upgrade. I really don't think she would be afraid to say 5'5" if she really were still that height. She's said it once before, right? And then, if she really were willing to upgrade her height, would you not be able to see that in the way she would hold herself? For example, Tom Cruise is notorious for exaggerating his height and this can indeed be seen in the way he holds himself, i.e. military posture. I just am a firm believer that if Emma really was worried about being seen as "short" (5'5" is not even short for a female) the first step would be standing up straight instead of slouching and bending like she does. The latter gives the impression that one really does not care about height.
Evanna said on 28/Sep/07
Lila thanks for backing me up, I think I've submitted enough evidence than Emma lies about her height, she isn't even 5'5".
Anna said on 28/Sep/07
umad, I've said this before, but you are completely biased toward Rupert and I really do think this is a fact. I've explained myself on this before, so I feel it unnecesary to explain again, but you just don't look at angles or always assume that Rupert is at the disadvantage, when often times he's not. It's just not worth arguing.
lila said on 27/Sep/07
Anna, wil you just stop spewing out random heights, like saying Emma had heels and then just guessing some random height for heels...you just can't prove anything that way, and that is just getting a little frustrating. Also, I believe that with the trio, you shouldn't try to determine their exact heights from each other. Now if you can show me a picture of Emma standing next to somebody that is clearly 5' 8" or 5' 7" and her being the same eight as them, then I will agree with you, but as of right now, the fact that your 70+ posts give us no valuable proof that Emma is any taller than 5' 5" (I actually think that she is shorter than that; closer to 5' 4"). I think the best picture to disprove that she is not anywhere near 5' 7" is where Tamsin Eggerton is wearing VERY SMALL HEELS that probably only give her 5' 9" frame 2 inches over Emma, and there appears to be over half a foot of space between he two. You can't say it's any less than that, it's so obvious. Plus the one with David Heyman where he towers over her.... even the fact that he has a 1" advantage with is shoes does not make up for the amazing amount of difference in height between the two. Please Anna, just stop wasting your time, your post don't even make sense anymore.
umad80 said on 27/Sep/07
You're right. I think Getty had him down as David Barron. I should remember not to pay attention to those. But one thing is for certain, you're bad at judging height. : In most photos, Rupert is clearly a half inch taller than Emma at the Paris premiere. If she is closer to the front, they tend to be the same height. So if they both stood up straight it's quite obvious that Rupert would have a half inch to a whole inch on her in heels.

Like this: Click Here - This is the better photo of Emma with not really bending her knees and slouching. Still a bit off, but when you add the fact that Rupert is leaning into her and bending down a bit, it's obvious that Rupert would still be taller. Probably by an inch. Maybe even more. Just hard to tell.

Click Here - Rupert leaning to one side, head cocked to the other, and Emma closer to the camera in that angle and they're pretty much the same height. Take the angle away, have them stand up straight, and Rupert would be taller.

Click Here - Now, another good pic of Emma because she is only bending her knee slightly and Rupert isn't leaning in as much and he has practically an inch on her.

Click Here - Now, Emma is slouching and not standing straight, but she is closer to the camera and Rupert is leaning into her and he's still a half inch taller.

These are just a few photos where you can see feet and whatnot. But most of them are still like this. Rupert having a half inch to an inch on Emma in practically every photo unless she's a lot closer to the camera or he's leaning a lot more than other photos and then they're the same height. But not one photo of them at the premiere have her being taller.
michael said on 27/Sep/07
ye i agree with anna,and emma is definitly 5'6 i dont think that shes 5'7 ana,she dosent look that hight to me,that woud be like 1.5 inces on daniel,she dosent real like like 4cm heiger than him i think:)thanks
Anna said on 27/Sep/07
uamd, that's not David Barron in the photo you posted. I have no idea who that is, but I'm quite sure that's not Barron. And, just for your information, Emma was wearing flats at the LA premiere, not heels such as those at the Paris premiere which gave her 2 inches and in which she was as tall if not slightly taller than Rupert. In no way did Rupert have a solid inch on Emma when she was in heels. That's risible. She was ~ his height if not a 1/2" or so taller, you must know this? Stop kidding yourself, Rupert is not going to be listed as an inch above what he stated his height was, is he? No offence intended, but it just doesn't make sense in my opinion.
umad80 said on 26/Sep/07
They are massive heels. I've been wondering if they are more than the suggested 2.3" for regular heels. Just that Emma's heels look like they could give closer to 3 inches. But yeah, even with Rupert leaning his head considerably, he's still got a solid inch if not more on Emma with the shoe disadvantage.

Oh, Evanna, is David Barron really 5'7"? Because there was a picture of him and Rupert together and even with Rupert's considerable lean into him, he's still taller and Mr. Barron had dress shoes on. This should probably be on Rupert's page, but... Click Here - if Barron is 5'7" barefoot, 5'8.25" in dress shoes, and Rupert is leaning enough to take off an inch or two and is still maybe a quater taller with the lean... I think it's safe to assume that Rupert is a lot taller than 5'7.75" for sure. And imo definitely taller than 5'8"! And proves that he's taller than a heeled Emma.
Anna said on 26/Sep/07
Firstly, we can't see how they are standing, I'm sorry and there is a good chance that if Emma stood up straight, she'd be about 2 inches shorter than Barron, thus making her 5'6"/5'7" depending on Barron's shoes. By the way, that's considering 1 to 2 inch shoes for Barron, which is probably underestimating them a bit. And if that's a 3 inch difference between Barron and Heyman, then the gap between Rupert and Emma is about one inch at most. Rob, you should really upgrade both Rupert and Emma as soon as possible, yeah?
michael said on 26/Sep/07
no emma is 5'6 and she is half inch heigher than dann,and im sure rob will upgrade her in future...
Evanna said on 26/Sep/07
Let's hope the link works Click Here . That's the photo I was talking about, Watson with 5'10" David Heyman and 5'7"max David Barron - she's in flats, both Davids in dress shoes. She isn't a hair over 5'5", in fact possibly shorter.
Anna said on 26/Sep/07
It's all opinion. And would it not be better to use photos where they are all on a straight line, rather than photos like such where they are all on different levels? That is just rudamentary knowledge. And it seems like Rob will upgrade both Rupert and Emma, so we'll see who's right in the near future.
TJ said on 25/Sep/07
Anna, what are you talking about? You just described a pic where Emma is close to one inch taller and said God knows how much taller she would be if standing up straight. Only trouble is, she is NOT one inch taller in the pic. In fact, Dan is considerably taller than her. She certainly appears to be losing some height with posture, but then Dan's head isn't straight either. I've drawn lines on the pic to show this. Click Here How can anyone see Emma as one inch taller in that pic??? Anyway, it's perhaps redundant if anon is right and they are sitting down. Next to it, I've added a pic from the recent premiere and also drawn a line across their eyes. Dan's eyes are just a tiny amount higher, although his posture is better than Emma's for sure. However, that is countered by the fact that she's in reasonable size heels. The insert shows the heels she was wearing. Take off the shoe advantage and she is easily 1 inch shorter, if not more. Give her better posture and they are maybe the same. No way does that pic suggest she could be an inch or more taller than Dan. She WOULD be easily taller than him in those heels if that were the case, even with the posture. As for Rupert, he's losing more from posture than Emma and is still a good 1.5 inches taller than her, even when she has those heels on. Click Here
umad80 said on 25/Sep/07
That amused me too anonymous. ;) Like I said, I might give Emma a half inch advantage, but nothing else. And I never said Dan's hair gives him an inch. Shoes yet, but not hair. But it is flattering enough to make him look taller than he is! I also noticed that she and Katie are pretty much the same height, both in heels. So it's obvious that she is pretty much around 5'5".
Anna said on 25/Sep/07
I think the problem with those photos, michael, is Dan's footwear because in many of the photos he looks nearly as tall as Rupert. Dodgy footwear. So, I think some of the other photos such as the printing ceremony photos are better to judge, just my opinion. And I may visit this site a lot, but, believe, it's all for a cause I don't just obsessively do this for fun, and as I've said, I'm not a huge fan of EW. But Rob, do you think you'll upgrade her soon?

