How tall is Rupert Grint - Page 4

anna said on 22/May/07
Yeah, I know the thing about the growing, but that is definitely not true for all girls and I think some people just think that because she is a girl she's not grown, but I really don't think that is true. And in your photo, it's not very good because we cannot see their feet, so Emma could be on a lower step, lower part of a hill, etc. Also, if you look at the photo with Dan way in front of Emma and Rupert, he looks shorter, which shouldn't be the case if he stands that far in front. This leads me to believe that Emma and Dan are on lower ground than Rupert. Click Here And with the outtake, I wrote about it on Emma's page, but in short, Dan really isn't leaning that much and Emma really isn't standing that much in back of him, their feet are actually quite close together. Plus, Emma is wearing flats, which look to give her very little height. And this also means that she was wearing flats for the cover and although Dan is slouching/leaning in that photo, so is Emma and she is standing in back of him, which would mean if things evened out she would be about 2 inches taller than him. And I think that the 5'7" for Emma would fit your analysis as well because it would put Dan at 5'5", Emma at of course 5'7", and Rupert at about 5'9" because he looks to be about 2 inches taller than her, although sometimes noticeably less, but as of now, I'll say he is 2 inches taller. I may be going mad, but I really think this would make sense, no?

umad80 said on 21/May/07
Well, if you noticed in the outtakes of Teen Vogue, it looks like Dan is leaning down a lot and Emma is standing straight. I guess that is the look they were going for.

As for thinking that Emma wouldn't grow after GoF... not true! I stopped growing at 15. My full height at 5'5" had stopped at exactly 15 years of age. Girls tend to stop growing after a certain age, once they hit their growth spurt. Guys are much different. They usually grow 'til about 18, but they can and will grow taller after that. This is medically document. I've posted it before.

I'll give you the one about David, Emma and Rupert, but the rest are too good to say that Emma is 5'7". There are too many pictures of her in front of him, and she isn't even close to being the same height. With her in front, if she was 5'7", she'd pretty much be as tall as him. You can see that this is not the case... Click Here

anna said on 20/May/07
I would definitely agree that Rupert towers over Dan, but I am not so sure I would say the same about Emma. First of all, i would jsut like to say that I think you are very biast in the way you look at photos. Please do not take this in the wrong way, I just think that you should know my opinion. For example, in the photo with David Yates, you say that Rupert is only an inch shorter than Yates and quite a bit taller than Emma. But, when one looks at the picture more closely, you must consider some aspects. Firstly, Rupert is standing well in front of both David and Emma, which, because the camera angle is straight on, means Rupert would look much taller compared to them because he is standing so much closer to the camera. I've noticed that you have said similar things regarding other photos as well. I'm not saying that you are doing it purposely, I just thought I should let you know in case you don't know that standing closer to the camera (unless the camera is above) makes the closer people look taller. The same can be said about that picture you have of just Rupert and Emma and even so, Emma really doesn't look that much shorter than him, she seems like she wouldn't be much shorter than him at all if she stood next to him. Like I've said earlier, I would say 5'7"-5'7.75" for Emma and 5'8"-5'9.5" for Rupert seeing as the new pictures vary so much. I really do not belive she is much shorter than him though. And just to give a notice to everyone, there is a feature on teen vogue articles where they have behind the scenes photos of the photo shoot. The one with the trio should come out pretty soon, probably sometime in June. If there are some good photos, we will be able to compare heights and such and see what kind of footwear Dan and Emma were wearing. And if Emma really was wearing silver flats on the cover photo, that would mean she is without a doubt 2-3 inches taller than Dan now. In general we should have some pretty good comparison photos with the new promotional images and general promoting the three will do. It should settle this thing once and for all. However, I am pretty positive that Emma is more liek ~5'7" and Rupert ~5'9". It's ridiculous to think that neither have grown since GoF.

umad80 said on 20/May/07
I do believe Emma is taller than Dan, but I think maybe only a half inch.

With Rupert, don't forget that Driving Lessons was done back in 2005 where Rupert was only 16. Almost three years later, it is quite possible that Rupert is between 5'9" and 5'10". The OotP pictures just scream that he towers over Dan and Emma.

Here is a perfect example because this is on set behind-the-scenes so it won't be messed with... Rupert is standing behind Dan and has his head down, and he looks to be bordering on two inches taller. Click Here So if you take that into consideration you could add a couple of more inches here.

Or this where Rupert's head comes up to one of the twins' nose. Click Here

I don't know how tall David Yates is, but he seems to be only an inch taller than Rupert? Click Here And Rupert is quite a bit taller than Emma.

Not the best picture, but Rupert and Emma... Click Here

Like I said, these are good indications because they're behind-the-scene footage from other sources who aren't going to mess with height.

anna said on 20/May/07
I would say that Rupert was about 5'6.5"-5'7.5" during PoA, seeing as he does look a fair deal shorter than Chris. However, seeing the DL images, I would once again say he is about 5'8"-5'9" as of now. It would be ridiculous for him not to have grown since PoA in my opinion. And with the Teen Vogue cover, it is hard to tell because of the slouching that is going on, but I really do think that Emma looks about an inch or more taller than Dan, which would again be increased when she stood up straight. I'd also like to add that in another photo, she is wearing silver flats, so there is a possibility that she was wearing those shoes at the time, which would mean there is absolutley no way that Dan is taller than her. And with her slouching, I do think the photographers made her do this and would that not mean that Emma is taller than Dan? I mean if he was taller or approximately the same height, they wouldn't go through so much trouble to do that. To me it's a pretty good indication that she is indeed taller than Daniel.

umad80 said on 20/May/07
Oh, and here is another picture with Chris back in 2004. Now, as I point out on the photo, Chris is in dress shoes and Rupert is in front, so any advantage probably evens out. And I'm not saying I'm completely accurate and I don't know if Chris wears anything to give him extra height... but you can get the idea that Rupert was definitely bordering on 5'7" here... Click Here possibly a bit taller.

Here is another interesting deal... Rupert with Michelle Duncan in Driving Lessons. Now according to her I M D B profile (not exactly the most accurate information, but...) she is 5'8". If you see her in the scene when they're at the club, they're about the same height. Click Here - maybe with her having a bit of advantage. Now, look at it when she has her shoes off. Click Here - There is at least an inch there, maybe more. Add that he still has shoes, and maybe there is just a little less than inch difference.

umad80 said on 20/May/07
I really don't know how tall Emma is (other than what she has said herself). I think as for Teen Vogue that is what the photoshoot was going for. JMO though of course. But they look about the same to me in the picture. It's hard to tell with them leaning their heads so much.

I disagree about the 2004 photo. It might only be an inch shorter, but Chris Columbus has the shoe advantage. And the floor is not slanted. It's only an optical illusion there. No one builds slanted floors. LOL Click Here - like I said, about an inch! And Chris has the shoe advantage here. So Rupert was on par in 2004 of what is put here... and to think that Rupert hasn't grown since 2004 seems a bit off. I doubt Dan stopped growing in 2004. I think he was like 5'4"/5'4.5" with that TRL thing, and the shoes made him 5'5.5" or whatever it was. And he is probably 5'5.5" now and 5'6" with shoes/early morning height. Emma is probably between 5'5" and 5'6".

Also back in 2004, I think Rupert was between 5'7" and 5'8", Dan was between 5'4" and 5'5", and Emma was between 5'3" and 5'4". There are a lot of pictures where she is standing straight and she's a good inch shorter than Dan, and quite a few shorter than Rupert. Click Here

anna said on 19/May/07
Yeah, umad80, Rupert honestly doesn't care about his height, which I really think is a good thing. To me, he's 5'8"/5'9" and Emma is 5'7", which would make sense for most of the new OotP images, but there are still a few unexplainable ones such as the forest and train station images. Maybe she's taller or maybe he's shorter, but as of now, I think the above listings are quite accurate. Also, the new Teen Vogue article about the trio (have you seen it umad80?) pretty much justifies that Emma is at least 5'7" (she states this in the interview). Also, if you look closely at the cover image of Dan and Emma, it looks as if they are standing up. It's easy to see that Dan is standing up relatively straight, whereas Emma is blatantly slouching (maybe an intentionally chosen pose by the photographers?). Even so, Emma still looks easily 1 to 2 inches taller than Dan, which would mean in reality she would be about 3 inches taller. We cannot see either's footwear in this photo, but in some other images from the shoot Dan is wearing tennis shoes and Emma shoes with about an inch(?) heel. However, either may have changed shoes for the cover photo. I am guessing they didn't put Emma in very large heels for the cover shoot though, seeing as they would not want to proliferate the gap. The man is supposed to be taller, but apparently in this situation he is not....And with your photo of Rueprt with Chris Columbus, I would say that Rupert is quite a bit shorter than Chris. If you look at it normally he looks 1 to 2 inches shorter and then when you look at the floor it is tilted to Chris's disadvantage. I would say Rupert was about 5'6.5" to 5'7" there, which would make Dan about 5'5" and Emma about 5'4"/5'5". It is hard to tell because she is bending her legs and the angle is in her disadvantage compared to Dan. This would make her height of 5'7" now even more believeable because this was taken 3 years ago. It is extremely plausible for her to have grown 2 to 3 inches in 3 years.

umad80 said on 18/May/07
There was a new TV spot, and included a Ron/Hermione scene in which it's pretty obvious to me that Rupert has several inches on Emma. The best one is the first picture, but Rupert is leaning down. The others you could probably argue the angle of the pic. Click Here

And here is a bunch of Pride of Britian Awards caps in which you can see that there isn't much difference between Rupert and Tom, and he isn't standing in front. Click Here

Also, here is Rupert in 2004 very close to the same height as 5'8" Chris Columbus. Click Here - and I think Chris has the shoe advantage here and Rupert is leaning a bit. If you want to say that there is no height advantage, that looks closer to the mark you have him now. So are we to believe that Rupert hasn't grown from this position in three years?

umad80 said on 16/May/07
There are plenty of pictures at the pride of britian awards where Rupert is pretty much right next to Tom and still maintains the same height. Maybe just a little less than that.

Also, Rupert's "about 5'8"" claim isn't really accurate. Within that same day, or the day after - I can't remember now - Rupert claimed even lower. I think he has claimed even higher. Rupert doesn't know his height. But there was an article out, where he was bowling, and the interviewer said he was 5'10". Now either Rupert got an official estimate on his height, the interviewer measured him, or there is a lot of lying out there. And I don't see why anyone would lie that much.

And I don't understand why even about 5'8" is too much to swallow. I've already proven that Dan has made himself at least 2 inches taller at premieres, and Rupert is still a good inch or so taller than that! People need to stop taking Dan's height at face value when judging. Especially when you consider dress shoes vs. converse.

Another new picture came out... Click Here - this one again of the trio in the forest. Even with the difference in shoes, you can see it is not much because Rupert is slouching a bit and is standing ever so slightly behind. But he is definitely quite a few inches taller than Dan or Emma. Between 5'9" and 5'10" is not out of the realm of possibility here.

Anonymous said on 16/May/07
He's listed elsewhere as 5'10". And, it was reported that J.K. Rowling wrote in his steadily increasing height into the books, because he'd hit a growth spurt before the others.

Lola said on 16/May/07
Yes, it does look right. The kid is no shorter than 5'8''. And he has poor posture.

6'3'' JK said on 16/May/07
I just can't believe it Rob that you've upgraded this guy to abut 5'8'', it just dosen't look right

anna said on 15/May/07
Yes, maybe Lola, but it seems to me that Rupert is standing well in front of Tom. It may just be me, but it certainly does look so. However, I do believe that Tom Felton is easily 5'10", so 5'9" does seem quite plausible for Rupert. And I agree with you umad80, I appreciate the upgrade Rob, but honestly, 1/4 of an inch? Who cares about that? It just doesn't seem worth it to upgrade someone 1/4 of an inch, that's barely noticeable. I think that umad80 has shown that Rupert is easily 5'9".

umad80 said on 15/May/07
I mentioned that before Lola... at the Pride of Britian Awards Rupert and Tom were on equal footing and they seemed to be the same height, maybe Tom having a slight advantage. (But it was Oct. 2005, not 2006. :))

Of course, I know you can do the whole, "I know someone who said..." but I argued with a person, who is NOT a Rupert fan, over Rupert's height (I still maintain 5'10" by now whether I'm believed or not), and they said that they went to the GoF premiere and they were 5'7" and Rupert was taller than them. I didn't think to ask shoe differences but if they were wearing tennis shoes that give an inch, they probably were 5'8" making Rupert around 5'9" I bet. And all those pictures of Rupert next to Timothy Spall whois 5'7", Rupert is a smidgen taller, AND Timothy - barring any lifts - would still have about an inch in dress shoes making him around 5'8". (This site says a regular man's dress shoe will give you 1.25 inches, thus meaning that Timothy would be, if you go by this sites thoughts on his height, 5'8.25" - though he says 5'8.5" for his height, so he would be 5'9.75", so I don't think that... tallest he might be is 5'8", but I digress.)

