Rupert Grint's Height
5ft 7 ½ (171.5 cm)
English actor best known for playing Ron Weasley in the Harry Potter films. He "doesn't" know his height but has said he was "about 5ft 8"
Photos by PR Photos
You May Be Interested
Add a Comment1031 comments
Average Guess (68 Votes)
5ft 7.58in (171.7cm)
Julian Cross 188.5cm said on 18/Oct/20
Funny that his most famous role, Ron Weasley, was described as tall and gangly in the Harry Potter books!
Nik Ashton said on 16/Oct/20
He’s my height peeps!
Nik Ashton said on 29/Sep/20
@ matt789 - You are so right!
Realist said on 21/May/20
It's funny a lot of guys 5'7.5 to 5'8.5 claim not to know their height. This teenager at my job is about 5'8.5 and 17 but he can still grow to 5'10 so I think knowing you are short can help I was 5'7 at 16! If I hadn't known i was short I would have never tried to grow now I am roughly 5'10 or a little over in shoes.
Jam Cherry said on 4/May/20
171.5 cm seems spot on
JohnMoore-162cm said on 27/Apr/20
5ft7 1/2" sounds about right , just over 5ft8 out of bed
Nik Ashton said on 5/Feb/20
@ Joel Masterman - Where do you live?
Jkiller said on 4/Feb/20
5'7 and a half sounds about right.
said on 31/Jan/20
@Rob why the downgrade? 5'7 3/4 was an overestimation?
Grint looks right between 5ft 7 and 8
said on 24/Jul/19
Rob do you consider Rupert Grint to be quite short I wondering because I'am this guys height and I always get told I'am quite short?
In the UK it's under average and maybe in the zone between short range and average.
Yang (5 footer 8, 172-173) said on 16/Jul/19
Still NOT EVEN 5ft 7 plateau IMO. I would say 5ft 6 range like Jonah Hills.
cmillzz said on 22/May/19
yep. I think once a guy hits 173cm, he’s in the average range.
Anonim said on 6/Sep/18
Weak 5ft 7, closer to 5ft 6
Paul Wood said on 27/May/18
A lot of 5ft 6ish men claim 5ft 7, many 5ft 7 men claim 5ft 8in and so it goes on. This is why, in most people's minds, the idea of what is 'short' is actually a taller height than short really is. It's all this rounding up or adding an inch that goes on. I'd say Rupert Grint is 5ft 7.5in tops.
Dude 173 cm said on 14/Jan/18
What is the difference for you Rob between Daniel and him?
Psychedelic Earth 187 said on 11/Jan/18
Guy looks short, he isn’t 5’8” or near at. 170-171
Letorgi said on 4/Jan/18
173 cm for Rupert
Jason 193cm said on 4/Jan/18
Weird. I always thought he was 5'10.
Sacred said on 6/Nov/17
173 cm for him
Anonymous said on 21/Sep/17
I was once 5.4/5.5 for many years then i must of grown to a full adult height of 5.8 whilst i was in my early 20s.I do not believe i was 5.8 when i was 16,17,18,19.I noticed i was the same height as my old school friends.But looking at there Facebook pictures they all look like 6 foot men. I was short as a teenager,but not noticibly short.
said on 11/Sep/17
ron in the harry potter movies looks like ed sheeran isn't?
Editor Rob: they certainly have a very similar height range and could be brothers!
Slothee said on 3/Sep/17
He looks like Ed Sheeran, is the same height as Ed Sheeran, and has the exact same claim as Ed Sheeran (about/around 5'8")! What're the odds?
Chris said on 13/Aug/17
@Jamie A person's width most certainly has an effect on perceived height. I'm a half inch taller then my brother but 2.5 inches wider in the shoulders. EVERYONE assumes he's taller unless we are standing right next to each other. Really, all you have to do is look at different pics of Mark Wahlberg. He looks taller when he's off the juice.
said on 18/Jul/17
Rob in the movies Rupert doesn't look short by any means he looks a solid 5'9 is it fair to say 5'8 is a decent height for a man. Its weird how mark Wahlberg is 5'8 yet he looks short, but Rupert grint looks average. I guess body shape/build really affects how tall you look.
Editor Rob: maybe it helped also having Daniel by his side for a lot of his teens...leaves an imprint with people that he was inches taller than Radcliffe.
even said on 7/Jul/17
172 after waking up
World Citizen said on 25/May/17
Looks a flat 5 ft 7 with Daniel Radcliffe, but looks the same height with also 5 ft 7.75 listed Ed Sheeran.
said on 7/Mar/17
Rob, he looks a bit shorter than Ed Sheeran. They are not the same height. Click Here Click Here
I think they are quite close, they'd need a measurement to really see if there was much between them.
You can see Grint with the Phelps boys and Felton at a convention Here
Ultimate said on 20/Feb/17
Rob, 173 cm is impossible for Rupert.
I buy 5'7.5, i wouldn't be surprised if he is a fraction over five seven, good chance.
said on 7/Feb/17
See this picture of Rupert and Tom Felton...Click Here
. Assuming similar footwear, and compensating for Tom's leaning towards Rupert, it's clear that there is 3cm of a height difference between them. Tom is a confirmed 174cm guy, so Rupert does seem to be more on the 171cm side.
said on 11/Dec/16
William Moseley is exactly 5'9 because he had more footwear than Rob.
said on 24/Nov/16
Rupert Grint with 177cm William Moseley .
P.S: Its a 2006 video when Rupert was 18.
said on 7/Nov/16
Downgrade for Rupert Grint and Emma Watson
Date of the photo here: Click Here
GN5ft9in said on 4/Oct/16
It's easy to guess Harry Potter cast as Rob had a picture with Tom Felton.
Tom is 5ft 9in and Rupert is more than an inch shorter than Tom, so anywhere from 5'7 - 5'8.
Mike6'2 said on 29/Aug/16
In casting him he was a tall kid and I guess they expected he would surpass the 6' mark.
rop said on 26/Jun/16
Tom felt on is 5cms taller than Rupert
said on 18/Apr/16
In google said 178 ,rob why are some of the height wrong placed???!??
Editor Rob: he's only claimed 5ft 8 so maybe it is outdated information, especially if their algorithm took the height from some sites that had him listed 5ft 10.
Maximus said on 4/Apr/16
Probably around 5'8" or very close......
themis said on 23/Mar/16
tom felton is 179 its taller than helena than danniel and its 8 m shorter than rupert and mathew
said on 14/Feb/16
Looks no taller than 5' 6". Rob I think he needs a serious downgrade.
Here he is with 5' 5 emma watson. Click Here
Emma probably has a 1" advantage and it looks like rupert grint is wearing lifts.
Editor Rob: I think you could argue 5ft 7 for him, but 5ft 6 seems a bit short
Rubio said on 12/Feb/16
Grint is 5 ft 6 no more. Rob I think he needs a downgrade.
thatmanoverthere said on 3/Feb/16
Who is taller? Ed Sheeran or Rupert?
KnightX said on 30/Jan/16
AHAHA.... Definitely Google haves some kinda of deal with short actors, because Google had posted 1,78 m for Rupert, when he haves just 1,72 m. What is the idea of Google by doing so?!
Ally said on 13/Apr/15
He doesn't look any taller than he is listed here. 5'7.75" seems right
CD said on 5/Apr/15
More likely Ed Sheeran is 171 range. Rupert at 172 is fine. He has never looked more than 3 inches taller than Daniel Radcliffe either who is 164 or 165.
Keltoi said on 3/Apr/15
I actually think he's a proper 173cm, maybe a fraction over.
He looked taller than Sheeran by a half inch. If Ed is 172cm, then Grint must be 173cm-ish. I think his posture and choice of footwear can make him look around 170cm at times, but he's taller.
I'm 173cm and have been guessed anywhere from 170cm to 178cm depending on the circumstances.
LX1 said on 8/Mar/15
no it's not, Ria. he's 5'7-ish. not 5'7 neither 5'8
Chilean said on 2/Feb/15
he looks shorter than ed sheeran
Height182 said on 5/Dec/14
5'7.75''? Wow, I thought he was like 5'5.5'' or something. This guy must be the shortest looking near 5'8'' guy in HISTORY.
kale said on 27/Sep/14
he really look not more than 172cm
mate said on 5/Jul/14
i reckon he is about 5'6" (168 cms)
Realist said on 30/Apr/14
Rob he has grown some bit since Order of Phoenix i think. He looks taller in Half Blood Prince. He and Felton are almost exact. Felton: 174 Grint: 173
Lurker said on 20/Apr/14
I was stood next to him a couple of days ago, I'm 6'0 in my Doc Martens so I would think 5'8 is a reasonable guess.
abhay said on 20/Apr/14
i think he is 5'8 flat170cms
avi said on 27/Mar/14
closer to 5'7 flat than 5'8
Realist said on 8/Feb/14
Rob i think he is 5'7 flat 170 cms.
