I'll be traveling with a large group and need direction on whether to spend our first three nights in either Bath or Gloucester? I know that there are many things to see in the surrounding countryside, but which city has more attractions in its own right.
Posted by
Tunbridge Wells
6113 posts
I second what Keith has said. However, if you are driving, Gloucester is far more car-friendly and better located for exploring the Welsh borders and the pretty towns such as Hay on Wye.
Bath is one of the most expensive locations outside London, so Gloucester will be much cheaper.
Posted by
2599 posts
Gloucester has a medieval cathedral but I would not go out of my way to see it as others - such as Salisbury & Ely are more impressive. The centre of Gloucester is rather run down.
Bath is first class but accommodation here will be expensive.
If you could state whether you are travelling by public transport or have your own wheels, better advice may be forthcoming. You may like to also state whether you are a 5 star group or seek accommodation in the middle or lower price bands.
Posted by
205 posts
Apart from Gloucester's Cathedral and cost of accommodation Bath wins all day every day.
Posted by
Kingston, Surrey
239 posts
In general, I agree Bath is a more attractive city, but the cathedral in Gloucester is fabulous. The choir and the east window are worth travelling to see by themselves. In rugby terms, you have two of the best club grounds in England in Kingsholm (Gloucester) and The Rec (Bath). Both are slap-bang in the centre of the cities, with a passionate and lively atmosphere.
Posted by
Sarasota, Florida
77 posts
Is it possible to do bath as a day trip via train from London?