Alouette

The short answer is No.

As we know, Harry reached James’ height by the age of 17.

DH

James was exactly the same height as Harry.

Mentions about James’ height

GoF

And he came . . . first his head, then his body . . . tall and untidy-haired like Harry, the smoky, shadowy form of James Potter. . .

GoF (Voldemort’s perspective)

They had not drawn the curtains; he saw them quite clearly in their little sitting room, the tall black-haired man in his glasses. . .

James was tall + Harry’s being mentioned to have the same height later = Harry isn’t short.

So, let’s break it down better according to the most common arguments for Harry being short, and to understand why there might be less logic in that argument.

Overall logic:

→ Some say Harry’s perspectives about his own dad are biased, even Voldemort’s one. But the fact that independent moments use “tall” to describe James matters. If James were not tall at all, it’s very unlikely that tall would even be used, because “tall” is relative but has a threshold in narrative conventions.

→ J.K. Rowling easily could have just said “the black-haired man”, but she added “tall” during Voldemort’s description. So, he was tall enough to be casually and consistently perceived as such.

→ No one describes Harry as “short” or “small” after OotP.

→ If Rowling wanted Harry to be noticeably short as an adult, she would have emphasized it. She’s not shy about describing characters that way:

- Madame Maxime is emphasized for height.

- Fleur is described as tall and willowy.

- Professor Flitwick is openly portrayed as so small he might be part goblin.

Harry’s height is mostly neutral. He’s never described as “short” as a young adult. After all, he went through growth spurts, which should be enough to understand that he’s no longer short, he’s moved past the lingering effects of his childhood malnutrition.

→ In DH, there’s no awkwardness mentioned regarding Harry’s size fighting Death Eaters or moving with adults. He’s not treated visually like a boy anymore. Rowling’s writing conveys that Harry’s essentially grown, not short or dwarfed by adult wizards.

We could argue that this is a narrative element and that I am merely adding empty reasons. Yet, narratively, he would no longer be described as short, not because such descriptions no longer matter in context, but because the narrative itself clearly implies that he has moved beyond that phase. This doesn’t imply a glow up that would transform him into a magnificent figure matching his magical power. Rather, it marks a period of growth focused on a character who rose from a hard and oppressive childhood, gained presence and confidence, and became someone fully able to physically assert himself when needed.

Additional thoughts on James:

→ Sirius Black is “tall and handsome” consistently, including adult Sirius. James and Sirius were always portrayed as peers and equals.

If he was short and Sirius tall, I believe the height difference would have been explicitly mentioned, just as it was during the books in other situations. The emphasis on Sirius comes from the narrative’s intention to highlight him as a character who naturally draws attention from his beauty; something even Harry himself recognizes.

If we take the relativization of height literally, it could mean Sirius’s height might have been specifically mentioned to make it clear that he was really tall. However, this doesn’t imply that the others, just because their heights weren’t mentioned, must be short. The focus was on Sirius’s characterization, not an indirect comparison to make everyone else short.

→ A notably short and scrawny boy wouldn’t match the stereotype J.K. Rowling was evoking for him. Well, yes, stereotypes. James was depicted as very skilled and physically confident, he was narratively portrayed as the epitome of cocky composure of a school charmer with a reputation; leadership roles, Quidditch Chaser star, popular, dominant personality. Stereotypical or not, Rowling tends to match physical stature to social confidence unless playing a deliberate contrast (like Wormtail, who is described as small and mousy). James fitting the archetype of the “cocky, popular sports boy” likely implies a build that is, at minimum, not notably small or short. Let me be clear that I’m not a James Potter stan, in fact, all these characteristics surrounding his character only reinforce another accurate stereotype of him being a bully and privileged playboy who hardly had a convincing redemption arc.

→ When Voldemort enters the house, James faces him directly. While courage is not height dependent, Voldemort’s brief internal observations don’t include any mocking of James’ stature; if James was short, it could have been used as a psychological weapon or a moment of contempt. Voldemort calling him “the tall, black-haired man” (instead of, say, “a scrawny average man”) implies James had an adult, solid presence, which Voldemort registered but did not mock or minimize.