[Editor Rob: I don't know, I'd probably put rupert to 5ft 8 first before her though.]
michael said on 25/Sep/07
well if u saw my link,there is 1 picture,where is emma and daniel together,she is in hells he has somthing to,and they look like same size,so in my opinion they are same size,even to i woud say emma is more like 5'6 daniel 5.5'5. and anna is not obsessive*?shes just fan,we all are,plz check out my link u will see 1 picture,same engle,and they bouth have milatary standing here:)
Luke99 said on 25/Sep/07
Anna, you are always on Emma Watson's page. Don't you think it's a bit obsessive? She is 5'6 give or take an inch. How do you think constant photos of different angles are going to give you a precise measurement? In the kindest way possible, move on. :)
anonymous no-name said on 25/Sep/07
They are sitting down in the last picture Anna posted. Way to go Anna. How about questionable pictures when you can't even see if they're standing or sitting? Nice one.
Anna said on 24/Sep/07
Click Here How do you explain this photo if she is only barely a 1/2" taller? I know Rupert is losing height, but so is Emma. The only one who looks to be getting nearly full height is Dan and even disregarding his hair (which umad said gave him about 1 inch) Emma looks close to one inch taller, God knows how much taller if standing up straight. Look at the eyes. Poor Daniel.
michael said on 24/Sep/07
this link is to video of harry potter and the order of the pheonix premiere som nice pictures,where rupert,emma and dan stand to each other-Click Here not sure any more in emmas height
Anna said on 24/Sep/07
Evanna, honestly, not fussed over here, simply not fussed. As I said, I really do not care. You can continue to post such comments, literally count the number of times I've posted, and generally just waste your time, but I honestly do not care. I'm not bothered. and the thing I find quite funny, again, is that you are attempting to humiliate me when a) you are 10 years my elder and b) this is a bloody website about heights of celebrities. haha, I mean, come on now. And, yes, I have to say you are right about heels being able to give more than 3 inches of height, but honestly VIEWERS of this PAGE, do you know what I am speaking of in OotP with Emma and maggie Smith? Honeslty, Emma is just as tall as Maggie and she isn't even standing up fully if I remember correctly, she is sort of leaning against a ledge. I'll try to find a photo, but I highly doubt I will. Does anyone know when the DVD comes out? And umad, when you say that Maggie is actually taller than 5'5", is that not totally contradicting your saying Dan and Emma are both definitely 5'5"? I'm sorry to be so annoying, but I again have to say that she looks closer to his height at public events simply because she never stands up straight and because he does. So, if she is 5'5.5"ish whilst slouching, she ought to be easily 5'6" or 5'6.5" whilst standing up with proper posture. You see? I just do not see how you are denying this because it's quite obivious in the film, when she actually stands up straight for some reason, she is easily about an inch or more taller than Dan. Maybe she is just focusing more on other things whilst acting (she ought to be, obviously) and therefore stands up with better posture, but it is quite noticeable that her posture varies from on screen to off. And on-screen and indeed in photos where she stands up straight, she is nothing under a strong 5'6" and, like I said, more likely a weak 5'7" with Rupert being a strong 5'8" and Dan a strong 5'5". Perfect is it not? Right Rob? And umad, I must admit I for some reason saw the Craig Ferguson interview and rupert was absolutely hilarious in it, but I think it has more to do with the interviewer being Craig Ferguson, he is absolutley hysterical, most likely because he is Scottish and it is a known fact that all scottish people are brilliant. and I don't mind dan's hyperactivity in the least, I find it to be quite funny and entertaining. We're all entitled to our opinions though.

[Editor Rob: this site is throwaway fun, things shouldn't be taken that seriously. Look, there is always wink in my eye with half of what I say on here.]
umad80 said on 24/Sep/07
I've been trying to figure out Emma's heels for awhile. They look like 3 inch heels which would probably give her 2.3" right? That's what Rob has down. But it's hard to tell what the bottom of the shoe is... it could give her a solid 3 inches for all we know. But they definitely look to give her over 2 inches easily.

Hugo, I'd agree, but the problem is it might've been early when he got measured, but we really don't know how long he was up. He could've been up for several hours and gotten measured when he was exactly 5'5". But seeing them both in person and knowing that Emma was never taller than me back in 2005, she's definitely 5'5"... maybe 5'5.5" at the most. And she and Dan do look pretty much the same size, even barefoot, so they're both definitely 5'5".
Evanna said on 24/Sep/07
Posh Beckham and Lily Allen wear platforms which give them 7 inches! ;)
lila said on 24/Sep/07
Very few heels will actually give three inches Anna. They probably gave about only 1.5. Read the Heel Height Truth section.

[Editor Rob: for ones with pretty thin fronts yeah, if they had a platform 1-3cm you can start getting true 3-4 inch range. I'll eventually put up some pics of heels in that range, I just never got round to it.]
Hugo said on 23/Sep/07
I think Emma is a little above 5'4" with Dan being shorter. Now, someone had mentioned that Dan said in an interview that he is 5'5" IN THE MORNING. That means he will shrink from 5'5".
Evanna said on 23/Sep/07
Rob you are the greatest, as usual! I especially liked the :P thing...
Anna, you've posted comments 73 TIMES on this page only, from 30 July to 23 September! Add to that your comments on other Harry Potter actors' pages, there has to be at least 200 of your posts just in the past two months!!! And some of them are as long as JK Rowling's books! If that's not obsessed, then I don't know what is... *shrugs*
michael said on 23/Sep/07
emma is 5'6 definitly,i think she needs to get upgrade....
umad80 said on 23/Sep/07
Actually Dan bugs me. He's hyper and talks like he's been on an episode of Dawson's Creek. Rupert to me is himself and very entertaining. When I saw him at Craig Ferguson (and I do mean at because I was in the studio audience) it was all very funny and hysterical. I never enjoyed an interview more!

Maggie Smith is not 5'5" because she and Rupert were the same height in GoF and she was taller than Dan in GoF. I don't know how tall she is... 5'7.5"? 5'8"? I don't know what shoes they put her in though. But she definitely towered over Dan in GoF. And can you provide pics of Emma next to Maggie Smith?