But I have some pictures I'd like to share... First off, Rupert next to Dan in OotP. I know this is a coloring book scan, BUT it is an official scene from the movie. Click Here
Rupert and Jamie Waylette who said he is 6'2.5" With the shoes he'd obviously be around an inch taller than this, BUT with Rupert standing in front and Jamie leaning, this probably evens out alright. Click Here
Rupert and Timothy: Click Here - of course Rupert is in front, however he is slouching imo and this was back in November of 2005.
Same time, but with the 6'1" Rob whois wearing cowboy boots. Click Here - and Rupert is actually standing a bit behind Rob.
Now this next one isn't the best picture because of the leaning, but Tolga who played Karkaroff's aide said on his site (which isn't around anymore) he was 5'9", and of course dress shoes making him an inch taller, and as you can see in this pic: Click Here he isn't much shorter, but with all the leaning, I'm willing to think bordering on 5'9".
My personal fave I played around with last night... Click Here - Dan is bordering on 5'8"! Which clearly proves he wears elevator shoes and/or lifts. This is a good picture because Rupert is standing tall for a change. And this is why so many people think Rupert is only 5'6" because Dan makes himself appear 2-3 inches taller than he is!

The pics I made I do not claim to be accurate, but I went by the height lines that this site has made on various celebrities, so I was trying to go by that. :)

Lola said on 15/May/07
If Tom Felton is 5' 9'', in this picture Rupert and Tom are in the same height.
Click Here

From the "Pride Of Britain" Awards (Oct. 2006)

umad80 said on 11/May/07
So we're only going up to 5'7.75" now? I still think you have to give him 5'9". As I said, you give Dermot O'Leary 5'8.5" (though he claims 5'9") and if you look at this: Click Here - Rupert is definitely a little taller than this. Now it is been said that Dermot wears flat shoes, and we know Rupert wears converse which do NOT give you any height advantage (I've measured myself, but you can double check, they will not make you taller!), and due to camera angles, I'm going to say he is slightly over the 5'8.5" you've given Dermot, so probably closer to 5'9" then closer to 5'8" I would say, wouldn't you? And if Dermot is 5'9" and you only gave him 5'8.5" because of shoe difference then Rupert is definitely slightly over 5'9".

anna said on 9/May/07
Alright, it may be, it may not be, but I'll wait until more promoting occurs. However, I still believe the forest and train photos prove that Emma really is only about an inch to two inches shorter than Rupert and easily two inches taller than Dan. Ah well though.

umad80 said on 6/May/07
Anna, please don't go by that. For one thing, if you scroll down to the actual top of Emma's head, she still comes up to Rupert's eyebrows. Secondly, this is a promotional poster where they will photoshop it putting characters in certain positions from other promotional shots. Meaning that it is not an accurate account for ones height. There is no guarantee that a shot was taken like this of everyone without Dan there who was later photoshopped in as a bigger entity. You want to go by promotional images of scenes (even though camera angles can be askewed) and when the trio are together promoting the movie. But then you have to of course account for shoes. This one for the video game is completely inaccurate.

anna said on 6/May/07
No, I agree that Rupert is at least 5'8", maybe even 5'9", but Emma really isn't much shorter than him. It's just that basically all of the photos that have come out for OotP, she is at the height disadvantage, meaning she is either majorly slouching, farther from the camera, wearing shoes which give her a footwear disadvantage, or a combination of the above. This leads me to believe that WB is trying to make her look shorter than she really is. And to prove that Emma is at least 5'7" and Rupert 5'8"/5'9" I have this photo Click Here So, first of all, let me say that the floor is "slanted" in favour of those in the back. So, we can see that Rupert is up to the twins' eyes very easily, which would mean he would be a little bit above the eyes if they were to stand at the same position. So, Rupert must be at least 5'8", presumably 5'9". Then, look how Emma compares to the other girls in the photo, she is easily the tallest one there. Specifically, look at her and Bonnie. They are basically on the same plane and both slouching (Emma may be slouching slightyl moreand Emma is about 2-3 inches taller than Bonnie and Bonnie is said to be around 5'5". Therefore, Emma cannot be around 5'5" unless Bonnie is 5'2"-5'3", which I don't really believe, she seems to be a legitimate 5'5". Then, look at Kaite and Emma, who used to be about the same height. However, if you look now, Emma looks to be about 2 inches taller than her, which is easily, in reality, 3 inches when you consider that Emma is slouching (katie's straight) and standing on a lower plane. That alone proves at least two things, that Emma has grown since the GoF era (she used to be around Katie's height - 5'4.5") and that Emma is taller than Dan, who, judging by the kissing scene, is still around Katie's height. Lastly, compare Emma and Rupert. Rupert has two advantages - he's standing up straight and standing on the higher plane. Even so, Emma looks to be only 2-3 inches (if that) shorter than him, which would make her, like I've said, 1-2 inches shorter than him in reality. Thus, Rupert is 5'8"/5'9" and Emma is 5'7" at the least. Eheu.

umad80 said on 5/May/07
No. 5'5.5" with shoes. Why else was he going on about that measurement for so long if only 5'4"? (Which would've made him, in reality, 5'3.5"!)

This isn't accurate or anything because I'm not good at making those measurement lines, and of course Rupert and Emma *are* slouching, but this is about as accurate as you might get. Click Here - Rupert is coming in over just a smidgen over 5'8". Take into account that I was pretty liberal on where Dan's height begins and guessing 5'5.5", plus Rupert is slouching and standing just every so slightly behind Dan which can probably account for a few centimeters. So I'm thinking just over 5'9" in this shot. Emma is probably just as tall as Dan maybe just a touch taller. But no way is she 1 to 2 inches shorter than Rupert. These pics aren't lying. Emma is barely slouching and as I showed you in the forest pic, she is pretty short on Rupert there.

I don't know when the trio scene was filmed, but we do know that the forest scene was filmed around the time of the Empire awards, and that wasn't all that long ago... maybe December of this year. Don't forget, Emma's 5'7" you keep putting her at is probably heels. Like the Empire awards, she had on boots! That had to give her a few inches. She can't be this short in pictures like this, or when she's wearing converse, and then suddenly 5'7" elsewhere. It just doesn't happen. For her to lose that many inches you keep putting her at, she'd have to be out of shoes here and slouching. I seriously doubt she's out of shoes, and her slouch isn't obvious enough to take two inches. Rupert's probably only takes probably maybe over a half inch. (Slouch once and measure yourself, it's about a half inch if that.)

No offense Anna, but I think you have to bite the bullet and figure on Emma being 5'5" at the least and 5'5.5" at the most. And a liberal estimate would be 5'6". And I think Rupert needs to be taller than 5'7.5" at this site. LOL

anna said on 5/May/07
I thought Dan was measured as 5'4" on UK TRL. And I really do think that Emma is about 1 to 2 inches shorter than Rupert and 1.5 to 3 inches taller than Dan. Easily.

umad80 said on 2/May/07
Isn't that what I said? Standing in front would make Emma taller and clearly if she only comes up to a 6'2.5" guy at chin level then she can't be all that tall... And yes, Emma is slouching a bit, but two freakin' inches? Sure it is a weird angle, but she would probably be a smidgen taller than Dan rather than anything on Rupert because he is slouching too. (If you think that is straight, you need glasses! lol) Dan stands at attention in that trio picture. It is seriously doubtful that unless Dan is 5'6.5" that Emma is 5'7" appearing slightly shorter - or the same height - as Dan. I think we can safely assume that floor and shoe height are the same. (We see shoes far too often to argue this!) And no way would converse give you 2 inches unless you're wearing really thick soled ones like Dan has in that other photo I provided. A regular tennis shoe probably gives you *maybe* an inch if you push it. The bottom of the shoe actually measures I think about an inch - maybe a tad over. (Clicking on 'elevator shoes' on this site will show you how much a regular tennis shoe today would give you - compared it to a converse, you barely have anything to give you height!)

Forest pic: Click Here - Rupert vs. Emma, standing right next to her. (The Weasley shoes might give him an inch advantage, so probably at his eyes, just underneath.
Rupert vs. Dan, Rupert in back - Click Here And that might be slightly off because I had a hard time trying to figure out where Dan's hair line was.

As for Rupert and Alfie, Rupert is at his chin... and of course slouching pretty badly. (That is slouching badly, btw, not at all with what Emma is doing in the one trio pic!) Also with where they are in regards to each other, I think you can argue that it would be hard to truly measure them. Also in the other DA picture, Rupert and Alfie are closer together and Rupert comes up to just under his eyes, and he is bending down quite a bit in that one too. But if I had to guess, I think Alfie could be as tall as the twins. It's hard to judge from either picture he appears in with the twins because they are pretty seperated.

Dan is 5'5.5" with shoes because he was measured on UK TRL. Am I the only one who remembers this? But that was with shoes on so he's probably truly 5'5" during PoA promotion. Whether he grew since then is anyone's guess. But it's clear to me that Rupert is towering over Dan in a lot of shots that just came out. And he is even towering over Emma. I'd say if Emma is taller than Dan, it's only by a half inch or around there... but she claims 5'5" for a long time, so I doubt she'd short change herself.

anna said on 2/May/07
Actually umad80, I asked Rob and you are incorrect, if you stand farther from the camera you are going to appear shorter unless the camerea is being held above and it is clearly not in the train photo, thus making it a quite good photo to compare heights. Of course not Dan's, but Rupert's and Emma's. And with the new photos, I was very confused when I saw these. So, the one in the classroom is just a weird angle and Emma is blatantly slouching as much as possible and we cannot see their feet, so I don't think it's a good one to judge heights on. And with the DA picture, I think it has something to do with the floor. First of all, the floor is 'slanted' so that the people on the right side of the photo look taller and also those in the back look taller because there is quite a degree of 'slant.' These effects are of course from the camera angle. Then, look at how Emma is standing compared to the stick straight Dan and even Rupert. Rupert is actually standing up relatively straight. So, Emma is at about the same "plane" as Dan and slouching way more than him, but still looks about the same height, which would make her about 5'7" or slightly more if she actually stood up straight. And Rupert is hard to compare in these photos because he is standing on the higher "plane", but I am guessing that he is like an inch taller than Emma if they stood together. But it's just all extremely confusing because in the train picture Emma looks as tall as Rupert and in my opinion that is the best picture to judge heights because of the camera angle, the footwear, and the fact that we can actually see their feet. And that they are all standing up equally straight. So, because of the factors that I discussed with the new poster book photos, I am going to say that Dan is 5'4"-5'5", Emma is 5'7" or slightly more, and that Rupert is 5'8"-5'9", he really does look much taller than Dan now and I think if Emma actually stood up straight, she would be taller. And, interestingly, I noticed that Emma has different shoes in the DA shot then any of the other girls (they seem to be flatter?) and that she is the only person in that photo who is slouching and she is seriously slouching. I have no idea why she is doing this unless the directors want her to slouch because she is too tall for the boys. Like what they did with Mischa Barton on the OC; make her wear really flat footwear and make her slouch constantly....I personally believe that's what they are doing with Emma. Also, Emma is still just a tad taller than Dan with all of these disadvantages, so if they are actually in equal footwear (maybe we'll see a promo picture of them in their Converse), Emma will be about 2 or more inches taller than Dan. And this is just out of curiousity, but how tall do you guys think Dean Thomas (Alfie Enoch?) is? He looks a lot taller than Matt and I really do think Matt is probably about 6'2", so what would that put Alfie at? I know he gets some extra height because of the slant, but he still looks really tall, Rupert is barely up to his shoulder. Hmm...And yeah, I think Rupert could be more like 5'9" as opposed to 5'7.5". That would mean Emma is at least 5'7" though.

umad80 said on 1/May/07
Going by Dan being 5'5.5" in shoes (we know this because of the TRL thing they did back in PoA - that wasn't Dan trying to give himself anything - 'cept he purposely counted his shoes) then if you look at this picture: Click Here - but measuring correctly because Dan's hair is a bit spiked up, you can see he is slightly above the eyebrows. On a 5'8" person, going by Rob's picture with Amber Benson, that would only make Dan around 5'4" - since we know that is not true due his height being measured on TV - he is 5'5" barefoot thus putting Rupert around 5'9" I would say. You can see this again by going by this picture: Click Here - again, trying not to count his hair but the actual top of his scalp, you can put him just slightly above Rupert's eyebrows. Here is another picture: Click Here You can't tell too well against Dan and Emma because he is leaning down and behind both of them (further from Dan than he is with Emma), but he is next to the at least 6'2" Matt Lewis (because Matt is about as tall as Jamie Waylett in that other picture released) and comes up to eyebrow level. And actually he is standing a bit behind him, and leaning down, and is probably even taller than that.

umad80 said on 30/Apr/07
No Anna, because I said before if you're in front you will appear taller, plus Rupert is leaning quite a bit. The train photo is not a good photo due to where everyone is standing. And the forest she is closer to the camera. As for the one of Rupert and the twins... he's around eye level! That is in no way 5'8"! 5'8" on a 6'1" person is this: Click Here - but the twins are 6'3" so you add at least two inches!

Again, Emma is at tallest 5'6" and Rupert at the tallest is probably bordering 5'10"! I think the latest pics prove that. I'm going to be conservative and say 5'9" because of angle and leaning, but I don't believe under 5'9" for sure. That would be a drastic lean in and you can tell that is not happening. They are standing pretty tall, and Rupert has his head bent down a little. They are all standing a bit odd to the camera too. So that is why I think 5'9" is not off base here, because everything evens out.

Also, 5'8" does not explain why the 5'7" Laura Linney would only be 5'8" in heels in that one set of photos I provided. She had one inch high heels?? Doubtful. I'm thinking two inches making her 5'9" and Rupert is definitely just a touch taller. (And he was leaning in!) And I think the other one she had massive heels because she is at least a half inch taller than Rupert. There is no way she could gain a half inch in the same heels because I'd say she is done growing, and he definitely couldn't lose a half inch. So I'd say she was around 5'9" at Tribeca with heels and around 5'9.5" or 5'10" (Rupert could've grown a half inch from April to October) at the SPC NY premiere.

