Two-week itinerary

IMHO two cities would be better than three, since each time you move to a new location a good part of one day will be taken up with checking out of your hotel, traveling to the new destination and locating and checking into your new hotel. Paris and London have the advantage of easy travel between them via Eurostar, and each of them has more than enough to fill a week’s time. If you decide you must see Rome, you will need to fly, as it is some distance from either London or Paris. There are many low cost intra-European airlines which you could research.

You mention that your air tickets are already booked. I presume, since you haven’t stated otherwise, that you booked round trip to London. This is unfortunate, since you now must return to London from your second (or third) city in order to fly home. In the future it would be more prudent to book open-jaws, also called multiple destinations, with the initial trip to your first destination and your return from the last destination. This will save you both time and money.

I read your post as you have not booked your return flight yet, only your flight to London. So I will give you my suggestions based on that assumption.

I think three cities is fine in 14 days. I would absolutely not add a fourth city. Be aware that when you arrive on April 19th, you will be jetlagged and just plain tired, and it could take you a day or two to adjust. I would therefore allow 5 nights in London. I'd plan to travel to Paris (via Eurostar) on April 24 and fly to Rome on April 28.

If you want to branch out and get in some side trips, then skip Rome on this trip and do 7 nights each in London and Paris. Then you would have time to take some day trips from both cities.

Exciting to be making it to Europe for the first time! I will also be in Europe next April, but not in any of the places you are visiting.

Two major cities such as London and Paris is plenty for two weeks, particularly as you are arriving Easter weekend. Having this much time in each city will give you the option of having a day trip from each if you want to experience smaller towns or rural life. You lose a day each time you move cities.

You would save time by flying open jaw back from Paris if your tickets can be amended.

Eurostar tickets (it hasn’t been called the Chunnel for 20 years other than by users of this forum) can be booked 180 days in advance for the best prices.

You will need to book accommodation early for the beginning of your holiday, as you will be arriving when the schools are on their Easter break and places will get booked up.

I think the 3 cities is not too much. That is about 4 days per city with 2 days of travel. You will be travelling long distances which translates to lost sightseeing time. From London you can train to Paris and them fly to Rome. Book you return flight from Rome so you don't have to backtrack which also cuts down on moving from one hotel to another.

London 5 nights (you'll be tired from your flight to do much the first day)
Paris 4 nights (leave very early to Paris to have time to sight see)
Rome 5 nights (fly to Rome, the last day you will be going to the airport)

Check your travel books for which cities interest you the most and play around with the schedule.
Have fun

Rick Steves says (and I agree) that there are a handful of cities that deserve a one week visit. This list includes London, Paris and Rome.

Also, keep in mind the stress of dealing with multiple languages, cultures and currencies.

It really depends on your specific interests. You list three big cities, each one different than the next. Are you interested in WWII history? If so, Normandy in France is a big attraction and you can easily spend a couple of days there or just do a long day trip from Paris for a taste. We have done both. On our last trip, we did a day trip from Paris and and time in St-Mer-Eglise and Bayeux for some village charm. If you decide on all three cities, as Patricia and Lane said, fly to Rome, take the Eurostar from London to Paris. From London, you could take the train to York for a day trip or take a day trip to Bath. This is not optimal, but you can at least get a flavor of the towns. Or Windsor/Eaton. From Paris, day trip to Reims or do a D-Day day trip (we used Bayeux Shuttle. Details here: http://www.bayeuxshuttle.com/d-daygrouptour-paris-2019.htm ). From Rome, you could day trip to Hadrian's Ville,Orvieto, Ostia Antica or Tivoli Gardens among others.

Hi. I think limiting yourself to two cities would be a wasted opportunity. Even four places I don't think is too many. By the fifth day in London you will have seen a lot and be ready for a change, and your time would be much better spent moving on to a new location. Train to Paris from London is easy - only uses up a half day. I would go there on day 4 or 5, then after 3 or 4 days in Paris, move on to your next location - Rome or somewhere else. From Paris to Italy, many easy flights. If you wanted to add Florence, that's easy - fly Easy Jet or another airline from Paris to Pisa; easy train from there to Florence, a day or two in Florence, then an easy 1.5 hour train to Rome for your last few days. Whatever you decide, enjoy your trip!

