How tall is Emma Watson

Emma Watson's Height

5ft 4.75in (164.5 cm)

English actress, best known for playing Hermione Granger in the Harry Potter series of films. She has also appeared in Beauty and the Beast, Noah and The Perks of Being a Wallflower. She once mentioned she was "about 5ft 5" and also claimed to be 5ft 6.

How tall is Emma Watson
Daniel Radcliffe, Emma (in heels which give 4.25 inches), Rupert Grint.
Photo by

You May Be Interested

Height of Kristen Stewart
Kristen Stewart
5ft 4in (163 cm)
Height of Tom Felton
Tom Felton
5ft 8.5in (174 cm)
Height of Jennifer Lawrence
Jennifer Lawrence
5ft 7.5in (171 cm)
Height of Emma Roberts
Emma Roberts
5ft 1.5in (156 cm)

Add a Comment 250 comments

Average Guess (73 Votes)
5ft 4.66in (164.2cm)
Crypto139 said on 18/Sep/17
Hey Rob I have tw friends. One says Daniel is shorter than Emma and another says they are the same height. The one th!t says they are the same height is usually right about everything or atleast thinks he is. So who is right?
Editor Rob: I feel you need to measure Daniel and Emma to really tell if Emma is a smidge taller, I tend to think she would edge Daniel out, but by no means would I rule out exactly the same.
Corey said on 16/Sep/17
Taller than you think
Ab8z4st said on 29/Aug/17
Well,i'm 5'3 but i don't look that short next to my 6'1 friend like she does

Sorry but it's a fact that she is about 5'5. And she looks like it. Stop trying to put down heights
elena said on 28/Aug/17
Ab8z4st said on 27/Aug/17
She is 5'5 so how is she short next to people? She is of average height

Well,i'm 5'3 but i don't look that short next to my 6'1 friend like she does
Ab8z4st said on 27/Aug/17
She is 5'5 so how is she short next to people? She is of average height
Anonymous said on 26/Aug/17
I'm 5'4 and I met her at Brown. We were both in flats and we were the same height.
Bennett said on 25/Aug/17
As small as 5foot3 and a half
elena said on 23/Aug/17
I think she's 5'4 too.Looks short next to people
oliver said on 28/Jul/17
Rob,is 5ft 4 flat possible? She looks 6 inches(at least 5.5) shorter than Karen Gillan at The Circle Movie Premier.Also at the Beauty and the Beast Premier, she looks at least 3" shorter than Celine Dion who's only 5'7.
Thanks if you reply.
Editor Rob: At times it seems she's not much over five for
even said on 7/Jul/17
164 cm
ana said on 7/Jul/17
this is very accurate, seen her, same height as I am, 164.
Des said on 2/Jul/17
I recently met her, she's a tad shorter then me and I'm 5'5. So solid 5'4 maybe 5'4.5. But yes thin, healthy thin. Petite frame.
fianlfantasy said on 17/Jun/17
She has very long and toned legs and a slender body. Lucky her
Ab8z4st said on 17/Jun/17
The hell is wrong with some users and Rob? Her legs are long. Period. Now look at Kristen Stewart for some shirt legs
vic said on 14/Jun/17
I didn't think she looked the height listed here in beauty and the beast. She looked really petite, though probably the male leads were rather tall. She has a nice slim body, but looked more 5'3.5. Just my opinion.
Hiro said on 3/Jun/17
Emma is 5'4 use daniel as a basis since they grew up together and you can see how they look behind the scenes and stuff. Shes the same hieght as him shes 5'4 or 5'5 or anywhere in between 5 4.50 inches 5 4.75 inches
Hiro said on 3/Jun/17
Beauty and the Beast was amazing. Also the Bling Ring is underrated as hell she was great. As to legs. Emma has gorgeous legs.
Peter G said on 16/May/17
OMG! Emma can look right over the top of Daniels head now!! Talk about being humbled by the younger girl.
Deeznuts said on 16/Apr/17
She has short legs
Legs said on 15/Apr/17
She's got legs!!!
Jeff said on 20/Mar/17
Beauty and the Beast was a great movie!
Cassie said on 20/Mar/17
5'2 is out of it. She's not over 5'5, but not under it either.
Katie said on 17/Mar/17
Emma Watson is 5'4 even Vogue Magazine confirmed this: Click Here
apppleee said on 6/Mar/17
She's smaller than Margot Robbie, not that Robbie is tall to begin with but yeah... google them together, she's no more than 5'3 maybe even 5'2 - she's the same height as Lupita Nyong'o and she's only 5'3 according to this website.
Dom said on 3/Mar/17
At the Beauty and the Beast premiere, seems like Celine Dion has 3,5 to 4 inches on her.
XXX said on 2/Mar/17
Please, 5'2 is not very short, it's closer to average than Karlie's height, she's gigantic, she towers over 5'8 people!
Terra said on 2/Mar/17
Daniel 5'5
Emma 5'3
Rupert 5'7
Terra said on 2/Mar/17
LanaBanana said on 24/Feb/17
Karlie kloss is 6'2 Emma is obviously just under 5'5
heelshealheight said on 21/Feb/17
Emma Watson is below 5ft2 barefoot. She's very short, almost always towered even by average height people.

Check this photo with her next to Karlie Kloss; the height difference is immense: Click Here:
No way said on 17/Feb/17
She's surely over 5'5"
Lily Jarvis said on 13/Feb/17
She's not 5'3" and not 5'6"... maybe 5'5"?
Emma fan said on 27/Jan/17
Close to 5'6 I am sure of if!
A Cold Winter said on 25/Jan/17
You gotta love Emma's height!
John Cage said on 24/Jan/17
She's definitely over 5'5"
LM10-196 cm(6'5'') said on 17/Jan/17
She can't 5'5''.she looks so short next to her boyfriend who's 6'1''.iam guessing she is around 5'1''-5'1.5''
Giorgi said on 10/Dec/16
Rob, it may sound preposterous but I always felt her legs were kinda short so don't you think she would look proportional if we could add about an inch only to her legs?
Editor Rob: yeah Giorgi, her legs certainly aren't that long. With heels any women with average or even slightly less than average legs has a potential to elongate their appearance, which Emma does quite frequently.

