first time travel at 26yrs

Paris!
Congratulations!

Congrats. London.

Take your pick of any of the big, cities that have the attractions that you want to see. Some love Rome, others Berlin and still others Paris, Amsterdam, Barcelona, Edinburgh, London, Dublin, Vienna, etc. etc. I am sure your fiance' has some ideas about sights to see too.

I vote for Paris. Congratulations on your upcoming nuptuals. I reccommend that you go to the library and get a few travel guides to compare London and Paris. See which intrigues you the most.

Mazel tov. Venice or Paris or Rome or London.

Rome. It's an amazing walkable city. Layers of Western civilization right outside your doorstep.

I always think London and Paris together make for a great first visit. They are easily connected by fast Eurostar train, so you don't really need to pick one or the other. You didn't indicate how much time you have, but it's also easy to catch a budget flight from either city to Rome. Fly home from Rome. Congrats!

felicitaciones! I agree London and Paris are a good first trip, as they were mine (at 33, you've got me beat). London gets you adjusted without a language barrier, then Paris is more manageable for a first time trip. SeaTac has good flight choices - Iceland Air has great deals (including a stopover in Iceland - you could work that in too for something even more exotic).

Good point...Iceland is one of the most incredible places I've been. And I believe the Northern Lights can be viewed beginning in September. That would top off a great honeymoon. Icelandair allows you to stay over either on the front or back end of your trip for up to 7 days (I think) at no extra fare.

Paris and London! It's a great combination of two great cities and also a great first time trip. Of course you can't really go wrong with a trip to Italy either...

London....London.....London is a fantastic city you would love it. Also, you wouldn't have trouble with the language like you might if you go to Paris.

Robin,, millions of tourists love Paris and find the language no more of a problem then if they went to Rome or Amsterdam or Venice,, the assumption that one should only go to an english speaking country really limits a person . I know for a fact not every Italian speaks english,, just as every french person doesn't speak french,, but who would avoid those wonderful cities for that!! Jess, depending on how much time you have,, and I hope its at least 2 weeks, you could do the three cities, fly into London spend 4-5 days, take eurostar to Paris( 2.5 hours city center to city center and less then 50 euros)( 4-5 days) , and fly with cheap airline to Rome( Easyjet or Vueling, its only 1.5 hours and tickets can be less then 80 euros) 4-5 days.. then fly out of Rome home. Many airlines offer decent open jaw tickets( flying into London out of Rome) and what a great chance to enjoy three marvelous cities.

Thank you everyone of your recommendations. Hopefully we will have 2 weeks! London, Paris and Rome sound terrific but do does Iceland. What do you guys think about Sweden or Norway?

Jess, First of all, congratulations! There are an enormous number of possibilities for a first visit, but with only two weeks you'll only have time for a limited number of cities. Are there any places that specifically interest you? As this is your first trip to Europe, I'd recommend reading Europe Through The Back Door prior to your trip, as that provides lots of good information on "how" to travel in Europe. Given your location, you might find it very helpful to take a short drive to ETBD in Edmonds, and use the Guidebooks in their Library or watch videos covering the areas you're interested in. That would also provide an opportunity to speak with the travel experts there. Regarding your question on Sweden and Norway, that's certainly a possibility if you have a "generous" travel budget. Those are some of the most expensive countries in Europe! Happy travels!

I think 26 year olds would have a lot of fun in London/Paris. If you love NY you will love London/Paris. Two weeks in Italy would be great too. You can do Venice-Florence-Rome and lots of other choices.

If you have two weeks, I would do a week in London and a week in Paris. There's so much to do in both cities, I wouldn't even dream about adding another.

Ahh, Paris is for lovers - but Venice - well - a fairy-tale place...Italy would be at the top of my list as well. (Rome, Florence...)

Yet another vote for London and Paris. Go to London first if you've never been outside the U.S. It is just foreign enough for someone from the U.S. to know that you aren't home, but comfortable enough because of the mostly shared common language. Then, if you have time and are feeling like a more experienced traveler, head to Paris by plane of train. Even if you don't speak French, you'll get by with a phrase book. We have added Berlin to our list of favorite European cities, but that can wait. As for a beach place, Europe's got them, but I'd save those, too, for later trips.

I can't believe no one has mentioned Berlin, particularly if you're doing three cities. It's a wonderful contemporary city with interesting 20th century history and day trips to Potsdam with more history. So, think of London, Paris, Berlin. Pam

Two romantic cities - Paris and Venice.

