cadd

Any suggestions on an itinerary?

We'd like to make sure we see all the sites and perhaps do a day-trip to Bath or somewhere if its worth it.

We'll be staying in the Soho / Leicester Square area. Also, are the temperatures in London as frigid as Chicago?

Tulips

http://www.fodors.com/world/europe/e...periences/news

I've no idea how cold it is in Chicago, so don't know how London compares. Try bbc weather.

Seriously Cadd, without knowing anything about you, it's impossible to advice. You can't see all the sites in London in 5 days.

bilboburgler

No, London benefits from the Gulf Stream and so seldom sees major ice or snow storms.

All the sites is a bit tough. It also matters how jet lagged you are and if you really have 5 days boots on the ground or 5 days including flight days.

I'd spend 1 day in the V&A with theatre in the evening.
Kensington museums for a day
The Tower and Greenwich for a day

I'd avoid the wax works and the changing of the guards
I'd look at the Mad Max tours to see what was happening and maybe do Stonehenge
I might look at the Harry Potter thing at Luton

Hooameye

"We'll be staying in the Soho / Leicester Square area. Also, are the temperatures in London as frigid as Chicago?"

You don't say when you're coming!!

Hooameye

Do you mean you're coming in 3 weeks or you're spending 3 weeks here but only 5 days in London.
Weather in case you're coming in February:
http://www.accuweather.com/en/gb/lon...weather/328328

janisj

Hooameye: per the title late this month.

Cadd: you won't see anywhere near allt the major sites in London in five days. You will see a small handful so you need to be pretty selective. Does the 5 days include your arrival day? If so, you will really only have four full days fro seeing/doing.

The weather is VERY changeable and there have been some cold snaps this winter, but you really won't know what the temps will be until a day or two before you travel.

A day trip to Bath or Oxford or somewhere is great, but you already have very little time in London. Plus being away from the city and your hotel on a really dreadfully wet day might not be fun, so I'd wait and decide when you are there.

cadd

We'll arrive in London at 6 PM at Heathrow, so that'll be only an evening, then we'll have 4 full-days and then we'll depart on the 6th day in the early afternoon.

I'd say 4.5 to 5 days I guess.

I will say that I will be traveling with my 6 month pregnant wife, so we won't be super fast in our touring.

I traveled to London 7 years ago and I loved seeing the Tower of London, London Eye, Big Ben, British Museum, Buckingham Palace, The Stonehenge and the double decker bus tour. I would assume my wife would probably want to do at least some of those.

We were even thinking about taking a day trip to Paris to see the Eiffel Tower and a few things, but it appears we might not even have enough time to see everything in London!

In terms of museums... I'd say we would like the contents of the British Museum, but anything similar to the Uffizi in Florence would probably not go well (we're not that into paintings). I noticed a reference to a few museums and I'm not sure what their contents are.

I honestly am surprised at how much more there is since I thought I hit the major sites last time I came, but apparently not!

We LOVE Harry Potter, haha, so anything related would be cool.

historytraveler

With only 4/5 days in London, I 'd forget Paris. There will probably be a number of posters that will give you museum suggestions but, for specifics, I'd recommend looking at a guide book.

janisj

You only have four days really. You don't arrive until 6PM so won't be to your hotel until maybe 8:30 or 9:00 PM. Then you need to be at whichever airport by probably noon, thus leaving your hotel around 11:00.

And with your wife six months along you really do not have the time or ability to dash all over the place. Stick to London.

For museums, definitely the V&A

bilboburgler

She might also like Liberty http://www.libertylondon.com/uk/home even the hardened male anti-shopper will enjoy half an hour checking out the scarves.

ssander

My thoughts:

Stay in London.

You can only scratch the surface of that great city on four days...and that is likely all you have. (Not sure what you mean by "early afternoon" flight, but you'll need to leave your hotel <strong>at least</strong> three hours before your flight.)

Chicago in early March is usually much, much colder (more "wintery" in every way) than London.

Do not miss the Tower (my no. 1 can't miss sight)...that takes at least a half day. Take a self-guided walk from Trafalgar (close to Leicester Sq) to Westminster tube, then a tour boat to the Tower.

Forget Paris and the Eiffel Tower. It's my favorite city, but you'll spend at least 7 hours getting there and back (including tube/Metro time)...not an efficient use of your four days.

The British Museum and the V&A are good museum choices for variety and not having an emphasis on paintings.

Another good choice is the Museum of London...comprehensive history of the city.

If yyou want to do a day-trip...go to Hampton Court.

Don't waste time on the changing of the guard at Buckingham Palace.

ssander

janisj

Re the Tower . . . ssander's suggestion is good, however in reverse. You want to get to the Tower by at or just before opening time, and leave after lunch. Then jump on a boat at Tower Pier and get off at Westminster pier.

carolyn

I suggest including Westminster Abbey or St. Paul's Cathedral. The Churchill War Rooms are interesting, too. And your wife will probably enjoy afternoon tea somewhere that she can sit down and rest awhile. If you have it late, you won't need dinner.

janisj

>>if you have it late, you won't need dinner.<< . . . Or lunch.

cadd

What's wrong with the changing of the guard? Just overrated? When you guys are saying including Westminster Abbey / St. Paul's? Are these actual tours inside the locations or just looking at the outside?

fourfortravel

Stay in London; there is more than enough to do in 4 days, especially at the pace you'll likely be sightseeing.

I was 7 months along when I joined DH on a transatlantic trip to Prague during the spring (second child; I was in super condition; and my doctor had no concerns. For the record, DD seems to have been born with the wanderlust gene. ) Walking around became tiring even in good weather (thank goodness for cafes and park benches), not to mention that I had to frequently cut in to a WC.

janisj

The guard change eats up 2 to 3 hours just standing there. Typically one needs to arrive at least 90 minutes before just to secure a place to stand and wait. Otherwise you won't see anything. And all you can do for that 90 mins is stand. There isn't anything to see/do.

And yes, you need to actually go inside Westminster Abbey and/or St. Paul's . . .

historytraveler

I would certainly give the guards a miss. It's just as janisj said, several hours of standing around and even then you may not get a good viewing spot. So much more to see in London IMO.

I haven't been to St. Paul's in years as the interior is not my favorite but Westminster Abbey has audio guides that seem to be what everyone uses now although they may still conduct their own tours. Westminster Abbey is now roped off which makes touring on your own a bit problematic, but it can be done.

carolyn

I think London Walks has a Westminster Abbey tour. Look at walks.com

ssander

Instead of the changing of the guard at Buckingham, try to time your walk up Whitehall (from Westminster to Trafalgar) to see the Horse Guards...you can be really close, usually without big crowds...but horses bite, so don't get too close.

http://www.visitlondon.com/things-to...tpZ3OKVAsik.97

I also liked the Churchill War Rooms a lot...maybe not for a first-timer with only five days, unless you are a WWII buff, in which case it is a must-see. You should investigate it, though before you make your decision:

http://www.iwm.org.uk/visits/churchill-war-rooms

ssander