Madam Tussauds
 

What do most people think about Madam Tussauds? Is it a complete waste of time fighting the hordes of tourists who are scrambling to get a picture next to the wax figures? Or is it worthwhile to say been there done that?

I know you can get the 2 for 1 tickets if you have a paper travel card so at least it would be half price. However, how long are the lines to get in? What is the best and worst time to go? Is it worth it to go at all?

I don't see how it could possibly be worth the time taken away from all there is to do in London. I mean, wax statues?

Plus I read that people push and shove others out of the way to get their picture taken with the wax figures. Doesn't sound appealing especially if you have to wait 1-2 hours for the privilege. But, others talk about it and say it is something to see.

I've lived in London for more than two years, visited a half dozen times before I moved here, and have never had the vaguest desire to go to Tussauds...

There's a "branch office" of Madame Tussauds in Victoria BC which I have been to - not as crowded but the same statues - not worth the lower cost of admission.

Having said that, based on the crowds that DO go, it must be appealing to many...

If I remember correctly the tour groups go in first, and the plebes line-up. I've seen some long line-ups. When I went, it was somewhat OK, but I did not 'get it', if there was not a sign I would not have recognized a lot of them.

As such, I'd say if you are going to go, be there for opening.

I think you can buy a "VIP" ticket that lets you queue jump.

You can certainly buy a ticket that combines Tussauds, the London Dungeon and the London Eye for much less than the cost of paying for each individually.

But, honestly, why bother?

It is a standing joke that no Londoner has ever been to Tussauds - and like all stereotypes it has it's roots in truth.

I haven't been since I was a kid.

I simply don;t get it. Even for kids there should be more interesting things to do. And for adults - a complee waste of time - and standing on a hideously long line to see what?

OK - you don't have to queue at all. If you buy your tix from one of the nearby ticket sellers (where they also handle tix for the H-o-H-o buses) - you can walk right in. But my guess is using the 2-for-1 vouchers, you <u>would</u> have to wait in the long LONG line because you have to exchange the voucher and show the paper travel card for your admission. So using the 2-for-1 would save ££ but cost a lot of time. The queue can be hundreds long - around the block.

Most who say don't go haven't been. However -- I would never <B>EVER</B> recommend a first or second time visitor spend the time or money going to Mme Tussauds. It actually isn't as dire as some warn - and IF one got it on a slightly less crowded day it can be lots of fun. I've been (I think) 4 times - in 4 different decades and it is interesting to see the changes in who/what is famous now compared to years ago.

But don't waste the time/money until you have seen most of the other major sites in London.

Janis says what I was trying to say.

Tussauds could be anywhere in the world. There's nothing british about waxworks so why come here to see them?

If it was a fiver and it kept the kids quiet - fair enough, but I think it's about £60 for a family - ie $100.

If you can't think of better ideas ask here - you'll get lots of good ideas.

For God's sake I could scare your kids to death on a trek for £60. (this is not an offer BTW). London Walks will do it for about £5 a head.

What on earth is the point?

When the place started, London had loads of "attractions" like this: pictures, re-enactments or models of famous events or people. But that was over 200 years ago.

Now we can all see these celebrities in hundreds of different ways. So what on earth are those people all queueing up to do? If they want a picture of yourself with a rap star, wouldn't it be quicker to learn Photoshop?

FWIW, one of the many advantages of a provincial upbringing is never having been taken to Tussauds as a child. And there are literally thousands of higher priorities to take visitors to these days.

So I've never been. What - apart from a queue - have I missed?

You, flanner, as usual have missed a lot - i went to Madame 'Too-sods' the first time i went to London and a few times after - yup it may not be so unique now with so many clones - both by the Tussauds group (owner also of the Eye Over London Ferris Wheel i think) but it is still the original Madame Tussauds, linked with the real Madame who made casts of folks heads after their were beheaded in Paris.

Now if you have kids then it would be huge for them - the younger the better perhaps.

Anyway it's just one of those oddities - a fun place everytime i've be there. The London Planetarium housed next door would also appeal to kids and families - also owned by Tussauds Group.

And for the bit about no Brits being there there always have been a fair number when i have been there - and many of the waxed figures are more of interest to Brits than foreigners - like soccer stars and royal family, etc.

But it is very expensive these days.

The London Dungeon is said to be London's top paid tourist attraction - so these things do have appeal, though not to the upper crust folks with raised noses like those who inhabit Fodors for the most part.

I kind of agree with janisj too.

