collage

Hello All,

we need your suggestion for places to visit in March 2018

it is me and my wife and another couple. Both the ladies will be pregnant around 6 Month ! ( vacation was booked long time before pregnancies )

We are flying into London and will only be staying there 2-3 days and then we need another close by destination where its relaxing and not hectic for the pregnant women.

we would like to do a little bit of sightseeing , enjoy food and relax !

We were thinking of Malta but can't really decide if there is another destination

any suggestions are welcome!

Thanks All

BigRuss

You're considering ADDING flights to Malta (and presumably back to London) for pregnant women? You're off your head.

Pregnancy is difficult enough, takeoffs and landings are horrendous for pregnant women - they're often prescribed antiemetic drugs that fight chemotherapy-induced nausea (like Zofran - get the generic) just so the preggos can make it through the pressure changes and elevation changes that accompany going up and down on the planes without unloading the contents of their digestive tracts all into the air sickness bags. And you're wanting to add to that load? Forget it.

Make a new plan for relaxing somewhere you can reach by train.

janisj

BigRuss is right . . . especially since you don't know how either lady will feel at that point into her pregnancy. Go somewhere in rural England by train or car - or possibly Paris. Forget about adding additional flights.

StCirq

Not to mention that Malta isn't exactly a "close by destination."

collage

Thanks for the feedback all.

that was a request by the women ! and you are right it is hard and hence the reason we are asking for suggestions.

where would be be able to go by train?

massimop

First of all, most women have no problem at all flying at 6 months pregnant. Of course your wives will want to consult with their doctors as their pregnancy progress, and they of course shouldn't fly if a personal physician says no, but I would ignore this overly alarmist advice in the initial responses. Some of what was said is just ridiculous.

Anyplace you go by train is not going to get you to warmer weather in quiet small towns for relaxation, if that's what your group wants, unless you spend hours and hours and hours on trains, changing trains as well.

It is very popular for Londoners to leave the UK for sunny relaxing breaks in winter. This website might give you some ideas.

https://www.theguardian.com/travel/winter-sun

PalenQ

where would be be able to go by train?>

From London Avignon area would be only about 5 hours with a change in Lille Europea - Eurostar from London there. www.eurostar.com for fares and booking. Avignon area would be warmer than much of Europe.

Train sources- www.seat61.com; www.budgeteuropetravel.com and www.ricksteves.com.

massimop

Just so you (and others finding this thread know), plane travel is just fine for most pregnant women, long haul and short haul (and often easier than other modes of transport).

http://www.mothering.com/forum/19-i-...-pregnant.html

That's an older thread but it was just the first that popped on on a Google search. You can find equally reassuring and more recent threads about flying while pregnant quite readily on the internet.

PalenQ

Better definitively sort out the pregnancy and flights issue first - trains really limit you from 'relaxing' places weatherwise at that time of year. Ask the pediatrician as perhaps all pregnancies are not the same?

janisj

>> pediatrician<<

Pediatrician?

StCirq

Of course not all pregnancies are the same. I traveled all over on planes and trains when I was pregnant, up to 8 months in one case. But that doesn't mean that some sense of caution isn't smart, not to mention consultations with doctors (and no, not pediatricians - that would be jumping the gun).

As a practical matter though, arriving on an overseas flight and spending 2-3 days in London with jetlag on top of the often-routine tiredness of a 6-month pregnancy, then jetting off to somewhere else before you're even acclimated, doesn't sound like the start of a relaxing trip to me. I'd probably opt to take the train to Cornwall and settle in there for some R&R.

collage

Thanks All for your comments and concerns.We appreciate it

We are actually coming from Toronto to London. Staying for 4 days and would like to to somewhere to get out money's worth .

