Germany's 6ft 6in Chancellor towers over Keir Starmer - here's a world ranking
The pair have inked Kensington Treaty – which will free up school exchange visits, allow UK passengers to use passport e-gates in Germany and create a direct train service between the two countries.
But one question has been on everyone's lips during this meeting – Just how tall is that guy?
Well, here's your answer: Merz is 6ft 6in tall. So expect surprised googling of his height every time he meets another world leader for the rest of his term.
But does he compare to other top world leaders, though?
Craig Munro breaks down Westminster chaos into easy to follow insight, walking you through what the latest policies mean to you. Sent every Wednesday. Sign up here.
In the absence of a nice picture showing the leaders of all countries lined up in height order (and we will continue to lobby the UN to make that happen), Metro has done the legwork to help you out.
When Starmer met his long-serving Albanian counterpart Edi Rama earlier this year, there was plenty of substance to discuss.
Tackling illegal migration was on the agenda, as was the big European Political Community summit taking place in the capital Tirana.
But Rama, who has been Albania's PM since 2013, also stands high at a whopping 6 foot 7 inches.
There's no doubt, he's an exceptionally tall man.
First things first – world leaders tend to have more important things to do than be measured. A lot of the heights in this article will be estimates.
With that in mind, Russian President Vladimir Putin is reportedly 5ft 7in.
Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky is believed to be around 5ft 7in as well, making him the same height as Putin. We could have compared if the latter had bothered to turn up to peace talks in Istanbul.
Some questions were asked about Zelensky's true height when he met Tom Cruise in 2019 – and the famously diminutive actor seemed to be taller.
The US President's most recent health check earlier this year listed his height as 75 inches – or 6ft 3in.
But when he met Prince William last December, there was a fair amount of chin-stroking going on. The Prince of Wales is believed to also be 6ft 3in, but there seemed to be a clear height difference between the two.
It's a bonus round! Let's take a look at the heights of some of the British Prime Ministers over the past quarter-century.
Only one, David Cameron, crosses the 6ft barrier at 6ft 1in. Tony Blair is 6ft tall, while his Chancellor Gordon Brown is 5ft 11in.
Boris Johnson is 5ft 9in, one inch taller than Starmer at 5ft 8in. Rishi Sunak was shorter still at 5ft 7in, then comes Theresa May at 5ft 6in, but Liz Truss is the shortest of the lot at 5ft 5in.
Spain's Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez is one of the taller European leaders, at a reported 6ft 2.5in.
And if you're curious, he does appear to be a little taller than Donald Trump in their pictures together.
According to Italian media reports, the country's Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni is 5ft 3in.
Last year, a journalist was fined €5,000 (£4,210) for making fun of Meloni's height on social media, in tweets that a judge ruled were defamatory.
It might be a relief to Emmanuel Macron that he'll never be the main French leader who is known for his height – after all, it's not called a 'Napoleon complex' for nothing.
He's around 5ft 8in, roughly equivalent to Keir Starmer, and they appear to be a similar height in pictures were they appear beside each other.
Xi Jinping has been described as the tallest Chinese leader since Chairman Mao. More Trending
A deep dive into his height by BBC News a decade ago concluded he is around 5ft 11in.
Entertainingly, ice hockey site EliteProspects.com has a page on Mark Carney due to his time in the Oxford University team.
It lists him as 5ft 9in, but pictures of Carney meeting Keir Starmer in March show them roughly the same size, so he may be an inch shorter.
This story was originally published on May 15, 2025.
Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@metro.co.uk.
For more stories like this, check our news page.
