fables

I am going to Europe in September and my first thought was duh... London, Paris, Rome.

My current plan is:
3 days - London
2 days - Cotswolds
2 days - Kent
3 days - Paris
3 days - Rome
2 days - Amalfi
2 days - Capri

But now I am wondering about Paris. I am not a foodie, in fact, I have very simple tastes in food and would probably just eat croissants and baguettes. I am not a museum person really, in terms of paintings although I do like history but more a tangible variety such as architecture, sculptures and gardens. I will be traveling solo.

So here are the questions:
Does Paris have a special something that is not missing from London or Rome?
Will my lukewarm attitude towards it now change totally once I'm there ?
Would I be better served to add a day to Rome and two days to England ?
Would I regret not walking along the Seine at night ?
I know this last question will sound dumb, but is there more to Paris than museums and fine dining ?

Thank you for not thinking me crazy. I just don't want to go somewhere just so I can say, yep, been there.

Jean

My answers to your questions:

Yes, Paris is different from London and Rome in many, many ways.
Maybe, but I don't know anything about you.
IMO, you'd be better served limiting your destinations to 3-4, preferably in 1-2 countries.
Maybe.
Yes. Perhaps you should study a guidebook to see what, if anything, interests you in Paris.

VirginiaC

Paris is not my favorite city, but I'm glad I've been there.

If you like architecture, there's Notre Dame and Sacre Coeur among the highlights; want gardens, try the Tuileries and Luxembourg; for history Les Invalides or a wander around Montmartre, and of course a boat ride on the Seine, and a walk along its banks, and a stop at the Madeleine, and that doesn't even count the Arc de Triumph or the Tour Eifel. And you can find a great omelette or a croquet monsieur in small, casual restaurants all over the city.

Since your trip seems to be a bit of a "tasting menu," why not taste as many different things as you can?

Expect to develop an extreme craving for more.

adrienne

I typed a long response and then lost it. Bottom line - you seem very biased against Paris so don't bother to go there. Save it for the people who enjoy the city.

I do think it's strange to only eat croissants and baguettes. Is that what you eat at home? No fruit or vegetables?

<< I know this last question will sound dumb, but is there more to Paris than museums and fine dining ? >>

You've obviously not done any reading but have spent some time making erroneous assumptions. This is not so much a dumb question but a very sad and ignorant one.

Fra_Diavolo

"Does Paris have a special something that is not missing from London or Rome?"

Yes, a certain sophistication and formal beauty missing in those other great cities.

"Will my lukewarm attitude towards it now change totally once I'm there ?"

No idea.

"Would I be better served to add a day to Rome and two days to England ?"

Both can accommodate it.

"Would I regret not walking along the Seine at night ?"

You would certainly miss one of the more romantic views in the world.

"is there more to Paris than museums and fine dining ?"

That would be enough, but, yup.

janisj

Paris is great - but nothing says one 'must' go there.

However - looking at your itinerary -- IMO you have bigger issues that whether to go to Paris or not.

I'd hate it. You are allocating the almost same time to London -- the largest city in western Europe w/ hundreds of things to see do, and Rome - to smaller or rural places.

What do you want out of your trip?

Things to consider - London will be a jet lagged fog for a day or two. And then one day later you are leaving. Then going to the Cotswolds and Kent -- are you going to drive? If not you are pretty limited what you can get to.

Then there is the 1/2 a day to one full daly you'll lose most every time you move.

you more realistically have (if you include Paris):

2.5 days - London - and only 1.5 fully usable days
1.5 days - Cotswolds
1.5 days - Kent
2 days - Paris
2.5 days - Rome
1.5 days - Amalfi
1.5 days - Capri

Do you really want to move around that much? Only you know the answer to that . . .

mamcalice

Your questions make me a little sad. We have been to all of the places you plan to visit and Paris is my favorite - the place I love to return most often. There is much more to Paris than museums and fine dining. If you aren't interested in those things, what do you expect to find in many of the other places you plan to visit?

Paris is a beautiful and romantic city. There is so much to see and do. However, with your attitude, I would allocate the 3 days you have designated for Paris to other stops. Your trip is extremely rushed and you haven't planned enough time to really experience any of your planned destinations.

denisea

Paris is beautiful to just walk around in. Great architecture, lovely parks, The Plantee Promenade, Luxembourg Gardens, the churches, Opera Garnier....The neighborhood markets are wonderful. You don't have to do the foodie thing at all. Great takeaway items from boulangeries, like quiches and sandwiches. Crepes. Cheese.

I wouldn't skip it but you can. I think you are changing locations too many times. If Paris doesn't appeal to you, skip it and head to Italy.

nytraveler

I think your trip is already too crowded as it is - you hve little time anywhere. If the choice is skip Paris to add to other places - I would say yes - although aris is one of my favorite places.

