This is my first post here! Hoping to get some advice on my next trip to Europe.

My husband and I will be flying into London and then we planned to take the Eurostar to Paris and then take an easyjet flight to Prague for the remaining part of the trip.

I have been to all 3 places and this will be my third time to Paris. I love that city. A part of me wants to go somewhere new so Rome comes to mind...

My husband is more sold on going to Paris as this will be his second time and he really likes it there.

However, both of us havent been to Rome before.

That being said - should we go to Rome instead of Paris?

Or should we go back to Paris where we know we already love it there. I just don't want to feel like I'm not exploring as much as we should. Rome is always one of those "must see" places in my eyes.

Any advice appreciated!

Do what makes you happy.

Personally, given a choice I will always pick the place I haven't been to before. But you are not me, and there is no rulebook that says you have do things in a particular way.

The last couple of trips, we've done a combination of new places and "old" places; that seems to work well for us. And I try to schedule the old place for the end of the trip.

Why not skip London completely? Fly to Rome, explore, fly to Paris, finish with place you love.

Thank you for the response everyone!
We already purchased our flights to London because we got an AMAZING deal on airfare there

I also like doing a combination of new and old places. London & Prague will be brand new to my husband, whereas I've been to those places... thats why Rome is kind of on the mind. I definitely don't want to skip out on Prague since it was many years since I was last there and I really want to explore more.

hi bellaneige,

what a lovely dilemma to have!

personally i would lean towards Rome, though I love Paris.

for reasons I now find it difficult to remember, i avoided Rome until a was about 50. what a mistake. just loved every minute we spent there. it is a fantastically vibrant place, with enough to fill my next 50 years.

go now, and try it. After all, if you don't, you can go back to paris next time, can't you?

You have been to Paris, France add something new to you bucket list...GO TO ROMA,ITALY

I guess my dilemma now is that I don't want to add too much to the itinerary. Our flight is into London and then out of Amsterdam... good flight deal plus I spent over a year in Amsterdam so I am familiar.

We booked them before we really planned most of our trip, as we'll have fun no matter what we do.

It would be:

2 nights London - we'll be jet lagged, so time to recoup, relax and see some sights

4 nights Paris/or Rome??

5 nights Prague

2 nights Amsterdam

Is this TOO MUCH?

I don't want to be rushed...
and I feel if we do the Rome thing, then 4 nights won't be long enough since we've never been there before.

Bellaneige,

4 nights in rome is better than nothing; 5 would be better, but 2 nights in London, especially when jetlagged, is definitely shortchanging it. as you know Amsterdam very well, and Prague is nothing like as big as London, can i suggest the following "tweaks"?

4 nights London - we'll be jet lagged, so time to recoup, relax and see some sights

5 nights Rome

3 nights Prague

1 nights Amsterdam

this gives you time to relax and recoup in London, just about enough time in Rome to get to grips with it, and more than a glimpse of Prague.

I think I'd stick with Paris and make Rome a separate trip. There are so many things to see and re-visit in Paris. I haven't been to Prague but other posters could suggest whether to drop a night from Paris and add it to Prague.

Make a full trip to Rome and Italy.

Thank you everyone for all the great feedback!

@ annhig - love your suggestions on the itinerary. I know 2 nights in London doesn't give it justice, it's just that I've been there before and am more interested to spend more time in the other areas.

I feel really fine with 2 nights there at the beginning.

My main question is the last leg of the trip. Since Prague isn't really in the direction of Rome, thats why I am so uncertain

It almost makes more sense to do London - Paris - Rome - then Amsterdam

Haha I know this is a lovely dillema to have!

My main question is the last leg of the trip. Since Prague isn't really in the direction of Rome, thats why I am so uncertain >>

Bella - since you are flying, whether somewhere is in the direction of another place is really irrelevant, it's the convenience of the connections that counts, that and wanting to go there of course!

the question is, do you want to go to Prague more than Paris or Rome?

if no, then you can adapt your itinerary thus:

2 nights London - [noting that you've been there before, but has your DH?]

Day 3 -take eurostar to Paris

5 nights - Paris

5 nights Rome

1 night Amsterdam

Fly home.

if you fancied getting the train to Rome as well, here's the link to the german rail website, which many people think is the best to get international timetables and routes.

http://reiseauskunft.bahn.de/bin/que...&rt=1&OK#focus

you can get there by rail in around 12 hours, more or less - alright the plane may be quicker, but by the time you've got to and from airports, queued for security, been delayed, waited for luggage, etc. the train starts to look more sttartcive. plus how often do you get the chance to do a long train journey through France and across the alps? if you timed it properly, you could spend a whole day sightseeing!

just a thought!

also, with those length stays, you could think abotu apartments in Paris and Rome - more space for less!