MORE: New Look launch stunning Chanel-inspired pumps for just £30 – with a saving of £877
MORE: Two mid-air emergencies within seconds of one another spark chaos at Gatwick Airport
MORE: Pretty Little Baby singer Connie Francis dies aged 87 after illness
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
From Gaza to Ukraine, peace always seems just out of reach – and the reason isn't only political
The quest for peace in major conflicts has rarely been so desperate and so seemingly futile. In Gaza, talk of ceasefires, truces and pauses typically ends in tears. In Ukraine, the war is now well into its fourth year with no end in sight, despite Donald Trump's new 50-day deadline. Syria burns anew. Sudan's horrors never cease. Last year, state-based conflicts reached a peak – 61 across 36 countries. It was the highest recorded total since 1946. This year could be worse. The sheer scale and depravity of war crimes and other conflict-zone atrocities is extraordinary. The deliberate, illegal targeting and terrorising of civilians, the killing, maiming and abduction of children, and the use of starvation, sexual violence, torture and forced displacement as weapons of war have grown almost routine. Israel's killing last week of children queueing for water in Gaza was shocking, made doubly so by the fact that scenes like this have become so commonplace. 'Blessed are the peacemakers,' said Saint Matthew, but today, impartial mediators are in wickedly short supply. Surely everyone agrees: murdering and massacring innocents is morally indefensible. So why on earth is it allowed to continue? This same question is shouted out loud by grief-stricken parents in Rafah, Kyiv and Darfur, by UN relief workers, in pulpits, pubs and parliaments, in street protests and at Glastonbury. Why? WHY? The curse of moral relativism provides a clue. The fact is, not everyone does agree. What is absolutely morally indefensible to one group of people is relatively permissible or justifiable to another. This has held true throughout human history. Yet today's geopolitically and economically divided world is also ethically and morally fractured to a possibly unparalleled degree. Agreed, observed standards – what the American writer David Brooks terms a 'permanent moral order' – are lacking. The collapse of the international rules-based order is mirrored by this crisis of the moral order. Without accepted universal principles, the peaceful settlement of conflicts, foreign or domestic, becomes highly problematic. 'We have no objective standard by which to determine that one view is right and another view is wrong. So public arguments just go on indefinitely, at greater levels of indignation and polarisation,' Brooks argues. What's left is coercion and manipulation. No individual better personifies the moral-relativist confusion permeating contemporary life than Trump, the master coercer and manipulator. He believes, for example, that he deserves the 2025 Nobel peace prize. Yet Trump, in collusion with Israel, did bomb Iran recently, and killed numerous civilians. In his morally muddled view, that illegal act of aggression was justified because it restored the peace he had just broken. In a world wedded to war, Alfred Nobel's venerable peace prize looks increasingly anachronistic – and politicised. Barack Obama won it in 2009 for doing nothing. If only Trump would do nothing for the next four years. Worse, he has been nominated by Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu, arch foe to peace and morality. It might be preferable to replace the prize with a Warlord of the Year award – and put a bounty on the winner's head. Making a moral case for peace can be confusing, even controversial; ask any church or mosque leader. For many people, it seems, morality is a dirty word these days. It's fungible, negotiable and emotive – a matter primarily of individual choice and cultural belonging, not of duty, obligation or fidelity to a higher law. How else to explain why so many Americans turn a blind eye to Trump's astounding moral turpitude, illustrated again by the Jeffrey Epstein affair? Social identity trumps social conscience. Much of the Russian public suffers from a similarly chronic moral deficiency when contemplating Vladimir Putin's devastation of Ukraine. Intimidated dissenters avoid the subject. Others believe the disinformation fairytales spun by regime-controlled media. The majority inhabits a state of profound ignorance about the crimes committed in their name. When it's over, Russians may claim, like Germans in 1945, that they didn't know. Amorality is mitigated by mendacity. Israel's denial of peace in Palestine also comes at a high moral cost. Its reputation is in shreds, its prime minister has an arrest warrant issued against him for war crimes. Antisemitism is surging internationally as a direct result. How can so many Israelis live with their army's Gaza rampage, with the spectre of 58,000 corpses? Some say it would all stop if only the last hostages were freed; others that all Palestinians are Hamas. Some on