which London castle/tourist site?
 

I really want to see a castle while I'm in London for three days. I'm on a limited budget and limited time and really can only see one. Which would yall pick?

Windsor castle

Leeds castle

Tower of London

I know tower of London isnt' a castle but if yall had to pick one of the three to see would you pick tower of London over the windsor or leeds since tower of london is right in the city and technically I'm going to see the Prague castle so I won't leave Europe without seeing a castle.

Is there any of the three that just insn't worth the money? I have to admit I'm already getting British sticker shock and I wont' be there for another month.

Terrence

Personally - take a step out of London (1.5 hour train ride) to Arundel. It's a beautiful small castle (www.arundelcastle.org) that was built in the 11th century. It was one of my favorites when I visited there 20 years ago & I hope to take my kids there this summer. If you want to make a day of it - you can take a run down to Fishbourne (2-2.5 hours from London) and visit the Roman Ruins & then stop at Arundel on your way back. If you haven't had a chance to see Roman Ruins or a Castle, this is it!

You absolutely don't have time to go to Leeds on a 3 day trip. The Tower of London is a must see anyway and the only option IN London of these. So go there definitely.

Three days is a truly minimal time to spend in London - so I wouldn;t even consider a trip outside. Besides the Tower of London is a castle and much more - and to leave London without seeing it is a crime.

Another vote for the Tower of London. It really is worth seeing and there is so much to see in London you really won't want to leave for a day trip.

Another vote for the Tower of London, since you have limited time and budget. I love the gorey past of the Tower, and the view at night is spectacular, giving creedence to all the spooky tales I've heard or read.

Windsor Castle is great if you want to leave the city. Actually, I found a great deal from London to Windsor Castle http://tinyurl.com/fze85 for our travels this summer.

I have to say, having visited a lot of them, that Windsor Castle is the most "bang for your buck". It doesn't require a lot of imagination as it is still lived in. The interiors are over the top spectacular. There is a changing of the guard that is impressive, and much to see and do. I think it is the best of the lot.

Looking at the question from your viewpoint, I would say..Tower.
I was an English History buff when I first went, specifically Elizabethan...and being able to see the Traitor's Gate where she was brought by boat to be imprisioned was a breathtaking step back in time.
The tour guides are exceptional and you will leave having learned so much of England's history and loving every minute of your lesson!

Yeah looks like I'll be doing Tower of London and maybe Windsor Castle and will leave Leeds castle alone. But so far looks like Tower of London is tops. But I looked at pictures of arundel and I have to admit it's very tempting. But it's a bit far from London. But those are the only sights that I'm going to see. I mention this in another post but I have a budget of only 35 pouunds for sightseeing and wouldn't mind trimming it down even more. So all my other sightseeing will involve all those free museums and just enjoy being in the city.

But thanks yall.

Terrence

If you're going with a friend, make sure you check out http://www.2for1entry.co.uk/
There's a deal there for 2 for 1 entry to the Tower if you're going with a friend, and I think it should be still valid next month when you're there. Enjoy!

1. The tower of London is a castle.

2. Leeds Castle is in Kent (by a small village called Leeds) not in the city of Leeds 'up north'.

All of them are good. all of them are worth a visit. Both Winsor and Leeds are easily reached from London but would be a day trip. So as time is short I'd go to Tower of London.

Another vote for the Tower. Not only is it a castle, it is - at its core - older than Windsor, and though there was substantial Victorian rebuilding, it remained more of a military fortress-cum-prison than extended into a grand country residence, as Windsor was. The Tower can still give you shivers up the spine. Windsor, however impressive, doesn't.

As others have said The Tower of London IS a castle and very interesting and authentic. Leeds castle is "pretty" and photogenic but that's about all.
Windsor Castle is too modernized to suit my taste.
So my vote is The Tower of London.