And the video game? Do you mean the cover? I hope you mean the cover... and if you go by that, Emma is actually at Rupert's eyebrows, making her even shorter if he's 5'8". LOL Click Here - But I think they place each individual person on there thus not a good indication of true height.

And again, why would a 5'7" person come to a 6'2.5" in the middle of a person's chin? Being in front no less! If a 5'8" person comes up to eye level on a 6'1" person, then they'd probably be in the middle of the nose area on a 6'2" person, a little lower adding that half inch standing side by side. And if Emma is in the middle of the chin, standing in front, how can she be 5'7"? Even 5'6" is pushing it! And Rupert, on the same person, comes up to the middle of his eyes! And this was back in 2005.

anna said on 30/Apr/07
Ah, we are totally getting the same brain waves umad80, nice.

anna said on 30/Apr/07
I found these photos to be interesting. Click Here Click Here I think that they prove two things, that Rupert is at least 5'8" and that Bonnie is a fair bit shorter than Emma because Emma is nearly as tall as Rupert (train, forest, and video game photos) and Bonnie is quite a bit shorter and standing in front of Rupert in this photo. I've heard that Bonnie is 5'5", so that would mean that Emma is more around 5'7", no?

umad80 said on 30/Apr/07
So I have to ask, looking at this new photo: Click Here - would you say that Rupert is pretty near eye level to the twins? This is a studio shot that I don't think you can say the twins are further away, or leaning (because I think if they are, Rupert is too, so it evens out imo), or anything like that... Rupert appears to be around eye love to me.

umad80 said on 28/Apr/07
I think this is an interesting photo, back in Tribeca. Next to the 5'7" Laura Linney who is wearing heels, he's just as tall (if you don't count her hair poof and he IS leaning in) Click Here - now at two inch heels she's probably about 5'9" (maybe a touch shorter depending how tall they make her).

Now, just a few months later, Laura appears to have put on bigger heels as she seems to be just a half inch taller than Rupert. Click Here - Now if we assume that before she had heels that made her two inches taller she was at least 5'9" making Rupert 5'9". Now if we assume that later she had 3 inch heels (sorry, no good pictures to see how her heels are) she ends up 5'10" and Rupert ends up 5'9.5".

Of course you could argue that at Tribeca her heels made her 5'8" to 5'8.5" and thus making Rupert the same, but I doubt she was not shorter than 5'8" at Tribeca and probably between 5'9" and 5'10" at ny premiere for DL. Thus making Rupert no shorter than 5'8.5".

umad80 said on 28/Apr/07
That photo of the train station is not a good photo to judge because of where everyone is standing. There are too many other photos where Rupert is taller than Emma, but by more than in inch. Like if you look at the group photo of them at the DoM, Rupert is more behind her and he is still taller by an inch and a half if not more (she is eyebrow level with standing in front - which would make her taller). Of course, it's still a crappy photo to look at.

And then you have photos of her with the 5'9" Tom Felton, the 6'2.5" Jamie Waylett. Not sure about Matt Lewis, but probably around the 6' range since he is quite a bit taller than Tom, even with Tom closer to the camera. And in this, Emma is closer to the camera thus making her taller, and she still only comes up to the upper lip of the 6'2.5" Jamie. And if a 5'8" person comes up to eye level on a 6'1" or so guy (like Rob does with Sorbo), then a 5'7" Emma would be taller than lip level, especially with being in front.

Then take the photo of Emma, Rupert and Katie during a DA meeting and Emma only comes up just above the eyebrows on Rupert. Now if this pic isn't odd (like Rupert is leaning or anything) and Rupert is no more than 5'8", then Emma would be, imo, between 5'5.5" and 5'6".

Take the DA photo too. This was taken particularly early on I'm sure because I think they do all studio shots like that in the beginning of filming. But it was only 9 months or so ago before filming wraped and for Emma to grow that quickly would be illogical. But again, with Dan in front, Emma is about a half inch or so shorter which is normal. But Rupert's hight is definitely askewed by a great many things. He is leaning quite dramatically and is in the back of Emma. And yet he is still an inch and a half or so taller.

Now what about the trio at the Hogshead? This one you can't measure Ruper with them since he is sitting down, but Dan and Emma are practically the same height. Dan definitely has a slight height advantage, but may be due to the WB wanting to make sure Emma didn't appear taller. Now what about the forest pic, which I think is an interesting one, because I think this is one of those pics that aren't fooled around with - like this is from rehearsal where they aren't trying to do camera angles to offset height because in the trailer eveyone looks different in height, but despite a slight footware advantage and possibly uneven ground and Dan is stooping a little more than Rupert and Emma, Emma is taller than Dan, but only comes up to Rupert's nose. Now I think if they stood straight up, the heights would be slightly different, but I don't think by much. Which means to me that Dan is shorter than Emma between .5' and a whole inch, and Rupert is 4-5 inches over Dan and 3-4 inches over Emma. Making him between 5'8" and 5'9". My guess really is that Rupert is 5'9.5" and his agency rounded up.

Hey Rob, about how much taller is someone if they are standing directly in front of you? A half inch? An inch? Maybe two inches? Do you know?

grintster said on 28/Apr/07
Emma can't be taller than Rupert. We know that girls have more freedom to wear heeled shoes so you can expect any girl to take advantage of that. Rupert is always wearing chucks and such shoes that has no heels, while Dan always wears dress shoes which alawys have at least 1/2 inch heels! Rupert's new agency says he's 5'10" and it has to be the most accurate source for him. All other sites already recognize this.

Like I said, Rob should go to the L.A. premiere on July 8th to finally put all this to rest :)

umad80 said on 26/Apr/07
I think it's easy to argue over 5'8", even if it's just a smidgen! At least back in 2005! That photo with Robert Pattinson has the top of Rupert's head up to Rob's eye level. With the measurements you put down on the Sorbo picture, the 5'8" you is below eye level. And you can't argue anything with that picture because they are both standing straight, no one is closer to the camera, or anything like that. Yes it's sort of on an angle, but even other photos with Rob he's around the same height - if not taller - so I'd think this is probably more real. The only real difference is is that Rob is wearing what looks like cowboy boots! But they probably have a small heel and I doubt he is wearing lifts!

Especially when you consider good photos of 5'8" Glenn with 6'1" celebs. Click Here Click Here Click Here Click Here Click Here (You with a celeb who is actually 6'0.75"!)

And he's definitely not much shorter than the 5'10" Stan! And here, let's considering 5'8" Glenn with 5'10" celebs...
Click Here Click Here Click Here Click Here (Clapton is closer to the camera, but still), Click Here Click Here Click Here

Anna, it's not about the small gap, it's where they come up to on each other. That is what you're looking at. If you look here: Click Here you'll see that on a 5'8" person, 5'5" would come up just above the eyebrows but just below the forehead. If you look at the GoF photocall, as both Emma and Rupert are on the same shoe advantage, and Rupert is standing up straight, Emma comes around this... making her around 5'5.5" I think or just there about. (Depending on how truly tall Rupert is, but I think 5'8" to 5'8.5" isn't out of the realm of possibility in 2005!) Obviously almost 2 years later she could have gotten taller, but it's doubtful she could've grown almost 2 inches in 2 years. I've looked around, and most sites have doctors stating that girls normally will gain about a half inch or so between the ages of 16-18. Of course, be heartened... girls can grow past the age of 20 just like boys. Though I'd say it wouldn't be a significant growth spurt if girls don't grow more than a half inch in between two years of 16-18.

umad80 said on 25/Apr/07
Okay, if we're going by the right twin, explain this one: Click Here - Even if Rupert stood directly next to him, and he had his head up a bit more, that'd still wouldn't put him to the lower lip. I don't about the left one, because that's just weird. He's leaning down and all sorts of odd things making Rupert up to the nose area. But I think the right makes more sense considering the straight posture. Seriously!

But I think measuring against the twins and Radcliffe makes it odd... you can never get a correct height!

How about this, explain this to me! Check out 5'10" Stan - who probably just has a bit of a disadvantage here with the shoes... Click Here

Him against the 6'1" Robert Pattinson: Click Here

Him with the 5'10" Stan: Click Here - not the best picture but still.

Him with the 5'11" David Bradley: Click Here

I think the Rob picture is definitely one of the best because both are straight. He is wearing heels compared to what Rupert is wearing, but still. And these were all back in 2005. Concievably, another inch or two is not out of the realm of possibility. I just don't know what is with the twins, though I'm still convinced he slouches a lot with them.

umad80 said on 25/Apr/07
Anna, I believe Emma is taller than Dan probably about a half inch, but as tall as Rupert? No way. Click Here Or how about her with Tom, Jamie and Matt? Click Here And Rupert, at the Pride of Britian Awards a few years ago Rupert was almost the same height as Tom. Maybe an inch shorter.

The trailer moments she is in front and is not the greatest gauge to measure someone and every moment in the trailer I saw she was usually in the forefront, minus the moment with the DA and she's not taller than Rupert. An inch and a half two probably two inches shorter. Maybe even could be stretched to a bit more.

Also Rob, I don't quite understand. I'm not a good measurer of height, but I've looked around this site to see your own stuff and noticed a few things... first off, the Kevin Sorbo thing I posted, he's leaning down so much that he's barly 6'1" and you're at his eyes - just below in fact. So, how does two more inches put you at his nose?

That honestly doesn't make sense considering this: Click Here - You have from the top of the head to the middle of the eyes at a 4.5 inch range Meaning 6'1" to 5'8.5" is 4.5 inches. Thus if you add two inches for 6'3", wouldn't that make it 5'10.5"? And then from the middle of the eyes to the middle of the mouth you put another 3 inches, so I would think from the middle of the eyes to the end of the nose would be around an inch or so (looking at the Sorbo thing) making the 6'3" around the 5'9" range wouldn't it? Considering a 5'8" person on a 6'3.5" person would just be between the bottom lip and the chin according to this: Click Here Which would mean a 5'8" person would be bottom of the lip to a 6'3" person, wouldn't it? Standing all correctly. Which gives at least another inch+ to the nose area I'd think. Plus we know Rupert is the sloucher (I think he slouched more than the twins considering that other picture!) meaning that even a few more centimeters could be added. And there are other pictures, with Rupert in the back of the twins and them in dress shoes, and he's at the tip of their nose... so he's definitely slouching!

umad80 said on 24/Apr/07
Yeah but Rob I think I've proven that Rupert was slouching with the twins as well! Click Here - NME sign in the back compared to Click Here - NME sign in the back. There is a good half inch or so! And you have Rupert just a few months prior to the NME awards with the twins - in front and wearing dress shoes and Rupert is up to their nose: Click Here - so how could he be at their nose on the same footwear and standing closer to them? Wouldn't he be taller that at the NME awards?

And then I posted all those pics with different people who were 5'7", 5'9", 5'11", 6'1", 6'2.5", and 6'3" and Rupert clearly measures 5'8" back during GoF if not 5'8.5"... if not a smidgen taller than that. And I think I've proven that Dan always wears elevator shoes and probably lifts too always making him at least two inches taller and Rupert is always about an inch and a half taller than that!

Here is the most recent photo of Rupert: Click Here - I don't know how tall the guy is standing next to him, but I think we can safely say that he's taller than 5'5". Probably even taller than 5'6" (because he doesn't look short like Dan) and Rupert's probably got a couple of inches on him since he's leaning down and looks to be slouching.

umad80 said on 24/Apr/07
Okay, I know that's a little hard to tell and I realize the pics aren't *perfect* so there is probably some height different added or taken off, but here is a look at it that might help... This is the carpet: Click Here And this is the regular tile floor: Click Here I grant you that Rupert is closer to the camera in the first one, but I doubt that would do that much difference in the pic... you can clearly see that Dan is several inches higher in the floor pic if look close enough to the black lines.

And this is in reference to Rob trying to say Rupert is shorter than 5'8" because of his pic with the twins. I don't know how accurate this is, but I'm sure it is close... Click Here And by his own admission: Click Here

Now if Kevin Sorbo is leaning down enough to make him just a touch over 6'1" and you Rob are just under his eyes, why would you be eye level to the 6'3" twins? To me you'd be at least lip level because that is almost 2 inches difference! Meaning that Rupert, even though he was obviously not standing up straight, was well over 5'8" at nose level with the twins!

umad80 said on 23/Apr/07
I thought Emma looked shorter than Dan *and* Rupert at the GoF UK premiere with those shoes. Same as in the GoF photocall where she had slightly more heel with her chucks. That's why I liked seeing pictures of them standing on that carpet vs. hard floor at the UK one because it didn't look sturdy and made them all look pretty even footware wise. Which had Dan and Emma around the same height, but Rupert several inches taller. Click Here and Click Here - granted not the best pics, but they give you an idea of what I'm talking about. Dan's heels sort of seem to sink into the floor leveling them out to regular footware advantage.