the far right, forgetting their country's history, suggest the idea of a Palestinian nation is fiction. They want all 2 million of Gaza's residents caged in one huge concentration camp. Many Israelis passionately disagree. They desire peace. Their failure to force a change in government policy is moral as well as political. Also at fault are Americans, Russians and all in Britain and Europe, politicians and the public, who fail to speak out, who look the other way, who excuse the inexcusable for reasons of state or personal comfort – or who claim that murder and mayhem, wherever they occur, are relatively morally tolerable if committed, as argued by Saint Thomas Aquinas, in the prosecution of a 'just war'. This very modern failure, this retreat into subjective, made-to-measure morality, this renunciation of shared responsibility, is reversible. Universal ethical standards still apply. They are defined by the Geneva conventions, by other secular instruments of international law, through religious faith and through the social contract. They should be respected and strengthened. They are necessary, sometimes inconvenient truths. Ordinary people in ordinary times may pick and choose their moral battles. But ending major conflicts, and easing the suffering of millions, is a moral imperative that demands a determined collective response from all concerned. That way lies peace. That way lies salvation. Simon Tisdall is a Guardian foreign affairs commentator
The National
an hour ago
- The National
As Labour targets trans rights, Scotland can do better
Some 38 years on and some other questions spring to mind. Firstly, were Labour really that fun in the 1980s? I wish I'd known her. And – more depressingly – was all that progress so fragile, so insubstantial, that nearly four decades later, instead of celebrating a new Labour Government as champions of LGBT+ rights, we must fear them? Fear has been the overriding emotion since the General Election last year, when the least right-wing contender for Prime Minister made flip-flopping on trans rights into an Olympic sport (it must be his biological advantage that allows him to excel in that, I suppose). Since Labour took office, those fears have proven well-founded. READ MORE: Uniformed police pulled from Glasgow Pride over 'impartiality' concerns From pushing full steam ahead with the Tories' efforts to strip back trans healthcare, to Keir Starmer's statements about trans people's right to access services based on their gender identity, it quickly became clear that any dream of a reprieve from regression would remain just that. And now, 25 years after the Labour/LibDem coalition at Holyrood repealed Clause 2A – which barred teachers from 'promoting' homosexuality in schools – and 22 years after Tony Blair's Labour government followed suit for England and Wales, Starmer's Labour have effectively introduced the same approach for transgender identity. In new statutory guidance published last week by the UK Government on sex and relationships education, teachers in England are told that, while they should teach about the legally protected characteristic of gender reassignment, they should avoid using materials which 'encourage pupils to question their gender'. That such a statement can be included in official guidance underlines that the same old unfounded fears about gay people are now being rehashed for our trans siblings. The premise at the heart of this directive is that a child or young person can be encouraged to be transgender, just like Section 28 implied an inherent risk of homosexuality being 'promoted' to children. Welcome to the Gender Agenda, just like the Gay Agenda, except Labour and the Tories are united over it. Let's just be clear: these are not ideas that any progressive political party should be endorsing, never mind mandating. Labour knew this 40 years ago when it came to gay people. They certainly knew it after watching the harm that Margaret Thatcher's government caused to both young people and teachers by introducing a policy predicated on these falsehoods. So how can this same party – insofar as it is the same party – wilfully do the same to trans people now? In the same section, schools are told to avoid materials that 'could be interpreted as being aimed at younger children', and to 'consult parents on the content of external resources on this topic in advance'. As with other aspects of sex and relationships education, parents have the right to withdraw children from lessons. This part is familiar, not because it harks back to decades past – although it might – but because this is also the policy regarding sex education here in Scotland. Of course, Scotland has also introduced LGBT+-inclusive education across the curriculum, so it should not be possible to prevent a child from learning about trans or queer people at all. However, the assumption behind this parental rights approach is worth examining because it has taken centre stage in recent debates – and Scotland is far from immune. Amidst the moral outrage and proliferation in conspiracy