It depends on what your interests are and, indeed, what time of year you plan to go. Personally, though, from a "honeymoon" point of view, I'd pick Door #2...with some modifications. Of the three itineraries, I don't think you can get any better from a romantic point of view.
If you have 12 days on the ground (eg. not including day of arrival or departure), then this itinerary is do-able....say 4 nights in Paris, 4 in Rome, 1 in Florence, and 3 in Venice. If you really only have 10 days on the ground, then I'd probably try to cut out one stop to avoid spending too much time travelling.
Try to book an "open jaws" or "multi-city" flight...into, say, Paris, then home from Venice. You can use the various search engines to construct the most convenient (and cheaper) of such pairings, then build your honeymoon around that. This will save you having to waste a day returning to your point of origin to head home.
Relax. Don't try and jam too much into your schedule, whatever you try to do. You'll be a basket case after the wedding, and the two of you will value the time together to slow down and enjoy yourselves. As Rick says, assume you'll be back, and don't rush your way thru the honeymoon.

They all sound good, but I'd like to ask a question or two before dispensing advice. When are you planning on taking your honeymoon? Also, are you looking at 12 "pure" days, or do the 12-days include travel days?

Edit: Haven't gotten back to us yet, so I think I'll go ahead and dispense. Given the time you have, I would choose option number 3 and cut out the Alps (or option number 1 and cut out Ireland) and then add the countryside in England and France. So, London with a couple of days outside and Paris with a couple of days outside. I would agree with others that the other itineraries are hectic for that amount of time. Have fun!

For your first trip and honeymoon combined, option 3 looks like the most feasible. The others are a tad too busy.

I agree that whether you have 12 full days on the ground, or if that includes your plane flights, is crucial. You don't have a bad destination listed but #2 and #3 make the most sense--I don't think #1 is possible in 12 days. If you only have 10 days the Italian cities makes the most sense. It's really quite a long way between Paris and Rome (have you factored in travel? Getting from the hotel to the train station/airport, + travel time, + getting to another hotel). If you have the full 12, I'd vote for #3.

Holly, how exciting--a honeymoon in Europe. Congrats! Now, your itinerary. I like #2 and #3. I've been to all of these destinations. However, I like #3 better because of the Alps. It's so nice to get away from the big cities and into the mountains, the fresh air and the cow bells!

Holly,

First of all, congratulations!!!

All three Itineraries would be good, but of course which one to choose will depend largely on your interests and what you both want to see.

As this is your first trip to Europe, I'd highly recommend pre-reading Europe Through The Back Door. It will provide you with a lot of information to make the trip go smoothly.

With only 12-days for the trip, you'll have to minimize the travel times between cities, so that you maximise your "touring time". With that in mind, either option 2 or 3 would be good (IMHO).

However, I'd suggest changing the order a bit:

2 - Paris, budget flight to Venice, Florence, Rome (of the two choices, I'm a bit more partial to this one).

3 - London, Paris, Swiss Alps (the Lauterbrunnen Valley is a big favourite with most here). Starting in London will tend to be a bit less "culture shock" and you can move to the Continent from there.

Using open-jaw flights would be the best option in either case. Keep in mind that you'll lose the first day in flight times (you'll arrive in Europe the day AFTER you departed).

What time of year will you be heading for Europe? You might also want to check the country-specific Guidebooks for information on sights to see in each location, transportation tips, Museum opening & closing times, etc.

Good luck and happy travels!

I agree with Tom that #3 is the most feasible. #1 could work if you left out the French countryside, but is tight. #2, not so much.

It's easy to underestimate the logistical drag of these itineraries, especially for first timers.

Oh, and I'd suggest #3 be London > Paris > Switzerland, (or else the reverse).

I'm also partial to #2 which I think would work just fine by flying Easyjet between Paris and Pisa.

Holly, I also vote for #3, London would be a good place to start a first trip to Europe, no language barrier, one hour less time zone, good public transport, Paris well as you know, great city for romance, and the Berner Oberland, i thought was very romantic also,the scenery is just so beautiful. Have fun!

Itinerary #2 seems the most 'romantic' to me, but you can't go wrong with #2 or #3 or Denise's idea of Paris-Munich-Venice and each is very do-able in 12 days. I did London-Amsterdam-Rothenburg-Munich-Venice-Rome-Paris in 18 days and LOVED it. I'd definitely fly open-jaw and consider a flight with a budget airline while in Europe to save travel time. Happy Honeymoon!

I'm going to vote for choice #3, too. I always like to break up my big city visits there with some time in the country, it gives you a chance to get out and breathe the air, so to speak.

If you were to do #1, I'd narrow it down to one country. Do Ireland OR England OR France, but not all 3.

I have to say that I agree with most of the votes so far- of the choices, #3 makes best use of limited time. I would also agree that you should rearrange them so that you could (possibly) use the Eurostar to go from Paris to London or vice versa. In fact, you might just want to do Paris and London (though I personally didn't enjoy Paris). With 12 days (and it is a honeymoon), I think you might want to be more settled and do less moving around. There are lots of great day trips from Paris and London that you could do and not have to be packing and unpacking and losing lots of time to "travel" days.

