There is a RS self-guided tour in his latest Scotland guidebook, but the entry ticket also includes a 50-minute guided tour. Does the RS tour cover areas of the castle not included in the official guided tour? Or, are the tours redundant? RS speaks highly of the official tour and there's no mention as to why he also included a self-guided tour. So, should we plan on doing both tours?
Posted by
SE Washington, USA
413 posts
We really enjoyed the guided tour at Stirling. The guide was excellent.
Posted by
Mid-Atlantic area
6722 posts
The included tour was very informative. I don’t see the need to do both. A self-guided tour is good for those who want to move at their pace rather than a guide’s pace; skipping some places or spending longer at others.
Posted by
Duluth 🛶
6823 posts
I really enjoyed the included free guided tour offered by Stirling Castle. It was extremely informative, and our guide (Brian) was also engaging, funny and very interesting. I would highly recommend utilizing the Stirling guided tour. They start at 10 am and happen every hour.
Posted by
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
4232 posts
Count me in on the included tour, it was very good. Our guide also gave some updates of current special exhibitions going on at the castle which the RS tour wouldn't have.
Posted by
Duluth 🛶
6823 posts
RS speaks highly of the official tour and there's no mention as to why he also included a self-guided tour?
I would imagine he includes it because there will be some people that will not be able to utilize the castle's guided tour, due to time limitations, etc.
Posted by
UK
546 posts
RS speaks highly of the official tour and there's no mention as to why he also included a self-guided tour?
Some people (me) absolutely detest guided tours and will always choose a self-guided tour where possible. The thought of standing around listening to people when I could be exploring at my own pace fills me with panic.
Posted by
OP
Nice, France
55 posts
Got it. Thanks for responding, everyone!