Which area to base our stay in England??
 

My husband and I are returning to England for our 2nd time this coming March (2009). We previously stayed in London and have seen most of the sites there before and really would like to rent a house/flat/cottage somewhere else this time.

We need ideas of what area of England to stay in?

It will be for 1 week, 2 adults, and we want somewhat of a central location that we can do day trips from. We are interested in seeing historical sites (castles, museums, quaint villages and such, particularly Tudor time period.) I would think that it should have adequate public transportation too as I don't think we will rent a car. That may change though. We really want an area that will occupy our week and not be a big city.

Any ideas of where to base our stay would be most appreciated!!

Thank you.

though i think most Fodorites will suggest places like the Cotswolds or the Lake District i will suggest Kent - southeastern England as this area, called the Garden of England for good reason, has so many diverse things to see and do in a very compact area.

It also has a great train system to reach practically anything of interest. Tudor? Ann Bolyene lived in Hever Castle and there are so many neat castles - Dover Castle, Hever, Leeds Castle, etc. and Canterbury and its stunning cathedral. Get a B&B near a train station (trains in this area still serve many rural small towns) - Rye is a great old town to base in IMO

You have lots of great choices. I'm not so sure of the Tudor stuff, someone who is more an architectural buff than I am should be able to help with that.

If you don't want to stray too far from London, the area in Kent and East Sussex is chock-full of wonderful gardens, estates, castles. We stayed in Tenterden last time and it was a great base. Nice town with good restaurants, pubs, etc. and in the middle of things. We've also stayed near Rye, again good, and Sevenoaks, which has good rail links.

We've only been to Suffolk once, but I fell in love with it. Our base was just outside Bury St. Edmunds and, again, it was good. You might want to be closer to the sea, we really liked Southwold.

The Cotswolds are very popular, you can find lots of information on this site about places to stay there. Our preference is Chipping Campden.

We've never stayed in Shropshire, but it's down for visit after next. We've driven through on our way to Wales and I think Shrewsbury would be a great place to base yourselves.

And, of course, there is Yorkshire, we really liked the North Yorkshire Moors. We used Pickering as our base, although I think some of the other towns around there might be more picturesque.

I'm sure you'll get lots of great advice.

Does Rye have a train station to lots of these locations?

Rye has a train station - but it's on a branch line.

Rye is also tiny. Pretty, but tiny and over-run with trippers in the summer.

Yes it does - within an hour or less of anything in Kent i'd think and a wonderful old town.

Visit Rye - The Official Rye Tourism & Local Business Website
When you're in need of a treat or want to escape the pressures of modern life, come to Rye in the East Sussex countryside, in the south east of England. ...
www.visitrye.co.uk

the map on the Rye Tourist Office web site pinpoints the train station - right in town

Kent is really a hopeless base for anyone wanting to do daytrips round England. It' a pleasant enough place in its own right - but gettng anywhere else in Britain from it is awful. Except for Essex (of which the least said the better), you either have to round or through London for most of England, or deal with the very poor east-west road network south of the Thames if you restict your travels to England's very southern bit.

Rye has trains to London and practically nowhere else.

I hate to say this, but as a base for day trips, the area from Oxford, through the Cotswolds, to Birmingham area almost can't be beat: it's the middle of England and is just about the only part of the country, apart from London, you can use as a base for day trips to practically anywhere.

Actually, the very best base is arguably London, on which road, rail and air networks are centred. But you've ruled that out.

If you really do mean buildings dating between 1485-1603 the heaviest concentration is Oxford: there are practically no Tudor buildings in London, for example. Are you really so concerned with precisely those 118 years?

Incidentally, before we all start racking our brains:

- there's a fair amount of Great and almost Great Tudor Buildings around the place - like Hampton Court, King's College Cambridge and Little Moreton Hall, Cheshire
- there's also a few pleasant Tudor-dominated small towns, like Shrewsbury or Ludlow
- and there are a few pleasant towns with half-timbered buildings that are actually Victorian, like Chester and Stratford on Avon.