Forrest95 said on 18/Jan/14
He's so similar to Ed Sheeran, both looked same height in the music video lego house near the end although might be his posture
Peter said on 2/Dec/13
171 cm tom cruise 172 with long nek
Wip said on 14/Sep/13
when i met him in a supermarket about a year ago he was wearing those pumps with very little soles and seemed slightly taller than me. I would guess I had about 0.5 inch footwear more and have measured myself using Robs method at 5'8.1. Seemed more 5'8.5ish to me.
Willow said on 25/Aug/13
I've seen Rupert in person and I must say he's surely more than 197,5 high... I swear!
Byron T. said on 4/Apr/13
Looks about the same height as Ed Sheeran in the ''Lego House'' music video. Under 5'8'' as listed.
Jay said on 14/Mar/13
Felton: 174 (confirmed by Rob)
Watson: 161 (seen her in person; much shorter than expected)
Rheneas said on 23/Feb/13
marla singer said on 28/Dec/12
felton 174 (as Rob met him, but he pulls off looking much taller)
daniel 164 (he's noticeably shorter than bonnie...1cm wouldn't be noticed)
emma 163 (i think she's shorter than daniel but i'm not sure how much)
rupert 172 (but he has very bad posture and lower shoes than everyone so he can look 170 sometimes)
Anyway before I discovered this site, I had read on a magazine that Daniel was 5'8"... that made felton look 6'1, and I was damn sure he was 6 ft tall xD
Original said on 24/Dec/12
Felton: 174 cm
Rupert: 172 cm
Daniel: 165 cm
Emma: 164 cm
srinu said on 1/Oct/12
ah.... His height is about 5.8fit his look tollor then dnil & emma(my friend)
Keltoi said on 5/Sep/12
He looked very similar in height to Ed Sheeran who's 5'7" ish.
Having said that though, I don't think a half inch would be very noticeable to most, and certainly not to me; so there's a possibility he could be just under 5'8".
matt789 said on 25/Aug/12
5 ft 8 i wouldnt say is realley short for a guy i mean i'm 5 ft 10 1/2 and i've never been called short and thats only 2.5 inches taller then 5 fot 8
Maximus Meridius said on 24/Aug/12
Rob is there a chance he is 5ft 8in.
Primo said on 18/Aug/12
Think this guy is more like 5ft6 then 5ft7.75 but is my opinion
hpfinatic said on 15/Aug/12
Rupert is 5'8". That's really short for a guy. He seems tall because of how short Daniel is. He's only 5'5".
theblacklab said on 12/Jun/12
I have no idea why people are saying girls and boys stop growing at sixteen. Patterns in growth are so erratic it is almost impossible to identify any correlation. Boys and girls generally stop growing at 21, but after 18.5 years the growth is so minimal is can barely be noticed. However, as I mentioned before, this isn't always the case. Some people can grow until they are 28, but the chances of this is slim. Anyway, as for Rupert's particular height, I believe is a legitimate 5'7.5", whilst Dan is 5'5", perhaps even 5'4.5", and Emma I have no doubt a petite version of a 5'4" girl, 2" of her ambitious 5'6" claim.
Ethan Johnston said on 23/Jan/12
Rupe 5'7'' Radcliffe 5'6''
Jonas said on 3/Jan/12
How can you call Grint 5'10? Rupert is around 5'8... Ria, you have no clue... Daniel Radcliffe 5'8? Have you completely lost the plot? Radcliffe is 5'5.
Godred said on 27/Dec/11
Ria & Kashfia - You have absolutely no idea how to do this.
Felton - 5`9.
Grint - 5`8 max.
Radcliffe - 5`5.
Thierro said on 27/Dec/11
Rupert: 174 cm
Daniel: 165 cm
Emma: 164 cm
Bonnie: 169 cm
These are my opinions.
said on 27/Dec/11
Check these photos from Daily Mail at Harry Potter wrap. Rupert taller than Daniel, Daniel taller and Emma (except when she wears heels) Tom Felton taller than all three in cast photo. We know Tom is 5'8"-9" range from Rob's picture - the rest is common sense!
Interesting height comparisons over the years - looks to me like Daniel may have grown the most since the films began.
Ria said on 17/Dec/11
Ryan, 5'8" is not at all tall for a man. 5'8" is in fact short for a man. Daniel Radcliffe is SHORT because he is only 5'8" in his bare feet. Rupert Grint and Tom Felton are 5'10" in their bare feet.
Ryan said on 17/Dec/11
You are an idiot, if thats what you think, kashfia. Check out Rob next to tom felton (174cm). tom felton is about 3-4 inches taller than radcliffe. You obviously want that kid to be tall, but lets face the facts, he's SHORT.
Kashfia said on 13/Dec/11
Daniel Radcliffe is definitely NOT 5'5" or shorter in his bare feet. Daniel Radcliffe is only 5'8" in his bare feet. Rupert Grint is 5'10" or 5'11" in his bare feet. My dad is 6'5" in his bare feet and Daniel Radcliffe looked 9 inches shorter than him.
Greg said on 11/Dec/11
Rob's got this guy pinned, there's exactly 0.75'' between him and Felton. It's funny because in the movies Rupert looks about 6'0'', but then when you factor in that Daniel Radcliffe is barely 5'5'' you realize that Rupert is more like 5'8''.
Kashfia said on 10/Dec/11
How could Rupert Grint be only 5'8" or 5'9" if his younger brother, James is at least 6'1"?
medha said on 29/Nov/11
i think deniel's height is just same as me.
David said on 25/Nov/11
He never looks taller than 5'8 to me. Daniel is more like 5'4.5, I think.
sylinher said on 26/Sep/11
the funny thing about this guy it's that his character...ron weasly... is pretty tall in the books of harry potter..that has to be the reason of why he looks taller in the movies..
iam surprised about his real height...he looked at leats 5'11...mad world
jim said on 4/Sep/11
sep, 6 11 hey I am 5'9 inches, my familys height is about 5'5 average yet my gramps was 6'0 I wonder if I will recieve some of that height as well. oh i almost forgot, rupert is 5'9
Jay said on 2/Sep/11
This listing is quite spot on - the main three of HP are not tall people at all - all three are under 5'8" (Emma doesn't even reach 5'8" in massive heels... I don't think it's plausible to make them any bigger). I'd say 5'7.5", but this is pretty good.
amitesh said on 20/Aug/11
yeah thats for sure that rupert grint is surely between 5'8-5'9 and no more taller than that.
dementor alice said on 19/Aug/11
I am looking at the recent DH2 New York opening photos where they are all standing next to Alan Rickman. Rickman is known to be 6'1. Keep in mind Watson is wearing heels maybe platforms but looks about 5'8 in the photo compared to Rickman. You can get a better idea how tall the male cast members are. Felton and Grint both look to be about 5'10. Lewis looks pretty close to the same height as Rickman, so 6ft or 6'1. Radcliffe 5'6, 5'7 tops. Hope that helps.
Henkka said on 10/Aug/11
@Jay: You're right, but that's the risk of being young and famous: fan claims are usually exaggerations, and you can't really know anything for certain unless you've met them or have something to help gauging them.
In the case of Rupert or Tom I think it's pretty clear that 5'7.5" for the first and 5'8.5" for the later is pretty much spot on. I haven't met Emma, but I agree she looks 5'3 tops (though I heard her claim 5'5", not as much as 5'6"). But I met Daniel once and he didn't look 5'4" flat to me. It might have been because of his footwear, I don't know, but at that moment he looked 5'5" flat to me (but I agree, he might be below that, sometimes he looks shorter).
I've also met Matt Lewis and Evanna Lynch, and can confirm that the 5'11.5" and 5' listings, respectively, are pretty much correct.
said on 7/Aug/11
with 5'8.5 listed Tom Felton
said on 7/Aug/11
"well, at 16 you are pretty much done growing"
Having just turned 19 and witnessed for myself, i can tell you that this isn't true. I know a number of people who have grown quite a number of inches since 16. I think for the MAJORITY of people, this is the case, but there is a significant yet smaller number of people where this is just not true at all.
True. Alot of people have major spurts after the age of 16. I remember a friend of my was around 5'7-5'8 around his 16th birthday and a year later he was an easy 6'0-6'0.5, and the year after that he hit 6'1.
As for Grint, I always thought he looked taller in the Potter films, maybe his slim build or the fact he's around shorter actors/actresses?
That's a fairly recent photo, not the best of angles but gets dwarfed by the Phelp twins, 5'8 MAX.
Jay said on 7/Aug/11
Agree with Henkka, there is a lot of exaggeration out there. Particularly with the young cast of HP - I've never heard/seen Rupert state his height but Emma and Dan both add several inches (Emma is less than 5'3" but claims 5'6", Dan has a less ludicrous claim - he says he is 5'5" while he is actually 5'4"). A lot of it is strange fan speculation too - people *still* insist Tom Felton is 6'1", when he is 5'8" or slightly less. Rupert is about half an inch shorter than he is, so 5'7.5" is accurate.
This listing is pretty accurate
SunKing said on 28/Jul/11
He's between 5'7.5" - 5'8".
I'm slightly above 5'7.5" at night myself and he looks my height.
Henkka said on 27/Jul/11
@Jed: Well, it happens a lot. Tom Felton is listed in some places at 6'1, when he's around 5'8.5. Or Josh Herdman, who is listed at 6'4 when he's 5'10.5. Some people like to exagerate a lot and have pretty bad sight, that's it.
