First, let us take a quick look at “height,” in general.

In the early phase of anthropometric research history, questions about height measuring techniques for measuring nutritional status often concerned genetic differences.[“Stadiometers and Height Measurement Devices”. stadiometer.com.] 

Height is also important because it is closely correlated with other health components, such as life expectancy. Studies show that there is a correlation between small stature and a longer life expectancy. Individuals of small stature are also more likely to have lower blood pressure and are less likely to acquire cancer. The University of Hawaii has found that the “longevity gene” FOXO3 that reduces the effects of aging is more commonly found in individuals of small body size. Short stature decreases the risk of venous insufficiency.

In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, people of European descent in North America were far taller than those in Europe and were one of the tallest in the world. The original indigenous population of Plains Native Americans was also among the tallest populations of the world at the time. Some studies also suggest that there existed the correlation between the height and the real wage, moreover, the correlation was higher among the less developed countries. The difference in height between children from different social classes was already observed by the age of two.

The average height of Americans and Europeans decreased during periods of rapid industrialization, possibly due to rapid population growth and broad decreases in economic status. This has become known as the early-industrial growth puzzle (in the U.S. context the Antebellum Puzzle). In England during the early nineteenth century, the difference between the average height of English upper-class youth (students of Sandhurst Military Academy) and English working-class youth (Marine Society boys) reached 22 cm (8.7 in), the highest that has been observed.

In general, there were no significant differences in regional height levels throughout the nineteenth century. The only exceptions of this rather uniform height distribution were people in the Anglo-Saxon settlement regions who were taller than the average and people from Southeast Asia with below-average heights. However, at the end of the nineteenth century and in the middle of the first globalization period, heights between rich and poor countries began to diverge.These differences did not disappear in the deglobalization period of the two World wars. In 2014, Baten and Blum found that in the nineteenth century, important determinants of height were the local availability of cattle, meat and milk as well as the local disease environment.In the late twentieth century, however, technologies and trade became more important, decreasing the impact of local availability of agricultural products.

Resources for the Above Information Summarized from Other Sources:

Stock, Jay (Summer 2006). “Skeleton key” (PDF). Planet Earth: 26. 

Komlos, J.; Baur, M. (2004). “From the tallest to (one of) the fattest: The enigmatic fate of the American population in the 20th century”. Economics & Human Biology. 2 (1): 57–74.

Prince, Joseph M.; Steckel, Richard H. (December 1998). “The Tallest in the World: Native Americans of the Great Plains in the Nineteenth Century”. NBER Historical Working Paper No. 112. 

Baten, Jörg (June 2000). “Heights and Real Wages in the 18th and 19th Centuries: An International Overview”. Economic History Yearbook. 41 (1). doi:10.1524/jbwg.2000.41.1.61

Komlos, John (1998). “Shrinking in a growing economy? The mystery of physical stature during the industrial revolution”. Journal of Economic History. 58 (3): 779–802. doi:10.1017/S0022050700021161

Komlos, J. (2007). On English Pygmies and Giants: The physical stature of English youth in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Research in Economic History. Vol. 25. pp. 149–168. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.539.620. doi:10.1016/S0363-3268(07)25003-7. 

Baten, Joerg; Blum, Matthias (2012). “Growing tall but unequal: new findings and new background evidence on anthropometric welfare in 156 countries, 1810-1989”. Economic History of Developing Regions. 27: 566–585. doi:10.1080/20780389.2012.657489. 

Baten, Joerg (2006). “Global Height Trends in Industrial and Developing Countries, 1810-1984: An Overview”. Recuperado el. 20.

Baten, Joerg; Blum, Matthias (2014). “Why are you tall while others are short? Agricultural production and other proximate determinants of global heights”. European Review of Economic History. 18 (2): 144–165.

So, how tall was Mr. Darcy? Most authors write him as around six feet in height, with Elizabeth Bennet being a bit on the short side. Perhaps, such has to do with the 1995 PBS series staring Colin Firth (6’2″) and Jennifer Ehle (5’7″), as well as the 2005 film with Matthew Macfadyen (6’3″) and Keira Knightley (also 5’7″).

Bazaar tells us the following:

“When we think of Jane Austen’s Mr Darcy we tend to think of Colin Firth emerging from a lake with a wet white shirt.

“And yet new academic research, commissioned by the television channel Drama ahead of its Austen season, shows that this image of Darcy is likely to be very different from the reality. Unlike the muscular, square-jawed actors who have played him, the character would have been pale with a long face, pointy chin and small mouth.

“The study, led by John Sutherland (Lord Northcliffe professor emeritus of modern English literature at University College London) and Amanda Vickery (professor of early modern history at Queen Mary University of London), looked at Austen’s personal life and relationships to work out who might have been the inspiration for Fitzwilliam Darcy. They then explored the socioeconomic and cultural factors that would have influenced his appearance.

“When Pride and Prejudice was written in the 1790s, square jaws, broad shoulders and muscles would have been associated with labourers, while dainty, refined features were the preserve of the wealthy. So Darcy would have had sloping shoulders, a narrow chest, shapely calves and thighs, pale, powdered hair and a fair complexion. In terms of facial features, he is likely to have had a long nose and a pointy chin. He also wouldn’t have been very tall – around 5’11”, rather than Firth’s 6’2″.

“Mr Darcy is an iconic literary character, renowned for his good looks, charm and mystery. As Austen wrote Pride and Prejudice in the 1790s, our Mr Darcy portrayal reflects the male physique and common features at the time,” Professor Vickery told iNews.

“Men sported powdered hair, had narrow jaws, and muscular, defined legs were considered very attractive. A stark contrast to the chiselled, dark, brooding Colin Firth portrayal we associate the character with today.”

Okay, so I have danced about this subject quite a bit. I love the idea of height, for my father was 6’1′, while my mother was only 5’1″. I was 5’8″ in the 7th grade. All my cousins were short, around 5 foot tall. My uncle was short. My son wanted to be, at least, 6′, but his dad was only 5’11”. Therefore, he is comparable. In professional photos where my husband and I sat side-by-side, they would also ask him to sit on a pillow. I was taller from the waist up than him. LOL!

So here are the facts as we know them for the Regency Period and the late Georgian era.

According to multiple sources on growth studies, the average 18th century male was 5 ft. 5 inches. The English male seems to have stayed at this for the early part of the 1800s.  For some reason, in Ireland, the average was 5’6″. My sources also put Napoleon at 5’6″ or 5’7″ by modern measurement.

Like a lot of different measurements, from inches to miles and leagues, different countries had different numbers. There was no standardization. For instance, a German mile was four British miles. A Spanish League could be a third to half the distance of a British league, depending on the area of the country. French inches were longer than British inches. The British military had a height requirement of 5’6” at the start of the Napoleonic Wars. That became reduced to 5’5” and then 5’4” as the wars went on, which is also true of the France and other nations. 

So…  The armies would not have made 5’6” the first standard if they were going to have any trouble finding men of that height. The average American Civil War soldier was also 5’6”.  As my DNA is composed heavily of Scotland, England and NW Europe, Ireland, Norway, Wales, and Germanic Europe, all I have shared above makes perfect sense. As to Mr. Darcy, well, you must decide for yourself.