As for Rupert's 'Ron shoes'. I've noticed them, and they barely look to be any sort of advantage over the converse they put Dan in. Maybe a slight quater of an inch. But it doesn't matter because they can play tricks with the camera... they just wanted to give him 'Weasley shoes'.

umad80 said on 22/Apr/07
Oh, they're not worried about Emma's height, but Dan's vs. Rupert's. And with Dan and Emma about the same height, she would appear about the same height difference as Dan does to Rupert. With Rupert two inches taller *behind* them, there is a good chance you can add maybe another inch or so to that, making it 3-4 inch difference. I just think the 5'7" is a tad much on Emma. If we are to believe Rupert's 5'7.5" on here at GoF promotion and there is at least a few inches difference, she'd have go to grow a couple of inches since then and be as tall as him in the movie. Anywhere from 3-4 inches and that is a bit much to ask for a girl, or anyone, in a span of a year or so. (Probably less than that because we don't technically know when these scenes were filmed... they DO film out of order.)

umad80 said on 22/Apr/07
Generally I agree with you Anna. I think it's crazy not to think that these three haven't grown since their last photos together. And I think the problem truly lies in Radcliffe's need to wear lifts to look taller. And of course with film stills, a trick of the camera could change the height of any one of these three. Though I do believe that a girl and guy reach height differently. For instance I believe I stopped growing around 15 years of age. Maybe even before then. I was 5'5" for quite a number of years before I was told I had stopped growing. I think a girl's menstural cycle tends to stop growth. Don't quote me on that, just what I believe and have read - but no real proof.

I do have an interesting photo for you. This is Rob's own admission. Click Here - as you can see 5'5" is generally above the eyebrow area on a 5'8" man, where Emma seemed to come to on Rupert during GoF promotion. Now of course either Rupert was 5'7.5" and Emma was 5'4.5" at the time or Rupert was around 5'8" or just a touch higher giving Emma the 5'5" or above.

Now take the same Amber Benson thing (and this is more for everyone else's benifit then yours Anna, as I know you tend to agree with me) and then compare it to this photo: Click Here - This was a friend who is 5'5", wore the same style shoes as Rupert and said he leaned just ever so slightly. I think this puts Rupert at close to 5'9" during DL promotion. (Which makes sense... Laura Linney is 5'7" and I believe wore 2-3" heels to Tribecca... Rupert was just ever so slightly shorter than her, and I think it was more her hair than her that was taller!)

In short Anna I think this: Dan is 5'5.5" now, 5'5.6" with shoes/early morning height. Rupert is between 5'9" and 5'10" - maybe the later being with shoes, and Emma is probably closer to 5'6" without shoes. But that imo is more of a liberal guestament on her height. But I do believe Rupert has at least 3 to 4 inches on her.

umad80 said on 22/Apr/07
I agree definitely that Dan and Emma are the same height - she is sometimes taller than him infact! I'm just not sure about Rupert and Emma almost the same size. Just because if you look at the last time they were all in the same place was at the GoF NY premiere... Click Here - Dan and Emma are the same size and Rupert is about a half inch or so taller. Compare that to the photocall just weeks before that where Rupert is clearly 2 or so inches taller than Emma and maybe a quater taller than Dan (though I think Rupert is slouching because some pics he is a bit taller). Click Here Of course, Emma and Dan are clearly wearing the same heel length at the NY GoF premiere vs. her with chucks (same type of shoe as Rupert) at the GoF photocall.

Then you have scenes like this: Click Here - where it was clearly done around the time of the Empire Awards (as Heyman talked about it) and Rupert is clearly taller than them both. (Though it barely looked like that at the Empire awards, which I think says Dan has gotten larger lifts!)

As for the WB and them not showing the height difference between Dan and Rupert despite the books... since when have they ever been 100% completely canon? I mean, really. Look at the slouching Ron/Rupert with McGonagall: Click Here and then look at Harry with McGonagall: Click Here and then let's compare Ron and Harry in a scene: Click Here As you see, something just isn't right there...

umad80 said on 22/Apr/07
I think that if Emma was the same height, or very close to it (like less than a half inch) to Rupert while standing in the back of him, I could see it. Kind of like the play for the Queen... Rupert standing in back of Emma and Dan in the last scene, he was just a tad taller and that equates to him being even taller next to them. But I think the franchise is doing that illusion where they're trying not to let Rupert look too tall against Emma and Dan. If you look at some of the caps from the trailer: Click Here you'll notice in one of the scenes between Harry and Ron, Rupert looks shorter because they have him off in such a distance. But the forest scene he looks a good inch and a half taller than Dan (give or take I guess) while behind him, thus proving next to him he's even taller.

umad80 said on 22/Apr/07
I think the shoes are at least two inches think on Radcliffe. More than most normal tennis shoes which usually give an inch, and converse usually gives a half inch, if that. And celebheights gives him a 5'5" and Griffiths a 5'9" he looks to be a 5'7" there to me, or about, because he reaches the just slightly under the top of Griffiths' head.

As for your picture, I have to say that Emma is shorter. And only because if you scroll down to the top or Ron/Rupert's head, you can see about an inch of height difference. Maybe just a touch more. I do think Dan and Emma are the same height, with her fractionally taller than him. You can tell this when she's actually wearing heels to match his! With Rupert always an inch, an inch and a half taller to their heels.

I think the scene you posted earlier, of the trio in the forest, is a real good indication that Rupert has a good 5 inches on Dan. Give or take to trick photography (I guess the WB doesn't agree that Ron should be taller than Harry even though he is in the books!) or any slouching done. You can see it here real well: Click Here - it is of course low quality and I think when we get the actual high-res version of this trailer you'll see an amazing difference, but just like the slouching pic of this scene, Rupert is a good 5 inches ahead of Dan. He is at least two and a half inches standing *behind* and back some from him here. Imagine if he was next to him! And of course you can also see the height difference to Emma. Though even with her standing to the side you can at least see that she is the same height as Dan. Which, who now claims to be 5'6" (I don't see it!), so Emma would be around there.

I think it's quite obvious that Rupert is around 5'10" now. Celebheight's own measurements on this site seem to indicate that. Take a look: Click Here - if you go by that, and you go by that one pic where it's obvious Rupert is slouching, he's up to the twins' nose that's probably more or less than 6.5 inches difference meaning that Rupert would be 5'8.5", but as I posted earlier, he was obviously slouching a lot so he's probably an inch taller than that. (And since celebheights has Dermot O'Leary listed as 5'8.5" instead of the 5'9" he claims, Rupert is at least 5'9" or 5'8.75"!)

And going to have some more fun again... this was Rupert earlier this year at the Empire Awards. In this pic he is standing behind the twins who have dress shoes on: Click Here - notice he comes up to the same height as he does at the NME awards. Proving a bunch of slouching in that one picture. But here is more proof that he's still to their nose with dress shoes on. Click Here - Granted the one twin has his head leaned in a bit, but with the dress shoes, I think it evens itself out.

I always found this BAFTA pic with William Moseley interesting too. Click Here - Everyone went on about how much taller Moseley is to Rupert, but in this posed pic at the BAFTAs, the margin doesn't look as great as it does when they are together at other parts of the BAFTAs.

Let's go back to the NME Awards. A low-res pic of him and the twins puts him top of head to eye level with the twin on the right: Click Here - the twin on the left is standing funny, so I think you have to go by the one on the right to get proper measurement. And if that is right, that is what? 4.5 inches from middle of eye to top of the head? Putting Rupert actually at 5'10.5" which I think is a bit liberal, so that pic is probably a bit off and I put him more between 5'9.75" and 5'10" now.

Now I'm going to have a lot of fun. Through the years of Rupert measured against different HP people. Back in sometime 2003, Rupert came up to the 6'1" Robbie Coltrane's lip area - or slightly above - Click Here

Just about 6 months prior to that, Rupert came up to the 5'4" JKR in most likely 3" heels almost identically. Just a touch shorter: Click Here

Now fast forward to a few years later during PoA era. JKR again is wearing 3" heels and Rupert is about maybe a half inch up on her. Sadly nothing to measure by in GoF. However, here is PoA Japan with the 5'11" Alfonso Cauron. Click Here In the same era though, here he is with 5'8" Chris Columbus who had dress shoes on. Click Here

I of course already put together the GoF deal. And don't you think that if he looks to be about a half inch under Chris Columbus back during PoA that by four years later he'd have to be *taller* than that? Especially considering he even looks taller to the twins then back when this was taking at the PoA DVD Launch? Click Here

Just food for thought...

hello said on 22/Apr/07
It's a good picture anna, except it doesn't really do you any favour. The height difference between Hermione and Ron are way to big than just saying Rupert has thick soled shoes and being half a foot infront.

umad80 said on 21/Apr/07
All I know Anna is ICM said that there is a 99.9% chance it won't be in NY this year.

But I think I can prove that Rupert was slouching in that pic with the twins.
Okay, with twins: Click Here - noticed the NME award sign in the back.

Now Rupert by himself: Click Here - notice the NME award sign in the back. About an inch difference it looks like. Or just there about.

Now I guess you could argue he was standing in another place and the sign was at a different angle, but the pic with the twins was taken later, so most likely Rupert is standing in the same place and the twins walked up around him.

Couple of other things, that same picture of Rupert along with another picture of Dermot O'Leary standing at the same sign... Click Here - O'Leary is a bit more of a close up, but he is still shorter than Rupert. Again he claims to be 5'9".

Also have more proof on Mr. Radcliffe's need to look taller. Look at these shoes! Click Here . I think that gives him a good two inches in height there! Especially since Dan is suppose to between 5'5" and 5'6" (I think that 5'6" is definitely his wishful thinking!) and Griffiths is suppose to be 5'9".

grintster said on 20/Apr/07
Well Rob, you know there's only one way to find out :) You need to be at the 5th potter movie premiere this coming July! Better be there and make sure to have your pic taken with Mr. Rupert Grint! Agreed? :)

umad80 said on 19/Apr/07
I think one of the problems for a lot of people is their focus on Radcliffe. It is quite obvious that he wears lifts, so he is not 5'5" at the premieres so the possible 5'8" to 5'10" (I'll say I'm being liberal there) Rupert ends up looking 5'6". And because the twins are so tall, he looks like a shrimp! So he's stuck between the two.

But I think I can have some fun with heights again. Okay, so the claimed 5'9" Tolga with one of the Phelps Twins (who I think is leaning down a bit) comes to the nose area. Click Here

Here is Rupert and Tom Felton together at the Pride of Britian Awards a few years back... around the same time the GoF stuff was. Tom is suppose to be 5'9" and Rupert is near or at the same height in these pics (depending on the angle). Click Here - granted not easy to tell, but you can get a general idea of a 5'8" to 5'8.5" (or there about) man. (Rupert was in regular tennis shoes, but not sure of Tom, though I think the same.)

Here is my particular favorite... the 5'8" Glenn with 6'3" basketball player. He says she was in sneakers. Click Here As you can see, upper lip area.

Here is a nice one, and I don't think there was any tricks done to it. The 6'3" Josh Duhamel, the 5'9" James Cann, and the 5'8" Jill Henessy. Click Here - as you can see, Jill comes up to about Josh's lip area (trying not to count her hair) and James to about his nose. This is all assuming there are no tricks being done. If it isn't, then wouldn't that mean Rupert is around 5'9" coming to the twins' nose?

umad80 said on 17/Apr/07
Anonymous has a point, and I can prove that Rupert is over 5'7.5" very easily.
For instance, your own Glenn, that has several pictures, barely reached Snoop Dog's lips: Click Here - a half inch won't make much difference, and with Snoop behind him, he's losing about an inch in height to Glenn.

Now here is Stanislav Ianevski which you have listed as 5'10" with the 6'3" twins: Click Here - he's only about a half inch taller then you to the twins! So either Stan is 5'8.5" or you are not 5'8", or the twins aren't 6'3". Now also compare the 5'10" Stan, which CelebHeights claims, to the apparently less then 5"7.5" Rupert who comes to the tip of their nose...

Now, here is some proof on Rupert which I have posted before but then only give 5'7.5". These were all during GoF promotion, so he has clearly grown imo. Look at him vs. Stan, which again, you gave 5'10" to: Click Here and while you look at that picture, notice Dan's height to Robert Pattinson, whom you have at 6'1". Now compare that to this image: Click Here - Dan barely reaches Rob's chin! Yet in the photocall picture he is up to his nose! Clearly proving that Dan wears things to improve his height.

Oh, there is more. Rupert with the 5'0" Shirley Henderson who was probably wearing 2-3 inch heels: Click Here

And Rupert with the 5'5" Emma - Click Here who had no heels and Rupert probably had a .5 inch advantage.

Click Here - Timothy Spall you have listed at 5'7" - Rupert is just slightly taller, probably a half inch, and Spall probably has a half inch advantage with the dress shoes vs. Rupert's shoes.

Click Here - Another one where the 6'1" Rob and the 5'11" David Bradly who probably both have a half inch advantage with shoes.

Click Here - Tolga Safer, who played Karkaroff's aide in GoF, claims to be 5'9". As you can see, he's definitely just a bit taller than Rupert.

Click Here - Jamie Waylett claims to be 6'2" and a half or their abouts, and Rupert is around eye level.

Now, here is 5'8" on 6'1" - by your own admission with 5'8" Glenn. Click Here

Now 5'8" Glenn with 6'2" William Baldwin. Click Here

All these pictures were taken about a year and a half ago (November of 2005), so growing one to two inches in that time span is not out of the realm of possibility.

Maybe Rupert isn't 5'10", I couldn't say for certain since I haven't measured him, but if the 5'8" Glenn could barely reach Snoop Dog's lips, and as I pointed out, was in front of him, how can the barely 5'7.5" Rupert (who you think could be even less) be up to the 6'3" twins nose? And we obviously should never measure him against Radcliffe. So I think taking the photos from 2005 and comparing them to all these photos within this site and compare them to the recent photo of Rupert and the twins is a good indication of Rupert's true height.

Oh, here is another thing I'd like to point out. James Marsters claims to be 5'10" but in a shot with the 6'3" Tom Welling he just makes it up to the mouth area (if you don't measure his poofy hair): Click Here - again, Rupert is the nose area with the 6'3" twins. So either Rupert is 5'11" or James is under 5'10".