I agree with you Rob. Dan started saying 5'6" so it wouldn't surprise me if Emma thought that since she and Dan are pretty much the same height, she figured she was 5'6". lol
Anna said on 23/Sep/07
And just had to mention another thing about your comment Rob. haha. Well, she may have done so, but then in that interview I posted (where Dan says he's 5'5" and 'so depressed" about it) she obviously heard him say he's still 5'5" seeing as she was standing right next to him, but then she still posted on her official site (after the photo call) she was 5'6". Do you get what I'm saying? If she were the same height she would put 5'5", but she didn't because she's grown to 5'6"ish or more.
Anna said on 23/Sep/07
Erm, could be, but highly doubt it. She knows that she is taller than him, as does he.
Anna said on 23/Sep/07
Also, Rob, when you watch OotP, notice the sacking of Trelawney scene. Emma is standing in her regular flats and then maggie Smith (5'5"?) walks past in heels that look to be about 3 inches because she is about 1/4" taller than 5'7.75" Emma thompson. What was quite peculiar is the fact that Emma Watson was actually nearly as tall if not taller than maggie smith in the said footwear. So, let's say that EW gets 1 inch in her school flats, but that still puts her at a solid 5'6.75", if not 5'7". I just found it to be quite interesting and people of this site were saying they want to see EW with other actors and there you go, that would put her at barely shorter than the 5'7.75" Emma Thompson.
Anna said on 23/Sep/07
Yeah, without a doubt, rupert is a strong 5'8", but when I begin to question a person's judgement is when they say Rupert is 5'8" and Emma is 5'4" or 5'5" because that is truly not a 3 or even 4 inch gap. It just is not at all. Not even when Rupert is wearing slightly height boosting footwear such as in OotP (although let us remember that, according to umad, they would never give Rupert height boosting footwear, they just wouldn't do that). I'm not trying to be rude umad, but when you look back on your comments you cannot help but realise that you are being quite biased in regards to Rupert. You say that the crew would not give Rupert footwear (something that wouldn't even be his choice) that would boost his height yet you are ever so eager to advocate the possibility that Dan may wear lifts or "special shoes" to events. Well, Rupert really is not THAT much taller than dan and he is the one who is supposed to be tall, so I am guessing it would be quite convinient to slip him in some height enhancing footwear. And, Rob, just curious of your opinion, if Emma really hadn't grown b/w GoF and OotP, why would she say she was "about 5'5"" and then update it to 5'6" on her official site? Don't you think that would be a really petty thing to do if she really hadn't grown that 1 to 2 inches? I really don't think she'd be afraid to say she was still 5'5" if she truly was. Also, before OotP Dan was never willing to admit that he was shorter than Emma (because i really don't think he was) but now he suddenly reveals he is 5'5" and Emma is 5'6". Again, it just points one to the conclusion that Dan is 5'5" and Emma is taller at 5'6" or slightly under 5'7".

[Editor Rob: maybe because dan started saying 5ft 6 she thought, bugger this, I'm 5ft 6 then aswell! :P]
Anna said on 23/Sep/07
I honestly could not care less about what people on this site think of me. Go ahead, think me mental, I really don't care. I'm not here to make friends. And, umad80, you must admit that Rupert is quite boring at times in interviews whereas Dan is very entertaining and lively. Certainly no offence to Rupert, he seems like a cool guy, but I do think it's true. And Rob was willing to admit that because it was that one specific shot where we couldn't even see what the angle was like. At least that's my take on it because he still hasn't even upgraded Rupert to 5'8" and a 4 inch difference would constitue a 5'9" listing for Rupert.

[Editor Rob: but he maybe might go to 5ft 8, it never is ruled out. Nothing is ruled out on here, except the truly ludicrous like say 5ft 10 Sly....joking ;)]
umad80 said on 23/Sep/07
Uh, Rob, why are you allowing Anna to insult the actors? She's obviously upset that Evanna has proven how crazy she is with different names, and lies about height and her age. So insulting Rupert because Evanna calls her out is a bit much.

It's 4 inches between him and Radcliffe and Watson barefoot. Even Rob was willing to admit that. Emma is not 5'6" or 5'7". She is not taller than me. She might be 5'5.5" as I said, but she's definitely nothing taller than that. You need to come to terms with that.
Anna said on 23/Sep/07
You are saying get a life to me? I am not the one who is 29 and apparently obsessed with 19-year-old Rupert Grint. Have you ever watched an interview with him? He has the personality of a bare bit of paper. He may be taller than Dan, but in no way is the difference 4 inches; it's 3 inches at best.
Evanna said on 23/Sep/07
Anna, you've just confirmed my observation that Emma's height is obviously an emotional issue for you (for reasons luckily unknown to me). You can't deny it, just look at the number and the size of your posts. Get a life.
Evanna said on 23/Sep/07
umad80, Tamsin is not that tall, there was a picture of her and Rowan Atkinson here before, and she looked about 5'9" to 5'10" max, i.e. 6 ft. in heels.
Michael, that picture of Emma and Tamsin was taken around the time they had already finished filming OotP. If she was 5'4" to 5'5" at DL premiere, she couldn't be 5'6" or more in OotP. Watching movies is an extremely bad way to judge someone's height. The best proof of Emma being as tall as Radcliffe are the pictures of them barefoot in LA - in all of them they look exactly the same.
umad80 said on 23/Sep/07
I think it's quite obvious that Emma is no more than 5'5", maybe 5'5.5".

Oh, Evanna, I never saw those pics before. Tasmin is quite tall. You could clearly see that in Driving Lessons - no matter who she was around she seemed to drawf everyone. And if you ever watched "Keeping Mum" she was taller than her adult co-stars by a couple of inches to me. I think she is quite close to being 6'. She probably was 6'2" with those heels on, but Emma's shoes look like they had a thick sole and gave her around an inch. So yeah, anonymous, I'd agree with you.

