Itinerary critique request...

I think there is a good chance you may be tired after this trip since you are only used to 7 days. So, I would consider limiting your destinations if you are worried about that factor. If you don't want to limit them, then you could choose destinations a little closer together. Your destination choices are all very far apart. Don't forget to factor in travel time in how much time you actually have at each destination. Is it too much "culture"? That's hard to say. It really depends on what your family enjoys most. I would especially consider your teenagers.

Not sure if you listed the destinations in the order you planned to do them, but if so it looks like there is some unnecessary backtracking.

If you are set on doing all 5 , I would suggest you do Paris then London

Otherwise I think you are, as you put it, "bouncing around too much "

i do not have kids but i have friends that let me take the lead organizing travel for them ;
you know your kids better than the baby boomers or what your kids would call the old people on this forum so organize something yourself around what they are interested in

Your plan only gives you two real days in Rome because of the jetlag/exhaustion factor on Day 1.

I'd drop Florence or Prague in order to let the trip breathe a little. Although it's lovely, Prague is adding two flights to your vacation. I don't know about you, but I find having to get myself to an airport distinctly not relaxing. Prague would fit better with a Germany/Austria/Hungary trip.

I think you're smart to question the all-cities nature of your initial itinerary. That tends to happen when you pull together multiple people's wish lists, but you get a more complete picture of a country if you see some smaller places and some countryside. Having fewer destinations would allow for a day-trip here or there.

I note that you said "approx. 17-day", so I'll urge you to squeeze out a few more days. I'd still drop Prague and consider using the extra time for a couple of days in the Tuscan countryside. It could be done via day-trips from Florence, even by public transportation if necessary. Or if that area doesn't appeal, research the options outside the other cities. The odds of good weather for rural destinations at that time of year are probably better in Italy than in northern France or England.

Seventeen days is an ideal timescale for Rome-Paris-London IMO. These are three big hitters. This would give sufficient time in each location if you wanted to do easy day trips to the countryside or coast.

Fly open jaw. No matter how you travel, you will lose half a day moving between locations. The first day or two maybe getting over jetlag.

Alternatively, if you want more chill time, just pick one country and cover that in more depth for a mix of urban and rural. You don't say what your interests are, so it's difficult to advise.

Things to think about:

• You use/lose 1/2 day every time you change locations, whether it's a 2-3 hour train or a 1 hour flight, you have to pack, check out, get to the station/airport, yada, yada, yada
• Every new place means new orientation, to language, signs, modes of transportation, and just getting your bearings in a new city.
• There are 4 of you. You'll only move as quickly as the slowest person at any given time, whether it's someone who packs slowly, oversleeps, or dawdles.
• 2-1/2 weeks on the road means laundry (by hand every 2-3 nights or a couple hours at a laundromat or an expensive laundry service) and shopping for things like toiletries (in a foreign language).
• Just to complicate things, you list 4 places that use 3 different currencies.
• You're considering 3 huge cities and another large one

I could be persuaded to squeeze another day or two out of the trip. I'd hate to drop Florence, since it's so close to Rome, which is our lowest priority on the trip. I'm concerned about the stress of the flights in and out of Prague, but I really want to do a day trip to the Terezin concentration camp (for the teenagers, especially). Hopefully, that would be mostly on me, since everyone else will just be tagging along. If we only did Rome, London and France, we'd still have to fly from Rome to London anyway, so adding Prague just means one extra intra-continental flight, right? Will taking a half day to travel be an opportunity to take a load off our feet and re-charge, or is it too stressful?

I first though about just doing London, Amsterdam and Paris, but decided I wanted a better overview of the continent. I also considered Rome/Florence, Switzerland(Murren), and Paris and London. It just seemed too complicated with all the train connections to and within Switzerland(Muren). My kids have never seen mountains like the Alps, so that's attractive, but if I did that I'd have to drop Prague (Terezin).

I guess most planning a trip to Europe go through a lot of indecision - thank you all for indulging me!

I would add more time in London and eliminate Prague-I doubt it's on your childrens "must see" list. The Anne Frank house in Amsterdam would probably be more relatable for your children than the concentration camp. If necessary, bribe them to read the book on the plane to Rome. Be sure to get tickets in advance. Amsterdam would also be closer to Paris and London and the canals are lovely. I do love Florence-its so walkable and your kids could wander together without you. In Rome, our daughter really enjoyed a tour of the Vatican Museums. You could also cut one day from Paris to increase time in London. That way you could do day trips or even easy overnights to places nearby less citified-maybe Cotswolds or Brighton(beach-don't know how swimmable it is). I hope you're letting your children help plan itinerary. If they are Harry Potter fans, there are several great choices near London. I like the order of your trip, since Rome is the farthest away and will get hotter as the summer progresses. You might want to do London(and Amsterdam if you go) last-in my opinion, those cities require less of your energy and no language issues.

I think you're bouncing around too much. It's three different currencies, four different languages, and with the exception of Florence, all fairly intense places. And all very dense, in terms of sight seeing. One way to slow this down is to go with four nights in Rome with a side trip to Antica Ostia, then to Florence by train for three nights with maybe a day trip to Siena. Then to Lake Como for a couple nights to unwind.

