On Skipping Versailles

Nice article for parents traveling with kids. Or course, it helps for adult travelers to also remember to stop and smell the roses, but partcularly here, I find some of the itineraries planned by parents are pretty intense. My husband's family had a sabbatical in England when he was 15. The summer was spent travelling around Europe with his parents and his 4 siblings in an old VW van. 'Culture' was the prime objective. After that cultural summer, he refused to enter a museum until his 40's. There is such a thing as too much of a good thing......

FastEddie! Thank you for this beautiful read on a lazy holiday morning! My favorite quote:

Who knew if Leo would ever return to the Loire Valley, or if I would? This was maybe our one chance to see as many marvels of design, engineering and history as possible. But those châteaus have withstood the test of time for centuries. My 12-year-old son, by contrast, was vanishing by the day, turning into a 13-year-old, on his way to being God only knows what kind of teenager. If he wanted to bike with his mother, we would bike.

Have a great day, everyone!

The consensus appears to be that it's the greatest palace in Europe. One has to decide whether they want to pass on that.

Just visited Versailles last week. It was crowded but well worth the visit. Buy your tickets online to skip the LONG lines. Plan to spend they day - heck you can even kayak out on the "lakes"

We skipped it because of being told of the long lines and a hot day. We are sorry we did because we may never have another chance. The people in the NYT article sound like they can afford to waste the opportunity.

Andrew: I said Versailles was the greatest palace in Europe, not the greatest place.
Actually, this is Rick's opinion on Versailles, he thinks Schoenbrun is 2nd and the Real Palace Madrid is 3rd, of palaces.

I loved the spirit of this article. No sight should be a must see for people purely out of convention. That being said, I would have deeply regretted not going to Versailles, as it is something I've always wanted. I got up early and was first in line and got to be the only person standing in the Hall of Mirrors for several minutes, and that is one of my best travel memories yet. I have no trouble getting up early to get somewhere just as it is opening before it is crowded. Maybe not every day on vacation, but certainly when it is important.

I much preferred the Palace in Madrid to Versailles. Versailles is larger and overwhelming(and not in a good way) . I found Chenenceau in the late afternoon to be much more enjoyable and it's close enough to Paris to be an easy overnight trip.

Cala,
Technically, Chenonceau is not a palace, of course; so in that sense not directly comparable to Versailles (but maybe close enough?).
BTW, I really enjoyed touring the Madrid Royal Palace a few weeks ago, we got to see 20 of the rooms, which leaves only 3,400 rooms - 20 rooms = 3,380 rooms left to see. :-)

Versailles is for me intimately linked to the French Revolution and before that, the Sun King. It is a subject that has fascinated me even as a teenager. So not only I would not miss it, I would probably see it a few times. But not everyone shares my enthusiasm for this segment of history, and one should skip Versailles if there is no real interest.

One little thing that bugged me about the article is that one could split hairs that they did indeed visit Versailles if you consider the grounds as being part of 'Versailles'. For me, the grounds were as impressive as the Palace and more enjoyable with its ability to absorb the masses. The shear magnitude of the tree plantings, the ornate sunken garden and orangerie. If you attend during the Sunday water/music displays, the fointains are magnificent....and are still using the water works initialky installed. Monty Don does a segment about it in is Famous Gardens of France series.......fascinating.

Versaille, a very big old house with lots of history. I have been twice the first time was the best. the second time we did the private kings suites tour very interesting with no crowds. getting there on the train was strange. we had to change trains half way through the trip from Paris. Paris is an amazing city, blows the senses away.

We are going to Paris with our 8 & 10 year old in June. I think we are skipping the Louvre and Versailles based on the crowds and our kids interests. I also want to leave a few major sites for them to come back to another time. We are there the week the World Cup is there so I think those places will be very crowded. We are going to the top of the Eiffel Tower, doing a pastry tour, might see the Van Gogh exhibit. We are there 3.5 days so we only want to plan one major thing a day and then leave time for wandering, visiting the gardens, etc...
I hope I don't regret not doing Versailles this time. My husband and I have both been. I actually didn't go to the Louvre until my 3rd visit to Paris so I feel like my kids will get there someday. But it is hard not to try and see it all or feel like you should bring your kids somewhere just because it is a major attraction.

For me, the grounds were as impressive as the Palace and more enjoyable with its ability to absorb the masses. The shear magnitude of the tree plantings, the ornate sunken garden and orangerie.

I agree with Maria. I could skip the Hall of Mirrors, but would love to go back to see the gardens, especially when the fountains are running.

What I liked most about the article is that it shows you can have a fantastic, memorable trip without necessarily visiting the so-called must-sees. The mom intended to take her son to the palace but seeing the much larger than normal crowds, she called an audible because she knows her son. She knew he would enjoy cycling much more than visiting an opulent palace whose significance would be lost on him. A year from now the boy would not have remembered much or anything about the palace, but the cycling tour they would both remember for a long time. She made the right call for her and her son.

I think this gets to the fear of missing out. FOMO often drives many people, myself included, into fighting crowds to see or do something to which we are fundamentally indifferent but are reluctant to admit as much. Since we can't do everything we are ALWAYS missing out on something. Seeing a thing because someone else considers it a must-see is a poor way to prioritize during a vacation with very limited time.