Years ago when I visited Tussauds I liked seeing the historical figures: Henry VIII and his six wives, the original wax portraits modelled by Madame Tussaud herself -from life - of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, as well as other famous people like Samuel Pepys. Some of the likenesses were really quite good. I wonder if they still have the "breathing", reclining Madame Dubarry on display; it was rather cool. Of course, portraits interest me so I can appreciate this sort of thing anyway.

But after having seen all that already, I'd probably give it a pass next time I visit London.

As for the London Dungeon, I would give it a pass unless torture is your thing and you have a very strong stomach.

When my daughter was in college we spent a few days in London and Madame Tussaud's was one of the things on her must-see list. It had figured in some books she had read; at the time her tastes ran to horror, history, gothic romance, Shakespeare, and Star Trek. We arrived late in the day and there was no line; in fact I think we paid less than full admission because it was after a certain hour. It was March, so not high season.

We both had fun. During the same three night visit, we saw a production of Shakespeare's All's Well That Ends Well with Judi Dench, a great Pirates of Penzance, Westminster Abbey, the Tower of London, and the British Museum. But I still like the pictures I took of my daughter with Jean-Luc Picard and Will Shakespeare.

For my first trip to London I had Tussauds flagged as a "must see," but I was wrong. I don't even count it as a "been there, done that" kind of thing to brag about -- more of a waste of time. There was a line, but the wait wasn't so bad. I just kind of breezed through because what was on display (mostly pseudo-celebrities these days) was ho-hum and there were just hoards of people groping the statues, and taking photos and, basically, acting like kids on a school field trip. There are SO many other worthwhile things to see in do in London...

As always, thanks everyone.

I think on the day we want to be near Regent's Park, I will take the 2 for 1 vouchers with us and check the line. If there is no line (highly unlikely) or a little wait then we might go for it just to see what it is all about. However, if the line is long, then we will skip it altogether because not worth the effort to stand on line to see wax figures. I'll let you know what we end up doing in my trip report.

I'm pretty sure the Planetarium is closed.

And Flanneur - did you never go to the waxworks in Blackpool? I thought that was compulsory for all kestrel stranglers.

"compulsory for all kestrel stranglers"

Southerners just can't understand the subtleties of the real world.

Lancastrians went to Blackpool for holidays. Proud citizens of the Scouse Republic are essentially Celts, and weren't, aren't and never will be, Lancastrians.

Before Ryanair made getting to Cyprus cheaper than a train to Lancashire, we holidayed in the other autonomous Celtic statelets: in our North Welsh seaside suburbs (aka LlanChernobyl on Sea), the Isle of Man or the more charm-bypassed Dublin resorts.

Blackpool was strictly for nightime chara trips to see the Lights. Where any spare cash was spent in Yates's before it got tarted up (or on a packet of crisps for us kids left on the chara while everyone else was in Yates's): not in gawping at wax models.

>>Lancastrians went to Blackpool for holidays<<

<i>There's a famous seaside place called Blackpool,
That's noted for fresh air and fun,..
..........
They didn't think much to the Ocean:
The waves, they was fiddlin' and small,
There was no wrecks and nobody drownded,
Fact, nothing to laugh at at all.</i>

http://ingeb.org/songs/albertan.html

I read in some guidebook that the planetarium is closed as well.

However, the Royal Observatory in Greenwich is still open. We hope to go there on a different day than the Regent's Park day.

I am getting a good education from the fun banter on these boards. It is fun.

Okay - have to admit - we had a good time at Madame Tussuads, but we were with our kids. It was one of those things that they really wanted to see and my husband REALLY didn't, but as it turns out it was a fun few hours and something different from the other sights we saw on our trip. The "english" part of it was yes, getting my son's picture with Lord Baden-Powell (founder of Boy Scouts), the James Bond actors, etc. Having said that, even for my kids it ended up being something more along the lines of glad we did it once - their favorite London site was Westminster Abbey. And I see you mentioned Greenwich - my husband LOVED that and I was not as enthralled - but part of the fun of a family trip is doing things that different people want to do. Bottom line on Tussauds - If you don't have kids, skip it.

Thanks AtlTravelr. We do have a son age 10 and want to do things that he would enjoy. We will see how long the lines are. It doesn't appeal to any of us to wait for 1-2 hours just for seeing wax figures. However, if the lines are manageable then maybe.

Sadly the London London Planetarium was closed awhile ago, to make way for more rubbish. There is one in Greenwich, but the best equipped in the UK is at the Glasgow Science Centre.

http://www.glasgowsciencecentre.org/

All our British Fodor friends who disdain Madame Tussauds and claim to have never been there is redolent of the number who once here claimed they never watch Coronation Street- some saying they never ever had watched what is Britain's top TV show now for 40 years and running. And then they extrapolate this to say British folk never go to Tussauds, etc.