Then, if you want to take your kids to a concentration camp, fly from Milan to Vienna for 3 nights, with a day at Mauthausen.

If you are set on Prague, fly there instead. I think the synagogues of the Jewish ghetto and the graveyard are maybe a better representation of both the history of Jews in Central Europe and the extermination of six million of them. The Pinkas synagogue alone is devastating. There is much else to do in Prague, like the relatively light Museum of Communism. ;-) (really, there's a lightheartedness to that museum that kind of helps with the terribleness of daily existence under the communists for 40+ years)

Alternatively, the Anne Frank House in Amsterdam is probably the least horrifying way to show your children the horrors visited on Jews in the Second World War. As I write this, the memories of these sites returns to me and I have great sadness in my heart. Yeah, Amsterdam is probably the best. And then you can move to a less emotionally heavy site, like the Our Lord in the Attic church. :-) Amsterdam is lovely, uses the Euro, and is completely different from Italy.

Then either night train or fly to Paris or London for your last 3. I see the appeal of doing London now, given the state of their currency and the possible outcomes of their vote to leave, however Paris is still Euro and is wonderful.

Yeah, this is a lot of time in airports and in transit generally. And for 17 days, it is smart to include a few recharge days in a pretty, rural setting, about 2/3 of the way through. Provence, Tuscany, Berner Oberland, Cinque Terre, Chamonix.

To make this work though you have to drop stuff from your itnerary. If Rome is low priority, I'd consider dropping Italy. If Italy is a priority, then maybe London > Paris > Cinque Terra > Florence > Rome; you've got to drop Prague, or else London, or rejigger things completely differently e.g. London > Paris > Berner Oberland > Prague (from Zurich) > home.

You could also have a really great vacation centered mostly on France: London > Paris > Provence, maybe with a stop in Lyon. Its not intuitive, but dropping far-flung destinations can improve the quality of a trip.

Okay, I'm glad I posted this because it's completely changed my thinking. Here's my new agenda if anyone would like to poke holes in it:

(London - 6 nights)
(Ghent/Belgium - 3 nights)
(Paris - 7 nights)

That should be much easier on the intercontinental travel, and give us a break between the intense large cities. Now, assuming I stick with that one, I'll need to start researching day trips from London and Paris!

I love your new itinerary. It will be much less stressful and give you an opportunity to really see London and Paris and do a few day trips to more rural areas. I was going to suggest you could do Switzerland (Berner Oberland) instead of Belgium so you can see the Alps, but late May early June is not the best time for that. I adore Belgium, so that is a good choice. It will be easy to get to, and Ghent is a good place to stay. You can easily do day trips to Brussels and/or Bruges.

No holes to poke...

I think you and family will be happier with "seeing" interesting thing/locations and not being "on the run" such as your first plan.

You should have no problem filling your days with things to do/ places to go. Just get some tour books to see what each area has to offer

London is much more spread out than Paris is, so I might give one extra day to London.
Paris is easily walkable - most attractions are contained in a 2.5 x 3 km range. And you can get anywhere by Metro in 15 minutes.
I'd book either a légal apart'hotel, such as Citadines, if you want to cook. Look for "laveries" using Google Street Views - quick and inexpensive.
Otherwise, I'd book a hotel with a quad room. Ibis, Mercure and Accor are good chains that are family-friendly.

Thank you all - this is the kind of input I hoped for. Ronfer, I chose Ghent because I figured I'd take the train from London to Brussels, and rather than stay there, I'd go ahead to Ghent because it's centrally located for easy day trips (to Bruges and Antwerp). It's 3 places in one (I considered going on to Amsterdam).

Colmer/Strasbourg is very intriguing, but doesn't that defeat the purpose of my keeping everything close and convenient (between London & Paris). If I'm going to go all that way, shouldn't I just go ahead and go all the way to Berner Oberland?

I think the Belgium portion would be better spent in Bruges.

If you want some WW2 history, it's an easy day trip to Normandy from Paris.

I think this new itinerary is much better. Will allow you to really see London and Paris at a relaxed pace.

I would think it still is possible to slot Amsterdam in to your plans It would, however, mean no day trips from London & Paris.

London - 4 nights
Amsterdam - 3 nights
Ghent/Belgium - 3 nights
Paris - 6 nights

Ghent is my preferred base for Belgium. It's less touristy than Bruges (and cheaper too).

ronfer makes a good point - the problem is that you can't really visit villages except by car or guided tour . . . unless you are fairly serious cyclists. And driving around in a small European car may be less than comfortable. Though the idea of spending a few days with a car in Burgundy or Alsace (did them together over a week) is quite possible. I'd say Alsace because it's more colorful, driving times/distances are shorter and there's Monkey Mountain (where you interact with a colony of Barbary apes). I'm not sure how it would fit into your itinerary, but there are high-speed trains to Strasbourg where you can rent a car for 3-4 days and stay in a lovely B&B in one of the villages. You'll see nesting storks (and their young) everywhere.