Anonymous said on 16/Apr/07
Come on Rob, they are clearly leaning in that picture with you (but like way leaning if they are 6'3-6'2), and with Rupert I barely notice that. If they standed straight, they'd look like this with you:

Click Here

Which they look around the same height with him, probably 2 cms under that. I don't see this guy under 5'7.5.

umad80 said on 16/Apr/07
Oh, Rupert actually stands to their nose (all in the same type of shoes) so that's even less difference. And I was just checking, but the span of one's forehead from their lips is 5 inches. Meaning if the twins are 6'3" and Rupert is 5" less, he would be 5'10". So I'm going to give an extra inch difference and say 5'9" and I think you Rob must be taller than 5'8"...

umad80 said on 16/Apr/07
I think you might be short changin' yourself on the height there, Rob. 'Tis true that I'm not good at judging height, but if Robert Pattison is 6'1" (per your site) Click Here and the twins are 6'3" (again, your site) and Pattison comes up to the middle of their forehead, and you their eyes, that would mean you're about two inches shorter than Pattison who is 2 inches shorter than the twins since it's about the same height difference imo. Putting Rupert at just above where their nose is putting him about two inches shorter again.

And of intrest, I posted this earlier but it was never put up... Rupert at the NME Awards again: Click Here vs. Dermot O'Leary, who claims to be 5'9", is around the same height to the sign in the back as Rupert was. Click Here

umad80 said on 16/Apr/07
If you're curious, Rupert's official agency has him at 5'10"... Click Here - I'm not sure if this information is correct, but I would assume for casting reasons they would be as accurate as possible. (Note that they actually list him with green eyes (most fansites have said blue for years) and auburn hair rather than just plain 'red'.)

I believe Dan is claiming to be 5'6" now... but Emma and Dan have always been around the same height, so I don't know.

6'3'' JK said on 15/Apr/07
I think Grint is 5'6.5'' Radcliffe is 5'5'' and Emma is 5'4.5'', and enough of the talking lets wait until the movie comes out and then you all will see!!

umad80 said on 13/Apr/07
For whatever reason - I don't know if it didn't go through or what - but I posted some proof that Rupert is at least 5'9" or close to it because when he did the Wall Of Shame thing at the NME awards he was just slightly taller than Dermot O'Leary who claims to be 5'9" (here they think 5'8.5").

I also think that the trouble with measuring him against Dan is because I think Dan wears lifts and usually dress shoes to every occassion. So he probably ends up close to Rupert's height but people assume that Dan's height is his height with shoes and such. That would explain why the empire awards Dan and Rupert are pratically the same height, but with the twins at every function he is usually up to their nose area (the twins are 6'3" - so that mostly equates Rupert to being between 5'8" and 5'10").

Also the DA pic (which was probably done when the movie began filming because I think they take those studio shots then) Rupert is at least 2 inches taller (perhaps a bit below that) then Dan and he is leaning down and behind him. The forest pic is interesting because Rupert looks huge on both Dan and Emma, though Dan seems to be crouching a bit more. But I'd say that when they're on equal footing, Rupert is at least 3 inches taller than Dan, maybe even 4...

Chip said on 12/Apr/07
Actually, the DA pic was released last year, not this year. The pic with the trio in the forest was released this year.

6'2.5'' JK said on 11/Apr/07
I apologise if i was being rude, but its true.. Rupert has 1.5 - 2 inches Max on Dan so that makes him about 5'6.5'' and 5'7'' at the very highest

hello said on 11/Apr/07
No, that picture was released this year, and the pic of the trio in a forest is a screen cap so that could be way older than promotional pics.

Chip said on 9/Apr/07
Um, 6'2.5"JK, I'm pretty sure that the picture you posted was released LAST year, not this year. Anyhow, you might be right. Maybe the picture of them in the forest makes them look taller, but still, I wonder if they've grown at all since they started filming.

6'2.5'' JK said on 8/Apr/07
This is getting ridiculous, Rupert is no where near the likes of 5'8'' - 5'9'' lol, otherwise radcliffe himself would have been 5'8.5'' lol, Rupert is 5'6'' and thats even in shoes!!!!!!!!

Chip said on 8/Apr/07
It could be Rupert's shoes, but I'm really not sure. You can't be really sure by that picture, but I'm almost sure that Emma is taller than Dan. He legs look a little longer than his do on that picture. I kind of think that Emma is about 5'7". She's definitely no shorter than 5'5".

Anonymous said on 3/Apr/07
This is a picture Chip was talking about Click Here
However, judging by Rupert's latest pics near the twins I don't think he's any taller than listed here (maybe 5'8" at best), it's just that Dan and Emma are shorter than 5'5".

Chip said on 31/Mar/07
On a new OOTP promo pic, Rupert, Emma, and Dan are in the Forbidden Forest. They're all crouching, but it still seems like Rupert practically towers over them, especially Dan, who actually isn't crouching very much. It could have to do with the shoes, or Rupert could have possibly grown during filming, I'm really not sure.

Kevin said on 25/Mar/07
the twins are 6'3, and this make Rupert grint at 5'7 max... the twins 6'0 ??? LOL they look pretty tall!

Gonzalo said on 16/Mar/07
Do some more reseach, Glenn2. There is a pic of Editor Rob with the twins and you can see how tall they are. Around 6`3.

Glenn2 said on 15/Mar/07
im pretty sure the guys who play the twins are about 6'0-6'1, so rupert looks about 5'8 maximum

RapidWolverineFan said on 15/Feb/07
It's me again!
I have been sufering the internet for as accurate as possible height for Harry Potter,Hermione Granger and Ron Weasley.
The sites l have been on give one height for them whlie another site gives a entirely different height for them.
So l have decided to come to you guys {and gals} to see if what l believe is there height is the same or similar to those that you think is?
Harry {l believe} stands at 5'9 maybe 5'10" {l believe that once he finishes growing that he will top out at 5'11" or 6'0"} l go with this height for Harry because in the sixth book he is described as tall.
Ron is 6'0" maybe 6'1" {the highest l will go for him is 6'2"} l see him top out at 6'3" once finshed with growing.
Hermione,l see,stands at 5'5" {once her growth spurts stop l see her top out at 5'7 maybe 5'8" or perhaps 5'9".
So what do you guys {and gals} think?

RapidWolverineFan said on 15/Feb/07
Jenn points out in the pictures we have seen so far of Rupert in OOTP,he is slumped in posture,don't directors do that to make the "main" cast generally the same height?

Anonymous said on 11/Feb/07
Why is it so "out there" that l listed Rupert's height as 5'10"/5'11"!
I personally stand at 5'11" and l have a male cousin who is the same age as Mr. Grint and he is as tall as myself.
All l am saying that we cannot take what we see in the photographs of the three together at face value.

Antron said on 30/Jan/07
Rupert is clearly NOT 5'10 in any pictures nor in the movies. He IS the tallest of the three main characters, though only by 3 inches max. Definitely growing as an actor if not in height.

Jenn said on 16/Jan/07
In a lot of photos i have seen of him on the OOTP he is general always slumped. Never standing up striaght

Anonymous Fan said on 10/Jan/07
After reading some of the people who post on this site's comments -- l had to put my two scents in.
Where is what l think about Dan,Emma and Rupert's actual height {as of early 2007}
Dan is 5'5" {this is stated on DanRadcliffe.com wich is a site that works closely with Dan and the Radcliffe family},Emma stands at 5'6 1/2" {personal opinion} whlie Rupert stands at 5'10",perhaps 5'11" {again my personal opinion}
I believe that Rupert is the tallest,then comes Emma and findally Dan.

6'2'' JK said on 23/Dec/06
I can't believe it Rob you still list Rupert near 5'8'', he is 5'6'' MAX and that is being generous, he just barely has 1.5'' inches on radcliffe

Antron said on 22/Nov/06
full explanation on Emmas page, not Dan's, sorry.

Antron said on 18/Nov/06
No way 5'10." I've seen that height listed as well. He is definitely taller than Dan Radcliffe and Emma Watson (both around 5'5"). Not 5 inches though. They would only be up to around his nose if that were the case. A definite sloucher though.
Click Here

tiny said on 30/Oct/06
I've just found this article, and Rupert's current height is mentioned - 5'10"! Here's what it says: "Perched on the back of an expensive sofa in a suite at the Ritz, Grint is a slight lad by today's steroid standards

Evanna said on 3/Oct/06
As I said, average height depends on where you live. Go to Japan and ask them about their average height... or send an average Scandinavian guy to Marocco, he will probably dwarf their average men.

JK said on 2/Oct/06
True say Stephanie, Rupert is 5'6'' MAX

Stephanie said on 2/Oct/06
Harry Potter 6 films in 2007, Harry Potter 7 in 2008/2009. Most of them will still be in their teens, some will hit 20, but none of the kids in Harry's year will be over 22 during filming of the last movie, which will be released in summer 2010, following the 1 1/2-year-apart pattern. But, as we all know, they are done filming about a year before the film gets released. ;)
Rupert looks 5' 6.5" or 5' 7". He looks tall compared to the other kids but they are all 5' 4"-5' 5". And from pics taken in March of this year, he is not over 5' 7"... I doubt he grew a whole lot since then.

Stephanie said on 30/Sep/06
Average male height is 5' 10". Average female height is 5' 4.5".
Just so you know. :)

Evanna said on 28/Sep/06
Well Rupert's dad is a large bulky guy, but his mum is small and blonde, and Rupert doesn't look like either of them. He's also got half a dozen of siblings and they are all different! Weird, really.
Anyway, being tall or short also depends on where you live. I know that some people are going to bite my head off for saying this, but here in Manchester the guys aren't very tall. I'd say average male height here is 5'8" to 5'9", nothing more than that. I also had a chance of meeting (or at least seeing) quite a few Manchester based "celebrities" (mostly musicians and ex-musicians), and almost all of them were dazzlingly short.

Charlotte said on 27/Sep/06
Good point Evanna. I considered that. They were very short when they started filming, infact, none of them passed 5 ft until around 13/14. But how did the producers know the main characters wouldn't sprout like mad?

I know Emma's parents are 5'1" and 5'7" or so each, and Dan has short parents, but what about Rupert?

Evanna said on 25/Sep/06
Well Charlote, that's why the producers had chosen them in the first place. Obviously, these movies take long to make, and the entire franchize consists of 7 parts, so the actors will be like 20-something when the time comes to film the 7th installment - but they will still be able to play teenagers. In this case, being short helps a lot.

Charlotte said on 24/Sep/06
Rupert is about 5'7", still. He towers over both his short co-stars. Daniel is 5'4" and Emma is a fair bit shorter than him, even though her shoes always have a higher heel than his, so she'd probably be about 5'3" to 5'3.5"?

The HP kids are short. The lot of them.

johnny link said on 10/Sep/06
Rupert is taller than 5'7", he is quite a bit taller than Dan. More than an inch.

evanna said on 9/Sep/06
JK scroll down and find screencaps from the Queen handbag skit that some people have posted here. If Rupert is 5'6" than Dan and Emma are 5'2"!

JK said on 7/Sep/06
He looks barely 5'6'' Dan is just an inch off bis height.

johnny link said on 6/Sep/06
I'll accept 5'7.5" for him, but this means you must upgrade Emma to at least 5'7". From the DL pictures, it is clear she is in that 5'7"-5'8" range. I think 5'7.5" would be a great listing for Emma seeing she is taller than Rupert.

evanna said on 6/Sep/06
JK look at all the pictures of him that me and others have submitted here, he truly is in the 5'8" range, but his posture is really terrible. If I were his parent I'd send him to some spine doctor, or to gym.

JK said on 5/Sep/06
evanna those pictures show that he is 5'6'' no where near 5'8'' as you think.

anna said on 4/Sep/06
Go to gettyimages and there is a new batch of pictures with him and 5'1.5" Julie Walters. Both are wearing flat footwear and Rupert really does not look that much taller than her. Maybe he is just slouching, but it is really weird because like you said evanna, he stated that he is about 5'8". He surely does not look 6.5" taller than her though.

bam said on 1/Sep/06
Click Here

Shorter than Linney who is 5'7 so he is 5'6 without a doubt prolly 5'5

justme said on 29/Aug/06
well he surely looks 5-8ish to me, and he's not a type of guy who would lie about his height

anna said on 25/Aug/06
Rupert has a new movie coming out called Driving Lessons and Dan will be in the movie December Boys. We should be able to judge their heights on some different people now. Does anyone have pictures they would like to share?

anna said on 24/Aug/06
Yeah I have noticed that too Kourt, but I would beg to differ with his 5'10" listing. What I don't understand is how they got that height. He doesn't even look that tall in movies and such. Do you know how they got that Rob? I also have another question. If Emma has not grown since saying she is 'about 5'5"' then how do you explain the height difference between her and Rupert? At the premieres there looked to be a gap, but then at the Queen's birthday they looked the same height or maybe Emma being a little bit taller. And she was not wearing heels at the party. How can you put Rupert at 5'7.5" and Emma at 5'5" when Emma actually looks taller than Rupert in pictures? I honestly do not understand. You need to give Emma at least an inch upgrade. However, I think she is more around 5'7.5" (or taller) because I think this is a reasonalbe listing for Rupert.

evanna said on 9/Aug/06
Rob, I heard that the main cast of Driving Lessons (Grint, Linney, Walters etc.) is actually coming to Scotland on August 25 & 26, to attend the Edinburgh International Film Festival, so you might drop there and see them all in person. I was going to come, but I am only returning to UK in the late September, so I'm missing this event. I might catch some other DL events later, even ask some of the actors for a photo. Frankly I've never been into that before, but for the sake of this site I might cross the line ;))

JK said on 9/Aug/06
To me it looks like Rupert dosent even care about height, height isn't a big issue anyway.

