We're headed back to London in mid-November to visit our son studying there, and we have three nights to spend either in Edinburgh (not considering the sleeper train) or Bruges - either will be a first time visit. My husband prefers Edinburgh and son wants Bruges. I'm the tiebreaker and I'm torn. Opinions? Thank you.

Brugge! I've been to both places twice but I would choose Brugge because the food, scenery, and architecture will be very different from what you see in the UK. The people are lovely and there is enough to do in Brugge for a couple of days. You could take a short train ride to Antwerp or Ghent if you have a 3rd day in Belgium.

Ditto to Adrienne. Bruges hands down.

Edinburgh!!! (though Brgge would be fine too IME)

But Edinburgh is just magical w/ the castle looming over the whole city, the Royal Mile, etc.

Food the nod goes to Brugge -- but there are some really terrific restaurants in Edinburgh too. But for sightseeing and atmosphere - Edinburgh.

Edinburgh is <i>nothing</i> like anything you'd see in London.

Edinburgh - no question!

Flip a coin; you can't go wrong.

Edinburgh.

Brugge no contest!

Thank you for all your responses! What fun to read them. We all couldn't decide either so we flipped a coin as per Viajero2 (cool screen name by the way) and Bruges won! We definitely will find our way to Edinburgh since we'll be visiting London again and again. Plus I promised my husband it'll definitely be Edinburgh next time.

Three nights is too long in Edinburg,IMHO. Glad Bruges won the coin toss.
Now , go rent the movie "In Bruges" (-; (It's avail via Netflix) An interesting film, set entirely in the city.

We've seen the movie "In Bruges" and that actually what sparked our interest a few years ago.

Bruges will be wonderful . . . But honestly, to say "<i>Three nights is too long in Edinburg</i>" is just weird IMHO.

But then maybe you really did mean Edinburg (as in Texas) and not Edinburg<B><blue>h</B></blue> Scotland . . . .

yes Janis, i meant Edinburg, Texas.

Three days is too long in either, so i'm wierd, in your humble opinion

I've spent weeks in Edinburgh (not all at one time unfortunately) and still haven't see it all. So honestly can't see how 3 days could be too much. But perhaps if you just mean the Castle and Royal Mile and maybe one museum . . . .

Sounds like you just aren't "into" Scotland . . .

Different strokes.

Been to both Bruges no question.

janisj-- you need to take a Chill Pill. You always seems to have organisms going up higher positions of your anatomy; an uncomfortable feeling no doubt, but no reason to take it on nice posters.....

janisj - agree with you about Edinburgh! We were there last
year for 4 days and I'd love to go back.

Great choice. And you have so many other interesting places to visit (Ghent, Ypres/Ieper, etc) an easy train ride away.

I didn't find anything particularly troublesome about janis' posts. She thinks Edinburgh is worth at least 3 days, CaliNurse doesn't, so different strokes. What's wrong with that? People have different interests and travel styles.

Anyway - I think Bruges is an excellent choice and 3 days there is great. We had 2.5 days there and loved it. We didn't take any day trips except a bike ride to De Haan(inclement weather) but we had come from Brussels, which was an easy trip and when we left we travelled through Antwerp, which was also an easy trip. The trains in Belgium are very easy.

I think three nights IN Bruges is too long