These three different kinds of places don't necessarily sit side by side. Which are you after?

Tudor is just an era - there are Tudor-era bldgs all over the country. What sorts of things do you mean? Bldgs actually associated w/ the Tudor monarchs - or just old bldgs?

Kent is full of castles/gardens/tudor era stuff -- but is is really REALLY hard to meander easily by public transport. Getting from point A to point B is possible in some places - but seeing the sites - not easy at all.

But that really applies to most rural areas of England. If you want a country cottage for a week, you'll really want a car in most places. I'd recommend the Cotswolds. Yes - perhaps a cliche but it is very central and close to places like Oxford, Bath, South Wales, Stratford, Warwick and a hundred other sites. But you'd definitely want a car.

Another area to consider would be North Yorkshire - you have York, the Moors, several dissolved abbeys/monasteries, the Dales, Castle Howard, beautiful sea coast towns. You could get around a bit by public transport - but driving would be much easier.

Suffolk/Norfolk would be a great area - but again, you'd want a car.

If you really don't want to drive - plan on renting a city flat/house somewhere (York, Oxford, Cambridge, someplace like that) and taking day trips by train/bus from there. But staying in the countryside in a cottage would be better IMO (and usually cheaper) - if you have a car . . . .

jj - what main attractions in Kent are not reachable by its incredibly dense, for a so-called rural area, by train?

not disputing you but it does not jive with what i think

Most gardens and castles in Kent/East Sussex are not on rail lines. Few are on bus lines. One CAN get to a castle or a garden by public transport. But that will be about the extent of the day's touring. If one has a car - then for instance Hever/Chatworth/ Penshurst Place are very easily done in one day. They are VERY near each other. It would be impossible to do by train and/or bus.

Same w/ Sissinghurst/Scotney Castle/Bodiam. A REALLY easy "3-fer" by car - impossible by bus/train.

So if one wants to see one thing per day and struggle w/ infrequent buses - then sure anything is <i>possible</i>. Practical - not so much.

I think it is unfair to mislead folks re what is doable. Just about <u>anyplace</u> in the UK has some form of public transport - that does not mean one can easily get from place to place out in the countryside.

Here are sites easily reachable by train from any Kent base practically:

Canterbury, Dover, Royal Tunbridge Wells, Hastings, Battle (1066 Battlefield), Rye, Leeds Castle, Hever Castle, Chilham and Chilham Castle, Broadstairs, Deal and Deal and Walmer Castles, Romney Marsh - all what i would consider the main sites and this is why Kent is so different than other rural areas - trains do go everywhere and i have ridden them to nearly all those places

Yes if you want to see 3 or 4 places a day but all the ones i list are great for the whole day

i guess it depends on what kind of pace you want. Granted cars let you combine more if you're the type where a few hours in a place are sufficient - and in places like the Cotswolds where public transport is so lacking yes, a car is needed but not in Kent IMO

Taxis from the nearest train station is an option even for remote places and all in all much cheaper than renting a car and then having to drive on narrow rurual one lane roads with passing spots on the wrong side of the road.

I guess i am just partial to Kent after spending weeks there each year for a decade when i was taking folks on trips there - most really loved it - anyway here's a thread i and others have contributed to:


http://www.fodors.com/forums/threads...p;tid=35149513

But the OP is going in March. That time of year it's better to stay in a small city with indoor sightseeing options as well as good transportation. Bath comes to mind as well as Oxford. I probably wouldn't chance the north of England in March, but who knows with global warming?

In fact, consider changing your travel dates to later in April or even May. The English countryside is wonderful in the spring.