Having been going to Great Britain for the last 25 years I can say that It never entered my head to go to Madame Tussauds, watch Coronation Street or gone on the Eye. Nor Tate museum. I go to places I want to see and others are free to see what they want...to each their own. However, I really don't understand spending all that money to see purpose built amusement sites.

roger - i take it you never had small kids?

Young child...Yes. Took him to Disneyland and the like. Zoos, rides and the full exercise, fishing, surfing, pony rides and the like. However, when in Europe he liked the natural historic places. Tower of London, Brighton, Science museums, York and the Wall. Well you get my drift. I expect children to enjoy wax museums, but not on a trip to London

Also, as I recall I got tickets with a time stamp - we would NEVER have waited 1-2 hours for something like this. It may be different now, but I called once we were in London and got the "reservation". It was very crowded inside(summertime) but that ended up being part of the fun - watching what the other tourists were doing as well - very crowded yes, but good natured.

When our kids were younger they also liked the Tower of London and climbing to the top of St. Pauls. I especially liked the Churchill museum which opened only a few years ago in the War Rooms - by this time my son was 16 and he liked it too.

I should probably start a new thread, but what are your thoughts on Primrose Hill. It is near the top of Regent's Park not far from the zoo and seemingly not too far from Madam Tussauds if we end up there. Is the view something really special to make a special trip over there?

Well it’s a view over London that has been painted by all sorts including Constable and Canaletto. However it is just a view.

It is handy for Camden Market though – just walk down through Chalk Farm and there are a couple of very good pubs and restaurants there (and it’s crammed with famous people, so if you want to see real life rockstars rather than waxworks…If you want a great place to eat and hang out I like the Engineer).

Thanks, CW. We will keep it mind.

I also read in some guidebooks though not to hang out around the Regent's Park area up near Camden at night. Not that we will be there too late anyway but is it a relatively safe area to wander around? Just checking based on what I read.

If CW is not there it should be safe enough

By the way, I took a look at the Engineer Pub website and it does look quite good indeed.

As far as neighborhoods, if you have never been before, you don't know which blocks are relatively good and which ones you don't want to venture off into by mistake, especially when the guidebooks say avoid a certain nearby area at night etc. I think they were referring to the area near the canal near little venice though so not sure how that relates to the top of regent's park by Primrose Hill which is suppose to be a tony area but what do I know. That is why I ask the questions.

Our trip this June with our 13 year-old is her first and she has expressed a wish to see Madame Tussauds. This is my fifth and probably last trip for awhile and I have so many places that I haven't been to and want to show her that I'm hoping she will lost interest. We are taking her to the Tower, Greenwich and the London Eye. I can't wait to show her the Cast Courts and fashion exhibits at the Victoria and Albert.
I just can't see standing in line and spending any of our precious time at Tussauds. Still if it were a "must" see for her and she wanted to see it above all things I would seriously consider it.
We are watching a lot of travel videos, she is reading a book about the Tower, and we just saw "Young Victoria," and she loved it, so hopefully faced with so many choices Tussauds will not be one of them. I'd rather spend more time at one of the parks having a picnic or window shopping at Selfridge's then jostling the crowds at a wax museum. If you think I'm a tough Mom and make choices based on what I just want you may be right; but if it were up to me the days would be full of museums and the night's filled with the West End, so the London Eye is a great concession from me. Still as I said the "Chamber of Horrors" could be in my future.
We'll just wait and see.

idesof, don't miss the Jewellery Gallery when you're at V&A. I'd bet she'd like it.

I also read in some guidebooks though not to hang out around the Regent's Park area up near Camden at night. Not that we will be there too late anyway but is it a relatively safe area to wander around? Just checking based on what I read.>>>

It's very dodgy indeed. But it's a bit misleading. The area in question is the Regents Park Canal - the bit by Camden Lock. Specifically the towpath under the bridge by The Lock Tavern and the Elephants Head (it's a pub, not a real elephant's head).

It's a huge drug market and it's also North London's biggest prostitution area (the two are obviously linked). I didn't like going there even in uniform (many years ago many many yers ago many many may years ago. Many many years. Many years).

Having said that - there really is no reason for you to be there. It's not on the way to or from anywhere.

But avoid it. In fact if you are out in Camden Town late at night don't really stray off the main street (which is where you would want to be anyway) as it gets very nasty very quickly. You could well bump into Amy Winehouse for a start!

Also don't hang around outside the tube station as it's a robbery hotspot.

CW - Stationed in Camden for many years.

As so often, CW is giving - perfectly accurately - one side of the story.

The other is at the trip report for Sunday May 3 2009 at http://www.fodors.com/community/euro...at-belated.cfm.

