milliondollarbbw

So I will be in London in May for about 11 days. I know that I definately want at least 4 whole days in London...and since I can jet off to other parts of Europe for under 100 bucks roundtrip, I would like to check out some other parts.

I am restricted budget wise, so I will not be able to visit Italy, I fear. Because of the cost. Other than Italy, where would you choose to travel? I would have about 4-5 days to visit other parts of Europe.

My knowledge of other languages in not good. And so far I am focusing on a couple of days in Dublin, Ireland. I really want to see the cliffs they have there.

Where would you go to visit? What are some good places to do things via boat?

janisj

Well - not many cliffs in Dublin. I assume you mean the cliffs of Moher - if so they are all the way across Ireland on the west coast.

My first question is why not just stay in the UK? Have you been before? 4 days is only enough time to BARELY scratch the surface in London. 5 or 6 days in London, then mayeb a couple of days in Edinburgh, York is terrific - or almost any place in the UK.

Clifton

If you really want to see the cliffs (also presuming that you're referring to the Cliffs of Moher as janis was), then Dublin is on the wrong side of the country from where you want to be. Look into flying into a west coast airport. You can fly to more places than Dublin on low cost budget airlines. See www.whichbudget.com for a list. Addtionally, there are many great coastlines on the west side of Ireland, OR there are nice historic (but not quite as scenic) sights in the east, nearer Dublin. Will you be renting a car to visit these sites or will you be trying to work out public transport?

milliondollarbbw

Thank you so much everyone for your help! I was totally clueless about Dublin. My friend was saying that you need to rent a car to get and see all the cliffs and things like that and she didn't suggest a two day trip to Dublin.

Ok, how about 3 or 4 days in Italy? I worry that because I do want to see a lot of Italy, I will feel torn at only being there a few days.

I have been to London before for a couple of days, so I have seen most of the touristy things---I do want to see the London bridge, and the Queens palace, and also some of the countryside and more of brixton. But I think 4 and a half days there, then 3 -4 days in italy, and back in london for a couple of days will be fun.

My choices for Italy are Milan, Naples, and Venice. I can get to these areas from London for about 100 bucks roundtrip via airline.

Where would you choose to go, and why?

I realize I may have to put off my Ireland trip for another time.

Tallulah

I think that it's a great idea to do a dual-country trip - one of the things that we take for granted over here is that we can jump on a plane for very little money and be somewhere totally different in a couple of hours. And I think that anyone travelling to Europe should make use of that fact! Sure there's LOADS to do here in London but do you really want to trek from museum to gallery and back again? Personally I think you'd get more from your trip by taking in a variety of cultures - you can do the museum/gallery thing anywhere!

Why don't you try somewhere like Amsterdam? It's not cheap (similar prices to London) but it's fun. Or Prague? Beautiful and cheap and very different to London. Or Spain? Weather will be hot and the food's good.

Don't worry too much about the language thing, it's never stopped us Brits from going all over Europe and we're rubbish with languages (far too arrogant, I guess!)

Have fun!

Guy18

What I would choose between would be the Amalfi Coast (fly into Naples), Lake Como (fly into Milan) or Venice. Do not spend four days in Milan or Naples themselves. They're fascinating places, but they're also not particularly attractive big cities. If you had more time, then maybe... I think you're right to go to Italy if that's what you really want. If you do your research and spend wisely it's no more expensive than anywhere else in Europe--and certainly cheaper than the U.K.

Guy18

Another option would be to split 5 days between Lake Como and Venice. You'll lose part of a day traveling by train, and you will only scratch the surface of both places, but you can at least have a taste of each. Depends on how you like to travel.