Nora, if she was as tall as you with heels that'd make her 5'4" without (depending on what you wore I suppose) thus making Rupert only 5'5". lol Which, how tall would you say for him? 'Cause a lot of folks have been saying 5'8" - 5'10" when seeing him around promoting OotP.
michael said on 22/Sep/07
i think emma is 5'6,and she is definitly taller than daniel,and evanna i think emma is heigher than u claim she is,maybe its not same grow up age,with boys or girls,but who said that she didnt grow up any more,your picture is 1year old and it proves nothing-no offence... FACT IS SHE IS TALLER THAN DANIEL AND I DONT KNOW WHY ALL OF U ARE AGAINST IT,SHE ISNT MAYBE INCH TALLER,BUT SHE IS TALLER THAN HIM,AT LEAST 1.5cm,AND IF U WATCHED 5TH HARRY POTTER AND THE ORDER OF THE PHEONIX MOVIE SHE LOOKS WAY TALLER THAN DANIEL,AND ROB MAN,CHECK OUT HER RECENT PICTURES,OR WATCH MOVIE,AND FINALY UPGRADE HERE,SHE DID GROW UP,OR ROB?IF U THINK SHE DIDNT GROW UP CAN U TELL ME WHOT KIND OF EVIDENCE U WANT SO U UPGRADE HER?THANKS
Evanna said on 22/Sep/07
Of course there's nothing wrong with my pictures, it's just that "Anna" freaks out every time s/he sees a picture which clearly shows that Watson is nowhere close to her 5'6" claim.
Come on, Anna, we all know that deep down inside you also know that Emma is not as tall as you so desperately want her to be. And don't start denying that Emma's height is an emotional issue for you, because obviously it is.
And Rob "doesn't listen" to any of us because he can't go around upgrading and downgrading people as we wish. All we can do support our opinions with some solid proof, and maybe he'll reconsider. And as far as I remember Rob has already upgraded Grint twice, so he might as well peg him at 5'8" soon, you never know :)
Anna said on 22/Sep/07
If you don't think the photos questionable, then don't say that to me (note I am not saying they are questionable simply to flatter my opinion). I personally do not believe the angle is fair, but if you don't support this conclusion, ask Rob what he thinks of it. And, okay Nora, that clears that up because I may have found you quite mental if you were claiming 5'2" for EW when she is listed at 5'5" on this site (will change soon though), claims to be a legitimate 5'6", and in actuality looks to be a shade under 5'7" barefoot. And all I have to say is look at the recent photos and movie. EW looks at the very least one inch taller than Dan and at the most 2 inches shorter than Rupert. Now, look at this clip from OotP. Click Here Emma is taller than Dan, do you see this? Rob, please tell me how she can still be listed at 5'5" (what dan is listed at) after you see this clip. Both Dan and Emma are in Converse and Rupert is in his "Weasley" shoes that give him 1"-1.5", thus a slight advantage. Just please, she looks to be legitimately taller than him, she is looking down at him and he is looking up at her, which most likely means that if he is 5'5" she is at the very least 5'5.25", but the gap seems to be much bigger than that, it is actually quite noticeable. And, I just had to post this comment of someone's on here because I found it quite amusing

"[this is good]
SO AWESOME. Wasn't Umbridge like straight from the pages of the book? She had that little giggle down PAT. I don't even care that I've had, like, four hours of sleep. I loved Tonks, too. And Bellatrix. And Luna. And...well, you get the idea.

And holy crap. When did Emma Watson get so ginormous? She was taller than Daniel Radcliffe and almost as tall as Rupert Grint..."
In response to above comment -
"And I noticed that about Emma Watson, too! When she first hugged Harry, I was like, whoooaa... I'm gonna giggle if she actually gets taller than Ron in the next film. Those crazy growin' kids."
Apparently we are not alone Michael. What of the clip Rob? Convincing, is it not?

[Editor Rob: u spoiling the movie for me ;) Yes, she did look to have an edge on him in that shot.]
anonymous no-name said on 22/Sep/07
I don't really see anything wrong with the pictures that Evanna posted, except that they might not support your opinion, Anna. I do think Emma is at least 5'5" though. In that picture, she looks about 8" smaller than Tasmin Egerton. Suppose she is 6'1" in those heels, that would make Emma about 5'5". Funny though, because yes the premier was September 2006 and she could have grown since then, BUT she was right at the end of filming Harry Potter 5 at that point. Make of it what you like, but I still think from looking at more recent pictures that Emma is in no way a full inch taller than Dan.
Nora said on 22/Sep/07
Anna, Emma was my height with heels so I guess without heels, she must be 2 inches smaller than me, to me she's 5'5 but no more.
Anna said on 22/Sep/07
okay, so according to you nora, she's about 5'2" because she was wearing ~2 inch heels there, right? And michael, she can't prove it, so she just posts crap picturs, and Evanna, your angle analysing skills are quite horrible, my God, those photos are not even worh looking at. Now I understand why Rob doesn't listen to your and umad's 5'9" claims for Rupert. And micahel, she did indeed grow, if she hadn't, she wouldn't up her listing 1.5" inches. She's not a dumb arse.
Evanna said on 22/Sep/07
Quite, Nora.
Michael, girls finish their growth much earlier than boys, most girls are done growing by the age of 14 or 15. It is very unlikely for a 17 year old girl to grow 2 inches a year. It's been repeated many times here, but there's always a new clueless kid in town. Emma has not grown at all in more than two years.
michael said on 22/Sep/07
evanna ema did grow since 2006year,its 2007 year now and she is 5'6 for sure,that pictures dosent prove any,that was 1year ago,i grow up 2inces in 1year, so dont talk about it,show recent evidences or proves...
nora said on 22/Sep/07
Even if I don't care bout her height, I've to say that Emma is sooo not 5'6!!! I saw her at the Paris Premiere and she was smaller than me and I'm a real 5'6! she was about 2 inches shorter than me...
Evanna said on 21/Sep/07
I think I had posted these pics before, Emma next to very model-esque 5'9" Tamsin Egerton at the premiere of Driving Lessons, autumn 2006:
Click Here
Click Here
Tamsin's in heels making her close to 6 ft, but Emma looks barely 5'4" there. And if she was 5'4" aged 16 1/2, she can't be 5'6" aged 17 1/2, unless she's been taking growth hormone. She's shorter-average, with short legs, and won't grow anymore.
By the way, go to Getty and type Emma Watson David Heyman David Barron, there's a very recent photo of the three at the OotP LA premiere, a nice straight shot and Emma still looks only about 5'4". I can't be bothered to post links to Getty, as they usually don't work. Can anyone do that for me?
Anna said on 20/Sep/07
Well, yeah, she's not exactly skinny, but what the hell, model-esque is not standing up striaght. What a load of rubbish. If she's 5'4", Rupert's 5'6" tops and Dan is about 5'2" or 5'3". Neither are true, obviously. Micahel is totally correct. come on Rob, give us the DL?
michael said on 20/Sep/07
yes rob,emma did grow man,shes like 5'6 for sure,just upgrade her,its true that she is much heigher now:)
Devon said on 20/Sep/07
She doesn't stands up straight because she thinks it makes her look model-y... but she's not, she's just short, and fat. I give her 5' 4"
Anna said on 20/Sep/07
Yes, anonymous, that is quite correct with the average height, but anyway, I just find it more plausible that she would downplay slightly rather than add extra inches because if she were fussed about her height, she would stand up straight. And Rob, just say something to us, this is getting ridiculous. There is absolutely no way that you can see GoF, then OotP and say that EW hasn't grown at least a little bit. It's quite noticeable.
Anonymous no-name said on 20/Sep/07
She's not short indeed. The average height for a UK woman is 5'3" or 5'4". Anyway, when she stands up straight she's a tad taller than Dan, but I have yet to see a pic where they're lined up, Emma is slouching AND taller. 'why don't you believe her when she says 5'6"?' LOL believing she downplayed her height is different from believing she added a bit?
Anna said on 19/Sep/07
Honestly micahel! Rob, this is so bloody annoying, please just upgrade her, she's not short! There is absolutely no way she is nearly an inch shorter than Kate Moss, no way at all. She's easily 5'6" and I think you know it. And, yeah, I am so excited for both movies, they are going to be amazing. And, yeah, they should make Dan take those growth pills (would those still work for him?) and give Rupert some huge lifts because I honestly think his height situation is more important for the books. Right? And just discussing people, I don't care how tall they are.
michael said on 19/Sep/07
yes lol,they all all short,its gona be funny to watch it,but movie 6 and 7 are definitly hardest to make,so many things to do,they must be at least 3haurs long bouth... if its gona be less it will sox,and i agree to that emma is 5'6 rob just upgrade here:)she did grow up lol...
AES said on 17/Sep/07
Ha ha, yeah, the next movie should hopefully be awesome, but I don't know how we're supposed to see Harry growing about a foot in the summer between the 5th and the 6th book, and Ron about 4 inches (according to the 6th book).
Anna said on 16/Sep/07
Yeah, I really do agree michael, the next movie is going to be amazingly brilliant. But, okay Rob, that may explain why you have yet to upgrade her. But, honestly, it's quite ridiculous. I mean, why do you not believe her when she says she is 5'6", Dan has said they are taller than him, she looks taller in the movie, and she is as tall or taller than him in photos when a) she is slouching/bending and he is standing with military posture and b) she has a footweard disadvantage?? I mean, I really don't see why you would not upgrade her at least to 5'6", she is easily that? Just give us some insight man, it's getting so annoying. You just really need to upgrade EW, period. Or downgrade Dan to 5'4" and Rupert to 5'6" or 5'7", which they both are obviously not.
Anna said on 15/Sep/07
Evanna, we (at least I) were joking around because he made a comment on Devon's page that he may favoru the scots and irish a bit and give them a morning height. well, it was something like that, I don't really know how it was all played out, but that was the essential message. It was obviously a joke though, as is this page. ;) You know. And Rob, seeing as you answered me in the last post, have you seen the new movie, Order of the Phoenix? I mean, honestly, michael has got the facts straight. Emma can be nothing under 5'6", even if you consider Dan only 5'5", which he really doesn't look next to others. Anyway, why do you not upgrade her? Just to annoy me and michael? And others, I may add. We are not alone.

