Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
If you had two pick between these two European destinations....
Would you go to Italy or London?
Ok, here is the background. DH and I have never been to Europe before--even without each other. Back in college I was accepted to an abroad program in Florance, and an internship in Washington DC. I went to DC, met DH and have been teasing him that he has to take me to Italy now.
So, fast forward nine years and a trip to Europe is on our must do list before we TTC in a couple of years.
So we want to start saving for a trip. Over the past couple of years I have started thinking maybe I want to go to London instead. So here are my questions:
1. If you can only go one place, which one
2. In a very general sense would one be less expensive than another?
3. Do you agree that if we only have 7 or 8 days to spend we need to only go one place.
TIA for your input!
Re: If you had two pick between these two European destinations....
If you did London would you be interested in doing side trips?
Where would you want to go in Italy? I've heard people recommend its a trip in its own to cover the country, but 7 days seems limited depending how much you want to see
Blog Sale
<a href="http://s582.photobucket.com/albums/ss262/hzswanson/?action=view
1. london is one of my most favorite places in the world but for your first visit, i'd go to italy. london is not *that different* from the US so if you want to feel like you are in europe, italy is going to give you that experience.
2. london is one of the most expensive cities in the world and the $/euro exchange is better than the $/pound exchange, italy would be more affordable for sure.
3. especially considering that you've probably never dealt with jet lag from a transatlantic red-eye flight, i'd definitely only choose one place. maybe base yourself in rome or florence and then do day trips.
italy is also more romantic! if you had two weeks, i'd say you could consider flying into italy and out of the UK (or vice versa) but with 7-8 days, i really would do just one place.
Thanks for the response ladies! I'll try to answer all your questions!
1. If we did London, yes we would try to do side trips--is Stratford do-able? I would love to see that!
2. If we went to Italy our priorities are Florence, Rome and the country. So possibly fly in to Rome and travel to Florence.
All of what cheekywife said!
I would go to Italy. Depending on how you do it, you can spend as much or as little as you like there. You can also see quite a lot in a week if you set your mind to it and are not looking for a relaxing vacation.
On our first trip to Italy, H and I were grad students and we camped and spent very little; it turns out that there are camp grounds near all of the major tourist attractions. Obviously this isn't for everyone, but that option is out there. For that trip, we rented a car and visited Venice, Florence, Bologna, Rome, Pompeii, and Capri in about 10 days. We were always on the move, but did not feel horribly rushed. On the other hand, I would have been happy to spend 3-4 days each in Venice, Florence, Rome, or Capri.
Duke's House: Eating and Running with the Big Dog in Chennai: eatrunbrit.com
2010 Race PRs:
5K - 24:57 10M - 1:28:20 13.1M - 1:57:29 26.2M - 4:28:29
1. If you can only go one place, which one
I love both places, so I don't think you can go wrong. For a first time trip to Europe, I do think London is "easier" since you don't have any language issues.
2. In a very general sense would one be less expensive than another?
Without doing any research, I would think that Italy would be less expensive.
3. Do you agree that if we only have 7 or 8 days to spend we need to only go one place.
Yes, I would either do London with some day trips OR two cities in Italy.
we were sort of thinking about this. I speak German and DH speaks spanish sooo neither are going to be very helpful in Italy
I like the PP's suggestion of flying through London then going on to Italy.
Hands down, Italy. I have been to both countries twice, and they're both great, but Rome is my favorite place in the world.
Italy is definitely going to be cheaper, and the train is very easy to navigate. As far as language goes, I was with someone on my first trip who spoke broken Spanish to people, and it went over pretty well because of the similarity of the roots.
You also might consider that after you have a little one, London is easier to get to if you wanted to do a trip with the baby or take a trip just the two of you that wasn't too far.
Ditto!!!
Italy is phenomenal, especially Rome and Florence. And also MUCH cheaper (after airfare) than London.
I don't speak a drop of Italian and I got along just fine.
I've been to Italy 4 times, it's my favourite country in the world. Since I live in the UK, it's worth visiting for the sunshine alone! I think it's one of the easiest countries to visit - the food is easy to understand (and cheap!), the trains are easy, it's easy to get around without speaking Italian. While London is an amazing city of course, I think it's really fun to visit somewhere where I don't speak the language.
It's hard to say which is cheaper as it depends on how you travel. We travel a lot and travel really cheaply (rent apartments, buy food at farmers' markets, etc). I would think generally speaking Italy is cheaper than the UK, but that all might be irrelevent depending on the price of plane tickets.
BFP Apr 2012, EDD Dec 19 2012 * twin h/b at 6wk, 9wk scan * Baby A lost at 12wks, Baby B was my rainbow born at 36wks
you're asking about one city vs one country which is far too general of a comparison. i love them both.
the 'which is generally cheaper' really depends. london is probably more expensive generally BUT rome, for example, can cost you just as much-just all depends on a lot of factors.
since you have years id figure out what your budget is FIRST and then price out both places to see what fits the budget.
Blog
1. If you can only go one place, which one? I'd go to London, but I live in Italy, and my H lived in London for 5yrs and is an excellent guide, so I've got an unfair advantage ;P.
2. In a very general sense would one be less expensive than another? IMO Central London is a bit more expensive than central Rome/Florence (probably not Venice in prime season though).
3. Do you agree that if we only have 7 or 8 days to spend we need to only go one place. "Need" is a tough word. You could reasonably do 2 cities (London and, say Rome or Florence) in 8 days. The travel is a PITA (cheap enough flights, but deadtime waiting in the airport, stupid baggage restrictions, etc), so I'd say pick a country and max the time there. Both England and Italy have PLENTY to keep you busy for a week.
FWIW, IMO, English only in Italy isn't a big deal for the cities you're interested in. While it would be great/polite if you could learn a few words and phrases, hotels, restaurants, and mass transit (tix machines) are bilingual. Southern IT is a bit more challenging w/o some IT, but it's still do-able (I base this opinion on going on 3yrs of life in a suburb of Naples w/ regrettably bad IT).
As far as weather, I'd avoid London in the complete off-season-- b/c of the rain and early darkness. I've been in the winter, it's alright, I had a fine time, but I'll be honest, I enjoy it much more in nice weather! I think May or Sept would be good options.
For Italy, I'd avoid the beach (ANY beach) in August. Insane levels of crowds. Like London, the rainy season here is Nov-Mar. I find the rainy season here less bad than London b/c it's warmer (but keep in mind, I'm closer to Rome, Florence gets chilly IME). But if you like museums and indoor stuff, it's actually not so bad in the off season. And radically cheaper. That said, my favorite time of year here is May/June or Sept/Oct.
GL!
ditto. we aren't fluent spanish-speakers, but we know enough to get around mexico - and I was surprised how much it helped us in italy.
I have done 5 countries in 2 weeks before, therefore, 8 days for 2 places are definately doable. I would suggest flying into London and sightseeing for 3-4 days then taking the ferry into France or the underwater railway. I wouldn't necessarily suggest doing London and Italy as you will be spending more time to fly rather than enjoying your short time.
I have been to both and I fell in love with Florence. We flew into Rome, spent some time there then took Ryan air into Pisa. From Pisa, we went into Florence.
The second time we did this, we took the train from Rome to Florence and that was nice too. I would definitely do Italy. London was extremely expensive