Now let’s reflect on that some might say Voldemort had a certain respect for James, and that “tall” was more symbolic than literal.

If that’s the case, then wouldn’t Sirius’ height be relative? Since him being described as tall could very well just be a symbolism to exalt his beauty as imposing, right? No. Having a symbolic nuance according to the narrative does not exclude the literal meaning of the words. So James is tall because he is tall. There’s no such paradox about it.

Analyzing Harry Potter’s height situation:

→ Movie!Harry ≠ Canon

Daniel Radcliffe stood 5’5” tall (165 cm), which is ten cm more than Ginny’s possible height in the books – about 5’1” (155 cm). She is described as the smallest one in the group.

OotP

“You need more persuasion?” she said, her chest rising and falling rapidly. “Very well — take the smallest one,” she ordered the Death Eaters beside her. “Let him watch while we torture the little girl. I’ll do it.”

Harry felt the others close in around Ginny. He stepped sideways so that he was right in front of her, the prophecy held up to his chest.

OotP

“A weapon’s going to be a lot bigger than the Stone, though!” said Ron.

“Not necessarily,” said Fred.

“Yeah, size is no guarantee of power,” said George. “Look at Ginny.”

“What d’you mean?” said Harry.

“You’ve never been on the receiving end of one of her Bat-Bogey Hexes, have you?”

Harry is already taller than her even before he hits his growth spurt. But, Movie!Harry stops at exactly this height, unlike the canon, where he ends up considerably taller than Ginny.

It’s stated he had more than one growth spurt: like Molly mentioning it in OotP, Hermione talking about his growth spurt later in HBP, and even in DH, when he still grows to be as tall as his father. That said, it makes sense for Harry to be significantly taller than her. Ginny could have grown a few centimeters after OotP, I don’t find it implausible, which doesn’t rule out the considerable height difference between them.

→ Molly mentioning Harry’s growth spurt

OotP

“You’re like Ron,” she sighed, looking him up and down. “Both of you look as though you’ve had Stretching Jinxes put on you. I swear Ron’s grown four inches since I last bought him school robes.

→ Hermione’s mention

HBP

“And it doesn’t hurt that you’ve grown about a foot over the summer either,” Hermione finished, ignoring Ron.

It could be interpreted as hyperbole in both cases. But even when exaggerating, the narrative tends to overstate the height based on what it actually is, even if not in a literal sense.

– Supporting evidence:

- Ron is said to have shot up between PoA and GoF, and later is described as very tall.

- Harry’s growth spurt is mentioned multiple times as something noticeable, even in HBP when people see him after the summer.

If Harry was short (~165 cm) in OotP, and genuinely grew “a foot”, he could easily reach 175–178 cm by 16–17 years old; average to tall for a british male.

In real life late male teenage growth spurts can be dramatic, and I don’t think J.K. Rowling wouldn’t rely on reality’s physical consistency.

So, it is plausible to read Hermione’s “foot” as fairly accurate.

Demystifying short Harry arguments

→ The Runcorn incident: it does not prove Harry is short, only that he is less physically imposing.

DH

Once the painful transformation was complete he was more than six feet tall and, from what he could tell from his well-muscled arms, powerfully built. He also had a beard. Stowing the Invisibility Cloak and his glasses inside his new robes, he rejoined the other two.

The transformation into Runcorn surely shows a height difference, but Runcorn isn’t just “a bit taller” than Harry, he’s portrayed as physically massive:

“More than six feet tall,” “well-muscled arms,” “powerfully built.”

Muggle clothes or wizard robes are often enchanted or made to measure magically, yet even with that, Harry’s normal size is so much less bulky and thinner than Runcorn that the clothes wouldn’t fit. The size mismatch isn’t purely height; it’s height plus muscle mass/build.

Harry could easily be 5’9” to 5’10” and still find Runcorn’s clothes ridiculously big.