[Editor Rob: no, I rarely go to the cinema, the volume really hurts my ears....but since I have vip-status with two dvd rental sites, I get to watch about 25 dvd's a month for nothing. I can wait ;)]
Evanna said on 14/Sep/07
Anna, Dan Radcliffe is of Irish origin. Maybe he'll suddenly get upgraded to 5'7", now that Rob is going to see him in a whole new light?! ;) I mean, come on, cut the crap.
Anna said on 13/Sep/07
I honestly think she is close to 5'7" in the morning (right when she gets up and if she stnads up straight) and probably just over 5'6" in the evening. As for Dan, he's probably 5'5.5"-5'5.75" in the morning and just over 5'5" in the evening. Essentially, one inch or slightly more, shorter than Emma. And rob, why does Devon get listed at his morning height and not dan and/or Emma? Have you got a thing against us English? You only favour the Scots and Irish, presumably?

[Editor Rob: I got chased by a gang once in Birmingham when wearing my Scotland top. I spend more of my dosh in england though, I'm there 1/4 of the year.

devon might lose a little 1/4 inch though.....]
michael said on 13/Sep/07
emma is definitly 5'6at least,shes not smaller,.and idk about agencyes i think she is 5'6 and i cant wait for new movie:(but until next year its so much much time:(
Ava said on 13/Sep/07
I still think she is 5'5" or 5'5.5". Like I said in my other post most actors up their height all the time, just like they also change their names for their careers,their agents think its better for their image. I don't think its so great to be taller but I have a friend thats an actress in LA and she's 5'4 but puts 5'6 on her acting resume she's not famous like Emma and has only been in commercials but no one has questioned her on her height because thats just what everbody does. She says if she puts 5'4 she won't get 1/2 as many callbacks as if she puts 5'6". She is with a good agency in LA and they are the ones who told her to up her height. I guess everyone wants the long lean look right now. So Emma could probably care less about everyone thinking she's 5'5" or 5'7" but agents oversee everything about their clients career including their clients official websites so I'm sure its probably her agency that upped her height.
michael said on 12/Sep/07
lmao in my newspapers in croatia,there was article about dan radclife and hes totaly naked pictures,alot of perents where discusted because he playes harry potter and hes doing that,and he said somthing about hes u know,man thing ,that was smaller than usual because of air condition oh my good thats sick,and i do think emma is 5'6 lila...and i agree she is 5'5 in morning probably,thanks
lila said on 11/Sep/07
Anna, do you go to school ever or are you just some creepy old guy typing up stuff about Emma Watson? She's 5' 5".... in the morning. Get over it.
hello said on 11/Sep/07
katie bends her knees and slouch all the time as well, its just how girls pose, it looks more natural in pictures. i'm just saying its possible emma is rounding up, she can be 5'5'5'' in the morning when most people measure their heights. when emma stands next to someone like kate winslet, we'll know if she is really 5'6, so far, she just doesn't look it after seeing pictures of her with maria. also, measuring the trio against eachother is just way too confusing.
Anna said on 11/Sep/07
And I think Dan and Emma sort of have a little competition going with who's taller because in the second film, Dan was obviously taller and in the extras she was like "I'm determined to be taller than you" and then after the third film Emma was really proud of the fact that she was taller than Dan and he was like "by one centimetre or something". And then of course Dan said he was 5'5.5" because he was 1/2" taller than Emma and now Dan says 5'5" and Emma 5'6". lol, I know I am totally reading a lot into it, but it's pretty easy to see that they have a little bit of a competition going and Dan has just given up because he knows he isn't growing anymore and that she is taller than him.
Anna said on 11/Sep/07
What confuses me is the fact that this site still has no picture, whatsoever, with any of the trio. Surely someone has met them and taken a photo? Rob, do you think you will ever meet any of them? It would certainly be helpful.
Anna said on 11/Sep/07
If Emma wanted to be taller, she would stand up straightly, would she not? That's the first step to looking taller and, indeed, one can actually draw a lot from how a person holds him or herself. E.g. You are not going to see Tom Cruise slouching or bending such as Emma, whereas people like Mischa Barton (who are uncomfortable with their height) bend and slouch like she does. I just don't see Emma upgrading her height, it doesn't make sense, it's the guys where heightism is an issue, girls rarely, even in the entertainment business, rarely are discriminated against for their height. It would be perfectly fine for Emma to say she was 5'5", but she obviously is not that height anymore and thus did not want to lie.
TJ said on 11/Sep/07
A short guy who has a problem with his height doesn't really flag up height in conversation Anna, and would be unlikely to make the observation that virtually the whole cast is taller than him. Sounds to me like he has a healthy sense of humour about the situation.
hello said on 10/Sep/07
Anna, why would Dan specifically say he's taller than a girl? It doesn't really help his case. He could've said he's taller than Katie but he didn't. Ur reading waaaaaaayyyyyyy to much into his comments, he was just joking around when he said these things. And Emma has nooo reason to downgrade herself, plenty of girls like to be tallish. But she has every reason to upgrade herself, she's in the entertainment industry man, think about it...
Anna said on 10/Sep/07
Contrare TJ, I really do think Dan cares about his height, seeing as he mentioned that he is still taller than Devon in the first place.
TJ said on 10/Sep/07
Anna said that Dan would "say they are all [the cast] taller excepting Devon and Emma, even if Emma were a 1/2" taller. So, it's quite obvious that the difference is more like 1 or more inches because Dan would be able to fudge it if it were anything smaller"