I'm positive Rupert is between this listing and 5'8, but no more. Felton's got a good inch on him, and he's slightly below 5'9.
Martin said on 27/Jul/11
he looks about 5'8-5'8.5" to me
Jed said on 26/Jul/11
He can't be 5'7.75 if he's being called 5'11 in places. 8cm isn't going to be seen if it's not there.
jake said on 20/Jul/11
He might be 5ft8.5
Drizzle said on 20/Jul/11
This makes me think that I'm perfect for him! I'm quite short, but he's not so short nor so tall. Well, I'm ready for our wedding Rup!
Honor said on 17/Jul/11
I saw Rupert at the Deathly Hallows Part II premier, he explicitly told me he was 6 ft however I believe him to be lying as I am 6 ft and he appeared shorter than me.
5'8.56784 said on 14/Jul/11
He's 5'7, tho he usually wears boots, so he miay appear 5'8.
Benj said on 11/Jul/11
Noticed the guardian article -which claims him to be 5'11 at a somewhat arbitrary point in the article. Surley taller than 5'8 then
Prague, CZ said on 4/Jul/11
These are so ****ing short. God dammit, I thought he was at least 6 feet tall.
Compared to him, I am very tall person. I'm 6 feet 1 inches (186 cm) tall.
Reed said on 3/Jul/11
dan radcliffe is 5'5" so 5'7 5'8 seems about right for rupert
said on 3/Jul/11
Just read The Guardian article that came out today. The interviewer at one point refers to Rupert as 5'11. Truthfully I don't think he's that tall, but this guy was walking around with him so, who knows? The article: Click Here
Red said on 13/May/11
If Daniel Radcliffe is really 5 ft 5 as listed, then I think Rupert is closer to 5.8.5"-5.9".
maria said on 8/May/11
what? i was think rupert 180 cm and he was 172 cm
rafa said on 28/Apr/11
He has a VERY BAD posture. He should improve his posture; look at Tom Cruise or Brad Pitt; they have A STRAIGHT POSTURE.
Tori said on 23/Apr/11
Wow, in the movies he looked a little taller than that. But I dont care because im only 5'3". He's my favorite, partly cuz of his hight. ;*
David said on 12/Apr/11
Lol, always noticeably shorter than 5'4 Emma Watson is heels... How can anyone think he's 5'9 or even 5'10? Even 5'8 seems like a stretch. 5'7.5 is about right. And yes, he's done growing. He's 22. He already looked his current height back in 2007... Most guys are done growing by the age of 18. Of course, there are late bloomers who can grow past that age, but Rupert is definitely not one. Neither are most people.
Jack said on 9/Apr/11
I'd say this site has it right. Rupert is max 5'7.75", maybe a tiny bit shorter. Unless he's had a strange growth spurt since the last premiere, he's finished at under 5'8". As for Daniel and Emma, they are both in the region of 5'2" to 5'4", and given that photographic evidence is ridiculously inconsistent (angles, footwear advantages in Emma's case, hair height etc ad nauseum) it's impossible to say which is taller, but Rupert is obviously the tallest of the trio.
Anon said on 7/Apr/11
They must have been slouching big time then because any pictures I've seen with the three of them, Rupert has looked a good 7-8 inches smaller.
His head tends to come up to around the beginning of their noses.
Therese said on 4/Apr/11
Just watched an extended DVD clip of Rupert and the Phelps brothers. If they're 6'3 as some sites report and they have a good 5 or 6 inches on Rupert, I think saying Rupert is around 5'9 isn't too far off.
said on 2/Apr/11
Sorry, but 5'10" or anything near that is just an impossibility for this guy.
Aside from the fact that he usually wears tall heels, there's no way Grint is even 5'9" unless Watson is wearing 6 inch heels in this pic. He's grown a little over the past 4 years, but by no more than half an inch.
Anonymous said on 13/Feb/11
Well he looks a good inch shorter than Tom Felton (174cm) in most photos and he wasn't much taller than Matt Lucas (169cm) in Come Fly With Me, so I'd say he's somewhere between 170cm and 173cm, but no more.
I'd be more inclined to think that he's 171cm-ish than 173cm though.
the truth said on 12/Feb/11
Average height of a caucasian guy below 50 years old is 5-10.5 in the US
Paula said on 22/Jan/11
ele ní£o tem so isso, em 2006 fez um filme chamado Lií§íµes de Vida(Driving Lessons)e ele perto da atriz Laura Linney que tem 5'10" ficava quase do mesmo tamanho, imagina agora que se passaram 4 anos.
maximus meridius said on 7/Jan/11
he is 22 now i don't think he will grow anymore besides 5ft 8in is not short because it's not many inches below average height some boys carry on growing until there 22 that's only the lucky ones most boys are done growing by 17 18 that's only the early bloomers it's not uncommon for boys to carry on growing until there 22 some boys carry on growing until they are 23 24 25 26 and 27 which is very rare some boys just happen to be late bloomers.
michael said on 3/Jan/11
5-8 seems dead on if Radcliffe is 5-5, because in general he looks about 3 inches taller than him.
Anonymous said on 30/Dec/10
People don't realize how tall a legit 5'9 or 5'10 is. This guy is not 5'10. Not 2 inches only away from 6'!! I agree you can look shorter or taller but there are scenes where there is only 3 inch difference between him and Radcliffe. He is 5'8. He isn't taller than Felton and Rob has a pic with him and he is barely over 5'8 himself. Rob you've got it within a half inch.He isnt taller than 5'8.
d wade said on 24/Dec/10
5,7 maximum a 5,9 doesnt look so short.
said on 23/Dec/10
good 4 inches on harry 5'9''minimum
Julia said on 6/Dec/10
I met him in London last week, and I'm 5"9.5 and he had a good half inch / inch on me.
TheTruth said on 2/Dec/10
I have an actual book that says Rupert Grint is 5'10" and it doesn't matter how tall he "looks" because people can look 5'8" if they're 5'6", etc. But I know that he is 5'10" and this book was published like 3 years ago and I don't think that he would shrink in 3 years. If you want to see the book, it's called: Boys We Love.
I don't know anything about it. So, stop saying he's 5'7"-5'9" because that is obviously not true right now.
d wade said on 29/Nov/10
radcliffe and emma watson are both 5,4 not 5,6 and rupert grint is 5,7 not 5,9 a 5,9 doesnt look that small.
tweetybirdflii said on 28/Nov/10
i think he is 5'9 probably he luks mah tall tho so :-/ lml :]]]
maximus meridius said on 27/Nov/10
Rupert Grint is defiantly 5ft 8in for sure 5ft 10in is a bit too high for him he is not 5ft 10in
Emma Watson is 5ft 5in she is not 5ft 6in 5ft 6in is a bit high for her
Daniel Radcliffe is 5ft 6in he is not 5ft 8in that is too high for him
maximus meridius said on 27/Nov/10
Since he is 5ft 8in he still has short legs a 5ft 9in and a 5ft 10in would have average legs a man of 5ft 11in has long legs tall starts from 5ft 11in he has longer legs that daniel radcliffe but he still has short legs.
Rampage(-_-_-)Clover said on 21/Nov/10
He must've grown a bit. Not under 5"8, probably 174cm
Blah said on 20/Nov/10
Acutally, for boys you can grow more until you're mid 20's, that's only if you haven't reached your limit in your DNA. Some boys these days only grow until they're 16 because these days nutrition is easier to get, so they grow quickly but reached their limit faster too.
said on 20/Nov/10
I also think 5'8 might be the better guess. The guy very often wears converse and has the posture of an old man. What do you think he has on Bonnie Wright here: Click Here
I've no clue what her footwear gives....
Close said on 19/Nov/10
Well I saw the new harry potter film: Deathly Hallows, and I gotta say, Rupert had a lot of height on Daniel. He had at least 3 1/2 inches on Daniel. You need to upgrade him. Hes a 5'8, maybe 5'8.5.
said on 19/Nov/10
well look at this pic... Assume Emma has 3" heels, she's taller than Dan and he's wearing shoes as well... And Rupert is about her height with heels...
Justme said on 13/Nov/10
Well Shoes and Hair can add a little height, so can't blame people for thinking
he is a little bit taller then his true height.
Anonymous said on 12/Nov/10
"well, at 16 you are pretty much done growing"
Having just turned 19 and witnessed for myself, i can tell you that this isn't true. I know a number of people who have grown quite a number of inches since 16. I think for the MAJORITY of people, this is the case, but there is a significant yet smaller number of people where this is just not true at all.
Rikashiku said on 7/Nov/10
My brother was 6'2" at 12 and 6'4" at 22. He grew to 6'5" when he turned 26.
Men keep growing into 21 on average, girls grow until 16 today. It used to be 18.
jasper said on 4/Nov/10
great says on 23/Jul/10
i also don´t get why people are always putting this guys grow till 21 thing up.
thats the very last date, up until which you can realise catch up growth if you are seriously ill. most men stop from 16 to 17 maybe 18.
so there is no major height gain after 16 /17 . that´s simply some drivel of some doctor. the old folks had it right on. one doc used to tell me: "well, at 16 you are pretty much done growing"
thats not true i was about 5'9 when i was 16 and grow to be 6'2 by 18(havnt grown since 20 now)
daigo said on 31/Oct/10
WOW.... cant believe this...im 171cm and he's 172. and i thought dan was 170 so in my mind i always thought of him (rupert) as a 178-179...