We spent a week in London in 2003 and can't wait to go back. Although we squeezed every possible tourist attraction into our week there is so much more to see/do. Tower of London, yes. We toured the tour during the day and returned at night for the Ceremony of the Keys (we sent away for free tickets months prior to our trip). Windsor Caste, another yes. It was one of my favorite parts of the trip. Pricey, but worth it. Leeds Castle, I would never recommend it. Although the garden & aviary were beautiful, the interior of the castle was just ok.

See your castle in England. I love Prague, but there really isn't a castle per se. It is more a group of buildings. While in the Castle area, be sure to see St. Vitus Cathedral. You don't mention how mobile you are, but it's something of a jaunt UP to the Castle area. You may want to take a tram.

Hey yall well Tower of London it is. I'm still drawn to Windsor but so far Tower of London seems like the way to go.

Thanks janestuart. Now I think ther'es a castle near Prague that does look more "catlelike" but I forget the name.

Terrence: For the castle near Prague that looks more "castle-like" - are you by chance thinking of Cesky Krumlov? If so, it's not all that close to Prague. Although I haven't been (yet), Fodors members here usually suggest it as an overnight trip. I'm not sure what your time allows in Czech, but in case Cesky Krumlov is on your itinerary, I thought you'd like to know this.

Have a wonderful trip!

Victorious,
Check out The London Pass. It will get you into Windsor and the Tower for free, along with discounts to many other places. You could buy a one or two day ticket.

I just wanted to confess I'm a criminal. I lived in London for close to a year and never went to the Tower.

Maybe some day the travel police will hunt me down and drag me there.

Btw, I didn't go the last time I was in London either so I guess I should ask: Should I go next time I'm in London? I plan to be there this summer. I'm not much interested in castles, torture chambers, dungeons, or crown jewels or people dressed up in costumes who aren't acting in plays. Is there anything else to see in the Tower?

Nessundorma, do you like old buidings and history? There's lots to see at the Tower without any costumes, dungeons, or jewels.

*buildings*

nessumdorma: I was born in London, grew up about 60 miles outside London and have lived here for the last 11 years. I have never been to the Tower of London!!! I've been outside it often enough but never inside....

One of those classic situations when if you know that there's always another time to go, you put it off. Always waiting for the right day when there aren't too many tourists (NO disrespect!) and you won't have to fight the crowds.

Maybe this year....?!!!!

Well, actually, I lived in the suburbs of New York City for 9 years. The only times I went to the Statue of Liberty and the Empire State Building were when visiting the city before and after we lived there.

noe847,

I tend to find old buildings uninteresting unless they are beautiful. I've been in a number of castles in Scotland and Italy and generally just wanted to leave. I have a particular distaste for prisons and torture chambers. And fortresses don't do much for me either. I also get no particular kick out of seeing buildings whose main selling point is that historic figures lived there. Which is all the reasons I've never felt very interested to see the Tower of London except glimpsing it from the Thames.

I *would* like to see it from the top of the Swiss Re center (the "gherkin") but I get the impression the public is not allowed up there. Does anyone know if I could up to the top of the gherkin?

I lived in NYC for more than a decade and quite liked going up to the Empire State building at night with friends visiting town. I never went to the Statue of Liberty, but of course saw hundreds of times in passing.

nessundorma, sounds like your decision to not tour the Tower is a good one, given your preferences and aversions. I personally love old stones.

The official line on the Swiss Re tower (30 St. Mary Axe) does seem to be (from my internet research) that it is private and not accessible to the public. There is a restaurant at the top, but it might be just a private events site.

Not to turn this into the US forum, but when I visited NYC with my two daughters (ages 10 and 12 at the time) we caught the first boat to the Statue of Liberty in the am, waited in line, climbed the statue (which was quite cool) then took the boat to Ellis Island, where we spent the rest of the day. We barely made it on the last ferry off the island - and we still hadn't experienced it all. Ellis Island was very moving - I did have ancestors who came through but it was an amazing even apart from that.

I have nothing against the Statue of Liberty. If the lines weren't so long, I might have gone by now. I should have gone when everybody thought New York was Hell and Murder Central, and all the tourists stayed away! ;-)

Too bad about the Swiss Re.