Get her barefoot though and you probably would see their length was a little less than average for her height.
oliver said on 22/Nov/16
Rob,one question please. Do you think she is a quarter taller than Radcliffe? I'm just curious. I've watched Harry Potter series and can't tell who is taller. Thanks.
Editor Rob: oliver, they are pretty close...I think it might be only a small fraction between them, but I would still say Emma had a slightly greater chance of measuring a bit taller.
Hdj said on 19/Nov/16
Met her a few years ago.Such a beautiful young woman. Her long legs may give the impression that she is taller than her real height but she still is no less than 5'5
Realist said on 10/Nov/16
Shes 164cms c164 Rupert 171 cms and Daniel 162 cms
Greg said on 21/Oct/16
Have met her, around 2 years ago. Certainly no taller than 5'3", probably closer to 5'2"
Josh said on 16/Oct/16
She's got to be between 5'4-5'4.5
Bambam said on 4/Oct/16
I'm sorry but I have to correct my former post, as it seem I was wrong about my nieces height. She's actually 5'4" and NOT 5'3" so in all fairness I will reconsider my estimate, and put Emma Watson at 5'4"
Fahad said on 4/Oct/16
Not more than 5ft 3in
Bambam said on 30/Aug/16
I haven't meet her but my niece has, and she says Emma is no more than 160 cm as she meet her eye to eye, and my niece is exactly 160 cm. They was wearing same type of footwear. Btw: 160 cm = 5'3" approx.

p.s. It was about four years ago but I doubt Emma have grown taller since then.
giant said on 20/Jun/16
6'0tallguy said on 19/Apr/16
I met her and she was definitely about 5'6""
I don't know why someone said everyone who mets her says she is tiny. THEY don"t dsay she is tiny say she is tinier compared to what they thougth!!@ i can understand it because in harry potter she is surrounded by below average men which make her lo ok 6 feet tall. She is 5'5" 5'6" that's for dsure. Just slighlty taller than Kristen Stewart but with great long and toned legs :)
Jay said on 25/Feb/16
Shalabaiz, that first photo is altered. All the others pics shows her above her boyfriends shoulders.
Ella said on 8/Feb/16
Quick question Rob, is 5'4.75" 164cm or 164.5cm?
Editor Rob: it's just under 164.5, so when you round to the closest whole cm you end up with 164
Duda M said on 27/Jan/16
ROB ROB ROB ROB!! can you please update the photo? She has some really amazing photos from 2015... : )
shalabaiz said on 25/Jan/16
Click Here

This is a photo proof and it show's really clearly that Emma Watson is nothing close of being anything near 5ft3 - 5ft6(The latter is just crazy..).. Jay,Bob and Livi: Look at thie photo and this one to:

Click Here

If you still are living in denial after watching these photos,you actually agree with me. Beacuse its crazy to think that she's even close of 5ft3 after watching these photos,and 5ft6 is just foolish and out of this world.. I still belive i can prove you otherwise with these photos..:) So do a serious check with a serious jugdement,and tell me what you all think. In my opinion not even close of 5ft3.
Livi said on 24/Jan/16
Anywhere from 5'4" to 5'6" she's not tall or short she has a really neutral height for a woman...
Jay said on 23/Jan/16
She's around 5'4.
Bob said on 23/Jan/16
She's clearly not 4'2"... she's also not 5'5", maybe in boots with her hair puffed up? She's definitely 5'3" ish.
shalabaiz said on 18/Jan/16
Duda M said on 15/Jan/16
dude are you really trying to convince people that she is 4'2":

In reply to this: Look at the photo with her x-boyfriend Matthew Janney(Or search up photos with him and her),and think it over for å bit.. She's 15-16 inch SHORTER than him on that photo(The link-photo i gave).. Just go down to the link adress,and you will realise this. And if you still dont belive me after watching it,messure up the distance yourself or get a doctor to do it for you. I am just stating a fact here,and she truly needs a massive downgrade. Look here:

Click Here

She's one hell of an actor tho..:).
Duda M said on 15/Jan/16
dude are you really trying to convince people that she is 4'2" when she is clearly around 5'6"...? I think that you should embrace your own height because it's something you can't really change... and you're not really fooling anyone when you write that nonsense.
shalabaiz said on 14/Jan/16
Victoria said on 11/Jan/16 In reply to this: Is very funny to see that your actually claiming she's still 5ft4 after viewing the photo. Cause this is actually a very good proof of that she's nowhere near 5ft4.. As i said messure it up yourself,or go to a doctor or something to check it out. I really hope that you wil try to check it out. Then you might think otherwise. Cause i know the distance from the throat to the back of the scull,and that distance is between 15-16 inch!. I am betting you dont belive me on this,but as i said check it out yourself or have a doctor do it for you. Emma Watson is clearly lying alot about her height,and needs a serious downgrade.

PS!: To all the people out there who think i hate her: I really dont(I got the all the Harry Potter Movies!)..:). She's a great actor,but in the height question she really need a massive downgrad. Only my opinion after watching alot of photos with her X-boyfriend Matthew Janney. And she's only reaching him to maximum the throat(atleast 15-16 inch shorter).
Victoria said on 11/Jan/16
Dude you're honestly so funny, you are right she is definitely around 4 feet if not shorter... I honestly don't know how you can take yourself seriously when you write that but at this point I just keep coming back here to see what you're going to reply
shalabaiz said on 10/Jan/16
Victoria said on 8/Jan/16 -*second of all you're comparing someone who is 6'2 to someone who is 5'5'' and walking... are you going to measure someone when they're walking? no. why? -because they're obviously not standing straight.* In reply to this i can only say that the photo is FROZEN,that means that you can messure it up really easy..And as i said they are both walking side by side. She's bending her head alot to. With All these things in mind and in front of you,you really dont have to be a wizard to find out how tall she really is. She's clearly lying alot about her height,as many celeb does. I really hope that people realise she's alot shorter than some pople might think. Just messure up the distance from the throat and to the scull at the back of the head,and you will find out very fast how much shorter Emma Watson is compared to her x-boyfriend. She really need's a serious downgrade,since she's alot shorter than 5ft4. Everyone in her should agree on this after viewing the photo i linked to. Just go down below and copy the link adress and jugde for yourself!..:).
Victoria said on 10/Jan/16
I honestly don't know why you're so in denial about it. Emma is 5'5'' and has always been 5'5'' ever since she stopped growing, now, you can tell yourself that she is 4 feet or even 3 feet because it won't make her any shorter as much as you want her to be.
shalabaiz said on 9/Jan/16
Victoria said on 8/Jan/16
Shalabaiz so you're saying she's far below 5 feet? In reply to Victoria: Jeah i am saying she's alot shorter than 5ft.. Look at the photo(They are both walking),and its easy to see that she's alot more than 20cm shorter than him. Secondly 6ft2 is not that big of a height,and she's only reaching him to the throat. Messure it up yourself if you dont belive me. So why if they're walking?.. They are walking side by side,and it should be really easy to see how easy it is how much shorter she is. No i dont think 1.64-1.65 i short..And dont make up any story or anything here,just look at the photo and jugde it by that. Then you will see that she's alot shorter. The photo show's more than you really might think..She's way shorter than 5ft..
Victoria said on 8/Jan/16
Shalabaiz so you're saying she's far below 5 feet? do you mean she's a dwarf? first of all... I don't know how tall you are but it looks as if you think 165cm is really tall when in reality it is a really common height for a lady in England and the U.S and sometimes even small depending on who she is standing next to, second of all you're comparing someone who is 6'2 to someone who is 5'5'' and walking... are you going to measure someone when they're walking? no. why? because they're obviously not standing straight.
shalabaiz said on 8/Jan/16
Jimmy said on 6/Jan/16
In reply to shalabaiz: Well,look at the photo and see for yourself.. My point there is that she's alot shorter than 20cm.. To think otherwise is just foolish.. Just messure it up yourself if you dont belive me.. The distance from the throat to the back of the head is ALOT more than 20cm. So as i said check it out for yourself:).
Jimmy said on 6/Jan/16
In reply to shalabaiz: I think it's weird how you're comparing someone who is 1.85 m to someone who is 1.65 m... Do you really think a 20cm difference wouldn't be apparent?? Give me a break
shalabaiz said on 5/Jan/16
Lily said on 3/Jan/16
She's 5'5'' (1.65 m) for sure:* That's just insane to think.. Look at my photo-link below. It's a photo with her boyfriend/x-botfriend Matthew Janney,which is listed as 6ft1(onlye 1.80 cm aprox!).. She's only reaching him to his throat(and bending her head alot).. So she's nowhere near 5ft4,not even close of 5ft either. Look at the photo and use some logic. She clearly lies alot about her height(and you to if you really mean that she's 5ft4,cause she's clearly not!).. The photo show's it alt..