Rampage(\-_-_-/)Clover said on 27/Oct/10
5"8(173cm) by now surely?
said on 7/Jul/09
C'mon now... after seeing the HBP photocall, can you honestly keep a straight face and say 5'7.75"? Look! Click Here
- and that's one of many photos. I also think Dan is 5'4" or so... no way is he 5'5". Tom and Rupert have over 4" on him. They pretty much all had the same footwear.
Anonymous said on 6/Jul/09
This guys height is hard to pin down. He is most most likely percieved to be taller than he really is, due to his acting partners rather miserable height. I'm gonna go with my gut on this, and say he is exactly my height - 5'8.5
said on 5/Jul/09
Okay, more proof that Rupert is over 5'8". If Rove is 5'7.5" (though claims 5'8") and Rupert probably has a little more shoe, then he's definitely at least a half inch taller than Rove, probably a bit more... Click Here
- go about 1:20 into the video. They never stand perfectly next to each other, but Rupert seems to have pretty much an inch on the man. Like I said, probably better shoe because of the Ron shoes (they look like construction boots - giving around an inch?) so the difference in shoe is probably around a half inch. Rupert's shoes: Click Here
- Seriously, Rupert is a solid 5'8" I'd think... arguably taller than that, but definitely NOT shorter than 5'8".
said on 4/Jul/09
Hmm. Well, if nothing else, Rupert deserves to be upgraded to at least 5'8". LOL The latest interview, "'I once read I was going to be an oompa loompa in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory,' he half smiles noting the dig at his 5ft 8in height." Second column, around the last paragraph: Click Here
Really, I think he's 5'8.5" like Tom Felton, but 5'8" seems reasonable enough considering he tends to have a solid 3" on Dan and Emma.
said on 3/Jul/09
From a recent interview with FHM:
"... he half smiles, noting the dig at his 5ft 8in height."Click Here
umad80 said on 25/Jun/09
So let me get this straight... Tom is closer to the camera, better shoes, and 5'8.5" and Rupert is still this height with only maybe being not even a whole inch shorter in the picture? Rupert is pretty much the same height as Tom. People who have met him have said that he's pretty much around 5'9" maybe not exact, but close enough...
Anonymous said on 24/Jun/09
Actually, I think he's really 172 cm. He's slightly shorter than Tom Felton and Tom was proved to be 5'8-5'9.
said on 19/Jun/09
Rupert is NOT 5'6" or 5'6.5" now THAT is crazy. In OotP he was pretty much the same height as Tom. Click Here
and Click Here
And these were Tom's shoes: Click Here
and of course Rupert was wearing chucks!
C'mon Rob, doesn't Rupert deserve an upgrade? These are pretty good indications that he's 5'8" or maybe a tad taller.
Anonymous said on 19/Jun/09
Tom felton is only 5'8.5'', this guy cant be any taller than 5'6'' or 5'6.5'' at the max.. u guys got to wake up there is no way near he is 5'9'' that would make him taller than Tom! lol
Sydney said on 24/May/09
well looks like we gotta wait for the new movie, but in the posters Rupert looks 5"9
said on 21/May/09
if you notice rupert in harry potter & the order of the phoenix is not much taller than dan & emma .but at hand ,foot & wand ceremony when they are barefoot rupert is looking very much taller than daniel & emma.watch the video at 9:27Click Here
umad80 said on 19/May/09
'please' I think it's funny you chose that video (also something that took place like 3 years ago) considering that Stephen Fry says they have a combined height of 11 feet 9 inches which means that they were probably measured with their shoes on. Moseley has dress shoes on giving him over an 1" extra so for argument's sake he's about 5'10.75" barefoot and with shoes he'd be 6' (assuming they're giving him 1.25" extra in height). Rupert had on chucks which probably gave him a half inch extra in height so barefoot would be 5'8.5" and with shoes 5'9" this would equal out to the 11'9" combined height. Otherwise Moseley would be over 5'11" for the current height to work.
jade said on 19/May/09
i think he's 5'8.5? yep. yoyo's ryt. he has grown few cms this year
said on 15/May/09Click Here
william moseley towers over him.
Anonymous said on 11/May/09
He's probably 1.74 m. But no way he's 5'10. 5'9 at most.
yoyo said on 6/May/09
i dont think that Rupert is below 5'8".no doubt his height is 5'8.75".i think he has grown by a few cms this year
hey. said on 5/May/09
Stephanie -- Emma's taller than Dan...this much is clear in the newly released set photos.
Stephanie said on 2/May/09
I'd say Rupert is between 5' 8" and 5' 10". It's hard to tell because he slouches a lot and I'm not sure if Dan and Emma are telling the truth (they both claim 5' 6").
hey. said on 28/Apr/09
Lol, and we still remain at 5'7.75".....;)
umad80 said on 14/Mar/09
I want to point out something that a lot of people don't always notice. Dan tries to stand tall and push down the people he stands next to. I've watched the video, and any video where you can see up close to when they start posing for pictures like this, Dan does this. Rupert isn't even standing at his best, and Dan who is standing better than Rupert, gives a clear 4" difference. But hell, if Dan and Emma are only 5'4.5" then Rupert is 5'8.5" because, as I said, there is a definite 4" difference here.
Anonymous said on 12/Mar/09
ok, he must be at least 5'8 since he was much taller than Dan and Emma during the ceremony. But again, Dan and Emma are not quite 5'5, I think. Probably 5'4.5.
said on 9/Mar/09
If Rupert gives the impression of 5'6", then Dan and Emma give the impression of 5'2"ish. Click Here
- proof right here that Rupert is well over 5'8". If you believe Dan and Emma are 5'5" and nothing under. (Of course, to not say a solid 5'9" is to say that the photo isn't the best.)
Anonymous said on 8/Mar/09
Shortest looking 5'9 guy I've ever seen. He really can give a 5'6 impression sometimes. But considering his usual posture and his footwear, maybe he's really 5'9.
umad80 said on 3/Mar/09
Robbie Sheehan is being estimated around 6'1" and Rupert seems around 4"-5" shorter. In all honesty, Rupert is probably around an inch taller than what he's listed as here. He's not a solid 5'9", though I think anything below 5'8.5" is out of the question.
Nik said on 28/Feb/09
I will admit he does look quite short sometimes. but thats usually compared to tall people. I'd say he's 5-8 because he can look shorter but when he does its usually his posture that does it.
umad80 said on 15/Feb/09
To be fair, Robbie Sheehan is like 6'0" or 6'1" (it is unclear yet; he could be taller) and I'm not sure how tall Kim Nixon is, but she had heels. Rupert was leaning into the two of them. I guess that has a lot to do with it because I noticed in videos he looked an inch or two taller than he appeared in pictures. It's pretty much estimated that Rupert is between 5'8" and 5'9". Nothing more, nothing less.
Anonymous said on 12/Feb/09
I also noticed that he was short next to his co-stars. He always looks quite short, actually. I can't believe he's 5'9 or something. I've never seen a 5'9 guy look as short as Rupert. He must be about 5'7.5. And he usually looks 5'6-5'7.
2p@c said on 11/Feb/09
In the harry potter boooks ron is supposed to be towering over harry but with 5ft7 rupert, not really i think lol
umad80 said on 9/Feb/09
Rob, I have a height question for you and it pertains to Rupert... I noticed yesterday at the Berlin Film Festival that pictures, Rupert looked short against his co-stars (I don't know how tall his co-stars are actually.) in pictures. However, when you viewed him in video, he looked taller compared to his female co-star and not the 4.5-5" he looks to the male co-star. Is there a particular reason for this? I thought maybe it's just that Rupert definitely isn't standing straight... he's laid back, and at times gets closer to his co-stars and ends up leaning to one side whereas with the film he's not doing that and you get the truer height.
Brian said on 9/Feb/09
In no way this guy is taller than 5ft8! He simply doesn`t looks it besides Radcliffe, Pattinson, Emma Watson etc.
Jacques said on 31/Jan/09
5'8 guys like myself never really give an impression of being tall.
but rupert does have this.. "almost tall" kinda feeling.
i really think it is fair for him to be 5'9.... MAYBE even 5'10 but thats pushing it.
Anonymous said on 6/Jan/09
he's somewhere around 1,75 cm 5.9 i say
umad80 said on 3/Jan/09
If you're going by Will Moseley, you have to remember that Will was wearing dress shoes and Rupert was wearing chucks.
sofie said on 30/Dec/08
In a picture of william moseley and rupert grint standing next to each other rupert is about 2-3 (estimate) inches shorter then william, and william moseley is 5'10. So that would make him about 5'7-8.
Anonymous said on 10/Dec/08
This is just depressing, 2 years and still no change.
aijju said on 10/Dec/08
i think rup is 5'8 or 5'8
Nik said on 8/Dec/08
I still say he's 5-8. He slouches alot is why he looks a little shorter.
