londonengland

Can't help noticing that so many posts in the UK section are just about London. Now I know most transatlantic flights and flights from other countries arrive in London but it seems sad that visitors just seem to focus on London and not on the other parts of the United Kingdom which some might feel may give them more of a real flavour of the British way of life.

I'm not knocking London which is my home and a fantastic cosmopolitan and exciting city - it just seems disappointing that the only bit of the countryside they see is en route to Gatwick airport.

Tallulah

As someone who went to school in Canterbury (in fact my old school is in the grounds of the Cathedral), I can assure you that PLENTY of visitors get out of London! We had a ridiculous uniform and could barely walk out of a building without being made to pose for photos..!

Patrick

I think it's too bad you posted this without reading the actual threads. I constantly see posts about day trips out of London, various posts about Scotland and Wales, and even Northern Ireland, and tons of questions about how to get to Bath, Brighton, Salisbury, well -- you name it!
If you're saying more people are into London than the countryside well, duh, yes! Just like you'll find a whole lot more posts about New York City than about Albany, New York, and of course, thousands more about Rome or Paris than about Bari or Marseilles. That's just the way it is.

flanneruk

But why should they be interested in the British way of life? And why is life in Gloucestershire or Durham any more a "real flavour" of it than London?

London is a world-class city. IMHO, THE 21st century city, though New York sometimes comes reasonably close. The rest of Britain, however idyllic some bits of London's hinterland (=anywhere within a 90 min trainride), is at best nice. It can't even begin to compare with Europe's second division cities, like Rome and Paris, with the glories of provincial Italy, or the scenery of Continental Europe's mountains and coasts.

Britain is, beyond debate, the best place in the world to live, and has made a more benign contribution to the world than any state in history. But that doesn't make York remotely as interesting to visit as Florenvce or Venice.

P_M

I understand where you are coming from, I sometimes talk to Europeans who have been only to NYC and they think they've seen America. NYC is a fascinating place with a lot to offer, but there's much more to the US than that.

On all of my trips to London I have spent at least a couple of days going outside the city. I have a trip planned for May where we will spend the entire 2 weeks travelling around the UK. We will fly in and out of London, but not spend any time there. Don't get me wrong, we LOVE London, but we have been there many times and would like to see other parts of the country.

mamc

Rome and Paris are "second division" cities?

Patrick

Oh, and just for the record I just counted the top 50 threads for posts about the UK. Five are specifically about London -- various topics such as hotels and theatre tickets. But there are 3 posts about Sheffield, Day trips from London, and Cambridge. There's a lot of difference between 5 out 8 and 9 out of 10.

degas

londonengland, please make suggestions for wonderful new places we might visit and get out of our tired old rut.

Does anyone know what places outside of London get the most visitors?

Tallulah

P_M: Interesting that you should make that point about NYC as it's probably the most obvious choice of somewhere to visit in the States but I've never been. The reason is quite simply that I live in a huge, cosmopolitan city (ie. London) so don't really want to spend my holidays in another huge, cosmopolitan city. So I go elsewhere where it is different.

I think therefore that it is worth seeing elsewhere as the big cities aren't always representative of the country as a whole. Having said that, there's SO much to do here (history, galleries, theatre blah blah) that you could easily get bogged down and not manage to get out of the place!

londonengland

OK Patrick I'll agree that 9 out of 10 is a slight exaggeration but I still think you'll find that most of the posts are just about London.

London is a world-class city but I don't think it is entirely representative of a nation anymore than NYC is of the US or Paris is of France.

I'm just interested to know why many tourists feel they've "done" the UK by visiting London.

The countryside may be dull in parts but wouldn't the opportunity to escape the madcap pace of London make it feel more of a rounded experience?

Degas - I'm not sure I can offer any new sights but I would strongly recommend areas such as Devon and Cornwall, the Highlands of Scotland, East Anglia, the Welsh borders and North Wales as giving a really different picture of Britain.

obxgirl

>I'm just interested to know why many tourists feel they've "done" the UK by visiting London.<

This is entirely your interpretation. And an incorrect one at that.

ira

>Britain is, beyond debate, the best place in the world to live,...<

Somehow, I believe that this premise can be debated.

tcreath

I agree with Patrick. I always see posts from those planning daytrips from London or exploring the Brittish countryside. Sure, there are a lot of posts about London, but there are a lot of posts about Paris and Rome too. That doesn't mean that people don't venture outside of these cities.

My husband and I visited London for the first time a few years ago, and I do have to admit that, while London was fabulous, we fell in love with the countryside. We drove from London to Cardiff, driving mainly on small roads, and thought the scenery was beautiful and very peaceful.