Here's the thing;

In all three options you are attempting to see too much in too little time. That can be just a matter of travel taste. But being rushed causes stress, particularly for first-timers (what would happen if you missed a connection?!). And especially considering it's your honeymoon, I don't think unnecessary stress is a good idea. You may even feel inclined to.....ahem....sleep in a little more than you usually would.

So I would pick ONE country that appeals to you both and go there in a bit more depth. Perhaps fly into the big city, spend 3-4 nights, then spend 3-4 in a cute rural area, then pick another city. What you don't want to do is either spend a lot of time in transit or schedule too many transit requirements in which the timing is critical.

You have picked many lovely places to visit. Among them, I would love 12 days in;

-Ireland (perhaps with a short stop in or out of London)

-London, rural England, maybe Edinburgh

-Paris, Switzerland (or better yet Chamonix in the French alps), Provence (SE France)

-Rome, Tuscany & Venice

All these options go together well logistically and would be less stressful, IMO.

Assume you will return another time to cover another area. It's always best to focus on one culture at a time.

Congratulations! You are fortunate to be able to take such a nice honeymoon.

We went to Disneyworld many years ago...

Thank you all so much! I am contemplating all of this, and wanted to offer a little more info and also throw out another possibility. First, we will have 12 actual days to travel and visit Europe. We have two days slated for travel to and from the States, bringing the total to 14.

After much discussion and deliberation last night, we are still undecided on an itinerary, however. We also threw out a new option. See below:
4) Paris, Munich, Prague

It seems most folks liked Option 3, but is Option 4 a game changer? Meaning which one would you choose now, and why?

Also, the honeymoon will be May 30 - June 12. And, I know a lot of folks say "stick to one country," but that's just not our style...Okay, keep those suggestions coming! ;)

I still feel the need to push for London. Perhaps with one other city. Edinburgh, Dublin or Shannon, Paris, Rome, Prague, etc. Or just one city and LOTS of wonderful day trips. London just happens to have my heart.

Option 4 is also quite feasible, but in my opinion, a bit redundant. I probably didn't enjoy my first trip to Munich or Prague as much as I should have because I visited them on the back-end of visiting several other cities. I still like the feasability and balance of cities and rural in option 3 the best.

One quick question- what time of year (sorry if you already mentioned that)? That has less of an impact on trips to London and Paris, but greatly affects what you can do in the Swiss Alps... ie, if you're expecting to hike there in January, guess again...

Holly,

I don't mean to be disagreeable, and you can have a wonderful time with any of the itineraries you choose as each includes wonderful places to visit, but consider this;

If some European couple wanted to make their first trip to the US on their honeymoon and chose to spend a few days each in Boston, Chicago, and Los Angeles, what would you think of that choice?

I think it is entirely possible that they could have a good time. But I don't think they would to be able to honestly claim that they had visited America or learned anything meaningful about it. What they saw were parts of three big cities that have almost no relationship with each other (and arguably little relationship to the other 280 million people in the country) - but they did have lots to do and see...

Whatever you choose though, you will enjoy because it's your honeymoon and perhaps you can come back again some other time.

(I won't bother you again :-)

Paris-Munich-Prague vs Paris-Swiss Alps-London The choice between the two come down to my experiences at each location and what side trips you could do. I have always enjoyed Munich and the surrounding area. You could take a side trip to Salzburg, a beautiful Austrian city that's easy to get to. You could also take a day trip to the castles by Fuessen. For me, Prague is the only city I've visited that I wouldn't want to return to. If the choice would be Paris-Munich-Venice then, yes, I might change my mind. This three-some has a wonderful different mix of culture, experiences and siteseeing.

I still favor your original #3 over your new #4 because of the Swiss Alps. I like the diversity of these two cities and the mountains.

I think a three city tour in 12 days will be fine. It's just the two of you. You can slow down in the future when your family has grown.

Just to increase the confusion, I'll suggest an Option 5: London, Paris, Prague. Three great cities, three different cultures, all very doable in your time frame. Prague is awesome. IMO much more interesting & fun than Munich.

Holly, I also vote for staying in just one or two places, say London and/or Paris. I think it depends on what you like. We enjoy getting to know a place so we stick to one area and do day trips. Congratulations.

I'll chime in with what I would pick, and why. The important factor, though, is what you and your future spouse want to do and see, and you haven't told us that.

DH and I like to combine big cities and rural areas during one trip, for more variety. We love art, history and enjoying the local culture. We're big foodies, so eating the local cuisine is important on our trips (not necessarily expensive dinners, but good food).

So, given that, of the places you've mentioned, I'd probably visit Paris and the French countryside. And if you need another country, one other city, though if it were me, I'd go to Amsterdam, and out of the places you mentioned, I'd add Rome. Lots of art and culture, lots of places to sit at cafes and people-watch. And in terms of the French countryside, the Loire valley is easy to get to from Paris. We've combined the Loire valley with Paris twice - I don't think the Loire is a very beautiful part of France, but the castles are interesting.

Because I like to speak as much of the local language as possible, and tend to review for months before a trip, we rarely visit two countries at once. And because there's more than enough to do, IMHO, in most countries. And when on vacation, I like to limit the time traveling between destinations, so I have more time AT the destinations. So I wouldn't ever choose any of your itineraries, because they involve too much travel time for my tastes.