Jon said on 2/Dec/08
In harry potter, ron weasley is suppose to be quite tall compared to harry and hermione. At 5ft 7.75, its not really very appealing is it? i was expecting him to be at least 5'10 or sumthing. my god.... if i met those three in person id tower over them, and im only 5'11.5! wow!
Anonymous said on 30/Nov/08
I was appeasing you.
said on 27/Oct/08
Seriously, you need to open the picture and make it scroll down to the top of Rupert's head. Rupert is right in the middle of his eyes, making him 4.5" shorter. Then you put in that Rob was wearing a cowboy boot type shoe (look: Click Here
), take away that Rupert is slightly closer to the camera, and Rob is leaning down a tad, and you have to wonder. Why isn't Rob taller than this if he's 6'1"? If Rupert is barely 5'8" according to Rob, then Rupert should only come to his nose area with the shoes. You can say what you want, but the picture you gave is the best one, because Rupert is the shortest here. Then there is the pics of him standing next to 5'11" Jason Isaacs: Click Here
He looks around 6'. I do believe the hair gives off a terrible illusion and probably because he tends to wear cowboy style boots.
said on 26/Oct/08
Yes, umad, but Rob definitely looks taller than 6'1" compared to the other cast members (i.e., Kristen, Ashely Greene, Nikki, Rupert, etc.). You are simply kidding yourself if you think Rupert looked 5'8" or 5'9" next to Rob, even considering Rob's heel advantage. Rob simply towered over Rupert. Click Here
Rob's not even standing up properly and Rupert's not even up to his eyes, come on now, eyebrows is 4 inches, so Grint at 5'8" would put Rob at around 6'2". Rob also looked around 6'2" with Ed Westwick and the Phelps twin. Check out his page.
Anonymous said on 26/Oct/08
haha, now you're just not going to answer me?
umad80 said on 25/Oct/08
I dunno, never thought of it much. Rob always seemed around 6'1" or perhaps a little shorter than that. (During GoF premiere, pics with Rupert suggested shorter than he claims.) But Kristen is definitely around 5'4" because the one playing Jacob is supposed 5'9" (ought to be interesting to see how they make him to be 6'5" or more in later movies, though he could still grow. I think he's only 16) and she seems definitely around that height in pics together. I don't know about the others.
Rupert and Rob seem to be friends, so it'll be interesting to see if Rupert shows up at the premiere in December. Might gauge how tall they both are.
Anonymous said on 20/Oct/08
Umad (I'm sorry that I didn't know what the name was referring to?), I was not asking you if you have read Twilight in order to make a joke or anything, I absolutely love those books, as I love Harry Potter, and am super excited for the movie! I think it's great that books like HP and Twilight can appeal to everyone, that is what makes them great and unique.
I just asked to suggest that we discuss the actors' heights of that film (Rob, Kristen, Ashely, etc.) because more photos and such seem to be coming out about them as the movie will be released in November! How about it? I think that Rob is about 6'1" or 6'2", Kristen 5'3" or 5'4", Ashely 5'4", and Nikki 5'5". You?
umad80 said on 20/Oct/08
"LOL (as you like to do, which, I don't quite understand, seeing as you are about 30 years old I believe)....if you've not noticed (as you probably haven't, unsurprisingly Rupert is the only HP actor's page you visit), but I haven't really said anything about Emma's or Dan's heights in months, I simply do not care because it is pretty easy to see that Rob is not going to change their heights on here, especially Rupert who he has even said he has evidence that he's no more than this height (he's not even commented on any other HP actors pages, so I think that says summat, doesn't it?)" <=--Run-on sentence. You kept separating everything with a comma.
I act younger because I use the internet acronym 'lol'? How does that work, exactly? Especially since you've done it yourself and claim to be 17, so in actuality, I guess you act like a 13 year old girl *and* trying to sound older than 17 now. And it's not like I'm typing, 'D00d ur soooo lame!1!!1111! Y R U here u dumass!111!!" like most of these 13 year old girls. (And yes, I am aware that dumb is spelled with a 'b', but most of the 13 year olds online do not spell it correctly.) *snort* If you think using an internet acronym like 'lol' or 'brb' or something along those lines makes you sound 13, then so be it. I don't mind. I also find it most amusing that since I brought up your run-on sentence you have tried your very best not to do it and even started separating into paragraphs. Point to me!
I also cannot take up half the page when I only do about three or four small paragraphs. Seriously, your sarcasm lacks, perhaps you should not try it. And also, your math is a bit off. Not that I'm stellar at it, but at least I know that if I write something on the 17th and then someone's response shows up on the 18th that it would be at least 24 hours in between. Unlike yourself who just responded on the same day, which would be less than 24 hours. Oh, and if you're counting, it is now the 20th and it took me two days to respond.
Umad is from Buffy the Vampire Slayer. A show you were sadly supposedly too young to have notice, and in such case, missed out on one of TV's greatest cult show. And yes, I have read Twilight and the subsequent books that followed and do know about the movie. What exactly is your point? I'm also reading Artemis Fowl and know that a movie is in the works. I also have read The Spiderwick Chronicles and watched the movie. I also read Edgar Allen Poe, Shakespeare, Harry Potter, To Kill A Mocking Bird, A Series of Unfortunate Events, books by E.B. White, Bunnicula, The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe, Lord of the Rings, Oliver Twist... Should I be going on or is there a ridiculous point? Where you going to make fun of that fact? I mean, Twilight is just for teens, right? Adults can't enjoy this? But I guess I can't enjoy Harry Potter, either. After all, it's just a kids book.
Oh, and btw (Yes, I am using *gasp* 'btw'! How 13 year old girlish of me!) Rob has answered several of my comments. You know, you might want to look at the end of the post and see that he has. And I'm sure right now he wants us to stick to height instead of you trying to one up me... which I haven't quite figured out why. But I am quite amused by the whole thing. What *are* you trying to prove any ways?
Oh hey Rob, whatever happened to you making Rupert an actual 5'8"? I remember you saying that 2008 might be the year. :P And I have to ask, if you think he is closer to 5'8" then anything else, do you think Tom Felton must be shorter than the listed 5'9"? I mean, you've got to admit, the Order of the Phoenix premiere photos of those two does make a strong argument that he isn't a weak 5'8" but closer to the 5'9" mark. I mean, accept for one or two photos where you can tell he's not standing all that well, Rupert looked around an 1" less, but can easily be made up if he was wearing different shoes.
Anonymous said on 18/Oct/08
Rob never answers you, at least I've actually got him to respond to me a few times. As for run-on sentences, I know what they are. Actually, I don't think it's simply a long post, I just thought it funny that your posts took up 1/2 the page and, now, that it took you less than a day to respond to my comment. Anyway, my sentences are not run-on, so I don't quite understand what you mean by that.
If you are trying to say that I act older than I am, in a way you obviously think is bad (I'm not the only one making a fool of myself, herself innit?), how can you say this? You are thirty and trying to use the term "lol". Please, just please, do not do that. You speak like a 13 year old girl. You are acting younger than your age, are you not? I'm sorry, it's just ridiculous (and please don't respond, "just because I'm thirty doesn't mean that I can't speak like that"). I know plenty of older people that find it quite all right if they don't speak like that.
I've actually got some questions ---> what does umad80 stand for? Also, have you read the Twilight series and/or heard that a film has been made?
umad80 said on 18/Oct/08
Run-on sentences would be sentences that do not stop. You know, they do not end with punctuation, and is not that we have a lot to say in the comments. Which, by the way, would be that way because I've separated the thoughts into mini paragraphs. It's called separating your thoughts into coherent structure.
Oh, and I only posted the Rupert Everett picture, not the others. But I was conversing with Rob about it, so posting them again was just to get his opinion since he didn't answer last time. At least I'm not trying to use a year and a half old picture where Emma is wearing better shoes and both are walking in it as proof. Rupert is actually standing still and wearing less shoe. lol
Lastly, are we still stuck on 'honor' with a 'u' to prove your very Britishness? Rob already looked up your IP and proved you were NOT from the UK. Stop trying to insinuate that you are. It makes you look hopeless. And I couldn't possibly have been here since 2000. For one, Harry Potter the movie didn't come out until 2001. For two, Rupert's height would have continued to change since then since he was only 12 at the time. Thirdly, the domain was not purchased until 2004. (Yes, I know you were trying to be sarcastic, but sarcasm only works if you actually make sense with it.) It actually is fun insulting a 17 year old who continues to make a fool of themselves. What can I say? I get a big kick out of people who try to act older than what they claim.
And Rob, I still don't agree with you. But it sure as hell is fun to see who will be right in the end. :P
Anonymous said on 17/Oct/08
hahaha, you can't read my run-on sentences? You've taken up half of this page with your last comment, so don't speak to me about ADD comments and run-on sentences. btw, have you not been repeating that stuff ever since you came on this site in the year 2000? Come on man....at least I wait until new photos come out to go on the attack (and your Wild Target photos don't count because, oh yes, you've already posted them on here). And, as for your age, it's not so much that I've memorised your specifics as, surprisingly, I'm not stuck on you, it's the fact that I have a good memory, which, is not a crime either. Also, I just have to say it, I'm glad that I've got a "pushing 30"-year-old actually trying to insult a 17-year-old, this is definitely an honour.
said on 14/Oct/08
Seriously Rob? Even after the ceremony pics when the trio have no shoes on and you even admitted in that point in time Rupert looked 5'9"? And what about Wild Target set pics? Around his co-stars, a 5'9"ish height wasn't out the realm of possibility.