I see cornwall as an option

Any other suggestions for getaways from London

Looks like most places would be around 14-18 degrees C

BigRuss

<<First of all, most women have no problem at all flying at 6 months pregnant. Of course your wives will want to consult with their doctors as their pregnancy progress, and they of course shouldn't fly if a personal physician says no, but I would ignore this overly alarmist advice in the initial responses. Some of what was said is just ridiculous.>>

This is among the most daft rejoinders I've seen yet. There is NOTHING in the "initial responses" that is alarmist. No one said the additional flights would cause problems for the baby or would endanger the health of the momma. That would be alarmist and incorrect. Saying that extra flights would cause discomfort due to nausea (without even mentioning the discomfort to the woman that comes from carrying a watermelon under her shirt and squeezing that into an economy seat) is reality, not alarmist.

Instead, the statements above acknowledged two consequences of pregnancy: (1) the hormonal changes that are necessary to a successful pregnancy (pregnant women and non-pregnant women have vastly different hormonal balances) and (2) the effects of flying upon the equilibrium of a pregnant woman whose hormonal balances have been altered by the parasitic creature within her.

The simple fact is that the pressure changes affect equilibrium
and cause severe nausea. The notion that "most women have no problem at all flying at 6 months pregnant" is an over-generalization that borders on arrant nonsense, and obviously is not commensurate with the personal experience of various posters (including certain men of uxorious nature).

If Massimop had actual facts to back up the statements, that would be a different matter.

PalenQ

Looks like most places would be around 14-18 degrees C>

Maybe but also wet - I'd fly if prudent to someplace really warm like Portugal, southern Spain, Italy or Greece.

massimop

yes, temps like that are very optimistic for Cornwall or most of the UK or France in March. If you plan to spend 5 hours+ traveling to another destination (unless you plan to fly to Cornwall), Faro in Portugal has a better chance of warmer temps (no gurantees on sunshine anywhere), and parts of Spain and Italy (and Malta was a good idea) -- those could be warmer -- unless you are only interested in land travel. (Greece can be cold with limited travel options if you are looking to land someplace and taxi to a hotel and be through with traveling on getting on with kicking back.

BigRuss,

Telling people that women are often prescribed chemotherapy anti-nausea drugs is needlessly alarmist. Most women don't find pregnancy "difficult enough" anyway. Many women travel by plane during pregnancy. Read the link I posted or ask a few people who've been pregnant.

collage

Thanks All

We went to Barcelona last year, prefer to do another country .

what areas in Italy would you suggest?

marvelousmouse

I like how stcirq put it. No, not all pregnancies are the same, but the last thing I would want to do after an international flight would be to get on another flight.

If you want somewhere warmer, skip London and just fly somewhere warmer to begin with.

Otherwise, I’d go to Paris or somewhere else in the UK. Or why not just stay in London. Have you been before? Because you could just take it really easy, stay at a very nice hotel, and sightsee at a relaxed pace. That would be my pick.

PalenQ

what areas in Italy would you suggest?>

Well since beaches are out in March do you want famous cities like Rome or country places. You could rent a villa in Tuscany with car to tool around or just slowly explore Rome.

Christina

YOu can relax anywhere, doesn't make any difference where you are. That is totally dependent on you and what you do. I can't think of a single place that forces anyone not to relax. If you just want to sit in a park all day and read or sit at a cafe for hours, you can do that in any place, for example. And if you choose a certain type of hotel with nice facilities, it can even be more relaxing (like a terrace with a pool in a hot area, but that doesn't work for this trip).

I agree with the London and Paris idea, just a few hours by train between them, that's pretty easy. As I said, you can relax anywhere, places can't make you be hectic. In Paris, you can easily just walk around a bit, sit in parks, and do nothing if that's your idea of relaxing. And Paris has amazing food, easy to just do nothing and have good food, if that's what you want. You can check out some of the wonderful food markets, also.

I'll admit if I want to relax, I just stay home, it's a lot cheaper and relaxing, but I get bored doing nothing for very long so won't pay to go other places to do nothing. But since you must go to London, I vote for London and Paris.

PalenQ

What does 'relaxing' mean to collage? Yeh could be in Paris or London but overall those are to me rather exhausting cities with traffic everywhere and people everywhere and just too many 'must' sights to have to see. But I agree with Christina's take that even though cities could be relaxing to some.

Small-towns and seaside areas can be boring for some after a day or two.