I have a 10 yr old boy, 8 yr old girl, and 4 yr old boy. I was thinking tower, but our cab driver said he'd recommend nat. history. Any experience with either withchildren? (if we do tower, we'll try to be there at opening to avoid crowds.)
Posted by
Pensacola
9110 posts
Natural History, no contest. Confirmed by two generations of runts over the years.
Posted by
211 posts
Well if they've never been to a castle before they might really like it. And I do know the Beefeaters do pay special attention to the little kids on the guided tours. On the other hand, they can run around the Natural History Museum and interact with other kids and all the exhibits.
Posted by
OP
33 posts
thank you all! we're planning to do the museum tom. then if energy, tower on sun. i appreciate the t-rexwarning though, we may skip out on that. we're having enough sleep issues, the last thing we need is nightmares!
Posted by
Rick Steves' Europe
388 posts
Along with what Emma said, it is more personal preference. Havening been to both I like both for different reasons. If you did the Tower of London first, there would still be time in the afternoon to visit the Natural History Museum (which is free).
Posted by
Long Beach, California, USA
3398 posts
You can easily do both of these in a day. Get to the tower early like you are planning to do - head straight for the crown jewels before the line gets long and take them through the central keep which has a great collection of arms and armor from over the centuries. One of the last rooms is a "touch and feel" room that your kids will like. Then go follow a Beafeater around - they are highly entertaining and fun to listen to. Have lunch at the very nice cafeteria restaurant at the tower and then head over to the nat history museum in the afternoon. It's so fun to see London through the eyes of kids for their first time! Enjoy!