Rupert with Bill Nighy, which you have listed as 6'1": Click Here
(Bill is wearing a dress shoe btw, and Rupert is wearing perhaps something close to what he normally wears. I'll share a pic in a minute showing this.)
Rupert with 6'4" Rupert Everett: Click Here
(You can see both Ruperts' shoe here for comparison.) Rupert looks 7.5" shorter. In a perfect picture, that'd make him 5'8.5" but since it is not, and Rupert E. seems to have a lot more shoe to him, and the angle of the pic, and Rupert G. slouching - you could argue that the gap is less than what appears...)
Rupert with 5'8.25" (according to your site) co-star Emily Blunt: Click Here
(Emily was seen in two types of shoes. One was with heels, another with boots that probably didn't give her much advantage. First the heel: Click Here
and then the boot: Click Here
But... are you saying you don't believe that person who sent in the photo?
[Editor Rob: I believe matthew lewis is 182cm, and I don't think grint is 173-4cm vs him, just my estimate.]
said on 12/Oct/08
If you don't care, why are you here? Bashing others? Trying to insult them? Trying to sound intelligent with it? This is a page discussion about Rupert's height. I don't care if Rob doesn't change it, I just wonder why he's stuck on it. Especially since I know that he received a picture from a fan with Rupert and he has yet to put it up. (Still a mystery. Any reason Rob? I can ask them to resend it.) Putting it up would make Rob have to change Rupert's height. Perhaps slightly but it would still have to be changed.
Oh, and if I were 50 years old and talked about Rupert's height, I have that right. Rob has no rules, and no one says I'm not allowed to. (Btw, I am not 30, I said "pushing 30." Good to know that you're stuck on me like this, it means a lot.) And of course, at least I haven't changed my name or my gender to prove a point. I've been steadfast, and never lied about who I was. I'm not embarrassed by who I am, and I'm having fun. Even if Rob never changes Rupert's height, despite how obvious it is that he needs to, I've had a lot of fun and have met some awesome people along the way.
And I'll never weaver from being a fan of Rupert's and want to talk about his height. And if you want to continue talking about Emma being 5'7" and Dan being 5'6", then you should. Rob may never change his mind (nor will I), but what's the point of stopping what you believe? This site doesn't make or break any truths, it is just Rob's guestimation and I'm sure he hopes people have a lot of fun along the way.
Oh, and when I finally got through all your run-on sentences, I can tell you that you have indeed visited their pages very recently. The last comment from you on Dan, and I would bet $50 bucks it is you, on October 1st talking about Dan being taller and bulkier. You also visited Emma's site in September, BUT no one has said anything on there since your last comment, so that doesn't truly count. And the same with some other HP actors, no one is really commenting, so you don't really get to say you haven't visited for months on purpose.
[Editor Rob: I still do not personally think rupert is in the 5ft 8-9 range. I think he's close to 5ft 8.
Anonymous said on 12/Oct/08
LOL (as you like to do, which, I don't quite understand, seeing as you are about 30 years old I believe)....if you've not noticed (as you probably haven't, unsurprisingly Rupert is the only HP actor's page you visit), but I haven't really said anything about Emma's or Dan's heights in months, I simply do not care because it is pretty easy to see that Rob is not going to change their heights on here, especially Rupert who he has even said he has evidence that he's no more than this height (he's not even commented on any other HP actors pages, so I think that says summat, doesn't it?) Anyway, you're in denial. Nobody but you cares about Rupert's height, so just don't try to persuade Rob, he clearly does not care.
umad80 said on 11/Oct/08
Torny, if you're talking about the picture of him promoting PoA, then yes, he was shorter. That was back when he was still pretty young about 15 years old... that doesn't really count any more. :)
Torny said on 10/Oct/08
I was surprised, but hey! he must be aournd 5f 7.75 (172cm) because I saw him right next to Japanese singers and he was around one of them who is 170cm...
They're not reaaly tall on HP's stage...
umad80 said on 9/Oct/08
Who is ranting? And who is embarrassing themselves? I'm stating facts and a sound argument. I'm not saying things like, 'omg! how dare u think he's that short!!!' LOL At least I'm not insisting Emma is 5'7" like *some* people. And I'm certainly not arguing that Rupert IS 5'10" but rather that he isn't as short as Rob listed him as and wondering why he's still stuck on this 5'7.75" stuff. So, really, if anyone is embarrassing themselves, it would be you, "AJ".
Anonymous said on 6/Oct/08
Yeah, umad80, did you see what Rob wrote? Please, before you embarrass yourself further, get of this site....right? You are not getting anywhere with your ranting.
umad80 said on 5/Oct/08
Still stuck on that? What, Rupert can't grow pass 20? I mean, if Rupert Everett can, why can't Rupert? It's not uncommon for guys to grow pass the 18 mark that they usually stop at. We've already shown you pictures from his new movie where he looks to be a lot taller than what you have him as. And at the ceremony you've already admitted that he looked 5'9" in a few photos. You know, where they're barefoot! And let's not forget that he was around the same height as Tom Felton at the Order of the Phoenix London premiere. (Tom with slightly better shoes.) Let's face it, he may not be 5'10" - I don't know unless I had a tape measure, but he certainly isn't as short as you have him. What do you have against Rupert being taller than what you ESTIMATE him to be?
said on 5/Oct/08
I'd say he's about 5'8 at least and 5'10 at most.
[Editor Rob: are some people calling this guy 5ft 10? He's miles from that, Matthew Lewis is a little taller against grint than he is against me, let's put it that way.
And I only hover on the 5ft 8 mark myself!!]
Anonymous said on 30/Sep/08
Thus losing 3.25"? Wow, no way.
PaleCabbage said on 28/Sep/08
I tend to be slocuhed and stand at 5'6, when in reality i am 5'9.25. I reckon ruperts in the 5'10 region
umad80 said on 24/Sep/08
I know that Rob has Bill listed at 6'1" here (but would be 6'2" or so with the shoes vs. Rupert) and Emily Blunt as 5'8.25" though obvious with those huge heels and looking at Bill and also with Rupert Everett... isn't it obvious that Rupert is closer to what his agency is listing him as? Between a strong 5'9" and 5'10" seems about right now.
said on 23/Sep/08
Rupert with 6'2" Bill Nighy: Click Here
Bill is wearing dress shoes vs. Rupert's trainers: Click Here
Rupert with 5'7" Emily Blunt who is wearing 3" heels (check the pic above): Click Here
Conclusion: Rupert is definitely taller than listed here.
said on 22/Sep/08
Okay, Rupert looks around 7.5" shorter than 6'4" Rupert Everett here: Click Here
- but he's slouching down and probably has less of a heel. But even so, Rupert looks to be closer to 5'9" then to 5'8"!
umad80 said on 16/Sep/08
I don't see where I said that was a good thing? I was making fun of that. Sorry if I was conveying that better.
It'll be interesting to see him standing next to Bill Nighy in "Wild Target" for sure. That will hopefully give us a better estimate.
Anonymous said on 15/Sep/08
Well, umad80, I've not been on this site for awhile, so I've not heard Rob say that he may upgrade Rupert to your beloved 5'8" but, on that note, why would Rupert's being upgrade to 5'8" make anything in this world better? It seriously is .25", look at a ruler, that's nothing, you would not be able to tell a 5'7.75" person & a 5'8" person apart at all.....plus, Rupert is listed as shorter than Zac Efron, now that is just sad......
umad80 said on 13/Sep/08
lol I don't expect Rob to ever change Rupert's height, despite him saying he might upgrade Rupert to 5'8". :P Even bare foot ceremony pictures showed Rupert at least 4" on his co-stars. And in 2004, while promoting Prisoner of Azkaban, he never looked that much shorter than 5'8" Chris Columbus. I mean, there are shots of him during the photocall that he looks 5'7"-ish and some during NYC premiere that he looks a little shorter but has worse shoes. So if you figure he was probably near 5'7" in 2004, how could he only be this tall 4 years later? lol Grant you he was 15/16 then, but still. He's definitely taller than this.
Anonymous said on 10/Sep/08
Wow, and, once again Rupert's height has not been changed in about 10 years - does this give the impression that Rob really does not care about the HP actors? Ehm, hmmm, I think yes :).