Bob has a point in his statement,thumps up to you!:),
shalabaiz said on 4/Jan/16
Bob said on 2/Jan/16 : Your right she truly needs a downgrade. Look at my link down below and look at how short she is compared to her boyfriend/x-boyfriend Matthew Janney.. The photo/photos are from 2014,and show's how short Emma Watson really is. She's not even close of being 5ft3 either. If you messure up the distance from the throat to the upper skull,you will realise/discover that she's ALOT shorter than him. He is listed as 6ft1,wich i belive is nothing more than 1.80 cm aprox. So its impossible that she's even close of 5ft3. Since the distance from the throat to the upper skull is about 15-16 inch,you really dont have any problems in finding out how tall she really is:). But as i said look at the link-photos down below,and jugde for yourself!:). PS!: Vogue only want click's!
Lily said on 3/Jan/16
She's 5'5'' (1.65 m) for sure, I met her a few months ago and we were exactly the same height and she wasn't wearing heels or anything of that kind... I just find it funny when people make assumptions about other people's height, like they're saying she looks 5 feet!!!!! that sounds insane to me! Do I look that short??? honestly 5'5'' is actually average (or maybe just a bit above average) but it's definitely not short.
Bob said on 2/Jan/16
Vogue reported her as being 5'4" in 2015. I think she might be 5'4" in shoes on a good morning - I stood in line behind her at LAX last year and she was much shorter than me (5'11) and nowhere near looking like a 5'4.75" girl, more like 5'3". Great posture though. Seriously needs a downgrade
shalabaiz said on 27/Dec/15
Click Here

Something went wrong in my last post.

Here is the link-adress,just type it in and see for yourself:). Emma Watson is clearly nothing close of 5ft4. So jugde for yourself.
shalabaiz said on 26/Dec/15
Hmm hey everyone i am back. And with the same proof: Her she is standing next to 6ft1 listed Matthew Janney(boyfriend/Her X-Boyfriend). Link:: Click Here
This is actualy a proof. Messure the distance from your throat to the top of the head if you dont belive me. Or have someone there to do the job.
To PerA: Your your example is pretty good,and pretty right to:). She alot shorter than the most of the people in her belive. Look at this photo and you will see how short she is. She is as i said before.not even CLOSE to 5ft4 or anything like that. The link with the photo above proves it. Or Her again if you like:

Click Here
shalabaiz said on 25/Dec/15
Hmm hey everyone i am back. And with the same proof: Her she is standing next to 6ft1 listed Matthew Janney(boyfriend/Her X-Boyfriend). Link:: Click Here
This is actualy a proof. Messure the distance from your throat to the top of the head if you dont belive me. Or have someone there to do the job.
To PerA: Your your example is pretty good,and pretty right to:). She alot shorter than the most of the people in her belive. Look at this photo and you will see how short she is. She is as i said before.not even CLOSE to 5ft4 or anything like that. The link with the photo above proves it. Or Her again if you like:

Click Here
shalabaiz said on 25/Dec/15
Hmm hey everyone i am back. And with the same proof: Her she is standing next to 6ft1 listed Matthew Janney(boyfriend/Her X-Boyfriend). Link:: Click Here
This is actualy a proof. Messure the distance from your throat to the top of the head if you dont belive me. Or have someone there to do the job.
To PerA: Your your example is pretty good,and pretty right to:). She alot shorter than the most of the people in her belive. Look at this photo and you will see how short she is. She is as i said before.not even CLOSE to 5ft4 or anything like that. The link with the photo above proves it. Or Her again if you like:

Click Here
anon said on 6/Oct/15
Emma is no less than 164 cm. Here she is pictured with Cameron Diaz, both with pretty good stances... Emma's heel is slightly bigger because she has a platform, but Cameron doesn't TOWER over her. Cameron is 174 CM - 5'8, so I would say Emma is around 3 inches shorter give or take... listing seems accurate!

Click Here
PierA said on 1/Sep/15
Don't know if it's any great indication of her exact height, but I saw her in person at Taylor Swift's Hyde Park show in London earlier this summer and she was about 100 feet away. She was absolutely tiny! Much smaller than I expected. She was wearing flat shoes and all of her companions towered over her. I also saw Gwyneth Paltrow and the rest of Taylor's squad (Gigi, Kendall, Cara, Karlie and Martha) and they looked as tall and long-limbed as I expected them to be.
rach55 said on 24/Aug/15
Both her and Daniel Radcliffe are around 5 ft 3.5 or 4, the VOGUE article says she's 5ft 4 in and he is around her height. Same for Kristen Stewart, nothing more..
kingsman said on 24/Aug/15
Rob, if Nina Dobreve is listed as 5 feet 5 inches, which sounds okay, how can Emma be 5ft 4.75in? She is definitely around 5ft 3.5in.
Also, Helena Bonham carter is 5ft 2in according to her., so emma is about 5ft 3 in if you look at the shoes in the picture which has been posted already
rach55 said on 24/Aug/15
i met her in topshop in london in 2009. she didn't want to take a picture with me but i am 5 feet 3 in and when we stood next to each other we were the same height. i would say she's in that range. her classmates at brown say that she looks much shorter than in pics and is very tiny. its posted online.
marley said on 19/Aug/15
Recent VOGUE article says she is 5 ft 4 inches. She definitely needs a downgrade, Rob. Everyone who meets her says she is around 5 feet 3 inches and very tiny.
mande2013 said on 20/Jun/15
Since when is 164 cms 'short' for a female? Short for a female would be sub-160 IMO.
Annoyed said on 19/Jun/15
She is 164-165cm I dont understand why some people try to say they she is shorter. Just because your are short no just kidding. But really she is about that height.
Annoyed said on 19/Jun/15
She is 164-165cm I dont understand why some people try to say they she is shorter. Just because your are short no just kidding. But really she is about that height.
katie666 said on 17/May/15
me and emma same height;p
Shan said on 27/Apr/15
"Tom says on Apr 26 2015: I recently went to a celebrity event with her and I took a picture with her. I am 5-2 and a man, and next to her I expected to feel small, but I actually felt humiliated. I was smaller by an amount I hadnt anticipated. She was in platform heels and honestly looked about 8 inches taller then me or more. So if the heels were about 3 inches, she must be at least 5-7. My guess though would be closer to 5-8." You're a midget. Everybody looks "at least 5'8" to you.
Tom said on 26/Apr/15
I recently went to a celebrity event with her and I took a picture with her. I am 5-2 and a man, and next to her I expected to feel small, but I actually felt humiliated. I was smaller by an amount I hadnt anticipated. She was in platform heels and honestly looked about 8 inches taller then me or more. So if the heels were about 3 inches, she must be at least 5-7. My guess though would be closer to 5-8.
Ally said on 13/Apr/15
Without heels, she looks shorter than Dan who is listed as 5'5 so she isn't more than 5'4.5 or maybe 5'4.
Liz said on 19/Feb/15
Met Emma when she was at Brown! Lovely girl, she is absolutely tiny. 5'3 tops! I was even surprised at how short she was, guess everyone in Hollywood exaggerates their height?
LOVE said on 20/Jan/15
I love you Em ,your height 5.7 inch
Mystery said on 8/Jan/15
I think she is more 5'3 if you have seen her pictured with Rupert and Daniel without heels. Since Daniel is 5'5, then he looks to have about 2 inches taller than her.
kay said on 12/Dec/14
@AndreaB you didn't consider the fact that Rupert is wearing 1 inch shoes that would make him 5'9"ish, also he's standing closer to the camera than her so that makes him appear taller. this listing is accurate.
Anne said on 5/Dec/14
If she took off those heels, right then and there, she'd be about 4 1/2-5 inches shorter than Rupert and about 1 1/2 inches shorter than Daniel.
I would bet money that Emma is a solid 5f3.5...possibly 5f4. But not more than that. She is a little short and she looks it.
Kks said on 1/Dec/14
She looks about 2 inches shorter than Daniel Radcliffe in normal shoes. I think she's about 5'3.
Robin said on 26/Nov/14
She beautifull in the world
Arch Stanton said on 28/Oct/14
Now I'd describe Bipashu Basu as really superhot...
Arch Stanton said on 22/Oct/14
She's a nice looking gal David but I wouldn't describe her as all that!!
shalabaiz said on 4/Sep/14
I have just been confirmed that the distance between the nose and the skull on the back of the head for a normal man, is about 9 inches by searching it up on the internet.

