Daughter 1 and I will travel to London to see daughter 2 who will be finishing her study abroad in London in early May. We will have a week to travel and would like to end our trip in Rome. I had originally planned to spend the first half of our week in London and the second half in Rome. Now I’m wondering if we should try to squeeze in Paris or Florence before heading to Rome. Any thoughts? Both daughters are young adults and open to exploring. It will be daughter 1’s first trip to Europe. Any suggestions for travel itineraries and places to stay is appreciated.
Posted by
Gettysburg PA
7280 posts
Sure you could “squeeze” either in but why?
You have 1 week so I assume 7 nights between 2 major cities that each deserve way more than you are giving them
Take away a day for travel and you are really cutting both London and Rome extremely short
TBH
I’d stay in London the entire time
Posted by
Minnesota
578 posts
Rick Steves once said that there are four European cities that deserve a full week- London, Rome, Paris, and Istanbul. Having been to all of them, I agree! These are huge cities with way more to offer than the Tower of London, the Eiffel Tower, and the Sistine Chapel! Don’t forget that you will lose about half a day (or mor) of sightseeing time every time you move to a new place. So with 6-7 days, my preference would be to focus on one city, but doing two would give a taste (just!) of each.
Posted by
Paris
10337 posts
If you only have one week, you are already going to be rushed seeing something of two cities. I would not add a third.
Posted by
Washington DC
28375 posts
I wouldn't add another stop since you and Daughter 1 want to see something of London before heading to Rome. I will say that as a kindness to Daughter 2, you might want to allow a bit more than half your time in Rome, just because Daughter 2 will surely have seen all the top sights in London by now.
If you haven't bought your airline tickets yet, honestly, I wouldn't combine Rome with London on such a short trip, because it means a flight and all the hassles that involves. There won't be any sightseeing going on during the (approximately) half-day you spend relocating, and you're starting out with only a week. With so little time available, I'd be all for efficiency and the train to Paris (Eurostar) would be beckoning me. Or other places in England that would be easy to reach if Daughter 2 still has some places she'd like to see.
Posted by
Charleston & Birmingham
4655 posts
Can you time your trip to include two weekends so you can have 9 days total? Or maybe you're already doing that and the 7 days are actual days on the ground. Sorry but I think you will barely have time even for London and its close neighbor Paris. As much as I love Italy, I would not try to go there on such a short trip that starts in London.
Posted by
Lynnwood, Washington
8954 posts
I think you are falling into a common trap, trying to see everything you can because you are worried that you won't be back. A key element in trip planning is to realize that you can come back. I love to pack a lot in a short period of time so that part doesn't bother me, but you will be spending time traveling vs. spending time exploring. I would not add any additional locations to such a short trip.
Also, you will need to decide the top 2-3 priorities for each location and focus on them.
Posted by
Irving
3315 posts
Why are you trying to include Rome when you have a week? If you don’t believe that there is more than enough to see in London, take day trips and Bath would make a good one. London has many fantastic museums, attractions, the theatre and neighborhoods that I would not waste a day to travel to Rome.