HallieA

I've been to both, London more than Paris.

Next Winter I'd like to take an 8 night trip with my husband. (We can't swing 2 weeks.) He's never been to either. He loves Guiness and pubs -- am I answering my own question? He may surprise me, but I think he'd be more comfortable in London.

I love Paris.

8 nights seems wrong to me to split the time.

Which is your favorite city and why? Maybe you can help me decide.

Thanks for any responses at all!

laverendrye

Why not do both? Fly into London, spend four or five days there, take the Eurostar to Paris and fly home from Paris on an open-jaw ticket.(Or, if turns out cheaper, take the train back to London to return). Then you'll see which city you both prefer for future visits.

pj

Hello Hallie,

Personally I enjoy Paris more. The pound is so expensive, unfortunately the euro has lost ground {not as expensive as the pound!}
Flying into London is usually cheaper for me so I spend 2 or 3 days in London, take the Eurostar to Paris. Fly home out of London usually. The train is only 2 1/2 hours city center to city center.
It works for me, a little London a little more Paris! PJ

m_kingdom

I know you don't want to split your time, and whilst you could easily spend 8 nights in each city I would like to suggest the following rather hectic idea:

Take an early flight to London, spend four nights there - seeing the most important sites - museums, landmarks, etc. which I'm sure there are more than ample postings on in this forum.

Once your four nights in London are up, I'd suggest taking the Eurostar (for conveniences sake - so much less hassle than having to go to an airport, airport security, waiting, landing, baggage etc) to Paris spend your four nights there, once again lots and lots of ideas available here Then fly from Paris back to the US after a manic yet hopefully fascinating expereience.

adrienne

I vote for the entire 8 days in Paris. It's more exotic and more romantic and feels more like a "European" experience. London seems more like a large city than Paris does. He may surprise you and love Paris; he will certainly love your enthusiasm.

WillTravel

This goes against my hyper-planner inclinations, but it might be a possibility. Go to London. See how he likes it after 2 days. If he wants to stay the rest of the time in London, great.

If he wants to move on to Paris, you can quickly make bookings while in London (if you have 5 or so choices for a hotel, it's unlikely they would all be filled up, and make sure a couple of those are chain options). You will probably lose something in advance discounts for the Eurostar or low-budget airlines, but people in London make spur-of-the-moment trips to Paris all the time (in fact lastminute.com might assist you with getting a great deal).

That said, I would be perfectly happy with an 8-day trip to London as a first trip to Europe - very unintimidating and no shortage of things to see.

wondering

i say both as well- even if you just take the chunnel for a day trip...

janis

If your husband has not been to either I would do something like: 5 or 6 days in London and 2 or 3 in Paris. Both are terrific of course and either could easily fill your 8 days. London is larger, the tourist sites are more spread out, and it is more hectic. But it would be also be a good intro to Europe - get over the jet lag in more "familiar" surroundings.

Then take the Eurostar to Paris for 2 to 3 days. 90% of the tourist attractions in Paris are actually within walking distance of each other -- basically stretching from Bastille to the Eiffel Tower. So you can see a lot of Paris in a couple of days (3 would be better tho')

This way you can both be happy . . . .

uuhhhh

given your title for the thread, there's only one answer: rome.

isabel

Another vote for splitting the time. Eight nights is plenty for him to get a feel for both and not to really feel short changed. Especially since transportation between them is so quick and easy.

vacation03

me too - love the whole idea of taking a train for just 2.5 hours or so and being in another place in Europe!! Especially for the first time - why not split the time? He'll get a taste for both.....there will always be multiple visits to these places later on....

HallieA

Thanks for all the thoughtful replies.

My husband's thoughts on travel are usually to spend at least one week in a place in order to get a better feel for it. I should also mention we are diehard budget travelers.

However, I can sure see the wisdom of doing both and having taken Eurostar myself, I know how easy it is.

I think it boils down to my heart is more in Paris but I think he'd like London better.

Thanks for the thoughts. They really help! I love decisions like these!

martytravels

Agree with splitting. Two of the world's greatest cities are an easy combined trip. I would never vist one without going to the other! (And tack Amsterdam on to the end of it.)

Maureen

Paris would be my choice and we have traveled to many countries--second choice Rome.
Paris is a very beautiful city with wonderful museums and cafes. We loved to walk everywhere and stop along the way. The underground is easy to use and we were able to get around with no problem. At night Paris is really magical when it is lit up.
We loved the neighborhoods of Montparnasse in Paris where we stayed at the Hotel Modigliani.
If you do go to London don't miss the British Museum.

ben_haines_london

I agree: split it.

[email protected]

ira

Hi Hallie,

If you are budget travelers and hubby likes to stay at least a week in one place, the answer is Paris.

It is much less expensive than London.
Also, everyone should see Paris before they die. Think how disappointed he would be if he goes to London and doesn't make it to Paris.

You can get Guiness in Paris.

Rome is an excellent suggestion if you can't decide.

reddattitude

I agree with splitting it as well. Four days in each would give you a nice taste of both, and ample time to see the sights. I loved London, and am an avid reader of english history. So I found it fascinating to see the places that I read so much about. Just got back from Paris and LOVED it even more. It's such a beautiful city! I would do both, but if you are determined not to, then I'd pick Paris! Have fun!

easytraveler

Another vote for splitting.

But, go to Paris first and spend the second four days in London. Last night in London, spend it in a London pub.

If he really ends up not liking Paris (HOW could he do that? but just supposing...), then you end the trip on a happy note.

Stay in B&Bs. 30 euros per person should get you good accommodations with at least a European breakfast thrown in.

Both are great cities! Enjoy your trip!

HallieA

Fodors: There's a lot of wisdom here. Sorry if I'm beating a dead horse.

My problem with splitting two cities is
1. Can't afford open jaw when such good r/t fares go on sale.

2. Two way Eurostar pretty much eats up the better part of two days on a very short journey. And sure, it's easy for Brits to get on the train to Paris, but after the jet lag from the West Coast of US...

I could still be convinced, however, rereading these responses.

I was interested to read there were no responders who answered all London as there were some who answered all Paris! Hmmm. London lovers?

I know of a few cheap places to stay in Paris(one self-catering). London: a little dicier. Perhaps there is something, though. And the museums are free there.

Maybe I should think out of the box and go to Edinburgh or Dublin for that draught Guiness.

Any other thoughts?

WillTravel

HallieA, I'd certainly be willing to suggest all London. I went for 10 or 11 days and had no problem filling the time at all.