SO: If Emma Watson is reaching her *previous* boyfriend to the throat its actually really easy to messure how much taller he is then her,when the only thing you have to do is to messure the distance from his throat and up to the bottom of his face.
And its around 3,54 inches from the bottom of his(the tip on the bottom of a normal man's face wich is the bottom point on the head!) face to his nose and 9 inches from his nose tho the back of his skull.(This is the normal distance for a normal man!)

SO in other words: If she's reaching him only to the throat wich she is,then you'll know that she's not even CLOSE of being 5.4 or more..

And she's bending her head so much upwords and he is lowering down his head so that actually proves she's way shorter than the photo is actually showing, beacuse she's 13inch compared to him despite bending her head alot,his only listed as 6ft1 which i belive is only 1.85 and is a minimum of 13inches taller then her as you all can see if your'e using your head/brain a bit..:):)

And This has nothing to do with her skills as an actor or anything.

To all the people who dont belive me: Search for the difference yourself and you will see that i have a point in my statement's.

(for example search for: The distance from the back of the scull to the bottom of the face/the tip.

I am just stating a fact her and that is that she's miles away of being 5ft4 or more since my personal guess is that she's pretty short wich i belive is nothing more than 4ft5 approx and it suits her petite figure perfectly.

The reason behind my opinion(4ft5) is that she's bending her head so much upwords and his lowering his head the same,therefor i belive she's gaining alot of inches/cm for that reason.

For the record: i hope to get a serious answer from either Rob or someone with knowledge,beacuse Emma Watson is clearly lying alot about her height!

BTW: I am sorry for my long post but i am only stating a fact.
AndreaB said on 3/Sep/14
Rob, if you are saying that Emma's heels give her 4.25 inches of extra height, and you say she is 5f4.75, wouldn't she be taller than Rupert? This adds up to 5f9. Rupert is 5f8-5f8 1/s with shoes on in this pic. She isn't taller than him.
She really needs a downgrade to 5f3.75 or 5f4.
shalabaiz said on 2/Sep/14
No THATS not just 10inch..
TRY and go to your doctor or something to check it out if you dont belive me..
Beacuse that is certainly 13(35cm!) inch or probarly more since she's moving her head upwords if you look closely!
Her is the photo again: Where she is only reaching him to the throat despite bending her head upwords.: Click Here

SO in other words: She's not even close of being 5ft4/1.64.
That's just bull****!
shaunfiveten said on 29/Aug/14
I think this new listing is pretty much spot on. I've always thought she was between 5ft 4 and 5ft 5 since she can look both heights, she and Selena Gomez both have the same kind of smallish frame and physique.
Now we just have to figure out if Radcliffe really is a true 5ft 5 guy or if he can dip under that mark.
littlesue said on 29/Aug/14
Lol, thats not 13 or 14 inches!! looks more 9 to 10 inches to me. Thats how 4ft 11 me looks next to my 5ft 9 sons
shalabaiz said on 28/Aug/14
Her Is A Better Proof that she is no where near 5ft4.. probarly 4f9 or less..

Click Here
shalabaiz said on 28/Aug/14
She's probarly nothing more than 4ft9-5.0 the most barefoot.. Her is some photos of her and her boyfriend walking on a beach together.. He is listed as 6ft1 or 1.85 cm.. Here are the photos:Click Here
shalabaiz said on 27/Aug/14
Emma Watson are not even close of being 5ft4.. Her is some photos of her and her boyfriend who is listed as 6ft1/1.85 cm..:Click Here They are walking side by side on a beach and you can clearly see that he is about 13-14 inch taller than her on several of these photos(Just below/on his chin)..
ice said on 15/Jul/14
Here's another photo from the same event. Click Here
:D said on 15/Jul/14
Looks shorter next to Jennifer Lawrence Click Here
ice said on 13/Jul/14
I see a good 3.5 inches here. Rob, do you agree? Click Here
[Editor Rob: in that photo it can appear around that much, but I don't know if the photo is stretching the actual difference or not - in some portrait shots, height can be added compared to if you took it landscape mode.]
Realist said on 23/Apr/14
How tall do you think her brother is 5'8.5-5'9.
Erica said on 13/Apr/14
If we take Rupert's height to be a fact at 5f7 3/4, he is about 1/4 inch taller than Emma in this picture. Don't count the spikes on top of her head!