Actually i read into the OP rural when OP does not mention rural and thus a town like Cheltenham Spa, on the edge of the Cotswold Hills could make a great base. Nice city itself and bus links to main Cotswolds places (i have done this from Cheltenham Spa

And Cheltenham Spa has great rail links to places like Bath, Bristol (great old restored docks), Cardiff, Stratford and Warwick all less than two hours by train - investigate a BritRail England pass if doing this and coming to and from London by train IMO

&quot;I probably wouldn't chance the north of England in March&quot;

Why on earth not? It doesn't rain significasntly more in any month than another, and unless the poster is a complete wimp, she's no more likely to freeze to death - or even feel in the slightest bit uncomfortable - going round Speke Hall in March than King's College Chapel.

Lambs are gambolling by March, and leaves are beginning to bud, even in the north of England. The daffs will have been out for yonks and already going over, and the tulips about to come out: this isn't the Arctic wastes of the American midwest.

flanner.uk lives in the Cotswolds and has been a great help to others planning a trip there - like recommending a town with cottages like you like, etc. Janisj is also a tremendous help with questions like yours - she knows more about Britain than most British i would say - thus two great resources with all kinds of info hard to find in guidebooks - so keep posting with questions.

My two cents...York. Two hours from London, Edinburgh, good local bus service to the Moores, Dales, Whitby and you can book day tours to visit an estates or two. If not in York, I would do Kent, another area I like, but for different reasons.

The problem with NE England - ie based on York - is that, wonderful though it is, there's practically nothing (and I'm not sure it's even 'practically') from the Tudor era anywhere in the area. I can't even think of anything Tudor in York itself.

The Tudors did a fair amount of destruction in the area, but almost nothing they put back survived the destruction and &quot;restorations&quot; of the Victorians. I suppose you could argue that the ruined abbeys in places like Whitby are the relic of the Tudors' dark side - or that the extraordinary superiority of the music in Durham, York and above all Leeds cathedrals to the pappy junk they sing in French or Italian cathedrals is the great relic of the Tudors' genius.

But I suspect that's not what you're looking for. Which is why we need a tighter brief from you

So flanner - what area would be the best for Tudor relics? thanks

WOW! Thank you to all for the wonderful and informative responses.

I like the ideas that have been presented to us. We are definitely going in March and we don't mind the cold. We have found it not to be any colder than where we live in the States at that time of year. Plus I know that it is not a &quot;touristy&quot; season in March.

We are not dead set about visiting &quot;Tudor&quot; architecture. We are interested in visiting stately homes, castles in ruins or other places of historical interest. We have been to Hampton Court Palace, Canterbury and the York Minster before. I mostly would like to base our stay in a small city or village and experience that type of life for a little while. But yet be able to hop on a train (or 2) and get out of town for some fun day trips that aren't too far away as well.

I like the ideas of Cheltenham Spa or Oxford. I would imagine both would be OK without actually having a rental car? I am sure we could go that route, I just thought it would be easier to go by trains to most places. Maybe not though?

Does anyone have any thoughts on making Shrewsbury a good home base for this trip?

I've based in Shrewsbury twice and loved it

A really neat old town with a massive castle, great cathedral, etc.

We day tripped to nearby Ironbridge Gorge (fantastic heritage site of the Industrial Revolution which many say began here - lots of interesting relics from that age

and to a town just to the south i can't recall - either in Wales or on the Welsh border - lovely natural setting - fine cathedral and some highly touted restaurants - short train ride

and to Stoke-on-Trent to tour the Wedgwood factory - again a great experience

and you can also day trip into Wales from there - North Wales like to Conwy - another great castle - etc. Good train links from shrewsbury

Shrewsbury would make a fine base for a very wide area of England and Wales.

But just do realize few stately homes or ruins are in towns/villages, and for the most part they are not on rail lines.

Warwick, a few of the Welsh castles and such are easily reached by train. But if Stately homes/gardens and ruins are your main interests - then you'll have a difficult time relying on trains. A city stay - of course you won't need a car at all. But to explore the countryside what you can see will be limited.