I'm a guy with an average knowledge and interest of art. At another's urging I spent about two hours getting into the Louvre just to get an up-close look at the Mona Lisa. I'd like those two hours back since the Mona Lisa looks ordinary to me. Everyone has a similar story of a must-see that was less than advertised.

The Jungfraujoch is another must-see that disappointed me. Sure, it's fabulous once you get up there but it's a 4-hour chunk out of your scarce vacation time. Here's the paradox - there is no point in trekking to the Jungfraujoch unless it's a beautiful sunny day, but on such an alpine day there is simply no better place to be than on a hiking trail. I'd also like those 4 hours back.

What I liked most about the article is that it shows you can have a fantastic, memorable trip without necessarily visiting the so-called must-sees. The mom intended to take her son to the palace but seeing the much larger than normal crowds, she called an audible because she knows her son. She knew he would enjoy cycling much more than visiting an opulent palace whose significance would be lost on him. A year from now the boy would not have remembered much or anything about the palace, but the cycling tour they would both remember for a long time. She made the right call for her and her son.

I think this gets to the fear of missing out. FOMO often drives many people, myself included, into fighting crowds to see or do something to which we are fundamentally indifferent but are reluctant to admit as much

I see folks ask for advice for France or England and especially Italy where they want to see the entire country and all the big sites in a week. It is driven by FOMO, which I think we all suffer from to some extent.

Our first trip to Europe was a school trip we took in 1966. I still travel with the cute freckle faced 14 year old girl I fell in love with then. We've been blessed with being able to take a number of trips together, not only to Europe, but to many places in the US. We have also made separate trips to Central America and Deb has spent time doing medical mission work in Tanzania.

Certainly seeing landmarks like Versailles or the Vatican or St. Mark's Square has been fantastic. However, when I reflect, there are smaller moments that have been just as meaningful. These moments are mostly comprised of opportunities to make new friends and experience a little of their world. For instance, we stayed at a dairy farm in Scotland and got to meet their 17 newborn calves. On that same trip we helped our host at a small B&B on the Isle of Mull make crab salad using freshly caught crab and his wonderful AGA stove. We participated in Vespers at an Italian abbey. It was celebrated in Gregorian chant and the participants were the monks, one lady from a nearby village and the two of us. We shared breakfast every morning with our host family in our Paris B&B. We still regularly communicate with them. We practiced Italian with our server at a wonderful agriturismo in Chianti while he practiced his English with us.

These experiences (and several others) came about because we travel close to the ground, visiting out of the way places and staying in modest to moderate accommodations, mostly B&Bs. I think from now on we'll concentrate more on having similar experiences and less on seeing the major landmarks.

FastEddie,
Was this article in the Travel section? Title? Want to read it.

I think this is an excellent topic and I agree, I suffer from FOMO. I would not call myself a seasoned traveler especially compared to many on this forum but I have traveled enough times to Europe and seen many of the blockbuster sights that now I look for the "smaller" sights. In Paris last April, I avoided the Louvre and went to the smaller sights, like the Musee Marmottan Monet, a delightful house museum devoted to Monet and other Impressionists. We also did not go to Notre Dame. However, we made a return trip to Giverny because it does not matter how many times I see it, I still want to come back!
Most of my treasured memories of my trips to Europe are of misadventures, conversations with locals and just being lost!

Versailles , Skip it? I'd say "You have to see it, to believe it." My poor sensibilities of being an American were entirely blown out of the water by this place. No wondering any more why Ben Franklin courted the favor of the French. The American Colonists were just ants compared to what was happening in France and England at the time. Versailles makes this clear in a visceral way. These Kings had absolute power. These Kings and Queens lived like gods: And lived in a bubble. That insulation was so complete that on the grounds of Versailles, was created an entire virtual reality, in the form of an ideal French Village. They built structures so large and complex that later Kings/Queens even tried to down size to places that were more intimate. Versailles is the ultimate testament to human folly, if one lives in a bubble and are told that they are gods. When I saw Versailles, the French Revolution made sense. It defined why there was a French Revolution. You can read about this history, but I don't think anyone can understand the history till you see the WHY: Versailles is the WHY: So what you want to see, all depends on how much you wish to explore a historical context.

My last trip to Versailles started far away from the palace. The palace is spectacular and historic and crowded. But you can enter the grounds from many points, including one area near the "Hamlet"- a tiny village that Marie Antoinette used to pretend she was a peasant. It was beautiful, with animals and flowers, and gave you a sense of the way the rich peasants lived in the 18th Century. It also said something about absurdity of power and wealth that a woman born into one of the richest families in the world would build a place where she could pretend she wasn't. There are also places to go boating, lovely gardens to walk, and smaller buildings. Worth the lines? If you have never been and you are an adult, probably....but then get beyond the palace to understand the immensity of the place and that this was just one of many properties the French monarchs owned while their population was starving.

On my first trip to France and Paris, I did not skip Versailles, I had factored it in as a day trip from Paris, and was certainly glad I saw where some momentous historical events in 1871 and 1919 took place, not merely those connected with the Revolution.

I always went to Versailles in the summer Now, given a choice of going to Fontainebleau or Versailles, I'll choose Fontainebleau. Ideally, one ought to spend time in both.

Versailles was the palace that every ruler, big or small, tried to imitate. Louis XIV set the model at Versailles.