Jess, I would have to agree with the majority, that the ideal trip under your circumstances would be London & Paris connected by the Eurostar rail. It couldn't be easier. Do London first to whet your appetite for being in a foreign land, then take the train to Paris. Fly open-jaw aka multi-city to avoid having to circle back. If you do choose to fly Iceland Air from Seattle, a 24-hour stopover in Iceland would be fantastic as a contrasting experience. They have multiple 6-10 hour organized tours designed for people just like you to do just that. The "Blue Lagoon" will be an experience you won't forget. We have flown with them three times and they have had a spotless record, and are generally $100/pp or so lower in price than the alternatives. I would also suggest that when in both London & Paris, you set aside a day or two for day-trips out of the city - again, for a contrasting experience. There are at least a half-dozen very easy options outside of each city. Certainly, there is nothing at all wrong with seeing any of the other great European cities either, except, as honeymooners, I would expect that you would prefer to keep things relatively simple, as you may be busy focusing on each-other, as well as all the great museums, cathedrals, palaces, etc. Assume you will return and visit those other cities on another trip, when you're ready to be more adventurous and energetic for fast-paced sight-seeing. Congratulations!

Paris and London by Eurostar. Then, fly budget air carrier to Venice. Take the train to Florence and Rome. Fly out of FCO. You'll be overdosed on food, art, sculpture and love.

Paris, Paris, Paris!

For a honeymoon I would go with Paris first choice or London second. Venice is a truly wonderful city, the only one like it in the world, but if you hit high water it will really put the damper on your trip. Save Venice for your second trip when you are a bit more experienced European travelers in case things go awry but put it high on your collective bucket list. Best wishes and have a great trip.

Jess, have the two of you seen any programs on European travel destinations (like RS' series)? If not, click on the "Rick on TV" tab at the top of this page. This may help you get an idea of the various places you'd like to visit. For example: one person looks at Italy and its state of decaying stucco and thinks 'how romantic', and another thinks 'what a decrepit pit of decay'! So, Venice is either The Most Romantic Place On Earth, or a pit LOL! Same goes for Rothenburg odT or Colmar - 'gotta-go-there cute', or 'this-is-making-me-sick cute'. Also, do you want 'historically important' places, pretty places, shopping places, big museum cities, or is great food really important? Some places are a must-do for the museums, but I'd never send you there for the food LOL! Wherever you go, don't overplan! You'll be exhausted after your wedding (probably), and it's a very long flight over The Big Blue from Seattle. I'd suggest staying in your first location a few days, at least, to get rested and acclimated - new sights, sounds, and smells can be great fun but also overwhelming. Then, give yourselves some slacktime - it's unlikely you'll ever find yourselves with nothing to do! You're in Europe! Congratulations!

A warning for you two - this isn't necessarily a bad thing, but...not all couples share the same travel style. He may be a Go!-Go!-Go! type, and you may want to sip a cocktail for two hours and watch the sun set behind the cathedrale...so be prepared to spend some time apart doing different things (and that goes for married life, too!). Even if you're well-matched in your travel styles, you may still want to spend a morning or day doing separate things, then meet up at lunch/dinner and compare notes. He may not want to see another museum, and you may be tired of castles - don't make the mistake of staying joined at the hip if that's not feasible.

Well, you aren't going to go wrong whatever you decide, but my vote is for beautiful, romantic Paris. Went there 22 years ago with my husband. Going back this year....

Thank you all for the great advice! I think Paris sounds great! London is one place I have never really desired to go. What do you think about Amsterdam? We love walking cities, drinking coffee an eating. We have the same travel style too, laid back an not too many plans. What about the Netherlands?

Amsterdam and Paris sound like a great combination, especially if London is not on your list of desires. Both cities will offer lots to do and a totally difference ambience. Plenty of tourist sites in both, but plenty of cafes to just hang out in and enjoy one another. (I have been to London a number of times and it is not one of my favorite places) I would choose Paris and Amsterdam over London. And the stayover in Iceland suggest by a few sounds amazing. What ever you choose I am sure it will be great.

I hate when people say "go to London - no language barrier!" That shouldn't be a deciding factor! The language barrier is part of the fun. Away everyone speaks English so when you get a little language barrier it's fun. We loved the Netherlands. Amsterdam and Delft were favorites but look at Gronigen, Utrect, and Leiden. I have heard that Gronigen is a vibrant and young city with a party vibe. Amsterdam is a Great wandering city.

Man, there are so many great places in Europe. Give us a better idea of your interests and maybe borrow some of the Rick Steves programs from your library (or watch on Hulu for free). That may give you a better idea and narrow things down some. I wouldn't worry too much about language barrier. I agree that is part of the fun and makes a place seem more exotic.
You'll find English spoken in the tourist areas of Paris, and it may be more understandable that the cockney accent in London's tube. Just more fun... London-Paris would be a great trip any time of the year, and England does make for a softer-landing spot, culturally, (except for being one of the largest and greatest cities in the world)