I think PalenQ is referring to Welshpool. But this pretty much what is available throughout England. Nearly everyplace has a great nearby area with terrific stately homes, manors and gardens.

Chester is another good place as is Essex, Norfork and Suffolk.

My point is that there are places and ares to spend a week or more.

&quot;what area would be the best for Tudor relics&quot;

If you mean big, beefy individual buildings, there's a fair amount in Kent, which is why Kent's not a bad idea as long as you're happy not trying to get out of Kent. Otherwise, the greatest concentration, if you start the era ten years earlier, is the Thames Valley from Hampton Court, through Eton, Ewelme and Oxford to Fairford.

Hi
I was born and brought up in Suffolk and it is lovely (and much neglected by tourists) but it really doesn't have that good rail links so I really wouldn't contemplate it without a car.
I now live in North Yorkshire and would most definitely second York as your base if you don't have a car. There's the occasional nonsense written on here about 'the frozen north' but believe me I experienced more snow and colder winters down in Suffolk (and Essex where I also lived for some years)than I have ever had in North Yorkshire. March is often a beautiful time up here (you can't guarantee the weather anywhere). North Yorkshire was recently voted the most beautiful county in England and I would second that - to me it has everything. Friendly people, fabulous local food, stunning scenery ............I could go on.
http://www.york-england.com/general/...beautiful.html
And York itself has many beautiful Tudor buildngs too. You can even have a drink and a meal in some of them!
www.blackswanyork.co.uk
This website gives links to other Tudor buildings in York.
http://www.yorkhistoryinpictures.co....or_stuart.html
If the weather SHOULD be unkind there are loads of indoor things to do in York (don't miss the Railway Museum and The Minster, plus there are numerous museums). There are excellent rail links to Durham, Harrogate, Pickering, Whitby etc. Close by there is Fountains Abbey (World Heritage site). I could give you enough suggestions to keep you busy for months!
York city centre is compact and there's no need for a car, but if you did fancy renting one for a day or so then do head for the Yorkshire Dales.
Some other websites that might help if York appeals.
www.visityork.org
www.yorkshiredales.org.uk
www.fountainsabbey.org.uk
www.nymr.co.uk

flanneruk said:

&quot;Except for Essex (of which the least said the better)&quot;

For those not in the know perhaps you'd care to elaborate on that.

Essex is said to be the home of the chav - Burberry-wearing benefit claiming slackers. Girls wear white stilettos and are called 'Tracy'. Blokes drive souped up Corsas or Citroen Saxos with subwoofers louder than Concorde. People speak Estuary English, live in mock tudor houses (if they are well off) or some dodgy council estate in Basildon or Southend if not. Allegedly.

Actually Essex has some quite pretty villages, particularly the bits bordering Suffolk. I would say it also has better transport links than Kent, though I still wouldn't recommend it as a tourist base.

While we're on the subject, why does Kent keep coming up as a convenient 'base' for visiting London or the rest of the UK? It's right in the corner of England all by itself, and the rail links are still crap, which is why you can still get a 4-bed house in Ramsgate for not much more than 100k. There are some lovely places to visit in that county, but accessible hub for trips round the country it is not.

&quot;<i>While we're on the subject, why does Kent keep coming up as a convenient 'base' </i>&quot;

It keeps coming up as a good base w/ good rail connections because PQ has some sort of fixation w/ the place. He keeps telling folks it is easy to get around Kent and from there to other places. Then there his &quot;Kent&quot; thread that may be the longest soliloquy in the history of Fodors ( :$ he sniffs paint - doncha know ;) )

&quot;PQ...keeps telling folks it is easy to get from Kent... to other places&quot;


He doesn't. Granted, when he's been on the Focus DIY Eggshell White it's not always that easy to know what he's saying. But on this thread, he's just saying Kent's a great base for Kent, and a couple of adjacent places like Battle.