Er, why? If Dan was the kind of guy concerned with fudging his height, he wouldn't be making statements like that in the first place. He clearly doesn't have a major complex about his height, as he's happy to discuss it. Amazing as it might seem to some people, not all short people spent time devising ways to make themselves appear taller.
michael said on 9/Sep/07
hm i dont think emma i 5.7 she dosent look 2inches taller than daniel thats 5centimaters thats alot,.i think she is 5.6 max,maybe, maybe 5.6'5 thats totaly max,at least whot i seen from pictures if u got proves that shes 5'7 i woud like to see it:)
hello said on 9/Sep/07
I doubt Dan or Emma are the 5'6 they claim, people round up their heights all the time. They're like the same height, within 1cm of eachother. Both 5'5 in the evenings.
Anna said on 9/Sep/07
Sorry Yasunori, I wsan't speaking to you directly, I was talking to the others as a whole because they seem to disregard the fact that Dan has a genuine footwear and hair advantage, which would mean Emma would be easily 1 inch taller than him if both were barefoot. I wasn't speaking to you by any means, I think you are thinking relatively well and you are quite correct, Dan does look a strong 5'5", possibly 5'5.5" at times, so that would put Emma at 5'6"-5'6.5" possibly a weak 5'7" if she stood up bloody straight (which she finally did in the line photo and it really does prove my point) although Dan was standing up straight as well, I really don't think he lost any height from his posture. That guy has learnt to have good posture.
SASAHARA Yasunori said on 9/Sep/07
lol Anna, I have no personal grudge against Miss Watson (I actually think she's pretty hot and a lot more attractive than how I pictured Hermione the first time I read the books). What I was trying to say was that, Dan and Rupert should have been a lot taller than Emma, given that, in the canon, Harry and Ron are a lot taller than Hermione. But then again, the movies have hardly gotten the heights for the characters right anyway (5'9'' Oldman for the 'tall and handsome Sirius', the Phelps twins for Weasley twins, Helena Carter for Bellatrix). And in case you haven't noticed, I actually didn't have any problems believing her claim that she is 5'6'', and I think she does look about that tall.

As for the shoes, Dan might have an advantage in that picture, but you should also take posture into consideration, and I think I think the way Dan was standing, he could have easily lost around 0.5 to 1 inch in height, thus, I think, nullifying his supposedly shoe advantage in the picture. Anyway, I think for now I will continue believing that Dan is 5'5'' - 5'5.5'', and Emma is around 5'6''. Well, at least until I can find some better pictures that can convince me otherwise.
SASAHARA Yasunori said on 7/Sep/07
Not that I think that it's completely impossible, but why would a girl upgrade her height? I always follow the rule of thumb when dealing with height: if a girl says that she's a certain height, then I'd think that she must be at the very LEAST that tall. On the contrary, for a guy, I would think that he is at the very MOST whatever height that he's telling others. Now, obviously there are exceptions, but I'm talking about things in general. And as much as it pains me to say it (beacuse Harry is supposedly much taller than Hermione), Emma does seem to be a little taller than Dan (maybe around 0.5 - 1'). Again, this is just my opinion after seeing the pictures posted here.
TJ said on 7/Sep/07
I did measure from the top of her head, yes, and judged there to be a possible half inch difference. But, there is the other pic where, if anything, Dan has the advantage, so I don't think any of these pics can be totally conclusive. Posture and angle play a big role. There are head to toe shots where Dan looks slightly taller, where Emma looks slightly taller and where they look pretty much identical. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they were the same height and don't think there is more than 1/2 inch between them. If Dan is 5'5 dead on, I don't think Emma is taller than 5'5.5. If he's 5'5.5, she could be 5'6.
anonymous no-name said on 7/Sep/07
I'd really say in that pic where TJ drew the line, she looks barely .5" taller. Why do you keep insisting Emma's hair doesn't have poof? Everyone's hair has a poof unless you have very thin hair and it's combed back slick, which isn't how Emma wears her hair here. I think TJ measured from the top of Emma's head, not Dan's, correct me if I'm wrong though, TJ.
If you've been counting the very top of her hair and cutting off the top of Dan's head yes of course she's gonna look a lot taller, but Dan's poof isn't THAT big, considering the eyes-are-in-the-centre-of-your-head rule. Anyway, something you said if I'm correct: compare their eye-level. Their eyes are at exactly the same level. The difference in footwear isn't that big. Dan's shoes definitely don't give him more than normal converse do, and I don't think there is more than a 1/4" difference between what their footwear gives them. That would make her 3/4" taller at the very most, which I even doubt. Funny how a picture can be interpreted that different though! Different conclusions from the same picture.
I wonder what Rob thinks about that picture?
naxxramaz said on 7/Sep/07
hahaha, oh god! i am from greece and we say all the time that the people from north europe are taller! hary potter actors and actreses are from 1,72 and under! and me and my frineds are all over 1,75 HOHOHOHOHOHO
Anna said on 6/Sep/07
Yeah, that nice TJ an it proves that Emma would easily be an inch taller than Dan if they were in equal footwear and having flat hair (seeing as she looks ~the same height/slightly taller in that photo having a footwear disadvantage and a hair disadvantage - you measured from the top of Dan's poof) so she is easily 5'6", would that not be right? Tell me if I have anything wrong, but I genuinely believe that's correct.
anonymous no-name said on 6/Sep/07
First of all, we don't know the heights of her co-stars on Ballet Shoes, so how can we even tell her height from those photo's?

Anyway, thanks for putting the line in the pic TJ! And they seem to have very similar postures there, as Dan is not standing with his militairy posture and Emma doesn't have her knees bent. I agree that there are no pictures where she looks even close to 5'7" If she's even in the 5'6" range I'd say she's a weak 5'6".
TJ said on 6/Sep/07
I think the second link didn't work, so here it is again. Click Here
TJ said on 6/Sep/07
OK sorry for thinking you meant Rupert. But again I don't really see what you see. You say Emma still looks "well taller" than Dan. Here's the same image with a line I've put in. Click Here There's barely anything in it. She might be half an inch taller and she might not be. Also, to me it looks like she is very slightly in front and Dan doesn't have the best posture. She looks no taller in this pic where they are right next to each other Click Here At best I'd give her half an inch on Dan and they could actually be the same height. There are just no pics that take her to the 5'7 that you have suggested.
Hugo said on 5/Sep/07
I've taken a look at the photo that "coolgirl" posted of Emma and Maria and have concluded this: I've seen Maria get listed as tall as 5'9" and as low as 5'2", but majority of places list Maria at 5'8". Maria used to be a model. Now, some of you may not know this, but agencies round their models' height so they can get more modeling work. Agencies usually lie about their models' heights on their comp cards, upping their height as much as they see fit(usually it's 2-3 "rounded" inches, but it can be way more). Given this information, that tells us that Maria's real height is somewhere around 5'6". Now that Maria's height has been decoded at 5'6", that would put Emma at a little over 5'4", which would confirm my opinion of Emma's height.
Anna said on 5/Sep/07
Yeah, never mind that, but what of that photo I posted? Is that not proving that Emma is no longer 5'5"? I just don't see how it cannot be....
Anna said on 4/Sep/07
TJ, in the photo I posted, I was talking of Dan and Emma and excluding Rupert because he is obviously standing in back of the two whereas Dan and Emma are standing on the same plane (when you enlarge it, you can see this very clearly). Furthermore, the shot is DIRECTLY on, unlike most of the other shots from that event, and Emma is finally standing up straight (to rebut against your thing with Emma in heels - she slouches and bends her legs whilst wearing heels, thus making the difference seem less large. when she stands up completely straight, there is a HUGE difference, I've seen a photo in which Emma is actually jokingly looking over Dan's head, sad, I know). So, it makes it a perfect photo to compare Emma to Dan (keep in mind Dan probably has a 1/2"-1" footwear advantage (I know Emma's flats give her basically no height and Dan's I am not too sure about. They looks slightly larger than Converse, so I am guessing around an inch?) and yet Emma still looks well taller than him. do you get what I'm saying? And Rob, sorry, I just posted something about you saying you don't like adding younger teenagers because they grow and make you look foolish. Don't question my intelligence, I do know you were talking about when you forgot to check them, which is obviously not the case with Rupert's or Emma's pages, but I just thought it might be you don't like upgrading either because you feel foolish. Jokingly though, obviously, although it could be the case. And TJ, just to get one thing clear, I don't think Emma is actually taller than Rupert, I just don't think the gap is as big as it used to be or anything near 3 inches. I would say he has 1-2" maximum on her.

