sherryll

Traveling to London for the first time & solo for 10 days. Trying to decide between The Kensington Close Hotel(in Kensington) and the Royal National(atRussell Square) Does anyone know either of these properties or have an opinion on either location?

SallyCanuck

Royal National is basic but clean; stayed there a few times; breakfast is (or was) a stale roll and tasteless oj delivered to your room but there's a greasy spoon further down the street for a good English breakfast.

The hotel is close to Russell Square tube (it's also on the street that the bus which was bombed last summer is on) and walking distance to train stations (with fast food outlets), the British Museum and more depending on if you're a walker.

It's a huge hotel - I think it was originally two; there's a pub on the main floor and a Chinese restaurant.

The airport bus stops nearby.

You could do worse than stay there.

nytraveler

IMHO - you could do worse that stay at the Royal National - but it would be hard. (We got stuck there for one night on a package to London - they had to give us a rebate - since they had promised moderate hotels - and this is tourist minus.)

SallyCanuck

It's part of the Imperial chain (http://www.imperialhotels.co.uk/imper.htm).

janisj

Well - I personally would not stay in a hotel for 10 days. I'd rent a studio flat. Lots more spece for less money and the added benefit of a kitchen/washer/dryer.

But if a hotel is what you want I would NOT stay at the Royal National. I'd probably go priceline and get a nicer hotel for less money.

charlesr19

I believe you'd like Kensington better. The Royal National isn't particularly close to anything except the British Museum, the staff doesn't much care what happens, and the hotel was chock full of people who stayed up all night drinking in the courtyard outside my window when I was there. The least favorite of the places I've stayed.