Emma is wearing stilettos that are about 5-6 inches in the heel AND they have about a 1-1 1/2 inch platform in the front.... which will give her more height that the heels alone.
With the platform, a shoe like this will give her a good 5 inches in height (without the platform, I'd say 4 inches).
So whatever height Emma is, we need to add about 5 inches to it. If she is 5f5, she'd be 5f10 with these heels...which she clearly isn't. If she is 5f4, she should be 5f9...again, she clearly isn't.
So if she is 5f3 1/2, then she'd be 5f8 1/2. Which is more believable, though I'd still say no because she isn't taller than Rupert.
I'd say his shoes give him a 1/2 inch boost. So he's standing at 5f8 1/4 -5f8 1/2 in this picture. This makes Emma anywhere from
K said on 4/Apr/14
If she was accurately measured on a live tv show, I would wager that she was closer to 5'3 than 5'4. Compare her to Jennifer Connelly. She's noticeably smaller. Actresses, agents, publicists, fans always add inches to actresses' heights. Look at the exaggerated height listings on IDBM. There are times when they actually add more than two inches to a female celebrity's actual height.
Andrea said on 3/Apr/14
Emma Watson is small framed, most likely 5'3"-5'4", and she is thin. When she wears platform shoes, her legs look tend to look off balance with the shoes.
Emma has nice legs, but they are not particularly long. With that said, they aren't short either. Taller people, even skinny ones, can pull off high heels better.
Just pay attention to the length of her calves and you'll see that she cannot be more than 5'4".
She has a cute figure and is quite pretty, but it doesn't mean we need to credit her with more height just because she'd like to be taller.
It looks as though most people here, even those that have actually seen her in person, agree she is about 5'3" - 5'4".
Rob, don't you think 5'4" represents her closer to her real height?
[Editor Rob: I think if you look at her with other potter cast, people I've seen (your tom felton/evanna lynches etc), it is easier to see her as somewhere in the 5ft 4-5 range than 5ft 3-4 range.]
K said on 2/Apr/14
You're the expert, Rob. I'm pretty sure that you're better at guessing heights than I am and I may be "prejudiced" because I've known so many girls who exaggerate their height. I'm sure this is a common practice among actresses too. It would be so much easier if they had to be accurately measured before they could get a SAG card (or the British equivalent)!
marla singer said on 2/Apr/14
Even though I appreciate the downgrade that finally arrived, I still think 5 ft 4.25 (163.5 cm) would be more accurate for Emma, while I'd put Daniel at 5 ft 4.75 (164.5 cm), he's under 5 ft 5 aswell. Emma is actually closer to 5'4" than 5'5" and I see that more and more people agree with this... what do you think Rob?
[Editor Rob: you could argue anywhere in the 5ft 4-5 range, at times she can look all of them!]
K said on 1/Apr/14
Watch Noah and compare her to Jennifer Connelly. You might "downgrade" her height to 5'3 after you do. This is based on commercials.
[Editor Rob: I think 5ft 4.5 is maybe a better shout, like radcliffe both can be called weak 5ft 5 range, but 5ft 3 I couldn't argue that one.]
Balrog said on 1/Apr/14
No littlesue I think those heels give 3in, what do you think Rob? Either way she is struggling to look more than 5'4" next to Pine
[Editor Rob: I don't know how well she is standing, I think they do give 3 actual inches]
littlesue said on 1/Apr/14
Balrog those heels would'nt give as much as you think, no platform, would probably add just over 2 inches of height
Balrog said on 31/Mar/14
Rob, here's Emma next to Chris Pine:

Click Here

Her footwear: Click Here

His footwear: Click Here

You think she looks 5'5'' next to him? I know she is leaning a bit...
[Editor Rob: she looks under it, 4.5 is probably for the last year or so been a mark that is closer, like radcliffe both could fall into the sub 5ft 5 zone.]
K said on 27/Mar/14
I think that no name is right. She looks to be about 5'3 next to the taller Jennifer Connelly in commercials for Noah. In fact, she looks quite a bit smaller. She might be one of those actresses who exaggerates their height. Maybe she wears lifts? ;)
Chris said on 21/Mar/14
I don't care how tall she is because she's so gorgeous. That's why i go on a website called celebheights to exclaim i don't care about the height of the person whose height i looked up. Logic has always been my strong point.
Pinky said on 20/Mar/14
ok Rob but I never said the shoes give her 5.5, just that those shoes ARE 5.5 so (for me) in the photo she is IN 5.5-inches heels.
If Jennifer Connelly is 5'6.5" don't think Emma is 5'5"
[Editor Rob: usually I'm trying to describe what the actual footwear gives, I suppose there is always going to be some confusion over footwear and how to describe it.]
Pinky said on 19/Mar/14
Rob in the photo with Daniel and Rupert Emma is no wearing 4-inch heels. They are 14 cm (5.5 inches) with 4 cm platform: Click Here
With Jennifer Connelly, both wearing high heels without platform: Click Here

Almost 5'4.
[Editor Rob: they are called 5.5 but they really wouldn't give 5.5 of actual height, they would give likely 4 inches and a bit.

when you go on your max tip-toes Like in this video you can get nearly 3 inches (with about size 5-6), so the max when you then stand on a 1.5 inch platform part would be almost 4.5...but I don't think the angle is quite a 'maximum' so I think about 4.25 would be what they give.]
Spider said on 16/Mar/14
my dream girl emma got my height that is 5'5
no nickname said on 12/Mar/14
Accounts from schoolmates during her first years at university claimed heights between 5'2" and 5'4". Nothing taller, nothing shorter. I guess you could average it out to 5'3".
MishaDale said on 5/Mar/14
Sometimes one inch can make a huge difference and other times it means nothing.
Emma, I don't believe is 5'5". I believe her to be barely 5'4" or 5'3 1/2". That one inch to put her at 5'5" makes a huge difference in how she should look.
Her arms and legs and torso don't look right for a taller person. I realize that 5'5" isn't really that tall, but to be honest, Emma's limbs look like they belong on a shorter person.
And I see here that she has even claimed 5'6"! That is laughable. Look at her and Jessica Alba who is 5'6 1/2". Though even same height people have variable bone structure and limb lengths, there is a huge difference in bone structure and limb length between these two ladies.
Emma is small and that is all there is to it.
marla singer said on 19/Feb/14
Emma in 2.5"/2.75" heels ( Click Here ) with 6'0.5"-listed Chris Pine Click Here . Her 5'6" claim is ridiculous - I am 5'5" and I would look that short only next to a 6'3"+ guy - and besides, look at Chris with 5'7" Keira Knightley who had similar heels (about 2.75" high): Click Here ...Keira looks 3 good inches taller next to Chris (in comparison to Emma of course)