Rose said on 10/Sep/08
i am 5 ft 7.75 too.. he always looks very tall in harry potter but i guess he is not :p
Daii said on 16/Aug/08
Ron is supposed to be tall in the Harry Potter books, and I thought rupert was a 6'0 kind of boy but obviously not. this is a revelation
Anonymous said on 25/Jul/08
yeah, maybe 5'9. I agree we have to take the shoes into consideration.But I'd rather say 5'8 or 5'8.5
umad80 said on 14/Jul/08
You probably think that because when Harry Potter actors are at certain events, they're usually wearing better shoes. For instance at premieres and say the NMAs, Rupert was wearing chucks vs. everyone else wearing dress shoes. This is obviously going to make him look shorter and look more 5'7" so you have to take that into consideration. It's obvious Rupert is 5'8" at the least and closer to 5'9". Barefoot at the ceremony, Rupert had around 4" on Dan and Emma.
Anonymous said on 13/Jul/08
He might be 5'9 but if he is, he must have the worst posture ever. It's true that he can look pretty short. Most of the time, he doesn' look taller than 5'7.
said on 10/Jul/08
Well, Rupert is definitely at least 5'8". He was photographed with Robert Knox, the actor who got stabbed. That boy's father claims his son was 6'1". And there is a definitely a 5" difference. Click Here
- Trouble is, it's hard to know what shoes Robert Knox was wearing. If they are regular tennis shoes, it's obvious Rupert is taller than 5'8". If they were chucks, Rupert is definitely closer to 5'8". My guess? 5'8.5" because of the way Robert is holding his head and the possibility of shoe difference.
umad80 said on 23/Jun/08
Er. Not really. It's more like 3.75"-4" difference. (The top of Rupert's head is around Matt's eyebrows, basically putting him 4" shorter.) And Matt is standing more straight than Rupert in that particular picture. And while Rupert has the advantage of standing in front, he has a disadvantage in shoes. He is wearing chucks while Matt is wearing dress shoes. So I think Rupert has a better chance of gaining height on Matt if all these factors were evened out rather than losing anything. IMO if they were standing next to each other, with the same shoes, and the same posture, Rupert would be around 3.5" shorter. And that is only if Matt is 6". While he's estimated there by the picture with the fan, that particular fan said more like 6'1".
said on 22/Jun/08
I think Rob has him right at 5'7.5'' - 5'7.75'' and not quite 5'8'' either, there is a 4.5 inch difference between him and Matt there but if Matt stood up straight there would be legit 5 inch difference Click Here
he still can give really short impressions even as low as 5'5.5'' sometimes
manoj said on 18/Jun/08
i stood next to rupert i am 5'9 and he was almost half inch shorter can say more closer to 5'8
said on 17/Jun/08
Sorry Maxette, but you must be thinking of someone else. There is no way Rupert is 5'6". Just absolutely no way. I can agree with Rob's 5'7.75" before I can agree with 5'6". I've seen him several times. Like I said, even at the GoF premiere when I had better shoes that would make me much taller than my 5'5" height... Rupert was still taller. Hell, look here: Click Here
- if Rupert where only 5'6" then Dan and Emma would only be about 5'2"-5'3". And that is the claim that Devon Murray had and Rob estimated him closer to 5'2". You can see that if Rupert had his head up straight and they had the same shoes (Devon's most likely wearing dress shoes vs. Rupert's chucks) there would definitely be 5" to 6" difference between he and Devon here: Click Here
and again, this was during GoF era. The picture already looks 4"-4.5" so you add in these factors plus the way Rupert looks slightly closer to the camera you're getting way closer to 6" difference putting Rupert between 5'7" and 5'8".
maxette said on 12/Jun/08
nope I was literally right next to him (several times) and he was def shorter then me by a few inches. there is no way he's 5'9" as he would be eye to eye with me. Also appears to be slouchy and bends his head but is still well below 5'9". he's not a big guy either, lol. he's tiny!! i was surprised. Weasley twins are tall though, i was sitting down when i saw them though so cant estimate.
Stephanie said on 29/May/08
I don't think he's 5' 9"... but he's not shorter than 5' 7" either.
umad80 said on 27/May/08
There is no way that Rupert is 5'6"ish. lol I'm 5'5" and had on shoes that made me 5'6"ish probably even close to 5'7" and Rupert was taller than me. And this was at the GoF premiere and he had on chucks as always. And if he's 5'6"ish, then Dan and Emma are around 5'3"ish and Tom Felton is closer to 5'7".
Nik said on 24/May/08
There is no way this guy is only 5-7.75 He's really about 5-8.75 to 5-9. He looks much shorter because of his laid back appearence. If he stood up straight he would be 5-9. There's no doubt in my mind.
maxette said on 24/May/08
I walked past him in the corridor at work several times, I'm 5'8.5 and he's nowhere near my height at all. I would say he's about 5'6ish max and looks tiny!
said on 23/May/08
Yeah, Rupert's a big guy. I think that adds to the illusion of shortness when in fact he's probably pretty close to 5'9". And yes, Rupert is also very laid back and always wearing chucks. When the trio are barefoot at the HWF ceremony, it's obvious that he has around 4" on Emma and Dan.
So yeah, 5'8.5" can be very accurate, though I think closer to 5'9" is more likely. Matt (Neville) is 6'0" so if Rupert is 5'9", then three inches shorter would make sense. And it has been debated on if Matt is taller than 6'. He looked 6'1" with the 6'3" twins, but 6'0" is pretty legit too. And there are plenty of photos of Rupert standing with 5'9" Tom Felton at the OotP premiere in London and there was barely any difference... just mostly in footwear! Here are some pictures of them together: Click Here
and here is what Tom's shoes looked like: Click Here
And here is a picture of the trio from the OotP London premiere: Click Here
- Emma is standing really close to the camera so it's harder to tell with her, but Dan would have about an inch or so in shoe over Rupert and they're standing pretty close together. Even with the advantage, you can see at least two inches. And the trio barefoot at the ceremony: Click Here
Ahleks, these are pictures that are circulating on the internet right now. They're all from Order of the Phoenix. In fact, if you look at the scene where the trio, Neville and the twins are talking about the Room of Requirement, you'll see that the trio are wearing those exact same clothes found in the promo shot. (Actually even before, when they're at the Hog's Head, but it's hard to tell what Ron is wearing with the hideous jacket. lol)
Ahleks said on 23/May/08
Well, if you're right on this one, I'm stoned. They just can't be over 16 on this pic. Dan and Rupert look like kids.
Grint for sure, looked older in Order of the Phoenix.
Anonymous said on 22/May/08
Maybe he's 5'9 but he's surely not 5'10. In most pictures, he just looks a little bit taller than Dan and Emma. Do you think a 5'10 guy would look so short next to a 5'5 guy and a 5'5 girl?And I think Emma may be 5'4. He looks more like 5'8,I think. In Harry Potter 5, he didn't look taller than 5'7 to me. Or maybe 5'8 at most. He was not so much taller than Harry.And he was considerably shorter than Neville. But maybe he had a bad posture. He effectively seems to have a very laid back posture and I think he always wears flat shoes. It's more his style.That's why I think he can be 5'9 but no way he's 5'10. I agree that he needs a little upgrade. Maybe 5'8.5 (174 cm)
123456789 said on 22/May/08
When he was on MTV here in Canada , he looked to be about 5'9'' - 5' 10'' , the 2 hosts that were on that day are 5'8'' and 5'11'' and he was almost as tall as the taller host. He's taller than I thought , thats for sure. This was during the summer when he was on TV here. He's also heftier than I thought , he looks to be about 160-170 lbs. If you type 'Rupert Grint MTV' on youtube you get some clips of him on MTV Canada and theres an 11 second clip of him greeting the hosts and he's just about as tall as the 5'11'' host , who wears glasses.
said on 22/May/08
Ahleks, do you realize this was taken last year for Order of the Phoenix? Making the trio between 17-19 years old? Meaning that most likely they're not growing any more? (Rupert and Dan could still have a growth spurt, that's possible, but could just as well be unlikely.) Rupert is going on 20, he would've been 14 six years ago. Dan is going on 19, he'd have been 14 five years ago. And Emma just turned 18 and she was 14 four years ago. You might actually want to look a little bit before you make assumptions like this because this is what they looked like at 14: Click Here
Ahleks said on 21/May/08
umad80, do you realize they were like 14 on this pic?
said on 11/May/08
Really, 5'9" seems to be more accurate. Just look at this picture: Click Here
- if Rupert and Emma stand up straight and are closer together, there is definitely at least 4" there as there is at least three where they are standing. It's hard to say why Dan looks taller other than the fact that he's standing closest to the camera and the shoes?
dwane said on 22/Apr/08
he is 5-10 i think
umad80 said on 20/Apr/08
Ahleks, I've been lobbying for Rupert to be upgraded. In a lot of barefoot shots, you can clearly see that Rupert has about 4" on Dan. In shots of them with their feet in cement, it's more around 3". Dan looks like a pretty good 5'5" so Rupert is taller than his listed height imo. :P
Ahleks said on 18/Apr/08
Anna says on 17/Jan/08
You guys should check this out: Click Here
And they're all barefoot so... is Dan shorter than 5,5 or is Rupert taller than 5,7.75? These heights aren't right.
wow, Grint has easily at least three inches on Radcliffe there.
rahul said on 10/Apr/08
he's definitely at least 5'10
Ash said on 5/Apr/08
HE is atleast 5'9" as he isn't much shorter than 5'10 Tamsin Egerton in Driving Lessons.
said on 30/Mar/08
I was hoping Al Murray would put everything to rest... I didn't care who was right, just wanted to know once and for all. lol But I think Rupert is more accurately about 5'8.75", close to 5'9", then he is 5'7.75". There are two pictures of Rupert next to Al, but unfortunately they're obviously both rubbish. Although I think you can draw from both of them, that if you put in all the factors, Rupert would definitely be around Al's nose if they were in perfect conditions. Click Here
- Here Al is obviously just slightly closer to the camera, dress shoes, and I think Rupert is bending down just a bit. He would be 5'7.5" obviously without these factors. Add them and I think it gives you around an inch or so. And that is only because if you look at this picture: Click Here
- Rupert is clearly about 5" shorter putting him at 5'10", but Al's head is bent down, but then you add the difference of shoes... So obviously 5'9" might be too much, but less than 5'8" I think is clearly too little.