Kourt said on 8/Aug/06
you know i bet my hat that rupert is taller than this. but im glad rob upgraded him. and the anna issue, look on emmas page and anna actually confesses that she/he is john link!!!

justme said on 8/Aug/06
agree with honey, sorry for being pushy

john link said on 7/Aug/06
Wow. I am not this anna girl, I honestly am not. I left the site for a while to get away from all of the annoying people on this website. I honestly could care less what you people think. I know that I wasn't pretending to be her so you can think whatever you would like to think. As for Rupert's height, I don't really care if you upgrade him. At least he doesn't care so much that he wears elevator shoes like Dan. But there is one thing I would like to ask you Rob. How can you say Rupert is 5'7.5", but then say that Emma is only 5'5"? I just do not understand how you can not upgrade her? Did you see the picture from the Queen's birthday? Emma was farther from the camera and in flats, but was still taller than Rupert. If there is supposedley a 2.5" difference, how do you explain this picture? Also, I am not the only one who thinks Dan should be downgraded anymore. evanna actually agrees that he should be downgraded. But I don't really understand your comment back to evanna Rob?? Do you mind explaining that to me? I think it is pretty obvious that he hasn't grown since that picture, so I am having difficulty seeing where you are coming from.

evanna said on 5/Aug/06
He he, "an anti-stallone", I like that! Very true too. Still I think you've been way too generous with Radcliffe, I mean Glenn was pretty much sure that Dan was 5'4" even in the late 2005; and after seeing the recent screencaps, he seems to be locked in that height. Tiny lad.

JK said on 5/Aug/06
I think Radcliffe is probably 5'6'' in shoes, first i thought he was wearing socks in that pic lol.

umad80 said on 4/Aug/06
Rupert definitely does not care about his height! Nor about anything. He's very laid back and unassuming. It's very refreshing. :) But it'll be interesting to see how is compared to everyone else at EIFF. I don't know whois going aside from Rupert, but I'm sure Jeremy Brock and other cast members of Driving Lessons will be there.

I still don't think 5'7" and a half is fair considering that Dan wears dress shoes to every event and Rupert is STILL taller. lol And Will Mosely would've only been about an inch and a half to two inches taller at the BAFTAs clearly suggesting 5'8" and a half to 5'9" at that time. FYI, Dan IS 5'5" and a half. It's been documented plenty of times and he was measured on national TV. (UK TRL) So give him an inch to a two inch heel, and clearly Rupert has and inch and a half to two on Dan when this happens.

evanna said on 4/Aug/06
Wow, Rob, you have given the kid an extra quarter! Cool! I always knew there was more in you than just clever observations and wisecracks...

honey said on 4/Aug/06
You know, Rob, perhaps you should really upgrade Rupert a bit - if for no other reason, then to annoy john link... oooops, I meant Anna... almost forgot that the dude underwent the sex change operation... :D

Kourt said on 3/Aug/06
In the GoF movie, Rupert is taller than Clemence Poesy who stands at 5'7" so he's gotta be taller than what rob has him as.

evanna said on 3/Aug/06
Rupert really needs to buy some decent shoes...

JK said on 3/Aug/06
has john link departed from this site,, if so how come??

evanna said on 3/Aug/06
Well even if she is 163-165cm he could still be 175cm because he is obviously much taller than her, according to Rob's Orlando Bloom model/example he's got like 5in. advantage over her. Besides she said herself he was 175cm, and I see no reason not to believe her.

JK said on 3/Aug/06
whenever i see this guys pics, he seems to be struggling with 5'6'', neva mind 5'8''.

umad80 said on 31/Jul/06
It's not in question because unless the girl is 5'2" it's obvious that Rupert is much, much taller than her and more than 5'8". At the very least he is 5'9" in that picture. And there are others with her at different heights, and I think it's obvious that she's is quite a bit taller than them. I think it's obvious the shortest person there is probably around 4'9" (no confirmation, just my general guess), with the next one possibly being in the 5' range - possibly a bit over, and then to her at least being 5'6" and she wasn't wearing shoes because it was a beach house. And again, Rupert was either not wearing shoes or chucks as he always does thus proving that he has grown to be at least 5'10".

Henni said on 31/Jul/06
Hi. Was in London recently and saw a guy I really thought looked a lot like Rupert Grint, but he seemed shorter than I had pictured him. But of course, there's a big chance it wasn't him and I just wanted it to be. But you know; it's fun to believe ;)

honey said on 31/Jul/06
Stephanie, you might wanna go through some of my recent comments, because I think I've submitted plenty of evidence that Rupert's current height is about 5'8" (unless he's had a major growth spurt in the past two months or so). As for the Portuguese fan, the pictures are obviously real but her testimony about her and Rupert's heights is still to be questioned.

umad80 said on 30/Jul/06
No, the statement about her height was in an e-mail to a friend. My friend asked her how tall Rupert was and she said what her height was and since he was obviously much taller than her, she figured him to be at least 5'10".

umad80 said on 29/Jul/06
Yes. She gave the height in centimeters which turned out to be between 5'6" and 5'7" (she wasn't sure off hand, but knew around there) and from what I can tell, she definitely is NOT short. So Rupert is definitely more along the lines of between 5'9" and 5'10" - perhaps taller!

Stephanie said on 28/Jul/06
No. There a pictures of him in like 31 March or 31 April at the premiere of his new movie and he really can't be more than 5' 7"... 5' 10"+ is ridiculous. Heck, I have trouble believing 5' 7" at times. I think 5' 6.5" is closest to his actual height. Radcliffe, Watson, and Leung are 5' 4"-5' 5" range.

evanna said on 28/Jul/06
umad80, can you provide us with links to that photo and the girl's statement about her height?

umad80 said on 27/Jul/06
No, 5'10" is more right. That new picture of him with a fan at Portagul... she said she was between 5'6" and 5'7" and Rupert was much taller. So unless she's wrong about her height and she's really 5'2" - he's much taller than 5'8"! And there is nothing wrong with being short, I just hate that people can't seem to get his height right.

JK said on 26/Jul/06
finally we all agree on something!! there will be peace...........

honey said on 26/Jul/06
I totally agree with you people. I mean, Rupert can look taller in some pics because he is very skinny and, of course, because his co-stars are so short. There is a scene in GoF where he stands between Daniel Radcliffe and Devon Murray (during the H/R fight) and looks like Hagrid compared to them. But in reality he is in the 5'7.5"-5'8" range.
Anyway, long live Rob!

Charlotte said on 26/Jul/06
Rupert is just slightly under 5'8". He isn't 5'10". Rob's got it right.

JK said on 24/Jul/06
yep,, i don't belive that he is 5'6.5'' i think he is more 5'8'' but not 5'10''.

jesi said on 24/Jul/06
You cant say Emma is taller just based on such a pic because you can never tell if Emma was standing on a level that's much higher. The surroundings suggest that they're not standing on a concrete level ground. Its a grassy plot and dont look equally levelled on all points.

umad80 said on 24/Jul/06
I'll say it once and I'll say again... Will Moseley was wearing dress shoes and Rupert was wearing chucks. So if Will is 5'10" there he could get anywhere from an inch to two inches in the shoe giving him as two inches on Rupert, which looks to be accurate. Rupert is also a sloucher. Hehe.

anna said on 10/Jul/06
wow...I have just been looking at the party at the palace pictures and Emma Watson looks taller than Rupert?? I have only found one picture so I am not positive what kind of footwear they were wearing, but Emma clearly looked taller than Rupert even though she was standing in back of him. Has anyone else seen this picture or know if Emma was wearing heels or not? From what I have gathered reading peoples' comments on Emma's page, I am guessing she did not wear heels and she is indeed taller than Rupert, which is actually quite cool. Let me know what you think! Thanks!

evanna said on 8/Jul/06
I'm not sure about the 5'10", but after seeing him alongside many of his co-stars and other celebrities I'm absolutely convinced he is at least 5'8" or more. He just has to slouch and bend all the time not to make Dan look so short.

umad80 said on 7/Jul/06
Also Laura Linney is 5'7" and at Tribeca only her hair was taller than Rupert. The top of Rupert's head came up to the top of her head, and her hair out did him. But at the private screening, Rupert was clearly taller than Laura.

umad80 said on 7/Jul/06
Rupert isn't wearing dress shoes in the BAFTA photos. He's wearing black chucks. You can see that in many photos. Rupert wears chucks a lot to events and thus gives the illusion of not being very tall. But if you look at Harry Potter photos whether promotional or screen caps, he's much taller. The Queen's Birthday Play, he was actually close to Matt's height and clearly taller than Dan. More so than 5'7". I believe Rupert is between 5'9" and 5'10". With the 6'3" twins, if they're all on the same type of shoe, like in Rome, the top of Rupert's head comes up to their eyes.

john link said on 30/Jun/06
Have you found anymore picturees of the event honey? I haven't. But Emma surely does looks taller than Rupert in the picture we have! hahaha I heard that Emma was not wearing heels at this event (somebody on a website was at the event.) In the current picture, she looks taller than Rupert even though she is in back of him and has a camera disadvantage. To me she actually looks over 5'7" compared to Matt Lewis. It is going to be very interesting to see what people will say if Emma is not wearing heels and once more pictures come out.

honey said on 28/Jun/06
no john, I just hoped you'd come out with something more interesting...

john link said on 28/Jun/06
haha honey is it a sin to post the same picture on more than one page? I just posted it on both Emma and Rupert's in case a person just visited Rupert's or just visited Emma's. Sorry if it offended you??

john link said on 26/Jun/06
Click Here
Rupert has the camera advantage and is standing in front of Emma, but Emma still looks as tall as Rupert. If they were to stand next to each other, I think Emma would be taller than Rupert.

Stephanie said on 13/Jun/06
As far as Laura Linney's heel height goes, even if she is in high heels she is still at least the same height as Rupert, probably half an inch taller! I think Rupert is 5' 6.5". Look at Katharine McPhee and Ryan Seacrest. They are both 5' 7" but Katharine is only a little taller than Ryan in heels... and the hieght difference between Laura and Rupert looks to be a little more.

Anonymous said on 12/Jun/06
Ha, that's exactly my point, john link- you always say something different. At first, you said Dan was under 5'4.5'', then he was under 5'4'' and what, are you going to say, he's under 5'3'' in your further comments?
Now Emma and Rupert. At first, you claimed she's taller than him in that photo, then you said they look at the same height, now you already admit, she DOES look a bit shorter. Come on, you're not serious.

Stephanie said on 12/Jun/06
Rupert is 5' 6" as of April 30, 2006: Click Here

These 5' 7" or 5' 10"+ estimates are just plain silly!

john link said on 11/Jun/06
As I have said before I don't care if Emma is tall or short. I do not care how tall or short a girl is. I honestly don't get where you guys are coming from in this picture. I honestly think Emma is the same height as Rupert in this picture. How much shorter do you guys think she looks in this picture? To me, Emma looks, at the most, 1/4" shorter. To me she looks the same height as Rupert, which would mean she is about 1/2" taller than Rupert barefoot. (Rupert has about 1/2" footwear advantage over Emma.)

Charlotte said on 10/Jun/06
Wishful thinking?

JK said on 10/Jun/06
What is up with you John? She isn't taller or even the same height as rupert in the latest pics.

john link said on 10/Jun/06
When you lean back you lose height, you do not gain height. Plus, it looks like Rupert is standing up straight. That is the straightest I have ever seen him stand. And I have no idea how you think Rupert looks taller than Emma in this picture?! To me Emma looks at least the same height as Rupert, if she were to stand up straight she would be about 1/2" taller than him...????

Anonymous said on 10/Jun/06
You seriously need glases... :D Rupert isn't shorter than her, I can see that without even taking a ruler to compare their heights. And she's even raising her head and chin up, that's what makes her taller and we know Rupert never stands at his full height.
Besides, compare all them to 5'11'' Jason Isaacs on the right. Emma doesn't look 5'7'' compared to him, and I'm 100% he's not wearing elevators, because he's tall enough already.

john link said on 3/Jun/06
I promise this is the last comment about changing their heights Rob...because most people as a whole belive that Emma is taller than Dan, I think you should either downgrade Dan or upgrade Emma. Of course, a combination of the two would be ideal. As for Rupert's height, I think 5'6.5" is a more accurate height, but I don't really care, whatever you think Rob. But, Emma does look as tall as him now. It is just what I think, I promise, no more complaints about what the three are posted at.

john link said on 3/Jun/06
Okay I'll stop making complaints to Rob to change their heights, but I just have no idea how you think Dan and Emma are the same height. A lot of people, even if they don't agree on the actual height, agree that Emma is taller than Dan.

Yo said on 2/Jun/06
this is what i think:
Emma = 5'4''
Dan = 5'4.5''
Rupert = 5'6''

john link said on 30/May/06
Yes "yo". Rupert is 5'7" if Emma is 5'7.5". Either change Emma's height to 5'7.5" or change Rupert's height to 5'6.5" and Emma's to 5'7". Emma is, at the least, the same height as Rupert. I am almost positive that she is a 1/2" taller than him now.

john link said on 27/May/06
Does anyone here think Dan wears elevator shoes? (see my comments on Dan's page.)

Yo said on 25/May/06
after nearly every one saying that this guy is atleast 5'6'', I can't still believe you left Grint near 5'8'' Rob? why arn't you downgrading him?