Dr_DoGood

Ira - your understatement does you credit.

I'd like to start the debate on Flanner's assertion that "[Britain] has made a more benign contribution to the world than any state in history."

- however, I don't think this forum is the place!

Dr D.

ira

I'm planning my first trip to Europe. I relize that this is a whirlwind tour, but I really want to see as much as possible of the real Europe, as it may be a long time before I get their again.

Please comment on this itinerary:

Day 1 fly into Manchester
Day 2 Manchester
Day 3 train to Leeds
Day 4 train to Rotherham
Day 5 train to Manchester and fly to
La Rochelle via Southhampton
Day 6 La Rochelle
Day 7 Rent a car and tour through France and Italy stopping at Gueret, Lyon, Grenoble, and Turin.
Day 12 See Turin
Day 13 Train to Milan
Day 14 Return home

Patrick

There's another way to look at this issue.

When someone is going to the UK and staying in London, but also going to other towns or areas, they really don't need to ask the questions here about those other places. Most feel confident having looked at a guide book about where to stay in Bath or what to see there, or they have already found a delightful place in the Cotswalds, or they have already copied down a good itinerary for seeing the sights of Canterbury. But when it comes to London, it's all so big and overwhelming. They are confused about the transportation issues or where to stay out of so many possible choices, all too expensive. Or they can't figure out the best of the ten different sources for buying theatre tickets and can't decide which of the dozens of shows to see. So naturally they will have more questions about London than Canterbury or Bath, for instance. Also don't forget that a great many of the London questions are really about plane tickets there (which are just as much about plane tickets to the UK generally, since most of us NEED to fly into London from here), or about transportation issues once they arrive in London, but those issues don't mean they aren't also going on to other towns or areas. It is easier to find out how to take a train to Oxford than it is to figure out which way to get from Heathrow to central London, so naturally there will be more questions about the latter.

But I'll also still say, London WILL attract more visitors than any other individual town in the UK, and if you don't get that, you probably don't get what travel is all about to the average person.

Tallulah

Dr_DoGood:

Hmm.... well I guess that the Ancient Greeks and the Romans made a pretty good contribution....

But in modern terms, we did manage to lead the world with regard to industry. So if by '..benign contribution..' we are talking about pollution and the residual negative impact that has had, wouldn't '..malignant..' be a better term?

Actually I think that Britain has contributed a great deal but, as you say, this isn't the place to debate it.

JN

Ira--funny response. Made me think of a similar journey to the US:
Day 1 fly into Pittsburgh
Day 2 bus to Puxatawney
Day 3 Rent car to St Louis to see bowling museum
Day 4 Explore St Lois suburb of St. Charles
Day 5 Drive to Memphis to get feel for the south
Day 6 Visit Fed Ex museum
Day 7 Drive through Nashville, eating at Waffle House and visiting Grand Old Opry and sleeping in the car at a rest stop.
Day 12 Drive to Cincinnati, take in baseball game unless team is out of town
Day 13 Drive to Pittsburgh
Day 14 Return home

crefloors

Interesting thread. I have been to London twice. First time on a tour and only really had two and a half days. Saw the usual sites and then had to move on. Was there again a couple of years ago with brother and SIL..was there a week, saw a little more but still not enough..my SIL has very bad arthritis in her knees so walking or standing for any length of time is difficult so that cut down on a lot of what I would have liked to do. My brother and I are hoping to go for 10 -14 days next fall without my SIL and so I have a lot more things on my list, including some day trips that we couldn't do with her. Then I think at that point on a return trip to the UK and areas about...I will NOT stay in London and move on to perhaps Scotland and Wales or Ireland...to see other parts of the area. There is just so much in London and vicinity, and I really LOVE London, but with limited time and $, after this next trip it will be time to move on I think. Of course I would think that first time visitors would certainly do London and there are a lot of first time visitors asking questions on the board, so maybe that's what makes the numbers look scewed in favor of London.

m_kingdom2

I live in London, and only occasionally do I take a countryside break, but that's because all it involves for me is a relatively short drive. If one is flying in transatlantic, and doesn't want to rent a car, the other attractions become more expensive and their lure pales into insignificance with the endless amusements of London.

The Cotswolds/Constable country (suffolk)/Cornwall are all beautiful, but some people prefer city breaks. If I was travelling from overseas, I wouldn't want to rely on British weather for a beach holiday. Also, hotels in the UK are usually of a poor standard of cuisine and hospitality unless you pay an high price for it. In Spain, you can stay in a fabulous property for 150GBP per night - this gets you a dull, (and often) dirty four star Hilton here.