The flight to London is all we have booked so far.)

Are you flying to London and back to US from somewhere else or do you have r/t flights to/from London?

If you are planing to fly to London, train to Paris, fly to Rome and fly Rome to US it could work.

If you are committed to flights in/out of London trying to do all 3 makes for quite a sprint.

Thanks to all of you for the quick and thoughtful replies. Here is a little more detail and answers to some of the questions that have been posted.

As of today all we have booked is the flight to London (from Dallas). Fortunately we are booking with miles (accumulated over many years!) So it would be possible for us to fly home from anywhere we end up at the end of the trip.

We have to do 5 days in London (using a Marriott travel package) so that first location will be fixed. My thought was to stay as close to downtown London as possible and use the public transportation to get around. I welcome ideas for places to see on a day trip outside the city proper.

Next thought was to leave for Paris on the 24th and stay in Paris through either Sunday the 28th or Monday the 29th. If we do decide to go to Rome it sounds like the general consensus is to fly to reduce travel time. I did some research on the overnight trains from Paris to Rome, but opinions seem wildly variant.

If we took the train, it seems like it would be a shame to pass right through Florence without seeing anything, but I want to be sensitive to the hassles of moving from hotel to hotel, especially lugging our bags around.

One other question: should I stick to using public transportation throughout the trip? Trains, subways, flights, etc.? Can we get to the major sites that way? Or should I consider getting a car for any day trips?

Thanks for the help, everyone.

Definitely stay in Central London and don't rent a car! Public transport (tube and buses) and your own feet are the best way to get around! The same holds true for both Paris and Rome.
As you can see, opinions vary greatly as to "how many cities" are appropriate for that length of travel. There is no real right or wrong answer (ok, 5 cities would be wrong IMO but... it would be doable!!).
In order to help you make a decision, I'd definitely recommend getting some guidebooks and doing a bit of research on what there is to see and do in each city and what are "must dos'. for you. That will help you determine how much time you should spend in each city and what the trade -offs are if adding a third city. Also, I'd ponder the following questions - which should help.

1. How comfortable are you with new situations and figuring out logistics when dealing with a foreign language? If that makes you very uncomfortable, then I'd suggest two cities (such as London and Paris) to "ease you in". This is not to say that first time travelers to Europe can't easily navigate other countries transportation, lodging, etc., etc. but has more to do with your own comfort level - this is, after all, a vacation!
2. On vacation, do you like a leisurely pace - i.e. getting up later, relaxing over coffee in the morning, etc., etc. or are you more a "get up and go" type? If the former, again, I'd limit it to two cities - if it's the latter, 3 might work very well for you.

Once you've got your list of your "must see's" the fine folks here can help you determine if you've planned enough time in each city to accomplish your list!

London, Paris Rome--- having a rental car in any of those cities is only slightly preferable to contracting the plague, or some other incurable-untreatable disease

Nancy's advice is excellent. I agree with her that the "right number" of places to see in your time frame depends on your travel style and comfort level with getting used to new places.

I'll just give one warning: when you say, it seems like it would be a shame to pass right through Florence without seeing anything, beware that in that path, madness lies. In other words, there are lots and lots and lots of worthwhile places "right near" or "on the way" to other places you're seeing, and if you start stopping in them, you will have a great six month trip, instead of a two week one.

With only two weeks, you have to be brutally selective. Remember that two nights in a place equals only one full day, and one night is less than a full day. Also remember that you lose a half day connecting even close places (say, Florence to Rome) and more like a full day connecting father places (say, Paris to Rome).

That said, you certainly can do London, Paris, Florence, and Rome in two weeks if you want. Just realize you will have less time for each place. That may suit you fine, particularly if one of these places has only a few of your own personal "must sees."

For getting around, you will use public transportation within cities, and most often for day trips outside them as well. If you do want to get to a rural destination for a day not served well by trains or buses, you can rent a car for that day. From London to Paris, you will want to take the Eurostar train. Book this six months in advance for best prices; prices go up as you get closer to travel, sometimes stratospherically so. For Paris to Rome or Paris to Florence, it's easiest to fly. Try to get a flight from Paris Orly, as it's closer than Charles de Gaulle airport, but either one can work fine. Finally, if you can't get a flight back from Rome but can get a flight back from Paris with your miles (there are more flights from Paris so there may be more availability), you would fly from London to Rome, then fly from Rome to Paris. Note that London has six airports, as far as the airlines are concerned, and some take much more time and/or money to reach from central London than others.