theories of recent years about the supposedly shocking materials children are being exposed to in schools, the number of parents in Scotland withdrawing their kids from sex ed has quadrupled in the last five years. When those figures were reported in April, the Tories commented in support of parents' right to pull kids from these lessons, while Alba's deputy leader Neale Hanvey blamed the Scottish Government's 'gender policy difficulties' and its 2021 schools' 'sex survey' for the spike. But why should we accept that parents have an absolute right to control what their children learn? There are many subjects on which we simply wouldn't accept that. For example, if a parent believes the Earth is flat, should they have a right to pull their children out of classes that teach otherwise? It's one thing when a handful of children are withdrawn from lessons for religious reasons – although I would also quibble with that – but when media-confected hysteria is driving these numbers through the roof, it might be time to look again at who we are allowing to dictate the next generation's access to knowledge, and why. Although there's not much chance of that in England, where the Government's own guidance is being written to appease the fearmongers. Within the document, schools are instructed not to 'teach as fact that all people have a gender identity', and to instead be mindful that there is 'significant debate' around this and 'be careful not to endorse any particular view'. Only 15 years from the introduction of the Equality Act – by the last Labour Government – and it's now Labour policy that, unlike the other protected characteristics, there is so much debate around trans people that teachers should present 'for and against' arguments about them to children. Coming just months after the Supreme Court ruling on the meaning of 'sex' in the Equality Act, and the various and bizarre extrapolations which have ensued from that, this shouldn't be surprising. When Starmer wouldn't commit during his election campaign to trans-inclusive policies, or to just about anything, his Government was hardly going to seek to upset the trans-exclusionary crowd now when support for his party is tanking. This is what's most frightening about the Labour leadership. About a lot of political leaders, when push comes to shove. It's not that they're driven by a deeply held belief that any of this is going to make life better for women, girls, children. Nor is it that they're fuelled by a hatred of trans people. Don't get me wrong, some of them are surely transphobic. The ease with which they've transitioned, if you will, from the role of rainbow-splashed allies to vanguards of the assault on trans people's legal rights alludes to underlying prejudices shaken free of pretence. READ MORE: Our youth orchestra shows the power of children's rights in action Above all, though, all of the political posturing – the capitulating and contorting, the derailing and distorting – that has come to define this Labour Government's approach (and one day, its legacy) on this issue can be condensed and explained by one word: power. When the tides turn, this Labour Party will do the only thing that those intent upon power and preserving their own self-interest above all else will ever do – grab a surfboard and ride the fucking wave. And rest assured, if they can do that now, about this issue, they'll do it again about the next thing, and the next thing. But here's the catch: when it comes to vilifying and ostracising marginalised people, there is no sweet spot that unscrupulous politicians can hit to satisfy the agitators. A case in point: so-called 'gender critical' campaigners are still angry about the Labour education guidance because it doesn't go far enough. This should be a lesson to the Scottish Government, present and future, while it contends with considerable pressures from those who'd like to see it turn its back on trans people. It's also a lesson they might reflect on when deciding whether to progress with legislation which is bound to be met with similar backlash. You can't control the fires of hate by adding just enough fuel, or by ignoring it – you can only fight it head-on. Rhoda Meek returns next week
Daily Mail
4 hours ago
- Daily Mail
SARAH VINE: Why is 16 too young for voting? Ask a brain scientist...
As the mother of two young adults (22 and 20), I am tentatively enjoying some early fruit of my parental labours. My daughter has just graduated with a first from Manchester (shameless mum-brag, guilty as charged), and my son is gainfully employed over the summer holidays in a job that not only gets him out of the house but also keeps him fit and fed (he's a busser in a restaurant). But the news last week that our glorious leader, Sir Keir Starmer, has followed through on his electoral threat to lower the voting age to 16 has rather dampened my mood. It is, quite simply, the height of idiocy. As any Year 11 teacher will tell you, most 16-year-olds aren't fit to tuck their own shirt in, let alone participate in the democratic process.