Julie said on 25/Mar/08
He looks between 5'8" and (possibly) 5'9" to me. Closer to 5'8", I'd wager. He has rather laid-back posture (i.e slouches more often than not) and would tend to look shorter than he is when next to people with better posture like Daniel and Emma.
umad80 said on 25/Mar/08
The only way for Rupert to be in the 5'6" to 5'7" range is for Dan and Emma to be about 5'2" to 5'3" and for me to be in the same range. I've seen him twice and both times he was taller than me. And he had considerable height to Dan and Emma at the HWF ceremony. I always say at least 4" in bare feet, but I will say at least 3"-4" and if Dan is 5'5" (which I think he most likely is, looks to lose height at night) then Rupert is no less than 5'8" and no more than 5'9".
Anonymous KinG said on 25/Mar/08
rupert look no way more than 5ft7.. He look around 5ft6~5ft7 range.. 5ft7.5 might consider only..
Evanna said on 24/Mar/08
An(na)nymous, Radcliffe and Watson are 5'7" only in your dreamland. Dan Rad looks 5'4" next to Daniel Day-Lewis, and Watson is notably shorter than Kate Moss, who's not even 5'6".
Man, you are crazier than my husband's ex-wife.
umad80 said on 24/Mar/08
To put your statement in prospective, *cough*, I have no problem with advocation of someone being taller. However, when it's downright obvious that Emma and Dan are not taller than listed heights, it's just downright stupid. Dan has admitted to being 5'5" and Emma was around, or possibly a bit taller, than him at the HWF ceremony. And Emma was not taller than JKR at the PoB awards. It's just obvious. And if JKR is 5'5" like her claim, which I think is right, when she wore the 3" heels there that would make her 5'8" to Emma's around 5'7.5" about right.
And what you're saying is that the camera angle is actually favoring Rupert despite the fact that Ben Lyons is closer and they are standing on an angle? Well, Rob would have to clear that one up because looking at the 'photos and perspective' part of the site, it looks to me like the angle would favor Ben more than Rupert. Dan was actually standing in a different area and direction then Rupert was, which could explain why it might make him look taller. He was at least 8" shorter than Ben putting Ben at 6'1". Shoes could've been a factor as well obviously. Tom was also just below eye level on Ben and standing where Dan was. Rupert was on the opposite side and on an angle as I said.
Now I admit I haven't seen OotP since I got the DVD, but I have seen it a few times, and I don't remember at any point when Trelawny is getting sacked and Harry/Dan and Hermione/Emma are standing next to McGonagall/Smith. You must be watching something else. They are with the rest of the students watching the spectacle. The only scene where any of the trio are in close proximity of McGonagall/Smith is after Harry has the dream of Mr. Weasley and she and Ron are taking him to see Dumbledore. In that, because of them walking, it's hard to get a clear shot, but Smith always appears to be taller than Dan by anywhere from an inch to two.
Anonymous said on 22/Mar/08
Ehm, yeah, I don't think there is much to give away. Anyway, I really don't think it matters what others think of you on this site; it's a site about heights of celebrities, it's hillarious(ly cool). Anyway, I was actually asking if you would need a comma there, not trying to emphasize a mistake because for all I know it wasn't one....And watch the OotP scene in which Trelawny gets sacked...Smith is wearing heel-ish shoes whereas Dan and Emma are wearing their school shoes, D and E are literally taller than her; watch this scene if you want to know what I am talking about and report back to me. To be honest, I was surprised when I saw the shot in the theatre because Smith proceeds to comfort T and she was as tall as her, who is listed as 5'7", oh actually 5'7.75", on this site. So, it's weird, but that's what we saw, meaning D and E are taller than 5'5", more like 5'7" or 5'8". Also, um, I saw that behind the scenes as well and Rupert looked taller because of the camera angle and, actually, I thought Dan was looking taller than normal in that video, haha...I think it funny that you say that I always advocate Dan and Emma being taller when, in reality, that's what you do with Rupert. Oh yeah, of course Emma looked taller than normal compared to him at that Paris photocall because of her massive heels, my bad. They looked normal to me man.
said on 18/Mar/08
But she is entertaining, to say the least! I like how she's staying here at Rupert's page and Evanna's but always bringing up Emma's height. lol
To keep this on height: Click Here
- The guy, Ben Lyons, interviewing Rupert claims be 6'3". Rupert in that pose right there comes right to the tip of his noes. Mr. Lyons though is technically closer to the camera. Can't tell shoe difference though obviously. All we know is Rupert is wearing the shoes he wears as Ron when they're in school.
Evanna said on 15/Mar/08
Another trademark sentence of hers: "I'm being completely honest!" Whenever she says that, we know she's lying.
Anyway she's already been discredited here many times, proven herself to be a filthy little liar/hypocrite/smart-aleck... no one takes her seriously anymore, Rob least of all.
umad80 said on 14/Mar/08
Oh God, she gives herself away again, Evanna. Remember she used to insist that Dan and Emma were taller than Maggie Smith in OotP? Of course, I don't remember one scene where they were around her to show that, but whatever. lol
I wish Rupert and Dan weren't walking in the new clip from E!. Because it's hard to prove the difference in height... but yes, Rupert looked taller.
Anonymous said on 13/Mar/08
Well, Dan and Emma were taller than her in OotP, so you do the math. Also, I wasn't picking on grammar! I was simply asking a question as to whether you would need, seeing as you are the experienced and older ones; I'm being completely honest! Also, I don't care about the hair, but who's to say I'm underage? I'm not; how old do you think I am, 10?
umad80 said on 12/Mar/08
Oh, look! Picking on grammar and punctuation. So Anna.
But you've got to be kidding me. Greasy hair in the movie? Are you sure you're not thinking of Alan Rickman's wig? There is no way the production would go forth (heh, heh) if someone didn't look "good" and that includes having greasy hair. LOL Hell, his hair never looked greasy when it wasn't styled. A bit unmanageable and flat, but never greasy.
Oh, and "rofl" and "lol" have been around since the inception of the internet and since I've been online, which was in 1995. You do the math.
But speaking of the 4th movie, Rupert was clearly near the height he's listed at here in that movie. He was taller than Maggie Smith by a bit. Of course, I don't know how tall she is, but she towered over Dan and Rupert was taller than her by a little bit.
Anonymous said on 11/Mar/08
I have a question, would you need a comma after the word sense in your last comment or could you do without one?
Evanna said on 11/Mar/08
An(na)nymous, you shouldn't drink before you post your comments:
a) they make no sense, and are in no way height-related;
b) you're underage.
Anonymous said on 11/Mar/08
Well, I mean, come on, you old folk are pretty hip; "rofl" and "lol", now those words are definitely not so 10 years ago....Oh, and I quote you, "But repulsive? Ugly? Not really hari adjectives"..."repulsive and disgusting were words we used back in the day...usually referring to those who had disturbingly greasy hair..." You described hair nevertheless....dude, rupert's hair may have been professionally styled on the set, but the fact is, it was so long that it still looked greasy. Look at it closely the next time you see the movie, which will probably be never.
umad80 said on 11/Mar/08
rofl Evanna. Remember, she's so young that the wording of "ugly" towards hair is probably the new, hip thing and us old folk just don't know that. Repulsive and disgusting were the words we used back in the day. Usually referring to those who had disturbingly greasy hair not hair that was long and professionally styled on set all the time. lol
I was hoping Rupert would attend the Empire Awards solely based on the fact that I wanted to see him standing next to others. LOL
Anonymous said on 10/Mar/08
um, hair can be called ugly quite easily, i've heard it said many times, probably because ugly's definition is "unpleasant or repulsive, esp. in appearance". hair is, obviously, an appearance, so i think that adjective would work well and that's why people often times use it hehe, silly. evanna has the same first name as evanna lynch, who plays luna lovegood, a character in the harry potter series. and, btw, i find it funny that people are saying that a ren is freaking out about hair....i've heard people say that rupert's hair was "quite ugly" in the fourth movie; it was an "oily mess". sycqwa. shangren. however, when that boy got his hair cut for the fourth movie, he became a full-fledged hottie, i was moved to the dark side....he's also 5'9" imo
Evanna said on 10/Mar/08
Rob should build a new website, Celebhairs.com, where freaks like Anna could discuss "repulsive" hairdos.