The Beatles are one of the most iconic bands in history, and fans are always curious about their personal lives. One question often asked is “How tall were the Beatles?” It turns out that all four members of the band were actually quite tall! John Lennon was the tallest at 5’10 1/2″, followed by Paul McCartney at 5’10 1/2″. George Harrison was 5’10” and Ringo Starr 5′ 8″
The Beatle’s heights are as follows:
|Name||Height in feet & inches|
|John Lennon||5’10 1/2″|
|Paul McCartney||5’10 1/2″|
Whether you believe that the Beatles are a little taller or shorter than 5’11” is an opinion for each individual. What we do know about their height comes from several different sources, but one thing’s clear: They weren’t afraid to wear platforms when necessary!
Paul McCartney’s height
According to some “official sources” John was taller than Paul but Paul was quoted in 2020 as saying the following:
The heights above are according to the official Beatles biography and recorded statistics but it’s important to remember that sometimes the Beatles appeared to be at different heights in their photoshoots and this is because of several different factors, read on.
The boys wore cuban heels that were 2 inches in height so this naturally lent to their height at the time if they were wearing them.
Who was the tallest Beatle?
Officially the tallest Beatle is John Lennon but there has been some debate on whether this was exaggerated and in fact, Paul was slightly taller, no evidence is firm on this matter though and most “evidence” seems to come from whether Paul McCartney was replaced by a taller fake.
Who was the shortest Beatle?
It was poor old Ringo! If Stuart Sutcliffe had lived and stayed in the band then it would have been him standing at only 5 feet 4 inches compared to Ringo at 5 feet 8 inches.
Some interesting Beatles trivia regarding their height
- George had a growth spurt whilst in Hamburg. Being only 16 at the time he still had catching up to do compared to the other boys and grew whilst on their first visit.
- People claim that Paul McCartney died and was replaced a fake Paul. This “fake” Paul is claimed to be taller than the original Paul.
Was Paul McCartney killed and replaced with fake Paul (known as “Faul”?
Supporters of this conspiracy claim that there are subtle hints and messages in both The Beatle’s lyrics and album art that allude to this theory. Aside from the song “I’m So Tired” which includes the line “Paul is dead man, he’s not alive,” there are examples such as his face depicted on the Abbey Road album cover with no shoes on-a possible indication of death- and Beatle John Lennon supposedly wearing glasses designed to spell out P-A-U-L above the letters M-C in his name.
Although many don’t take these hints seriously, it is still widely believed that Paul did in fact die in 1966 and was replaced by someone else. Whether or not this conspiracy is true remains unknown, yet it does add an interesting twist to the history of The Beatles. However, what is certain is that any replacement for Paul would have quite a difficult time replicating the musical genius of a Beatle!
What does this have to do with how tall were the Beatles?
It isn’t very rock ‘n’ roll to doubt the veracity of Beatlemania, but with regards to Paul McCartney, something just isn’t quite adding up. Fans have long noticed the towering height disparity between him and his bandmates — an aberration that has fuelled conspiracy theories since the 1960s. Over time, this difference has become a truism among certain sections of the Fab Four fanclub: it doesn’t take a Sherlock Holmes to solve that Paul must’ve gone through a mysterious growth spurt after his supposed death (or switcheroo). If nothing else, it provides fodder for some much-needed comedy relief in the age of coronavirus.
From the hard-to-buy explanation of a mysterious growth spurt to the mysteriously perfect lookalike found to replace the late Paul McCartney, fan theories about ‘the Great Hoax’ are enough to make conspiracy theorists tingle with excitement.
However, all signs disproportionately point to a nefarious kidnapping plot rather than any significant size discrepancy between ‘Faul’ and the real Macca – at least according to industry insiders who find the whole fuss more amusing than anything else.
Either way, one thing is certainly certain: there are plenty of superstitious souls who consider any lack of height disparity in Macca pre- or post-1966 an imposter’s sign!