Ehoning

First time to Europe and a family of 5. Wanting to hit the highlights and see as much as we can. One of my kids wants to visit Holland while my girls want to see Paris. Would like to see Switzerland as well. Wife wanted to try and include Spain but geography may not allow that. Would like to travel by train. Any recommendations? Any must sees? Once in Rome we are taking a cruise to see Italy and Greece.thanks in advance

janisj

Just a FEW of your problems and some questions:

• 10 days isn't long enough for one person to visit London, Amsterdam, Paris, and Switzerland and get to Rome - let alone a family of FIVE. Everything will take longer for that large a group. (How old/young BTW - that also matters)

• "<i>try and include Spain but geography may not allow that</i>" No, you do not have time for Spain - either.

• "<i>Wanting to hit the highlights and see as much as we can.</i>"

When a family runs full tilt around Europe like that the main things they'll see are train stations and airports.

• How long do you actually have? 10 days 'on the ground' or does that include traveling to Europe?

• You mention London in your title but not in your post -where does London fit in?

• When is the trip - time of year makes a lot of difference for some destinations.

• W/ just 10 days you have enough time for London+Paris OR Amsterdam+a couple of places in Switzerland OR Paris+Amsterdam+<i>maybe</i> one other city OR London+Amsterdam+<i>maybe</i>one city in Italy. You get the idea . . .

Ehoning

Thanks, I know it will be crazy. We are going on a cruise from Rome which will be relaxing. So we dont mind being crazy for 10 days. Basically we land into London on June 29 am and then the cruise leaves on July 9 evening. So we are looking at train and or plane to see a few stops. Kids ages are 13/11/9

janisj

"<i>So we dont mind being crazy for 10 days. </i>"

Crazy is one thing, impossible is something else.

OK - reality check. June 29-30. Arrive London - probably at least some of you totally jet lagged. Travel into the city/check in and have <i>maybe</i> 6 hours free in London before dinner and bed. Next day - maybe 2 major sites -- Tower of London &/or British Museum &/or Westminster Abbey &/or something else (any two).

Jul 1-2 Next morning leave for Paris on the Eurostar having seen almost NONE of London. Half a day in Paris visiting one Major site - 2 at the most. Next day 2 or 3 more sites in Paris.

Jul 3-4 Next morning leave for Amsterdam having seen almost none of Paris (the girls will HATE leaving w/o seeing very much)

Half a day in Amsterdam. Next day in Amsterdam -having seen maybe 3 major sites total)/ Next morning leave for Switzerland.

This is just silly - spending more time packing/unpacking/checking in/checking out/traveling than actually seeing anything.

Instead stay 4 nights in London (you need at least that much time to recover from Jet lag and see a tiny bit of London), 4 nights in Paris, and 2 nights in Amsterdam - fly to Rome . . .

dwdvagamundo

Strongly concur with janisj--too much in too little time.

Will you have any time in Rome besides traveling to cruise port? If not, I'd drop Amsterdam and see some of Rome if you have not been there before.

jamikins

Totally agree with the above. There is no point in spending all the money to get over here only to spend the entire time running around and not seeing anything. Quality over quantity is especially important with so little time. London, Paris and Rome and then your cruise will give you a good overview.

The more you move the more expensive things get as well. Your time is finite regardless of how much you want to see. So use it well - you can see more in London, Paris and Rome than you will trying to run all over the place.

jamikins

Just imagine if I said I wanted to come to the USA (assuming you are from North American...) and wanted to visit New York, Washington, LA, Vegas and San Francisco in 10 days...I may want to see them all but clearly I would have more of a chance of a great trip if I picked 1-3 locations...

StCirq

When, or rather IF, you manage to get to Rome, the kids will have mutinied.
I'd be jumping off the train with my rucksack by Day 3.

Ehoning

ok, ok, I listened to you guys, haha. 3 Nights in London, fly to Amsterdam for 2 nights. Train to Paris for 3 days then overnight train to rome and then 10 day cruise. Have everything booked except Hotel/apartment for 2 nights in Rome before our cruise leaves. Any suggestions or recommendations for nice central hotel for 5? Thanks

THR

I'd spend more time in London or Paris, or get to Rome earlier, rather than spend the time in Amsterdam... but I suppose if you haven't been there before, it's still a novelty.

Tulips

London - Amsterdam - Paris - Rome; Your latest plan sounds good. Amsterdam is fun for teenagers (how old are your kids?), I can imagine them wanting to go.

bobthenavigator

Pick two---anymore is folly.
I would pick Paris and Rome.