And yes, it has many thing that are totally different than London or Rome - it is FRENCH - with the entire history and culture of France - way more than food (and you don;t eat anything but bread????) and art museums.

but given your apparent dislike and the fact that you really need to cut destinations - I would drop it.

fables

Thank you Jean for your suggestions and for the info VirginiaC.

I apologize for offending you adrienne. It seems I have done a poor job communicating. I am not biased against Paris. The whole reason I posted this was to find out from people who love Paris why they love it so as I have never been. My point about croissants and baguettes was to illustrate the possibility that Paris with its world class museums and world class restaurants might be too sophisicated or formal for me during this trip. Yes, I am ignorant on the topic which is the whole point of asking in a forum I thought.

I guess I could have just posted... list your favorite things about Paris but I was hoping that experienced travelers on this site would help me discern between the people, vibe and experience between Paris, London and Rome. My apologies for not asking that effectively.

Paris is obviously one of the greatest cities in the world. I was hoping to find out why.

tomboy

2 days each in Kent & Cotswolds (are you getting free housing?), and you're wondering whether to bother with Paris?

When you take a shower, do you bother turning on the hot water?

flpab

I love Paris and I understand what you are saying. We feasted at the markets and took things back to our apartment. You need to experience it, it is like no other city. I love Florence and Cinque Terre more than Rome. everyone has a connection with different place. I could live in Ireland for the natural beauty but Paris is filled with beauty. I am tired so my brain is foggy. You work for Marriott? Do you get to stay free?

fables

thank you janisj for your feedback.

I didn't count the day I land in London as one of the days. I think my flight lands at 11am so I thought I would write that day off as jetlag. I hope the following day I will be good to go and have 3 full days. Does that make it better or still too stressed ?

I was planning on taking the train to Moreton in Marsh. I have a hotel in Bourton on the Water so I could do the walk to Naunton and the Slaughters and then the next day bike to Bibury. I realize that seems very touristy but the pictures of those places look amazingly beautiful and serene.

I would stay in Maidstone, rent a car and see Sissinghurst, Bodiam Castle and Scotney Castle for starters. Still open on this area a bit.

2.5 days in Rome didn't seem enough which is one of the main reasons I considered not going to Paris.

I wanted to be able to see Positano, Amalfi, Ravello and Capri so I thought it best to stay 2 nights each in two places. Would it be wiser to spend 4 nights in one place and day trip the others. I have read Capri is much better if you stay overnight so you can get nights and early mornings while the day trippers are not there?

I am certainly open to suggestions. I did want to sample quite a bit as I am not certain how soon I will be able to return to Europe but I do want to be able to enjoy the experience as well. Thank you for your help.

fables

I'm sorry mamcalice that my questions made you a little sad. I clearly did a poor job with this post. It was not my intent to disparage Paris in any way.

fables

Thank you denisea. The hotel I reserved is very close to Luxembourg Gardens and Latin Quarter as those looked to be great places to walk and explore.

indyhiker

Perhaps that wasn't your intent, but your lack of knowledge of the city shows. To reduce it to just museums and fine dining is ignorant. It seems strange to ask a group of strangers to sell you on a city as beautiful, famous, interesting and historically significant as Paris. Get a guidebook; do some reading. Paris has "tangible history" in spades and offers far more diverse food than what you're imagining. If Paris holds no appeal to you, I'm not sure why Rome and London do. That's not to say Paris is for everyone, but it's arguably worth seeing in person to figure that out yourself.

fables

Thank you nytraveler for your advice. It is apparent my trip needs tweeking to say the least.

fables

Thank you for your sarcasm. I am not sure what you mean other than you are insulting me. So thanks for that.

fables

Thank you flpab for understanding what I was trying to say even though I said it so poorly. I appreciate you letting me know I need to experience it. I had no idea I was coming off as a snob, or smart ass or disrepectful when I posted this. Ugh.

I do work for Marriott and get discounted rates when available but not free. It is a very nice benefit which I have taken advantage of frequently over the years, at least in the U.S.

StCirq

Have you ever been to a city that is too formal and sophisticated for you? Do you really think one exists? Are you not aware that every city from Baltimore to Delhi has levels of formality and sophistication that run the gamut from homelessness and desperation to elegance of the highest sort? Could Paris possibly be, overall, too formal and sophisticated for anyone? You don't think there are choices of every kind, from food to museums to attractions to visit, in any city in the world? Do you know anything of the history of these cities you are planning to visit?

It does sound as though you have some innate bias against Paris, possibly informed by silly media that play up perfume ads, Michelin restaurants, models, fancy doings at the Elysée Palace, etc., but are you not aware that it is a city filled with ordinary citizens and immigrants and poor people and middle-class citizens and so forth? JUST like New York, Chicago, Karaachi, Madrid, Casablanca, Moscow, KIev, Copenhagen, Tunis, Beijing, Sydney, and any other place in the world

As for the food issue, you seriously would only eat bread in Paris? What are you planning to eat in Rome and London?