We had 8 nights in London. We did two daytrips: one Windsor and one Harry Potter Studios. Loved both but we still didn't get to Hampton Palace and we had 8 nights. With 5 nights I would stick to London. We stayed around Trafalgar Square and it was a wonderful location.

We've visited Paris twice. First time for five nights and second time for four nights. Second trip had my mother in law who had never been before so we repeated some 'must sees' but we're still planning to return last summer as there's so much to see. Five nights is great for a first visit.

We've visited Rome for six nights. Did one day trip to Pompeii and Naples. You could do Rome in five days.

But doing each of these for five nights means that you're losing one day in travel. With just 14 nights, I would choose two. There's so much to see in each location. You'll still miss things with 7 nights in two spots.

There are so many great posts here that should help you narrow down the right options for your trip. One thing that specifically helps me when I am trying to narrow down the number of places that I want to go to is to use Rick Steve’s travel planning map (they have one for Europe, France, and Italy). As a visual person, it is easy for me to map the must sees, the travel distance and times between each location, and then to make the hard call on our final cities.

Have a great trip, each of the places you have chosen are great destinations with plenty to see and do in the cities and easy day trips out.

Sandy

If you're looking for a best of Europe in 2 weeks type of tour, you can't get much better than London-Paris-Rome - especially in April, when weather in the Alps and the countryside is not dependable. Personally, I think it's a wonderful idea for your first trip to Europe. You will get a good taste of each city and culture.

Then, you can plan to go back and this first trip might help you to prioritize destinations for subsequent trips.

I think 3 cities is just right. Especially if those are the big 3 you want to see, it makes sense to visit them all while you are in Europe.

Definitely fly from Paris to Rome, then fly home from Rome. Public transportation should be fine for getting around all the cities. You could always take a taxi if there is somewhere off the beaten path you want to visit.

For the smaller villages and towns, you could find somewhere interesting on a regional train route and do a day trip.

With 14 days you have five days in two and four in another. Don't dilute your enjoyment by going to another. In fact, why not start with two, like London and Paris and take some side trips while in each.

From London you can do Canterbury, Cambridge, Oxford, Bath, Stonehenge or the Cotswolds.
From London you can do Versailles, Normandy or the Loire Valley.

Our first trip to Europe, we did three weeks that included six days in Rome, the Florence, Venice, Berchtesgaden (Salzburg, Austria) and then Paris (6 days).
Study some guidebooks and map out what you want to do, before you decide on where to go. Also, you can always go back for more.

I'm a fan of seeing more by seeing fewer places, so I'd suggest keeping it at two cities. If you do London and Paris, and really wanted a 3rd city, then it's easy enough to find another city in the UK or France to add to the itinerary that you can get to by train rather than have to take a flight.

I would suggest holding off on booking any reservations that can't be cancelled until you get closer to your trip since it is over 8 months away. Life has a way of throwing ugly curveballs and you don't want to be out any money should you need to cancel or postpone your trip. If you're booking with just miles or points, that's a bit different since you won't be out any money, but a lot of the good hotel deals are no changes, no cancellations, no refunds.

If you only see London, Paris and Rome (3 big cities) you will miss the most charming part of Europe; the small, quaint little villages.

Thanks, everybody for the wonderful feedback. Over the last month I have been doing some reading and watching the Rick Steves' DVD's. Yesterday I watched an episode on the Normandy region of France. I was enthralled as I watched it. Between the WW2 sites, the lovely towns of Rouen, Honfleur, and Bayeux, and the spectacular Mont St. Michel, this region seems like an area I would love to go to - and it's pretty close to Paris.

As some have noted, if we travel to Rome (likely by air), we'll lose most of a day traveling. Having now seen the attractiveness of Normandy, I wonder if it might make sense to scratch Rome and replace it with two additional days in England (York? We already have planned a day trip to Bath) and two additional days in France (Normandy).

What do you think of this tradeoff? York + Normandy vs. Rome.