Harry is canonically slim and wiry, even after growing. He would not fill out a “powerfully built” man’s outfit at any height below 6’2”–6’3”.

→ Harry reaches Narcissa’s height

HBP

“Really?” said Harry, taking a step forward and gazing into the smoothly arrogant face that, for all its pallor, still resembled her sister’s. He was as tall as she was now. “Going to get a few Death Eater pals to do us in, are you?”

Narcissa is tall, and it’s stated in the book. I don’t find it necessary to prove that.

Now, there’s an argument that Snape looks down at Narcissa, therefore Narcissa must be much shorter.

So, digging into this: the idea that someone “looks down” at another does not demand a massive height difference. It can be as little as 2–5 cm and still be described as “looking down,” especially in emotional scenes. Posture matters. In HBP, the scene between Snape and Narcissa is highly emotional; Narcissa is crying, distressed, she could easily be looking slightly downward herself, or bending slightly, changing the dynamic.

Moreover, “looking down” is often used symbolically in literature to emphasize power dynamics rather than precise centimeters. Snape is emotionally dominating her there; he’s reassuring, she’s pleading. It’s just as much about emotional positioning as physical.

Looking down ≠ proof of major height gap. A height difference of even 3–5 cm would be enough.

Now, to estimate Snape’s height, we can use the comparison between him and Sirius:

OotP

“I’ll get to the point, then,” said Sirius, standing up. He was rather taller than Snape who, Harry noticed. . .

There’s a clear difference between Snape and Sirius’s heights, but that certainly doesn’t mean Snape is of average height. We know Sirius is tall – ~6’2” (~188 cm) – the tallest of the Marauders, and noticeably taller than Snape. Considering the use of the word “rather” to describe the difference, I’d estimate Snape to be around 5’10”–5’11” / 178–181 cm. (I’m using a visual comparison height website for reference.) Also, since Snape might be taller than Narcissa, and factoring in my “looking down” analysis, which takes posture into account (again referencing the same site) it would make sense for Narcissa to be around 5’8”–5’9” / 173–176 cm.

Which would also perfectly match the moment when Narcissa and a 16-year-old Harry are standing face-to-face. At that point, they are close in height. Harry, however, still has another growth spurt later in HBP as I stated before!

And now, using general biological logic, given Harry’s age, it’s more than reasonable to think he has grown between two and five cm in just a few more months.

Additional thoughts (headcanon / canon):

Harry Potter is an average name, he usually wears average muggle clothes, and his looks were never described as anything exceptionally attractive compared to other handsome characters, which, of course, is always a bit subjective. Aside from his striking green eyes, his scar, his decisions, and his complex personality, Harry, specifically on the surface, is ‘average’. The average height for men in the UK 1998 was about 5’9” (175 cm), so Harry being around that height – or even slightly above – fits with precision, even symbolically, with his character.

- Being short doesn’t make sense, because we already have plenty of evidence (like the mentioned growth spurts) that clearly contradict that.

- Now, being very tall – well, we don’t have direct proof that he didn’t make it afterward. But honestly, if you think about his overall average profile, being notably tall would feel a bit off.

So, average (5’9” / 175 cm) or above average (around 178–180 cm) makes much more sense up to this point.

Now, to conclude, I think that Harry being the above average one makes more sense.

Let’s rationalize: He had already reached his father’s height by the age of 17, even though he hadn’t yet reached the typical age when men stop growing, around 21. Yes, it’s not a broadly common experience, but we have to take into account that Harry lived through a time of war; the stress and other contributing factors suggest that this stage of growth could have been slower. And we already know that Harry’s physical development was hindered in childhood due to the abuse from his relatives – it’s a realistic pattern.

Considering that male growth typically slows after 16 or 17, the impact of war on Harry’s growth was probably subtle but meaningful, possibly delaying or limiting his final height rather than stopping it altogether.

So it’s more logical to acknowledge all these influences, especially knowing how much Harry’s growth follows a pattern of being heavily influenced by the harsh conditions he experienced. It’s entirely reasonable to think he might have grown taller than just 175 cm.