[Editor Rob: yes, you quoted what I said, but the 5 words you said I'd no idea what you were trying to say...I don't add many teens as they grow and lots of the listings would be inches too low, hence the listings look fooolishly out of date.]
coolgirl said on 4/Sep/07
Hi, I think Emma is 5'5..here she is with Maria who's 5'8 tall. Click Here
TJ said on 4/Sep/07
If you look hard enough you can find a photo to back your claim Anna, but quite clearly Rupert is taller than that against Emma. He is clearly taller in practically every photo, so is seriously slouching in that one. I've still yet to see a convincing head to toe shot which proves undoubtedly that Emma is taller than Dan even. I've seen some where he looks a little taller, some where they look the same, and some where she looks a little taller. I've even seen some where she is in fair size heels and looks barely taller. If she was a good inch taller than Dan barefoot, I'd expect to see a very clear difference when she is in heels. That doesn't seem to happen, so I think they are pretty much the same height.
Anna said on 4/Sep/07
Chose not to post what I found Rob? lol, whatever, but did you look at that last photo I posted and if so, what did you think of it?

[Editor Rob: what post? There was one very short one with 5 words after something I said, which didn't make sense what you meant.]
michael said on 4/Sep/07
Anna says on 3/Sep/07
Thank-you michale. Editor Rob is smoking something. Honestly. She's looking a very strong 5'6" in her new photos from Ballet Shoes.-lol anna rob smoking thats so funny hahha,and btw i agree that she need get upgraded,she did grow up definitly...
Anna said on 3/Sep/07
Click Here I find this photo to be very revealing....
Anna said on 3/Sep/07
Thank-you michale. Editor Rob is smoking something. Honestly. She's looking a very strong 5'6" in her new photos from Ballet Shoes.
michael said on 3/Sep/07
oh and that theory is true,that your not same height,in morning,afternon,evning,i messured my height in morning it was 5'10-177cm,i messured in 17.00afternon it was 175.5m cm,and in evning 175cm,so yes i think this matters much in height,i also think emma need to be upgraded to
Anna said on 31/Aug/07
If we go by this website's rules, she should be upgraded to 5'5.75" because we all know it's about an inch below in accuracy.
neelmak said on 31/Aug/07
ok. well, she says 5'6 and when u investigate as well as i have, u will find just a little under that. i give her 5'5
michael said on 30/Aug/07
hm i dont think emma has short legs to,go to Click Here there is new 29 pictures of emma,she is 5'6m i think,she is taller than dan,guys and girls,she did grow 1inch i belive,i dont think shes same height as danniel but thats my opinion only,maybe im wrong but i dont think so,and thanks for giving me direction how inportant camera,or photo angle is maya
TJ said on 30/Aug/07
That photo proves nothing of the sort Anna. We can't tell the gradient, footwear or whether either is slouching from that photo. If you can find a head to toe shot of them side by side where she looks taller than him, post it. As it stands, she didn't look taller than him in any of the pics from that shoot.
Maya said on 30/Aug/07
Michael, it is only natural that you are confused, pictures can be very deceiving.
Anna, I really can't be bothered to argue with you anymore. I said what I had to say. You've tried your best to persuade me, regrettably you failed. Respect.
Anna said on 29/Aug/07
Oh and Maya, the bun of Emma's does not give her any extra height, I looked at it closely and it really does not give any extra height. Her hair is extremely flat, as Ariella has said on numerous occassions (she seems to be obsessed with Emma's hair....), but yeah, she was right about that.
Anna said on 29/Aug/07
Click Here This photo certainly proves that they are not the same height. That's quality, not rubbish. What do you think Editor Rob? And I hope that none of my claims hold much water, I've never liked that saying. I hope they are correct, which I am mostly thinking they are.
Anna said on 29/Aug/07
Oh my, you call my thoughts rubbish Maya? I very well know there are many photos of the three barefoot, but as your posted picture displays perfectly, Emma is literally bending down when Dan is standing up completely straight and pushing the others down in nearly all of these said photos. It is so obvious, I just don't understand how you cannot see it. Also, that photo is from a weird angle, it favours Dan and Rupert because if you look at other photos, Dan is only slightly taller than the man collecting the shoes. Also, Emma is barely shorter than Rupert whilst she is watching Dan speak in the beginning. Plus, have you seen the newest movie? It is so obvious that the crew try to make Emma look shorter by having her stand in back and such. Plus, one knows the pictures which were posed barefoot are quite off because Emma is an .75" or more taller than Dan in the few photos in which both are standing up straightly, which, like in OotP when both wear Conversey shoes, converts to just over an inch or just under two inches. Does anyone else see what I am saying? Those barefoot photos are just not fair for anyone (really) other than Dan because he is both pushing the others down and standing with militar posture, yet, even though Emma slouches terribly, she still looks the same height or 1/2" taller.
michael said on 29/Aug/07
hm im very confused now,i didnt know that angles give that advantage in height,in som pictures dan looks heigher than rupert!???wow hm, but i do still think emma is like 5'6 not moore no less,thats my opinion i dont say im write or wrong,but i never know that angles can realy efect height that much, im very confused about any now:(
Anon said on 29/Aug/07
Her official site says 5' 6".
Click Here
Maya said on 29/Aug/07
Anna that's rubbish, in half of the photos from the ceremony they are shoeless: Click Here etc. Unless Dan is hiding lifts in his socks, your claim doesn't hold much water.
Anna said on 29/Aug/07
The shot is not taken from above though and I know that all of the angles are different, but that one seems to be straight on and Rupert is standing the farthest in back, therefore getting less "height", but I'm not talking of him, I'm talking of Dan and Emma and it is quite clear that she is nearly an inch taller with nearly an inch footwear disadvantage, have you thought of that? In all of these concrete photos she is wearing flats that give her absolutely no height whereas Dan is wearing tennis shoes that I would guess give him if not an inch nearly one in extra height, yet, she still looks taller than him when she stands up straight and even at times when she slouches. So, if she has that disadvantage, would that not mean the gap would be larger if in equal footwear? So, even those saying she is only a 1/2" taller from judging by the concrete photos are quite ignoring the fact that Emma has a significant footwear disadvantage and plus, she is slouching, so the 5'6" plus for her is once again proving to be even more plausible. Right Robert?
Maya said on 29/Aug/07
Just to support my previous post, here are a few examples of how important angles are, all of them from the very same gallery:
1) Click Here the angle is so distorted, Emma looks the tallest, Rupert the shortest
2) Click Here here they all look almost the same
3) Click Here straight shot, and surprise surprise, Dan and Emma look the same, Rupert obviously taller