Charlotte said on 23/May/06
John,most top models have masculiene features.The only feminine looking ones are the glamour models.

I consider anything above 5 ft 8 in tall.I personally think Emma could reach 5 ft 7 in MAX,but you knew that John.I doubt she would reach 6 ft 1.That is my height, at her age I was 5 ft 10 and I still had late growth spurts.So,if you look at it from my perspective,she is not tall.

Nah,her nose just adds up to her looking feminene.Feminene doesn't equal tall in most aspects.

john link said on 21/May/06
Yeah, okay that was a typo, it wasn't all adding up, lol. But, I don't get what you mean, you think having a small nose means you will be short? That is a pretty broad assumption. I don't think that your facial features have to do with your height. Things that do, however, are your feet, limbs, and hands. At least in my opinion. And I personally do not think shoulders have to do with height. Having manly features does not necessarily mean you will be tall. Look at all the models, they don't have very manly features do they? As for Emma's feet, they seem really big and so do her hands. Her fingers are really really long. Just look at some pictures, they are very large. Her limbs seem to be quite long too, espically her arms. That is why I think she will grow to be at least 5'8", and for a girl that is quite tall. At least in my opinion. Charlotte, what do you consider to be tall? Just wondering. And I would also like to say that I am just making educated guesses about her future height. I mean, she could have a huge growth spurt and end up being like 6'1'", unlikely, but hey it is possible. I am just trying to say that nobody can predict the future, we will just have to wait and in the meantime make guesses.

Charlotte said on 20/May/06
As someone who is tall,John Link,I can tell you she doesn't looks like she's going to get anywhere near what I consider tall.

I meant she hasn't shown many signs of being a tall girl..It was a typo :)

I personally think she has somewhat feminine features; the little nose,little lips,little feet,little build,little eyes. etc.I dunno,john,she ooks like she's got narrow shoulders to me..but then again,I have extremely broad shoulder's myself,and maybe hers are just narrow to me?

john link said on 17/May/06
Yeah I know what you mean Anonymous, we never know if someone is done growing, but your example is different from Dan. Dan is almost 17 years old now and it doesn't look like he has grown in the past 2 or 3 years. Unfortunate for him, but he is rich so it all evens out.

Anonymous said on 17/May/06
You never know if Dan's done growing. For example:
I once had a classmate, who was about 5'1'' when he was 11. He's 15,5 now and he's at about 5'3''. He didn't grew even a cm in the last 2 years. So, can we say he's definetely done growing? No, you never know.

john link said on 15/May/06
Yeah I know what you mean Charlotte, I don't think it is insane at all for a female to grow over the age of 15 or 16. I can't say anything about how tall her parents are because I have never seen them before. Where are you finding pictures? Okay, no offense intended, but you seem to jump around a lot in your comment. You say "now has she shown many signs of being a tall girl" (what does that mean?) but then later you say "good luck to her, I'd like her to be tall, like me, but she doesn't show any signs of that.)??? I disagree about the feet thing, but of course you already know that.:) As for the "extremely girlish features" I believe on one of the pages somebody said something about Emma having broad shoulders...or am I just haluscinating? I really do think that someone said that. As for everything else, you know my opinions and I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. However, I truly think she looks at least 5'6.5". She looks like a tall girl, so I think you will get your wish of her being tall like yourself.

Charlotte said on 15/May/06
It's not insane for a female to grow over the age of 15.That's quite silly.I've seen girls who have finished their growth from 10 to 24.

Now,Emma doesn't have tall parents (from what I've seen of them,and it ain't much),now has she shown many signs of being a tall girl,but just for you John,I say she could reach a maximum of 5 ft 7 in (at the 5 ft 4 in-ish she is now).Tallness is also a sign of being masculiene,and Emma has extremely girlish features,and no big feet or broad shoulders,so I personally think she'll be 5 ft 6 in (good luck to her,I'd like her to be tall,like me,but she doesn't show any signs of that)

As for Daniel,his parents are short and he probably won't exceed 5 ft 7 in either.Good luck to him if he ever reached 5 ft 6 or 5 in at all.But because he is a boy,he may grow a touch taller than Emma.

As for Rupert,well,he needs to straighten up his back,because he's only a mere 2.5 in taller than Emma! He could grow an inch or so.

john link said on 10/May/06
Do you have a picture to prove that Charlotte? Because in the pictures I have looked at, her hands and limbs look noticeably larger than Dan's and Rupert's. I think I have said this before, but in the World Cup scene in GOF, her hands were next to Dan's and they looked way bigger than his. If they would have put them up next to each other's, Emma easily could have bent her fingers over Dan's. Therefore, I do not think the projected height of 5'8" for Emma is unreasonable. I know that some of the people on this site think that it is absolutely insane for a girl to grow over the age of 15 (for some odd reason), but it is not unheard of to grow an inch in 2 to 3 years. She just turned 16 and is obviously still growing. Dan, however, seems to be in quite the opposite situation. Rupert, he will probably stay in the 5'7" range.

Charlotte said on 10/May/06
No,her limbs are shorter by both Dan's and Ruperts,but it's okay considering she's shorter than Rupert by 2.5 inches and 0.5" shorter (or the same height as) Dan

john link said on 9/May/06
Sorry, Serene, I didn't catch that. What are you trying to say? Rupert is closer to 5'8"? If so, then that would mean that Emma is over 5'7" because there is absolutely no way she was more than an inch shorter than Rupert at the Empire Awards. We have gone over this and at least I have concluded that she looked as tall or taller than Rupert with a footwear disadvantage.

Serene said on 9/May/06
Haha..if emma is 5'6.5" and Robert Pattinson would be 6'4" like the Phelp Twins..possible?

There is a picture in the net witch Rupert standing between his co-star brothers, the Phelp Twins. The twins are very lanky and tall even taller than Robert.
So, I do think that the trios are under 5'8"..all of them..

john link said on 8/May/06
I disagree, Emma has quite long limbs and large hands. Her hands are bigger than Dan's (obviously) and Rupert's. Also, her limbs are quite a bit longer than the other two's. She is at least 5'6.5" right now. Look at Emma's page to see why.

Charlotte said on 8/May/06
I agree with Jessica.

Emma doesn't have long limbs at all (they are quite short,unless you are used to short women) and is at max 5'4.5" right now.

Rupert is (MAX) 5'6.5" (while Emma looks 1.5" shorter than him with a photographic height advantage)

john link said on 7/May/06
Wouldn't you say that he is closer to 5'6.5" Rob? Well, unless you are willing to agree that Emma is 5'7" because at the Empire Awards she certainly looked as tall as Rupert with a footwear disadvantage...and for your information, I do not think that 5'7" is an unreasonable height for Emma. I think if you change both Rupert and Emma's heights to 5'7" that would be good. Emma has to be at least 5'6.5".

john link said on 6/May/06
Jessica: How was I being horrible to a million people on this site? I honestly do not know how I was being rude...but I guess I am sorry. And about the getty images links, I wonder why yours' are not working. They are working for me, is anyone else having troubles?

john link said on 5/May/06
No LIsten, I am saying she is near 5'7" and Rupert may be under 5'7". And I guess she can be taller than Rupert because... she grew? In the pictures she certainly looks to be taller than Rupert.

Jessica said on 5/May/06
ok, there is an opinion that is supported John Link...happy. And I told everyone to go look at ALL the pictures on the getty images page and to searc for Daniel, Emma, and Rupert- because the getty images links never seem to work. And I was only being mean because you were being horrible to about a million people on this site that just try to express their opnions.

LIsten said on 5/May/06
It says on this page that Rupert is very near 5'8'', HOW THE HELL CAN SHE BE TALLER THAN RUPERT IF HE IS VERY NEARLY 5'8''???? Are you telling me she is 5'9'' or what John link?

john link said on 4/May/06
Once again, people are not supproting their opinions. Why do you think Emma is 5'5" Max, Kj? She certainly seems to look at least 5'6.5" these days. Rueprt and dan continue to look shorter than her.

Kj said on 4/May/06
Emma is 5'5'' Max. i can't imagine her being 169cm.

john link said on 3/May/06
Thanks Jessica. I really appriciate your kind remarks...but let's not fight. I mean I don't think my predictions are incorrect, but you do. I mean from the pictures Emma really does look taller than Dan and Rupert. I guess you can think what you think and I can think what I think. However, instead of just saying "oh John Link you are crazy, making up unrealistic heights for Emma" (etc.) I just ask you to support your opinions before saying things like that to me. Gets some pictures or websites because if you are just going to say opinions, no one is going to believe you. And Emma certainly does look at least 5'6.5" in the Empire Award pictures that I have provided.

Jessica said on 3/May/06
yep, I agree Height Info.

Height Info said on 2/May/06
Males usually reach their full height at 18, but can continue growing up until the age of 24 or 25. I guess you'll just have to wait and see how tall these kids get.

ER said on 2/May/06
I don't think Emma will grow anymore neither.. but Rupert is not 5'6'', he is around 5'5.5'' he is probably 5'6'' on a good day. He looks about 5'4'' when he slouches.

Jessica said on 2/May/06
I'm guessing you- john link- are a delusional hypocrite. You undermine 'Dan fan girls' for 'trying to make Daniel taller than he is'- yet, you, as a 'Emma fan boy' continue to materialise an unrealistic height for Emma in your mind. The heights are as Rob has posted. Rupert around 5'7", Emma- 5'5", and Dan 5'5". (p.s Rob I know this comment may seem a little 'agro' but could you please post it anyway. Thank-you)

john link said on 1/May/06
Jessica: If you look at the picture I linked on Emma's page, you can see a picture where the camera angles, planes, and postures are the same. Emma is about 1/2" taller than Rupert and that is with a footwear disadvantage. So, either Rupert is not really 5'7" or Emma is taller than we think she is. I am guessing that Emma is probably taller than we think she is.

Jessica said on 1/May/06
nope, emma isn't tall, and I don't know what John Link is seeing in her limbs, but whatever it is I don't see it. And i think Rupert is abot 5'7" still. Rob's got it right in the sub-heading thing- he has a laid back posture. So he looks shorter. But he's not.

john link said on 30/Apr/06
ER, how tall do you think Dan and Emma are? Emma seems to be about 1/2" taller than Rupert with a footwear disadvantage, so I think she is in the 5'7" range. Emma looks to be about 2.5" taller than Dan with a huge footwear disadvantage. Rupert looks to be about 2" taller than Dan with a footwear disadvantage. I am thinking these are their heights if all were barefoot:
Emma: 5'6.5" to 5'7.5"
Rupert: 5'6" to 5'6.5"
Dan: under 5'4"
Those seem right to me. There is no doubt in my mind that Emma is tallest. Emma is tall. I think she will grow to be at least 5'8", she has the figure (limbs, hands, feet, etc.) The boys, however, seem to be done growing.

ER said on 28/Apr/06
Rupert isn't even near 5'6'' forget about 5'8''. this guy is nothing more than 5'5.5'', the 5'7'' thing is all bulls***!

john link said on 21/Apr/06
Charlotte...you say "He slouches a lot and wears no heels, unlike both of his co-stars." Emma DOES NOT wear heels, she wears flats almost all the time! Dan does wear heels however. You also suggest that Rupert looks shorter because he slouches, well take a look at this picture. It is an extremely good one to compare heights because there are no weird camera angles, all are on the same plane, and all three are standing up straight (Emma would be taller if she made her head normal/realitvely the same height). It shows that Emma is the tallest at approximentely 5'7", Rupert is second tallest at 5'6.5", and Dan is the shortest at 5'4" to 5'4.5". Dan is actually even shorter (barefoot) because he is wearing heels whereas Rupert and Emma are not.
Click Here

Charlotte said on 20/Apr/06
Rupert's about 5'7".He slouches alot and wears no heels,unlike both of his co-stars.

DSf said on 19/Apr/06
why does rupert then look 5'5.5 in pictures? i know it is not because of his posture,

karee said on 16/Apr/06
i think you should change rupert's height to 5'7" and emma's to AT LEAST 5'6"!?!!?!? she really is almost as tall as rupert now.

Charlotte said on 14/Apr/06
I don't agree with you either karee.Take a look at all pictures from the time,she WAS much shorter than him,considering he is short too (at 5'5") she was 5'3.5" at the time and is now 5'4".She is about 3 inches shorter than Rupert (who is just under 5'7").

Why do you wish for Emma to be tall? She has clearly finished growing and is shorter than both the boys.

karee said on 14/Apr/06
i don't agree with you at all charlotte...emma is taller than dan and rupert...also a few months ago dan was not 2-4 inches taller than emma! what? they were around the same height emma being about an inch taller...presently, emma looks about 2 to 3 inches taller than dan, the gap has grown and now emma looks as tall or taller than rupert.

digeer said on 10/Apr/06
James is his brother, he looks like 5'8''.

karee said on 8/Apr/06
Click Here

is this rupert's family (and is james his brother?)

Elio said on 3/Apr/06
Strange for a kid actor to have such an inflated listed height. Oh, well get them started early I suppose.

andrew said on 2/Apr/06
yeah i agree with you link...it stinks because ron is suppose to be tall and lanky...at least daniel is short like harry is, but I do not think he will grow like harry did in the 6th book he seems to be done growing...emma watson seems to have grown a huge amount though...she now looks taller than both Rupert and Dan...go to gettyimages.com/editorial and search emma watson...in the pictures where all are standing up straight emma is taller than both rupert and dan! here are their heights in my opinion:
Emma: 5'7" to 5'7.5"! :)
Rupert: 5'7"
Dan: under 5'5"

Emma really looks taller!!