Everytime Emma appears shorter than listed... 5'3.75" to 5'4.5", downgrade please.
blake said on 17/Feb/14
well I now she is 5'5 (165)
176,2Tunman said on 7/Feb/14
The more I look to this girl the more I think she's 5'4-4.5 rather than a solid 5'5.Starring next to a short guy like Radcliffe certainly helped the impression of her being an upper average girl.If Sophia Coppola is 5'5 then she's maybe 5'4.5, perfect average for a perfect looking girl.
arthur fran said on 27/Jan/14
well i just think she is 172
Charlie said on 8/Jan/14
I just saw This is the End and she looked small. She is like 5´3
Lala said on 2/Jan/14
She should be downgraded to 5'4 and even that is generous. She's probably 5'3.
marla singer said on 11/Nov/13
Emma with J.K. Rowling (0.75in more footwear than Emma due to bigger platform) and Stella McCartney (0.75in more footwear than Emma) who claims to be 165 cm tall (and looks it: with 175 cm Paltrow Click Here and
with 168 cm Kate Hudson Click Here ) -> Click Here Emma and Joanne both look pretty shorter than her... 163-164 cm for Emma, and 161-162 for Joanne. It is undeniable that Emma every now and then looks shorter than listed, so a downgrade would be very welcome. :]
step92 said on 22/Aug/13
She's my preferite ! But i don't believe that she's 165! She have the same height of Kristen Stewart, or really near! I think that she is 162-163 max! Radcliffe is about 163 and Grint about 170!
avi said on 6/Aug/13
Well if Rupert is 5'8.75 in shoes he is like 2 inches taller than her in heels. So 5'4 seems more accurate. My 5'3.5-5'4ish sister is 5'6.75 area and i had bout 7 on her in my dress shoes.came up to lip area.
little sue said on 31/Jul/13
I agree with you about the heels Sammy, shorter women in those higher heels with platforms look out of proportion and push the leg forward too much, usually because they have smaller feet to balance on, average and tall height women carry them off better.
Sammy said on 29/Jul/13
Emma is just s smidge shorter than Coppola in that red dress picture provided by "K" and her heels are probably an inch (or 3/4 inches) higher than Coppola's. This doesn't equal to 5f5, Rob. If Coppola is 5f4.5 as listed, then Emma is 5f3.5 or 5f4.
If Coppola is 5f5, then Emma is 5f4.
Emma is smaller that 5f5. She doesn't have the body lengths to support more than 5f3.5...IMO. Bone structure and length of her limbs (talking about calf to knee; knee to hip, wrist to elbow, etc) are that of a person who is on the shorter side of average. And when she wears heels, like all shorter women, the heels look significant on her legs. Taller people pull heels off better because the heel doesn't stand out so much as their legs are longer and balance the length of the heel. Emma's calves and her heels don't balance out like a woman who is taller than 5f3.5 or 5f4.
I know this may seem crazy to some people, but I notice these things. Shorter women's legs in heels tend to get lost in the heels. Think of Eva Longoria or Lady Gaga. Emma is a bit taller, but not by much.
R said on 26/Jul/13
@Ullala - Ballet Shoes was filmed when she was 17 and the two girls playing her sisters were 15 and 11/12 respectively....
Seen her in person and she might clear 5'6" in heels. 5'2" or 5'3" at best.
ullala said on 13/Jul/13
Look at her in ballet shoes. She is the tallest of them all. I would really say 5'6
PlamBam said on 17/Jun/13
I don't care how tall (or "short") she is, she's gorgeous!

