Old-Fashioned travel--- honeymoon by train, boat, and automobile.
 

Out the other night, I ran into a couple on their honeymoon who were traveling completely by boat, rail, and car from Portland to Rome.

They drove to Vancouver, took a train across Canada to Toronto. Drove to Niagara Falls (where the new bride's grandparents had honeymooned) and then drove down to New York City where they were to board the Queen Mary cruising to Southampton. After taking a train to London, they were going to board the Orient Express to Venice and then Rome.

The 5-week trip sounded amazing to me--pleas of "start a photo blog" were poo-pooed.

The kicker? They were traveling entirely with a wardrobe purchased from a local vintage shop..everything they packed (in a big locker no less) was from WWII or prior. The night I encountered this couple the new bridge was wearing a hat that I believe had some sort of fur on it (muskrat) that was half-tilted off her head...fixed there by bobby pins. I have to say they looked rather sharp.

Anyway, as there are occasionally broad "big-picture" questions here about where one should go on their honeymoon... I thought it might amuse or inspire.

They were surely a sight to behold--kind of romantic, hey?

Hi K,

There is nothing like having a lot of money.

How were they returning from Rome?

Seriously! I was polite and didn't ask but we actually have a train article on the Orient Express this week (specifically the London-Venice) option and it certainly isn't cheap. Still, it was certainly quirky. Though, I don't think I could take being "on board" for so long---in terms of taking the train trips and the cruise (the OE is actually pretty quick).

I'd still prefer being "old-fashioned" and hiding in some small little town in the middle of Italy or France for a month in an apartment/house. That's still possible, right?

Hi K,

>I'd still prefer being old-fashioned"

Back in those days, a couple brought their lady's maid and valet with them.

If they were really well of, they hired a private railroad car.

There are those who still do that.

An aunt and uncle once met some folks on a cruise.

Upon debarking, they did the usual exchange of info and "look me up if you ever get my way".

A few years later, they got a call, "Can you meet us at the train station? We'll have dinner".

So they arranged to meet.

They were met at the station and taken to a private railroad car, where they were greeted by their host and hostess and another couple.

They were a little nonplussed when the train left the station.

No problem. Dinner, accomodations, train ticket back home the next afternoon.

((I))

Not really feasible for the average traveler. This is for people who has more money than what they know what to do with, and retired.

I find it hard to believe people these days take 5 weeks off for a honeymoon! When I got married in 2005, I was lucky to get 2 weeks off total (including the wedding weekend).

Also, are they bringing a porter with them? Who is going to carry all this luggage?

Anyway, I suppose this couple are from very wealthy families and don't need to work.

Sounds like a hoot - but definitely impractical for most folks. Just the cost (and time) involved in putting together the wardrobe for the trip would put it out of my reach.

Cute story, but I would rather spend the time actually in my destination as opposed to on a train or boat.

Katie, when my husband and I went on our honeymoon in 1999, it ended up being an almost three week event.

We got married in Asheville, North Carolina and spent three nights at The Grove Park Inn then drove to Charleston to spend the night (Planters Inn I think) before flying to Mexico.

We had booked seven nights at The Moon Palace resort but were having so much fun, we stayed an extra seven nights until we literally ran out of money.

Since we had flown first class, changing our flights was no big deal and since it was early December, the resort was close to empty.

It was such fun. We dove, snorkled, and played in Cancun, Isla Mujeres, Playa Del Carmen, and Cozumel.

I knew it was time to come home when we started speaking to each other in broken English.

I think it sounds great. Way back when, they used to tour up the Eastern Shore for about 3 months for their honeymoons. Or they toured Europe for 6 months.

I'm guessing if more people had simple affairs for the wedding, they'd be able to do nicer honeymoons like this. $200 instead of $10,000 for the wedding dress and there's a good chunk towards a honeymoon to remember.

If you can afford it both in time and money, sounds like a great trip. Unfortunately (or fortunately) I'm old enough to remember when getting there was often half the fun - and it didn't always cost a fortune.

I tend to agree with others about spending more time at destinations. But in our BK (Before Kids) days and when the dollar was worth more than a pence, we took the VSOE from Venice to London. What a trip! It was the focus of that particular trip to Europe and it didn't disappoint. The Pullman accommodations, dressing for dinner, fabulous food, wine and service, the leisurely pace across the Channel, and of course the scenery. It was a very, very romantic trip that we still talk about.

Wow. As someone who just admitted to liking cruises, that's just too much. Fly me to my destination!

It must be nice to have lots of money. And they must look charming in their 30s getup.

They were self made creative types and readily admitted that it was a once-in-a-lifetime trip for them and that it was much more than they would ever normally spend on any trip. I like the trip's philosophy but, yes, I would really rather get there already. I don't even like flights over 5 hours!