Link said on 2/Apr/06
bikagyura says on 4/Mar/06
if Rupert Grint is 5' 7½ he won't grow to be 6' 1 that's for sure... he is going on 18 you know... guys don't usually grow (notably) past the age of 18-19, and certainly not usually 5 and a half inches



Dad went from 5'9 to 6'2 1/2" aged 18-19
I have gone from 5'11 to nearly 6'1" aged 18, and am still growing.
Uncle reached his full 6'7" aged 22

It can happen-but its rare

the crap thing is that in the books ron is meant to be UBER tall, so is dumbledore yet the new one is only like 5'9 ish.

Anonymous said on 28/Mar/06
rupert is 5,10,dan just over 5,8 and emma is almost 5,7

Amanda said on 23/Mar/06
Dan and Emma look 5' 6"... Rupert looks 5' 7".

Charlotte said on 22/Mar/06
Considering Dan (who is 5'5" or 5'6") and Emma (5'4" or nearing 5'5"),are just slightly shorter than him,he's about 5'7"

Anonymous said on 19/Mar/06
In photos, he doesn't look this tall. He looks more 5'6.5"...

Madeline said on 15/Mar/06
No Offence Cassie, but that calculator isn't very acurate. Yes I did try it- using my elder brother and a few of his friends as examples. It said that my brother who at 16 years was 5'7" would be about 5'8"-9" at full height, my brother howver happens to be 6'3" and is still growing (very slowly mind) at almost 21 years. Most of his friends were only 5'8"ish at 16 and have all ended up at least 5'11", and most kept rowing until recently (they're all around 21 yrs old). What I am trying to say is that there isn't any way to prove how tall a kids going to get.

Cassie said on 12/Mar/06
A (male) child who is 5' 7 1/2" tall at 17 years, 7 months of age has a predicted future height of (*drum roll*): 172.5 cm or 5' 7.9"!
Click Here
So Rupert will be about 5' 8" tall.

Amanda said on 11/Mar/06
How tall will Rupert get? He is already 17 and a half years old, so, according to height charts...
If he is 5' 7", he will be 5' 7".
If he is 5' 7.5", he will be 5' 7.75".
...he's not going to grow much.

Amanda said on 8/Mar/06
rodney-- "i have met this guy in real life and im 12 years old and 5'6'', and he was shorter than me!!"

You just said you're 5' 6" and 12, and he's way shorter than you are! If you're 5' 9" now than you can say that but it doesn't make sense because you met him when you were 5' 6" and age 12. Rupert is 5' 7"!

rodney said on 7/Mar/06
listen up Cassie, I didn't say rupert was "way shorter than me". But now he is because i had a growth spurt and i am 5'9''.

Cassie said on 6/Mar/06
To rodney: Don't make up ridiculous stories. He is not "way shorter" than you are if you're only 5' 6". In fact, he is an inch taller than you are! You remind me of the people who make up an encounter with Tom Cruise to "prove" he is 5' 1" when he is actually just under 5' 8".

Rupert looks like he is 5' 7" to me, maybe just over it. Future height? Considering he's already seventeen-and-a-half, and he obviously hasn't been growing much, he's probably headed to be about 5' 8". Dan and Emma will probably end up at 5' 6".

FYI: People list Rupert at 5' 10" because they think Tom Felton is 6' 1"! But they are really 5' 7" and 5' 10"!

bikagyura said on 4/Mar/06
if Rupert Grint is 5' 7½ he won't grow to be 6' 1 that's for sure... he is going on 18 you know... guys don't usually grow (notably) past the age of 18-19, and certainly not usually 5 and a half inches

JK said on 1/Mar/06
I think rupert will grow to be 6'1''. MY WORD have you seen how tall Jamie waylett's grown he looks about 6'5''.

malu14 said on 26/Feb/06
i found out that he was 5'10 in other websites but this one say's that he is 5'7. Do you think that he would make a good couple with Emma Watson, or Danielle Radcliffe is better?

rodney said on 25/Feb/06
on some sites he is listed as 5'10'' and on this site he is listed at 5'7'' i have met this guy in real life and im 12 years old and 5'6'', and he was shorter than me!!

Alex2 said on 20/Feb/06
Next to William Mosely on the BAFTA's he looked a good three inches shorter, however Stephen Fry said their combined height was 11'9"...

ds said on 11/Feb/06
Yeah I think he's like 172-173cm. I could be being biast since I'm like in love with him. But he did seem more like 3 inches taller than Dan, who I think is a bit under his listed height...people forget that 3 inches doesn't look like that much n pictures...

TNTinCA said on 1/Feb/06
I think this height might need to be updated. Rupert looked taller than 5'7.5" in the latest Harry Potter installment. I would have pegged him at 5'8" or more.

Natalie said on 30/Jan/06
Emma is taller than Dan. Charlotte: when you say Emma has never been particularly tall, why does that matter? It is the past...haven't you known people who have been really short and then all of the sudden they grow and they are really tall? I think that is what will happen to Emma. Also, there is no way she is shorter than Dan, she is less than 5'5", and that Dan is 5'6". Another thing to consider is the height gap between Rupert and Emma is shrinking (wheras Emma continues to grow inches on Dan.) Here is what I think (Emma will grow to be taller than Rupert.):
Rupert....5'8" will be 5'8.5"
Dan...5'4"-5'5" will be 5'4" to 5'5"
Emma...5'6"-5'7" will be at least 5'9"

ds said on 30/Jan/06
I'm 172 cm, and I really want Rupert to be 172cm so I don't have to tower over him when we get married :(. And I'm closing in on 173cm...

moh said on 22/Jan/06
I dont think emma is taller than dan.emma is about 5.5while dan is 5.6

anonymous said on 14/Jan/06
Dan's shoes didn't have big soles at the premiere. Emma is WAY taller than 5' 5" Katie, whose heels were bigger than Emma's were, and Emma was taller. Dan looks about the same height as Emma and Rupert was taller. Emma looks to be about 5' 6" now. Dan is about 5' 6" too, and Rupert is 5' 7" or 5' 8".

Katie said on 8/Jan/06
Krista: You say, "she's not that much taller when you subtract the height of her heels." First of all Emma rarely wears heels, she is most often in flats. At the London premiere she was basically barefoot and her mini heels at the NY premiere were only centimeters tall. However, Dan wears shoes with quite large soles that often times have larger soles than Emma's shoes. In most pictures Emma is still taller than Dan by at least an inch, making her app. 2-3 inches taller than him when they are both barefoot. I agree with Karee. Rupert and Dan are most likely done growing (especially Dan) and Emma will grow to be at least 5'9", probably 5'10". Emma will be taller than Rupert.

Karee said on 8/Jan/06
Krista I agree with you mostly, however I think Dan is more in the 5'4" to 5'5" range. I don't think he will grow much more. Emma will be around 5'9" I think. She doesn't show any signs of slowing growth. Emma will be taller than Rupert. There is no doubt in my mind that she will not reach 5'9".

Krista said on 8/Jan/06
Dan is 5' 5.5" not 5' 4.5". In May he said he was 1/2" taller than Emma Watson, meaning he was 5' 5.5" and she was 5' 5". Now Emma looks 5' 6" and she's not that much taller when you subtract the height of her heels. Rupert is about 5' 7" now.
Dan will be 5' 6". He's like 1 cm away from it anyway, and people who are expecting a miraculous late growth spurt fail to remember that his parents are short.
Emma will be somewhere between 5' 7" and 5' 9", probably more in the 5' 7"-5' 8" range. Especially being almost 16, she's not got much time left.
Rupert is 5' 7" and will probably be 5' 8".

Karee said on 8/Jan/06
Cassie: I mainly agree with what you are saying. I notice that the height gap between Rupert and Emma Watson is closing and the height gap between Dan and Emma is increasing. Emma is getting even taller than Dan. I think Rupert and Dan are done growing, but Emma is going to grow quite a bit taller. Here are my predictions:
Rupert: 5'7.5" will grow to be 5'8"
Dan: 5'4.5" will not grow more
Emma: 5'6" will grow to be around 5'9"

Cassie said on 6/Jan/06
I really doubt Rupert is still growing. He's not showing any signs of it. He's bee that height since 2003, when they filmed the 3rd Harry Potter movie. Notice how the height gap between him and Emma Watson is closing? Daniel Radcliffe is also probably done growing, and Emma's growth is slowing down, too.
Here are my predictions:
Emma- now 166 cm (5' 5.5"), future: 169-170 cm (5' 7")
Dan- now 166-167 cm(5' 5.5"), future: 168 cm (5' 6")
Rupert- now 170 cm (5' 7"), future: 172 cm (5' 7.75")

Anonymous said on 3/Jan/06
No Way Rupert is miles taller i saw him on a program with davina mcCall and Rupert was slightly taller eventhough Davina had 2 or 3 inches of heel on

summa said on 2/Jan/06
i always thought he was 5 ft 10 but i looked at a few pics of him and yeah he is definetly not 5 ft 10 maybe 5 ft 8
http://www.photobucket.com/albums/a178/ginnygirl/047.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/inadequatesoul/rupertpremiere4.jpg
hes definetly taller than me and im 5 ft 7
but i think he will stop growing at about 5 ft 9 and and when hes in his 20's will be kinda short compared to other men his age

Anonymous said on 2/Jan/06
he'll probably grow an inch or so and be 5'8"-5'9.5". He definitely won't be 6'2" or something.

Katie said on 1/Jan/06
Do you guys think Rupert is still growing?

Kelsey said on 1/Jan/06
Do any of you think that Rupert's height is a problem? In the books, Ron is really tall and lanky. Rupert doesn't seem to be either of those things.

Maycee said on 1/Jan/06
Wow, Wicked Kid, could you please calm down. What makes you right and everyone else wrong? People can have their opinions. How come at the end of your comment you said that, "So er, let's see...Dan's wearing 4" lifts now is he?"? Why would he be doing that? In pictures he is clearly a couple inches shorter than Emma and is wearing dress shoes while Emma is wearing flats. Explain this please. Also, don't be so rude about things when you may not be right. I believe what Karee said. Emma is taller than Dan and almost as tall as Rupert. That is just my opinion though and if you can prove me wrong then do it.

Amanda said on 27/Dec/05
ACTUAL HEIGHTS AS OF NOVEMBER 2005! (What they said!)
Emma- about 5' 5"- 165 or 166 cm
Rupert- 5' 7"- 170 cm
Dan- 5' 5.5"- 167 cm
Katie- 5' 5"- 165 cm

And from premiere pics, these heights are correct. =)

Wicked Kid said on 25/Dec/05
This is so hilariuos I can't help but quote it(sorry for the waste of comment space Rob!):

"karee says on 11/Dec/05
I think that Emma Watson will grow to be taller than Rupert. She already is taller than Dan and shows no signs of stopping.
Emma- 5'7.5"
Rupert- 5'8"
Dan- 5'4"
That is there current heights. Emma and Rupert are still growing and Dan is done."

So er,let's see...Dan's wearing 4" lifts now is he?

KASEY said on 23/Dec/05
I am 5' 8" and when I met Rupert he was more than just half an inch shorter than me. He looked like he was 5' 6.5", 5' 7" tops.

Stephenie said on 15/Dec/05
Rupert is OLDER than Dan and Emma! And his growth slowed a lot since the filming of the third movie. Daniel wasn't growing much to begin with. Dan himself said he's 5' 5.5". And from pic of Rupert next to the 5' 10" Tom Felton and the 6' 3" Phelps brothers, he is clearly no taller than 5' 6.5"-5' 7". Emma is a little over 5' 5" because she's slightly taller than Katie Leung, who is 5' 5" even. I think Emma will be about 5' 6"-5' 7" and the boys seem to be about done with their growth.

Kaitlin said on 15/Dec/05
Dan is just about 5' 6" now, Emma is 5' 5.25" and Rupert is an even 5' 7". His hair makes him look half an inch taller than he really is. Although in some photos Emma looks as tall as or taller than Daniel (guys' hair makes them look taller sometimes), so Emma might have grown an inch since she last measured herself. As far as growing you can never tell. I was 5' 5" at Emma's age (15/16) and now I am 18 and 5' 8.5", almost 5' 9" so Emma might grow more. Dan's parents are short so I think he's about done, and Rupert's growth seems to have slowed as well.

karee said on 11/Dec/05
I think that Emma Watson will grow to be taller than Rupert. She already is taller than Dan and shows no signs of stopping.
Emma- 5'7.5"
Rupert- 5'8"
Dan- 5'4"
That is there current heights. Emma and Rupert are still growing and Dan is done.

Serene said on 2/Dec/05
Erm,Jeff. Rupert Grint doesn't have his own official website. He is really about 5'7.5" tall, like what Rob estimated.

Serene said on 27/Nov/05
Well, for many sites, it says that he is 5'7" mostly. Only a few sites says him ,he is 5'8" or 5"10"

But Rob listed Rupert as 5'7.5" tall, erm, that is a fair estimate. Since he is slighty taller than Daniel about 2 inches, Daniel is 5'5.5" tall.

anonymous said on 26/Nov/05
I've seem him listed as 5'8 and even 5'10 in some places. But I think your estimate is probably fairly accuate. Although I could see him being as tall as 5'8. But he definately isn't any taller than that.

Danny said on 26/Nov/05
IS he currently 171 or that was the past Rob?

MD said on 26/Nov/05
That looks about right. He's really not that much taller than Daniel Radcliffe, though noticeably taller.