By far THE most beautiful young actress in HW today! :o)
SelmaMartin said on 10/Jun/13
I've seen Emma Watson in person. Two years ago on London and I was close enough to her to gauge height.. She is NOT 5f5 Rob.
She wore flat gladiator sandals and was 5f3 1/2 ...MAYBE 5f4. I'm 5f4 1/2 and she was about and inch or slightly less shorter than me.
When I saw her, she hadn't put on the extra pounds that she did later that her height and weight were pretty steady (meaning as I was used to seeing her). Sometimes when people gain or loose weight they can look taller or shorter depending on body structure.
She was probably about my weight...110. She is a small framed young woman, and her stature around others as well, was shorter than average, so 5f5 is not accurate. I know celebs usually lie about and inch so if you subtract an inch, Rob, you get 5f4. This sounds right.
Pedro said on 4/Jun/13
@marla There are places where Sofia Coppola's height is being listed at 5'5.5". So there are many ways of reading it. But, sure, it is quiet possibly that Emma is between 5'4.5" and 5'5". Most celebrities round their height up when it contains fractions.
R said on 4/Jun/13
In 6in platforms, she's at least 4in shorter than a slumpy/slouchy just-under-5'11" Seth Rogen at the This is the End LA premiere today. Say the shoes give her 4.5" easily... That's 8.5 inches less than 5'11"... So she's... 5'2.5"??
I think her height has been exaggerated by her PR (for what reason, I don't know... Nothing wrong with being petite)
marla singer said on 1/Jun/13
@Pedro your picture is better but she looks nearer 5 ft 4 again because Elle has 1 inch less footwear and looks a good 3 inches taller. I also found these pictures that make me think she is shorter than Sofia Coppola Click Here and Click Here
Pedro said on 31/May/13
@marla Here is a better picture to compare Emma Watson with Elle Fanning: Click Here
:-) said on 30/May/13
I just watched the last Harry potter movie. In one of the last scene's they all stand next to each other in height order, they are all wearing similair footwear, and the camera zooms away from them
Radcliffe is 1 inch shorter than her but looks almost the same height because of his poofy hair, so if Daniel Radcliffe is 5'5 she's 5'6, like she said.
However Radcliffe could be shorter, so maybe more 5'4 for him 5'5 for her.
marla singer said on 18/May/13
I think you should have downgraded Emma instead, here she has bigger heels than Elle Fanning (172 cm) but she looks 5-6 inches shorter than her. That would mean she's 5 ft 3, being generous. Emma's heels Click Here and Elle's Click Here together: Click Here and Click Here I'd put her at 5 ft 4, or 5 ft 4.5, to give her the benefit of the doubt, but 5 ft 5 seems a stretch. Both her and Radcliffe look under 5 ft 5...
[Editor Rob: 5ft 4.5 is a possibility, both her/radcliffe could be classed as weak 5ft 5, dropping a bit under it.]
marla singer said on 17/May/13
Rob could you have a look and see if you agree? As K says, Emma seems shorter than 5 ft 4.5 in Sofia Coppola. Here they had similar heels. Sofia's Click Here Emma's Click Here video Click Here
Here Emma has much more heel, yet she looks barely taller Click Here Sofia's heels Click Here , Emma's Click Here
[Editor Rob: I think they could be very similar barefoot, maybe both 5ft 5...I will give sofia that, but I know people have been arguing emma could be 5ft 4.5 herself for a while...]
K said on 16/May/13
Click Here
Click Here
Either Soffia Coppola needs an upgrade or Emma Watson needs a downgrade. Soffia Coppola is listed as 5'4.5" on this site and she is the same height if not taller than Emma Watson in a smaller heel. These pictures were taken yesterday at the Cannes Film Festival.
I \'m a shortie so everyone is tall to me said on 23/Apr/13
All I know is that Daniel Radcliffe has said several times he is 5"5' and he looks slightly taller than Emma when they are both in tennis shoes. So she is probably 5"3' - 5"4'. She did have a big growth spurt though. I mean in the first few HP movies, Daniel was way taller then Emma all of the sudden caught up. But I like that Daniel is short because he shows people that smaller men can prevail. But I remember at the cemerony there they did their foot prints I think they took their shoes off or at least Emma did
marla singer said on 9/Apr/13
here it is Click Here
marla singer said on 8/Apr/13
It's impossible for Nina to be over 5'5. She's a smudge shorter than Josh Hutcherson listed at 5'5 too (see him with Jennifer Lawrence). they had similar footwear here and Josh is visibly taller Click Here To be fair, Josh should be upgraded to 5'5.25, Nina's listing unchanged, and Emma downgraded to 5'4.25 or 5'4.5
Caroline said on 5/Apr/13
@nicky I actually think Nina needs an upgrade, I think she's around 5'6 - 5'6.5
And compared to Rupert Grint who probably wear lifts, Emma looks 5'5 to me.
marla singer said on 8/Mar/13
Kate Bosworth? 165 cm
Emma Watson? 165 cm
Kate's flat sneakers (2nd pic, scroll down) Click Here Emma's flat sandals Click Here But hey... Kate is almost 3 inches taller even if she's bending down, and Emma's also got camera advantage. Click Here
And these girls are supposed to look -roughly- the same height... I'll just say ok ;)
[Editor Rob: on flatter ground and similarish heels I think they can look pretty nearer]
K said on 15/Feb/13
I don't understand how anyone could say she's any less than 5'4". I always thought she looked around 5'5". No less than 5'4.5" and no more than 5'5.5". I personally think she's a weak 5'5".
Maximus Meridius said on 17/Jan/13
Rob is there any chance you would be in the 5ft 4in range or at least a fraction over 5ft 4in.
[Editor Rob: like radcliffe, there's always a chance they'd be 5ft 4.5-5]
marla singer said on 17/Jan/13
Rob I have another similar question about the HP cast: whose height we are 100% sure of is Tom Felton's 5 ft 8.5, because you met him. Let's say he was 176-177 cm with shoes on; Emma had these big heels that gave her 4 inches minimum if not more Click Here so she's supposed to stand 175-176 cm tall with them on, if she's 5 ft 5. But she looks 4-5 cm shorter than Tom Felton, and visibly shorter than Rupert Grint too (Rupert is 174-175 in shoes..) Click Here so maybe 5 ft 4 is more accurate for her?
I think she has a quite taller appearence because of her thin, long legs but when you compare her to other stars she rarely looks over that mark. Hope the links work this time :)
[Editor Rob: if she was standing at her tallest in the photo then she definitely can appear nearer 5ft 4 than 5]
Shane said on 10/Jan/13
I think she is 5.41/2....
theblacklab said on 21/Dec/12
marla singer, I agree. I always thought she looked more 5'3.5" to 5'4" range. Since she's 19 when that photo was taken she's probably reached adult height. Emma's height always was confusing as; unlike many actresses who achieve fame in their adult years, Emma was very young when she accomplished the same. This makes it a whole lot more difficult for people like Rob to estimate height, because it is completely dependent on how old she was when she made a particular claim or what year it was when a photo was taken that divulges her height somewhat.
marla singer said on 21/Dec/12
@theblacklab: the photos where I compared Clemence Poesy and Emma were taken in 2009, when Emma was already 19..!
I think Rob is being unfair to some celebrities (like Hilary Duff who deserves 1in upgrade minimum, Miley Cyrus who is much taller than 5'4.5" and so on) while is being too generous to others (Kristen Stewart, who's listed as 163 but looks like 2in shorter than 164 Greene, 5'4" Michelle Williams who looks shorter than 5'4" Mila Kunis...). I can understand there can be some mistakes but this is evident: Emma looks shorter than her claim most of the times, and since she often looks even under 5'3" (Click Here), to me she's 5'4" tops until proven wrong. :)
theblacklab said on 20/Dec/12
marla singer, how old is the photo of Emma and Clemence standing together? If it is recent then Emma is likely her full adult height in the photo. However, if its several years old, then she could have had some more growing to do.
Ollie said on 14/Dec/12
the person who keeps posting on various celebs' heights things like 'Emma Watson is 5'6" or 168 cm in her bare feet. Clemence Poesy is 5'8" or 173 cm in her bare feet. Paris Hilton is 5'9" or 174 cm in her bare feet' is just a troll, don't answer to that. seen that many times, just names of the celebs vary & their exaggerated heights.
Wind said on 29/Nov/12
laughing my butt off with the girl who said miley is 5'10". First of, she never claimed anything more than 5'6". Second of she barely reaches Liam's chin. Miley is 5'4.75" at most. I know that cause I am that tall and my fiance is 6'1.5". And yes, Emma is 5'4" and has a perfect small, elegant figure.
Helo said on 21/Nov/12
5'4 5'5 for her
marla singer said on 7/Nov/12
I'd like to see some 5 ft 5 proofs aswell, cause as for now nobody seems able to prove she's that tall. @Ria, Clemence Poesy, the blonde girl, is listed 168 cm tall (5 ft 6) Click Here here Emma was 15 and had a bit less footwear than Clemence but looks a lot shorter, and notice that Katie Leung who is 164 cm tall has flat boots but looks taller than Emma too. Another proof:
Emma's platform heels Click Here
Clemence's heels Click Here
Together, standing Click Here
Emma wears 1 inch more footwear but still looks like 2.5 in shorter; but since Clemence is closer to the camera, those 2.5 are more likely to be 1.5 in. Add to 1 in advantage the 1.5 difference and you get Emma 2.5 in shorter than her: if Clemence is 168 then Emma is 162-163 right?

Everyone if I'm wrong, tell me where xD
susan said on 9/Oct/12
5'5 is too tall for her. 5'6 and 5'7 claims are really off. she's maybe a weak 5'4. 161 or 162 cm i'd say. no taller
J said on 7/Oct/12
Height is definitely exaggerated. She is under 5'4" on a good morning, probably closer to 5'2" in the afternoon.
Jess said on 6/Oct/12
165cm? Totally unconvincing. According to all the evidence below, she must be around 160cm or even less. This page doesn't seem to be up to date.
marla singer said on 1/Oct/12
Here 5'5"-5'5.5" Nina Dobrev with 2.75in Sanderson sandals is taller enough than Emma, who is wearing 2.75-3in Tom Ford round toe heels. And Nina is slouching as well... Click Here
marla singer said on 17/Sep/12
@bill it's Dan the slightly taller one (min. 5'4.5") check it here I already posted this 2007 pic (Emma in flats, Dan in a thicker shoe) I still wonder how is it possible that Emma doesn't look much taller than 5'0 Staunton in flats (professor Umbridge in HP) Click Here
@J Emma's heels above are max 5inches high, I'm sure. Ripa instead actually wore 6in heels so she had 5in over Emma, not 4. Ripa looked taller than her by max 3in (4 is way too much)! so if Ripa was about 5'7" in heels, Emma was 5'4" in flats.
bill said on 16/Sep/12
Emma 163cm,Dan 160cm
mina said on 14/Sep/12
Emma is 5'3.Maybe 5'3.5.Nina Dobrev is at least 2-3 inches taller at 5'5.5
J said on 14/Sep/12
@Rent Girl - I saw that too. Rob always says heel height gives a different boost of height - the heels Emma has on in the above photo are six inch heels but apparently only give her 4 inches. So Ripa is 5'2" + 4 = 5'6" in heels. Emma in flats is 4 inches shorter... So she's 5'2"...