One of my concerns is the transportation. We had planned on using public transportation in all the major cities. If we do decide to do York and Normandy would we need a car to travel to these regions? Thanks for the advice.

BTW, we still have not booked the return flight to the U.S. so our options are still wide open.

As you probably noticed, there is not a lot of consensus about how one should fill two weeks.

My philosophy is this: whatever you see is what you should see. You can have a fabulous trip no matter where you go. There is nothing you must see or do in order to have a great trip. Don't regret what you miss; rejoice in what you see!

I loved Normandy, and if you were enchanted by Rick's DVDs of the region, no doubt you will be too. I was there way back in 1990. Following a tour in England, I and a friend took a ferry from Portsmouth to Ouistreham, then a bus to Caen where we spent the night. Picked up a rental car the next day and spent 4 days driving around Normandy without any advance bookings. Of course, that was a very different time, and if I were going to do it today, I'd probably want to make lodging reservations in advance. But driving was very easy with our paper Michelin map, and probably even easier with Google maps or whatever you use on your device.

I would spend more time in London and make the Paris trip shorter because there are so many historic day trips you can do from London. If I were you, I would schedule trips to the British Museum on two different days-it's too much to absorb at one time and the British Museum is a tour of history. You might also enjoy the Museum of London and the Imperial War Museum. If you go to Rome, I would skip Bath. I might even consider skipping Paris completely and taking the train to York for a couple of nights instead. I don't have much interest in French history and what I like about Paris is Sainte Chappelle and museums. I have not been to Normandy, but since it really appeals to you, you could split your Paris stay between Normandy and Paris. I suspect the hotels in Normandy are cheaper than in Paris. If you decide to limit yourself to two cities, I think Rome is way more important in history than Paris. Of course, that is not the case if modern history is of more interest to you. If you're more interested in history than in art, you can skip my favorite city Florence. You could do a day trip from Rome to Pompeii. Enjoy Rome tour company has a bus you can ride to Pompeii from Rome. Of course you should fly home from Rome.

"What do you think of this tradeoff? York + Normandy vs. Rome."

The important question is, what do YOU think of it?

I agree 1000% with Lane:

My philosophy is this: whatever you see is what you should see. You can have a fabulous trip no matter where you go. There is nothing you must see or do in order to have a great trip. Don't regret what you miss; rejoice in what you see!

So, if Normandy and York draw you now, see them now. You can see Rome on another trip.

Yes, the logistics of seeing Normandy without a car are a bit more complicated. But London to York is about 2 hours by frequent trains, twice as fast as driving, so if that's the only side trip you want to make from London, you don't need a car for that.

STOP WATCHING THOSE TRAVEL DVD'S!!! They make everything look great. And when you go to those places, you'll find them even better than you thought :-)

Seriously, you can't go wrong. London and Paris sounds perfect. I suspect that if you try to add both York and Normandy, you'll be shortchanging two major wonderful cities. You can get to York by train and see it on foot and using local transportation. I haven't been to Normandy, so I'm not much help with that but it seems that you'd need a car or a guided tour.

The point is that 14 nights sounds like a lot, but it really isn't. 14 nights is 13 days (your first is usually lost in a fog of jetlag and your last is spent just getting to the airport). You'll use up about 2 days in transfers between 3 locations. Add a 4th and you lose another 1/2 day or more. So with 3 locations, you're down to 11 days to see them. 4-5 days will fly by in London and Paris.

I agree with Chani. I fon't think eliminating Rome provides enough time to add both York plus Normandy. Particularly for Normandy, two nights won't get you much. If you are interested in the D-Day sites, you really need to plan for a full-day tour with one of the van-tour companies operating out of Bayeux. That leaves just part of the day you move up to Normandy to see anything else that interests you in the area: the tapestry and cathedral in Bayeux (maybe also the WWII museum there?), Honfleur, Etretat, Deauville/Trouville, Mont-St.-Michel, Rouen. Even with a car, you'd only cover a small part of that list, whereas with four nights, you could see a good bit of Normandy. Normandy can be seen via public transportation, but it will slow you down, and MSM will be challenging.

I also wouldn't like going all the way up to York for just two nights. That wouldn't allow much of a look at Yorkshire besides the city itself.