Frankly, the experience of this solitary 50 year old woman and friend along the Regent's Canal on a Sunday evening is a lot closer to most Londoners' experience than CW's description.

London hasn't really got "tony" neighbourhoods. However posh an area (and the north side of Regent's Park scores high), there's always some low income housing, or an obscure patch of land where drugs and sex can be sold, a few yards away.

The trick isn't - at least within central London - to worry about neighbourhoods. It's to avoid uncrowded, or unlit, areas once it starts getting at all dark, or after 9-ish in summer. But, almost always, the well-lit street ten yards away will be as safe as practically anywhere on the planet. It's also wise to be leery of places where lots of young people fall out of pubs around 10.30-11: not so much because you'll get into trouble but because you might get caught in the cross fire of missile or body fluids from the young people.

None of this affects the walk from Camden Town across Regents Park. Even walking the canal towpath you're probably in greater danger of falling in than of being attacked (drugs dealers generally attack each other or defaulting payers. Rarely prospective cash customers).

By all means avoid the specific places CW mentions. But avoid dark places anywhere else as well. And NEVER assume in London that a problem in one street means anything at all about safety 20 yards away. If anyone did, hardly anyone would live in London.

CW, perfectly correctly, knows where crime's more likely than elsewhere in London. What that knowledge can disguise is that crime almost anywhere in visitors' London is HIGHLY unlikely in the first place

Flanneur is of course right, as am I. How so?

Well…

Firstly remember that for professional reasons I know the underbelly of just about anywhere – someone says Mayfair and I think of toms in Shepherds Market not the Ritz.

But something to remember about Camden is this: There used to be a large drugs market in the area between the tube and Plender St market (mainly dope). The council and old bill finally pulled their fingers out and sorted it about six months ago.

What has happened is that the market has been displaced to the areas I mentioned. That area has always been a hive of class A dealing (mainly crack and smack). There’s no point in trying to rob junkies – they never have anything of value – but the sort of trendy young things who would buy a ten pound bag of draw have mobiles, ipods, and cash. So they are worth robbing. So they get robbed (and the robbers know the plod are just going to tell the victims that it’s their own stupid fault).

That’s why it’s dangerous. And at night it is bloody dangerous. During the day it’s OK but it represents a higher risk than most parts of London that tourist might find themselves in.

In general Camden is safe if you stay where the tourists would go – mainly the main street and the Stables. Go past the Hawley Arms at your peril!

BTW when I worked there a fisherman fished a penis out of the canal. We never found out who it belonged to.

Thanks for the inside information. As anywhere, if you are a local and familiar with an area, you know which blocks are usually fine and which ones to avoid. I appreciate the "heads up" no pun intended.

We are leaning against wax (We can visit the ones in NY and Washington which we haven't done yet--thought the original would be better but from popular opinion I guess it is not).

We are leaning more toward the Regent's Park itself if it is a nice day to see the Zoo, Queen Mary Rose Garden, possibly the Engineer for lunch etc.

Regent's Park is lovely. I wouldn't bother with the engineer as it's quite out of your way (the park is huge). Aim for the Baker St end and there's plenty of places (but very few pubs) there (and the Inner London Court Where I spend quite a lot of time).

The zoo? I don't know what you're expecting but all the big animals were moved out years ago. There's all sorts of creepy crawlies and slithery things (and the first Harry Potter was filmed in the reptile house) and plenty of small furry critters and some penguins that I think are wonderful. Also a porpentine that I sponsor called Spike. (he never writes, he never phones).

But if I were a kid I'd find it a bit disappointing, and it ain't cheap.

My son likes the creepy crawlies. We went to the bug zoo in Victoria Canada and he was the only one who volunteered to have the hissing cockroach crawl up his arm when everyone else took a step back. They have huge beetles there too.

He also ate a cricket at the San Diego Zoo along with a few other brave kids who went up there for either cricket or beetle larvae. Yuck! But he said it was crunchy. San Diego also has a facinating reptile house. I had more fun with the pandas.

At the Cincinnati Zoo they have a whole building dedicated to insects. He loved it. I couldn't wait to leave. For the big animals we have great zoos here in the states that we have been to and I agree the big animals need a lot of space. It is unfair for them to be cooped up in small cages and environments. The more land they allot that replicate a natural environment for the animal, the better. I read though that the London Zoo had a nice insect pavillon and a nice butterfly house so maybe we will go there to check it out for him. Not sure. It all depends on weather and if we have the stamina to make it from the bottom of the park to the top. I think we can take bus #274 from Baker St up to Primrose Hill per London Transport so that is an option too.