Never understood her exaggerated height claims, she's nowhere near 5'5".
RentGirl said on 13/Sep/12
I watched Live! with Kelly and Michael and Kelly towered over Emma by four inches. But Emma was wearing ballet flats and Kelly was wearing six inch heels.
marla singer said on 11/Sep/12
Rob, you could find this pic interesting! Click Here
Natalia Tena, 5'5.75", in the floral dress on the right was wearing completely flat sandals at the premiere. Next to her, Emma had 4-5in heels but looked just slightly taller than Natalia...
[Editor Rob: you've got tom felton on her other side though who is pretty much 5ft 8.5 i think.]
marla singer said on 10/Sep/12
I think Nina's heels were at least 1 inch higher, but Nina looked 2 full inches taller than Emma; I find it difficult to believe they are the same height.
I'm still convinced Emma is 5'4"
e said on 9/Sep/12
@J I came here for the same reason, lol. I think Dobrev is wearing slightly higher heels so they could be roughly the same height, but 5'6" is definitely a stretch.
Click Here
J said on 9/Sep/12
Looked at least two inches shorter than Nina Dobrev at the Perks premiere at TIFF. Dobrev is listed at 5'5" here, so Watson must logically be arouund 5'3". It's clear her height has always been exaggerated a bit - Bonnie Wright is apparently 5'5.5", and yet Emma in heels was the same height when Bonnie was in flats. She seems to have a prominent forehead - is that what makes her appear taller in solo photographs?
marla singer said on 8/Sep/12
Emma looked shorter than 5'4.5" listed Katie Leung on several occasions.
Here Katie had a fraction less footwear than Emma:
Click Here
With similar sized heels:
Click Here
Click Here
So either Emma is 5'3.75", or Katie is almost 5'6"!
marla singer said on 2/Aug/12
Emma with 5'2.5" Evanna Click Here
Emma has, I think, 1.6"-1.75" heel on, so she stood about 169-170 cm tall. Evanna had 0.5" Vans sneaker and looked 3" shorter than Emma. But:
- Evanna is no 5'3.5" nor 5'4"
- Daniel is no 5'6"... so something must be wrong here?
bill said on 27/Jul/12
167 cm
marla singer said on 26/Jul/12
She can't be 5'5", here she stands in a 5" pair of pumps next to Julie Walters (weak 5'3, wearing flats) Click Here those pumps gave her about 4" height advantage; considering that she towered over Julie and the difference between them was around 4.5", 5'4" for Emma sounds about right
marla singer said on 17/Jun/12
In this pic (2007) next to 6 ft-Matthew Lewis (they were all standing, but we can't see their footwear) doesn't look over 5'3".
Click Here
Next to 5'2-Helena Bonham Carter, who's carrying a baby Click Here
With HP cast, is shorter than Daniel Radcliffe and also doesn't appear noticeably taller than 5'0" Imelda Staunton Click Here
I guess 5'4"
theblacklab said on 10/Jun/12
Just from the above picture alone, you can tell Emma is in the 5'3" to 5'4" range, take away Emma's 5 inch platforms, and you get an Emma 2 to 3" shorter than Daniel. I probably presume Dan in wearing 1.5" lifts. This would make Emma about 5'3.5" to 5'4".
Haily said on 12/Feb/12
I am sorry but i do not believe that Emma is that short cuz i know of many celebrities that are 5ft 4in and they are SO skinny and Emma is skinny but not as skinny as the others and i know she is taller that my mom so maybe at min Emma is 5ft 5in and max 5ft 6in
marla singer said on 12/Feb/12
Hilary Duff is a believable 5'2, right?
If you look at this pic Click Here you'll notice that Emma and Hilary are pretty similar in size. Their proportions are both of a short girl, though Emma's legs look leaner and a bit longer than Hilary's.
So, in my opinion Emma is 5'3 and maybe even a fraction under 5'4. But not over.
dean said on 11/Feb/12
What happened to all the comments that proved she was less than 5'4"? Saw her in Islington twice two years ago, she couldn't have been more than 158 to 162 cm, and even that is generous. Tiny, very tiny. Not even average height.
Haily said on 10/Feb/12
um well i am NOT delusional and i have looked this up on TONS of websites and they all say around 5ft 6in i believe in that. She is very pretty. some pictures she looks weird but most she looks nice. and Dan is short we all know that Harry potter us supposed to be tall but not everything can be perfect.
M M said on 1/Feb/12
I always believe in editor Rob. He's an expert and his height sense is very keen. Emma is 5ft 5 on top, I've got lots of proofs as well.
Kashfia said on 30/Jan/12
That girl is the same height as Emma Watson in her bare feet. That girl and Emma Watson are both the same height in their bare feet. Click Here
Kashfia said on 30/Jan/12
@M M Ok fine Emma Watson is 5'5" or 5'6" but Miley Cyrus is 5'10" in her bare feet. Miley Cyrus is 7 inches shorter than her 6'5" boyfriend Liam Hemsworth.
Kashfia said on 29/Jan/12
@J Emma Watson is a tall chick but she is not model tall.
M M said on 29/Jan/12
@J I slightly agree with u. Emma can be shorter than 5ft 5'. I mean she wore a black version of these platform heels Click Here and still not tall enough to go over 5ft 8ish Rupert Click Here
But she can be 5ft 5 since guys too wear 2-3inch shoe lifts inside their shoes.
J said on 29/Jan/12
5'2" to 5'4". Definitely less than 5'5" - even in 6" platform heels, she doesn't reach 5'8", what does that tell you?
M M said on 28/Jan/12
@Kashfia LOL! All of our comments are deleted. It looks like editor Rob doesn't like fighting. So I'll not fight but I suggest u to make your claim clear, once u say Emma is 5ft 8', then u say she's 5ft 10', then again and again u keep on changing the mark. I don't think u've measured all these celebrities with your bare hand!
Kashfia said on 27/Jan/12
@M M Emma Watson is not 5'10" in her bare feet. She is the same height as Taylor Momsen in her bare feet. But Miley Cyrus is 5'10" in her bare feet. Miley Cyrus is 7 inches shorter than her 6'5" boyfriend Liam Hemsworth.
j said on 27/Jan/12
It's odd, Sophie Sumner is 5'7.5" in real life (agencies always round to 5'9" or 5'10" regardless) and she TOWERS over Emma. Emma is easily less than 5'5", she's between 5'2" and 5'3" on a good morning. Tiny, very tiny.
susie said on 27/Jan/12
anyone claiming over 5'6" for emma is delusional. it's pretty obvious she's in the 5'3-5'4 range looking at pictures. maybe 5'5" or a shade over at the very most. but i doubt it. dan is around 5'4 as well
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 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.
Anna said on 6/Oct/07
I'm sorry lila, I was too lazy to read the other comments, I'm sorry! I now regret the decision to not read the spoken of post, but, nevertheless, will prove your point agian by not replying because I have not been able to find the post that you speak of. Oh, what a true dumb arse I am. Anyway, I see your post michael, and quite agree and TJ, thanks, however, was the Bill Clinton/Al Gore analogy necessary? I really do believe Baldwin and Hoffman look more similar. And Rob, are you going to upgrade her at all? Do you remember the OotP (perhaps the way to compare heights seeing as it's 2 hours long and both Dan and Emma were wearing Converse) clip in which Emma looked to be taller than Dan and you were not denying this fact. I do believe you said "she did look to have the edge on him" which could be taken to mean she looked to be taller, yes?
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..

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.