4) Click Here here Dan's the farthest, but looks the tallest, he must have been put on a box or something. Rupert is leaning into Emma and is still a lot taller
5) Click Here Emma is standing straight, the closest to the camera, while Rupert is walking thus losing at least an inch, and he's still at least 2-3 in. taller
6) Click Here Rupert vs. Dan, the difference is almost 4 in.
7) Click Here Click Here Emma is closer than Dan and they still look the same, Rupert is the farthest and still has 3 in. on Dan
8) Click Here Emma looks shorter than Dan, but he is stretching and pushing her and Rupert down
9) Click Here do you need another proof that Emma has small feet and short legs?! Just compare her to the two men behind her! And she's closer to the camera!
As for the hair, Dan's is puffed up, but Emma has a bun, which also adds some height. It is only Rupert with his awful bob that doesn't get any additional height.
Conclusion: Dan and Emma 5'5" max, Rupert 5'8" or a tad more. I'm outta here.
Maya said on 29/Aug/07
Anna, nothing wrong with that photo?! Let me quote your words first: "...the shot is taken from above thus the people standing closer to the camera will look shorter compared to those farther away." And now another quote, about Emma's height vs. Dan's, this time from Editor Rob: "...at the end it is clear they are close to within 1/2 inch. Even with all the stuff available you could easily handpick a bunch of pics to argue one way or the other." Brilliantly said and essentially true. In some pics Dan looks taller, in others Emma, we can't be sure unless we measure them back to back, so let's not argue about that anymore. As I said, if you aren't happy with heights listed here, start your own website and list them as you wish. Otherwise, respect all the hard work Rob, Glenn and others put here.
Anna said on 28/Aug/07
Click Here Nothing's wrong with this photo, is there? Other than Emma have the angle disadvantage (look at floor) and the footwear disadvantage (she is essentially barefoot and Dan has tennis shoes that I would reckon give him 1/2"-1" of height (what do you lot think on that? I think people are forgetting that....) and yet Emma looks well taller than Dan, verging on 1.5", is she not? That's where I'm getting the 5'5" for him and the 5'7" for him and I think this is a good photo. They are on the same plane and such as well.
Anna said on 28/Aug/07
Michael, you say it right. Although, if she looks 5'6"ish whilst slouching, I think she could be pretty close to 5'7" if she stood up straight. And Rob, why do you not respond to those of us thinking she needs an upgrade and I again ask, have you seen the latest movie? And Maya, I too think that Rupert is 5'8" or more, but I just ask you how can you say Emma is only "lucky to be listed as 5'5"" if she barely looks shorter than him in recent photos and the movie?
michael said on 28/Aug/07
i agee with anonymous1,emma is probably 1 inch taller not more:)still thats like 5'6so she need get upgarded=?
anonymous1 said on 28/Aug/07
Come on there is less height difference between Dan and Emma than there is between the Phelps twins, or the Olsen twins for that matter who are about 1" apart. She isn't more than an inch taller.
Maya said on 28/Aug/07
Anna, Rob doesn't hate you, you didn't kill half of his family or something. He's probably quite amused and perhaps slightly annoyed with you insisting that Emma should be upgraded, while in reality she's lucky to be estimated at 5'5". The reason why he allows you to keep posting is because it keeps his website rolling and probably earns him some money. :)
Anna said on 27/Aug/07
And one last thing Maya, without trying to be rude, I would reckon your vision is a bit distorted because Emma Watosn is surely not petite or having small feet. I don't think I'm the only one who would say that either. Look at actors such as Rachel Bilson and Natalie Portman or if you could, me (although I'm not an actor). I would not feel wrong saying Emma would look quite large compared to any of these people. Not in a weight matter, just in height and such. She even looks quite, for lack of a better word, large compared to people such as Evanna Lynch, Bonnie Wright, and Katie Leung.
Anna said on 27/Aug/07
And I do think we could get Rob to upgrade her, I definitley don't think that's out of the question, however, i do tend to disagree with your note that he does not hate me. I am quite sure the contrary is true....and since when are 2 inch heels said "big"? That's rubbish, two inch heels are not big at all, what do you call 4 or 5 inch heels then? Or the heels Posh Beckham wears?
Anna said on 27/Aug/07
But, Maya, you're the one who insists that "5'6" is not tall and don't say it is....", so why would Emma need to give a tall impression if she were 5'6"ish? However, you know my opinion on this matter so I'm not going to say anything of it, but just think about what you said. And don't say that I'm the only one who thinks Emma has grown/is taller than 5'5" or that the MAJORITY think she has not grown. Honestly, do you read the other comments? We have Micahel here, who, like me, is insisting that the movies and photos prove Emma to be at least an inch taller than the legitimately 5'5" Dan Radcliffe (and in the ceremony photos Emma looks about 1/2"-1" taller whilst slouching terribly and Dan having military posture and crazy hair, thus converting to her having 1"-2" on him while standing straightly). I mean, come on, have you not seen the movie? It's quite obvious and another case in point, the user called 3. He was going on about Dan looking ridiculous because the only people he is taller than now are Bonine, Evanna, and Katie (although let it be known he forgot Devon). I would actually say most people agree she has grown at least a little since GoF and too believe she is at least 5'5.75" if not a full 5'6", although like I've said she looks 5'7" at times. I'd love for you to meet her, you thinking you're going to tower over her, and then she be almost as tall as you. And, just to prove that Dan and Emma are most likely not the same height....Dan said in an article that the cast are now all taller than him and he used to be the same height as them. Now, seeing as Emma is a major part of the cast, would you not think this is including her? And I am positive that, if they were still the same height, Dan would say he was taller than Emma and she most likely would not object because she deep down wants to be shorter than him as displayed by her posture. but, now, the difference must be significant enough to stop the lying. Unfortunate for Dan.
Maya said on 27/Aug/07
michael, I said that Dan and Emma are roughly the same height. And the difference between her and Rupert in the 5th movie is obviously more than one inch: Click Here Click Here
Click Here etc.
michael said on 27/Aug/07
In fact in a lot of pics it is Dan who looks taller, thanks to his big hair and military posture. But it is safe to asume that they are around the same height. And they are listed here accordingly.=?u said that maya?so u want say than dan is taller than emma or that they are same height?no way,emma is higer for sure,evryting proves it,in 5th movie she look maybe 1 inch shorter than rupert at som times even same height,its inspobile that u think that she dosent grow?your 5'9=so im 5'10 and i know to how ppl are tall,and i dont look short yes. but i think emma is 5'6 atm,she did grow up at least 1 inch...

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

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

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