Versailles
 

Should we take a our of Versailles since it may also include a ticket which would avoid the lines???

That would depend on the season.

But if you buy your ticket ahead of time, you skip most of the line anyway -- but everybody without exception still has to go through the security line.

I'll offer a contrarian view: Don't go at all! I found Versailles so offensively extravagant that I left before completing my tour of the palace. All it did, for me, was to demonstrate how truly out-of-touch the royals were with their subjects.

There's so much else to see and enjoy in /around Paris!

JMO.

I'll offer a contrarian view: Don't go at all! I found Versailles so offensively extravagant that I left before completing my tour of the palace. All it did, for me, was to demonstrate how truly out-of-touch the royals were with their subjects.>>

well, kja, if you take that view it's going to rule out a lot of places - most of Vienna, a lot of London, [and a lot of the UK come to that], most churches except the most simple - where do you draw the line?

I do know how you feel, kja. I had to visit Versailles numerous times when I was a tour guide, but I would never go willingly on my own again. The worst offender in the offensive extravagance in Europe category, though, IMO is the Vatican Museums. It makes my skin crawl to see their collections of things that could probably save a few countries from ruin. Been there twice and found it almost unbearable. Never again. OTOH, I'm not sure that all visitors even know what they're seeing or understand the import of it.

As annhig says, though, such an attitude does rule out a whole lot of "attractions" all over the world.

Hmm, my candidate for top of the offensive extravagance list is St. Peter's. Walk in there, and you understand why the Pope might think he is the mouthpiece of God (I exempt the current incumbent). Of course, in Russia I wound up wondering why the Revolution took so long. But that doesn't mean I can't appreciate the work of the artists and craftsmen, however misdirected (although I do burn out quickly on baroque).

It's not unique to Europe, either. In Thailand I was appalled by all the gold leaf on the statues in the temples, and the alms for the monks, provided by people living in poor conditions. It reminded me very much of the medieval cathedrals.

When I can, I like to take the same method of transportation that the people contemporary to the place I'm visiting took, so boat to Hampton Court (can you still do that?) or Grenwich from London. In that vein, I think about how the trip from Paris to Versailles used to look, and how approaching by train feels so assembly line. Think about it, we get to Disneyland Paris and Versailles from Paris each by a short train ride.

However, there is a Vespa touring service, which, if you ride scooters, will deliver you, via scooter, to Versailles. No, Marie Antoinette probably didn't ride a scooter (although the image of her with a helmet and all that hair is a fun one!) but the scooter rides on back roads, the closest thing we have to the roads of yore.

Likewise, in warmer weather, one might consider riding one's bike to Versailles.

As for tour -- it's not necessary, but if you're the kind of person who just wants someone to point out "highlights" (and to define those highlights for you) then by all means, there are a gazillion. Can't recommend any one specifically.

When I can, I like to take the same method of transportation that the people contemporary to the place I'm visiting took, so boat to Hampton Court (can you still do that?) or Grenwich from London.>>

absthegal - yes you can take the boat to Hampton Court, but it takes quite a long time so it's a good idea to take the train one way at least. Ditto Greenwich.

But if we want to be strictly accurate, when these places were built, in the times they would have very different boats with sails and/oroars, and it would have taken a lot longer than most tourists have got. Alternatively people would have ridden horses, gone in coaches or walked.

One can take these things too far.

[and my typing skills seem to have let me down, but I think you get my drift]

If you take the tour marked "The King's Private Apartments" and others of that nature, you will see things that the crowds don't get to see.
You start out with the tour at an organized meeting point which is clearly marked - but everybody has to go through Security, first - then after the tour, you can go back at your leisure to see the rest of the interior of Versailles and the grounds.

YOu don't avoid a place because it is extravagant presuming your reason for going is not for decorating tips for you own home. You go because you are interested in the history of the place -- presumably. Refusing to see Versailles doesn't change the fact that it exists and was the residence of the king and queen. In fact, that is really a bizarre position because viewing it might help you understand history and the French Revolution better.

I really don't understand the attitudes expressed above by those who think refusing to view history makes it disappear or think it helps them understand a country better.

I suppose I should refuse to go to places where women were in harems and enslaved (like the Alhambra in Granada) or the pyramids in Egypt which were built by slave labor because I consider those things immoral.

"YOu don't avoid a place because it is extravagant presuming your reason for going is not for decorating tips for you own home."

Our first couple elect seem to have done just that. And maybe he has a less egalitarian title than president in mind.

Are you also doing major museums in Paris - if so look at the Paris Museum Card which also gives you free and priority entrance at Versailles I believe.

don't forget the vast park behind the palace - especially Le Hameau where Marie-Antoinette allegedly played peasant farmer.

"don't forget the vast park behind the palace..."

Also depending on season, the little visited Potager du Roi: http://www.paristoversailles.com/potager-du-roi/

<i> I found Versailles so offensively extravagant that I left before completing my tour of the palace.</i>

Anyone interested in technological development will generally have to look at implements of war (guns, armor, warships, etc.) before the 19th century, at which point the Industrial Revolution had an important civilian component. I suspect that paintings and sculpture were an extravagance. If interested in the decorative arts, it is difficult to avoid castles and palaces--and why should the local lord's living style not be considered as extravagant and offensive vis-à-vis his local subjects as the king of France relative to the country as a whole?

I found Versailles so offensively extravagant that I left before completing my tour of the palace.>

this is what wows most folks - the excessive extravagance of kings -no wonder the royal couple lost their heads.

this is what wows most folks - the excessive extravagance of kings -no wonder the royal couple lost their heads.>>

a different royal couple, Pal.

You may also check to see if the Paris metro/RER still offers their train + palace admission combo ticket.

<i>a different royal couple</i>

They also lived there--think of Le Hameau where Antoinette could play sherperdess--and were probably as extravagant as Louis XIV.

The Versailles guides, ime, offer much more than highlights. I found them to have a wealth of knowledge and willingness to answer questions, no matter how inane. They also have access to parts of Versailles not open to self tours.

Am referring to the licensed guides you can hire on site.