And he's right. The railway system in Kent is kind of a semi-rural metro. For a certain sort of tourist, it's a great place to spend a car-free week. Trouble is: 1. You really need a bike to get from the railway stations to the big stately homes, if they're your poison
2. It's a bugger getting anywhere else from Kent. Except Calais.

Ah wait until those Kent 'Sprinters' or whatever the trains on the new high-speed Chunnel rail link from Kent to St pancras are called - then a few minutes to one of London's major rail terminus - along with adjacent Kings Cross

saving for me

JHStubbs: Just to add to the confusion. Continental flies to Bristol and to Manchester, which by-passes Heathrow altogether, not a bad thing. Last time, we flew to Manchester, and loved it. It is close to Chester, the Derbyshire Dales,(a great area for many reasons,) Welshpool,in Wales, where Powys Castle Gardens are located. (we rented a house there from the National Trust, and it was one of our all time winners.- as well as all of North Wales, as well as Shropshire and all of Cheshire, not visited nearly enough, imo. Loads of gardens, maybe not much Tudor, can't remember my English periods as well as my English Gardens. Oh, yes, also Ludlow,fabulous restaurants, antiques shops, etc. Bristol would bring similar wonderful things nearby. So many wonderful choices, good luck.

Sorry to say that a rental car is probably a must if you fly to Manchester. It's one of those second cities where public transport is great, to other places north and south, and which has an excellent museum, and lots of cultural stuff, but the charming countryside nearby that I mentioned would need auto transport, I'm afraid. I love renting apartments, but didn't try for that in Manchester. no doubt possible, but no idea, except look in the usual sites, try &quot;holidayrentals.co.uk&quot;

I was did an exchange program in England a long time back.

I really loved Norwich and it would meet your definition of not being London, and having many historical buildings. (A church for every week of the year and a pub for every night of the year was the saying.) I loved the cathedral. The castle was decent, but not the best. Cambridge is also a train ride away.

Norwich is a small city, not a village, and we didn't really go to big manors nearby. Not sure if that was our ignorance or there weren't any.

If I were to do an English countryside trip, I would rent a car.

&lt;&quot;PQ...keeps telling folks it is easy to get from Kent... to other places&quot;&gt;

Janis - kindly show me where i said any such thing?

not the first bogus charge you have aimed at me and i'm rather getting tired of it

like when you have said repeatedly that i only copy and paste - i asked you to find even one example of that and you could not (hint - google my words and you will see if they are copied and pasted from some one else) - and you accused me of plagiarism

and many others

so can you document the statement above about what you said i say?

You are Fodor's British expert - seemingly knowing more than any other Brit on Fodor's about Britain - but why continue your pithy and untrue accusations about me that you never can document? Please stop. Corrections are fine and folks like flanner.uk have often corrected me but only with good cause that he has explained.
Sincerely PalQ.

Then there his &quot;Kent&quot; thread that may be the longest soliloquy in the history of Fodors&gt;

not nearly janis - another bogus charge - you should see my Palenque's Scenic Swiss Trains and CDF's European Rail for the Clueless - both are much much longer soliloquies than my Kent one, which is really in a nascent form

BTW several other folks have contributed to their thoughts to the Kent thread.

&lt;&quot;PQ...keeps telling folks it is easy to get from Kent... to other places&quot;&gt;

though i said no such thing i could make a case for Kent being easy to get to for:

folks landing at Gatwick Airport, practically on Kent's doorstep with direct trains i believe to Tonbridge and other Kentish towns.

and folks going or coming to London via the Chunnel train - get off at Ashford and you're less than an hour by rail from nearly every Kentish town.

In fact folks departing from Gatwick may wish to end up their British or Continental trips by spending a few days in Kent then taking trains from there right to Gatwick without having to go thru London

Or folks landing in London and heading to Paris or Brussels via Eurostar can train from gatwick to any Kent town with train service then easily hop over to Ashford to get a train to France or Belgium.

So easy to get to depends on what the circumstances are.