which of three cities: Paris, London, and Rome?
 

Hi, I'm new here and have been reading some of the posts. I hope you can help us make a decision.

My wife and I want to go to Europe this Christmas to visit her relatives. It will be my first time. We have only ten days and will be spending at least three or four days with her relatives. The rest of the time, we want to go to two other great European cities.

We have narrowed them down to three: Paris, London and Rome. Which two do you think we should choose?

I've read some really good advice here and hope you can help us.

Where do the relatives live?

I would spend all of your remaining days in just one of the 3, not 2.

In my opinion I don't think you can even scratch the surface of any of the three cities in 3 days.

I have been to London and Paris several times and there are still attractions on my list that I have yet to visit.

A day or so in either is not that much because it takes time to travel and then time to find your bearings after you arrive.

Despite a total of 12 days in Paris, I know there are objectives yet unmet.

London is similar only I have been there for more than a total of 12 days.

Rome alone could take a week if you visited the famous sites including the Vatican.

I agree, spend all the days in just one of the three. What interests you ?

All three have pro's and cons. All are superb places - I tend to be biased against London, but it is my capital and if I am there, I am probably working.

To me, Paris is the most beautiful , Rome the most interesting (But I am fascinated by ancient history) and London the most accessible (you speak the language).

All have great sights, great museums and great restaurants.

Without knowing where you will be starting your trip, it's hard to give a definitive answer. Rome will require most of a day to travel from it to another one of your cities; London and Paris are just a little over 2 hours travel time on Eurostar from St. Pancras Station in London to Paris Gare du Nord.

That said, any of those cities are wonderful and can easily fill a week without exhausting even the highlights.

I've just returned from a week in London(my 3rd visit), and still have not done everything on my list. I have a week in Paris scheduled for October(my 5th visit) and I know I still will want to go back.

Also, much depends on your style of travel--do you want to be on the go all day every day, or do you enjoy just "being there". Paris especially lends itself to enjoying the ambiance, sipping coffee or wine at an outdoor table, watching the people around you.

Whatever you decide, just don't spend too much of your time getting from one city to the next--enjoy your visit.
Barb

"To me, Paris is the most beautiful , Rome the most interesting . . ., and London the most accessible"

Gee, I never thought of it that way, but such a good assessment. Is that yours, willit? If so, you should copyright it!

London may be assessable because of the language, but it is such a huge city .
I would go with one city : Paris or Rome. Or London!
If you really feel you have time on your hands - take a day trip.

Smytheathome:

I am taking a trip to London/Paris and Rome (3, 2.5 and 2.5 days in each city).

I have never been to Rome, but I agree with willit's version of what these areas should mean to you.

I, have been to Paris and I love the old world feel of Paris and I keep going again and again. Call me crazy, I can't help it.

Rome, I've never been - can't comment and the fodorites are helping me on this end. I think I will love it as well.

London, there for a day, but was too expensive. Saving money for spending when I go in the fall!

Some people don't understand that I don't want to go on a trip to where I see EVERYTHING the first 2 or 3 days I am there. I am aware that I won't see everything, I just want to SEE. You know what I mean?

Right now, if you just want to SEE then, I would choose Paris and London as they are a closer to each other in travel time.

Of note, I have lived in Texas all my 48 years and I have yet to see all of Texas!

So it doesn't matter how many times you go to Europe, you will never see everything!

Where are the relatives? I'll assume you are spending the actual Christmas holiday period (24, 25, 26 Dec.) w/ that family - right?

If so, any ONE of the three cities would be great for the rest of your time.

My only caveat would be IF you mean visiting that city over the actual holiday. London does pretty much shut down those 3 days - on Christmas Day itself there is no public transport (no buses, trains, tube) and nothing much is open.

But other than right on the holiday - London is great around Christmas w/ lots of concerts, Pantomimes (hysterical theatre presentations - usually of fairy tales w/ a distinct satiric twist), decorations, ice skating, etc.

So if you mean in Dec but not right on Christmas - then any of the 3 cities would be wonderful - but ON Christmas - the Paris or Rome might be a better choice.

Another vote for picking one of the three cities for the 5 or 6 days you probably have after visiting your wife's relatives and relocating

It isn't because I think you have to see "everything" on your first trip to one of these cities. It is more because after experience with shorter and longer trips to different cities I am convinced you really enjoy any city better if you have time to explore it at a more leisurely pace
Also, the process of moving from one place to another is unpleasant and eats up a lot of vacation time.

For a one city choice on a first trip to Europe I would go with Paris or Rome. If you really want to do two I would go with the cities that involve shorter easier travel time from the country where your wife's relatives live.

without reading further, it would be Paris, for the entire remainder. A great great city, and the bargain of the three makes it even more attractive.

Paris only. For whatever time you have beyond visiting relatives.

Definitely don't try to split such a short time between two cities.

London. London. London.

Were this 10 years ago, perhaps I would have said Paris. But, frankly, London is where it is at. Center of it all right now, as far as I am concerned. More exciting food, fashion, art, and culture than the other two. A truly confident, international city. Your choice is yesterday or today. Yesterday will always be there. Today is only here now. Paris is basically the same as it was 10 years ago, and likely no better than it will be in 10 years time. The same is not true of London. Go while the getting is good.

And I don't find it that expensive. It is most certainly more than the US, but Priceline will keep the hotel bill down to the $100 per night range, and cheap meals are easy enough to find. Museums are largely free, which is more than can be said of Paris. Public transport will get you around with little expense. Like the rest of Europe, just avoid shopping, as virtually nothing is cheaper than in the US.

It's Christmas time. Rome will be the winner, weather-wise. Of course, Rome has incredible attractions. It's a hard choice, and a delightful dilemma, but Rome would be what I choose.

One caveat is that Rome hotel accommodation would likely be more expensive than London or Paris, at least using the methods I use. Typically I use Priceline in London, and find good deals through booking services for Paris, but for Rome at Christmas time for a standard hotel, you'll probably end up paying quite a bit.

You could consider convent accommodation, which is what I would likely do if planning another holiday visit to Rome, or an apartment. But in general, centrally located, nice hotels in Rome at Christmas time will be very expensive.

London has it all! At least for me.
I have been 12 times and spent at least a week each time, and still there are a billion things I want to see there. Wasn't it Samuel Johnson who said, "When one is tired of London, one is tired of life."? but I am sure that you will enjoy whichever you choose.

"To me, Paris is the most beautiful , Rome the most interesting . . ., and London the most accessible"

"...... Is that yours, willit?"

Only by accident :-)
I was just trying to answer an impossible question simply.

It is, of course, an oversimplification as it implies that Rome and London are not beautiful, that Paris and Rome are inaccessible, and that Paris and London are boring!

rereading the OPs question, if really , really wanting to see two cities, then London and Paris - purely because the Eurostar makes travel between them so easy.

Paris only!

Oh, definitely only Rome. Absolutely no question. As mentioned the weather is spectacular, it is chock full of historic and ancient sites, intriguing, inviting, and a completely different culture than Paris or London. Although they all have so much to see and do Rome is the clear winner if you are an ancient history fan. I really like London (but do not love it) and in my opinion Paris is overrated. Rome is the only one of the three that I could return to again and again. :)

Rome of course!

It's interesting that the OP has never returned to comment on the suggestions--have we overwhelmed?