Traveling across Europe honeymoon

MadHops21

My FI and I have been wanting to plan our honeymoon to jump across Europe, visiting different cities over the course of 2 weeks. My brother and SIL did something similar on their own honeymoon. Here are our top places to go (we ultimately want to end up in Italy, our most favorite)

London

Amsterdam

Paris

Venice

Rome

Messina (Sicily)

Has anyone been to any of these locations? I'm not crazy about Amsterdam, but FI would like to visit it. Does 6 places seem like a lot for 14 days? I'm thinking about removing a couple cities so it's less traveling and more staying in one place, but I need some feedback if anyone has traveled multiple countries in one trip before. 

thejucheidea

I didn't like Paris at all, but London and Amsterdam are lovely. My mom also loved Italy when she lived there.

It does sound like a lot of traveling. My husband and I hit four countries in two weeks and we were absolutely exhausted. We flew to NYC from home, spent a couple of days there; flew to Oslo, spent a day there; took a train to Bodo, spent a day there; flew to Oslo, spent the day there; took a train to Stockholm, spent a couple of days there; took a train back to Oslo, left the next morning; flew to Reykjavik and spent four days driving across the southern coast of Iceland. We were pretty much nonstop. It was awesome but tiring.

emmyg65

That's way too much, unless you want a whirlwind trip with just the briefest impression of each city. I spent six days in Paris and it was nowhere near enough. Likewise, we're going to Rome in May for seven days and it's just enough time to see everything we want to see. Also remember that you'll lose a lot of time to travel.

I understand how tempting it is to go crazy in Europe, but it's just not worth it. Were I you, I'd choose three cities (or even just two) and try to immerse myself. Maybe 5 days in London, 4 days in Amsterdam (the first and last days mostly travel), and 5 days in Paris. Or 5 days in Venice, 5 days in Rome, and 4 days in Messina. Or 7 days in London and 7 days in Paris. But definitely not all six cities in only two weeks.

MadHops21

emmyg65 it is a lot of traveling, I'm hoping to cut it down to just a few cities. We do want to travel a lot, and we will be traveling later on in the future.

thejucheidea I heard bad things about Paris with Americans. I'm okay with skipping Paris. Italy is where FI's family is from, and we would be visiting locations important to him there. We both really want to go to London, so I'm leaning towards just doing London then Italy. 

Jells2dot0

I agree that it's WAY too much. We once did Munich, Switzerland and Northern Italy over 7 nights and it was chaotic.

I enjoy London quite a bit and we go there almost every year. So, I think an Italy combo with London would be great. You could fly between the two or take your time and ride on the train.

Amsterdam was interesting, but it's not even remotely in the right direction. I'd save that for another time.

thejucheidea

@MadHops21, I think that London and Italy is a much easier -- even Amsterdam would be easy to add in because of the major airport there. The big problem that I had with Paris was how impolite people were to me. When I went, I spoke French pretty well, but because of my non-Parisian accent (my teacher had studied in Nice), they refused to speak French to me, electing for English instead. Outside of Paris, I had no problems and rather enjoyed myself, but I would like at least basic respect when visiting a place.

MadHops21

Jells2dot0 That's what I was thinking, Amsterdam is kind of a side trip, so maybe saving that for later on would be best. I really want to ride the train to travel, I think that would be interesting. I've only ever done planes. 

thejucheidea That is the exact thing I hear from anyone who travels to Paris, the rudeness towards Americans. I know very little of French, so I'm afraid of going to an area that does not speak English or being disrespected because I do not speak it. 

climbingsingle

I agree that it's too many cities. 

London is really great. FI was in Paris 2 years ago and he didn't care for it. He said he liked Amsterdam and parts of Italy much better. 

daria24

I could easily spend two weeks just in London, and I lived there for 6 months! I think two cities is plenty, especially because you may want to take day trips from those cities (there are so many lovely towns just an hour or two train ride from London). 

I will defend Paris. I have been twice-the first time I didn't like it at all (not due to the people there, just the over all trip), the second time we had an amazing time. We don't speak a word of French but didn't encounter any rudeness, either in Paris or the other towns we visited. But then again, we live in NYC, so maybe we are used to a more...blunt manner. Our hotel was not in the main tourist areas, and we ate a lot of places that catered to the local crows. A lot of the times our waiter/waitress didn't speak any English but we made it work and everyone was patient. And the food was incredible. 

I haven't been to Amsterdam or Italy so I can't speak to those locations. 

MrsAitch

I would just stay in the UK for 2 whole weeks, but that's just me. There is so much to do in London, and I very much enjoyed Bath and Brighton as well. I'd love to go the the Lake District and Yorkshire Dells and Scotland too. Ireland is beautiful if you feel like you need to go somewhere else too. Though Dublin is actually not that big of a city, the countryside in Ireland is just too gorgeous to pass up. I didn't like Paris much, mostly because it was just so dirty, but I wouldn't mind going back since I was only there for a weekend and didn't get a chance to get to Versailles.

Otherwise, I would cut your list down to 3 cities maybe. London, Amsterdam, and Paris might be nice and it's pretty easy traveling between them.

delujm0

I did 17 nights in Italy a few years ago in 6 cities.  it was a bit hectic, but italy's pretty small so travel time wasn't terrible.  i still wanted more time.

 

I did 17 nights in 5 different countries (8 cities) and it was VERY hectic...even though the longest train ride was only about 4 hours.  i could have used more time in several of the locations.

 

I did 14 nights in just London and Paris and i could have stayed longer in both.  But that trip wasn't hectic at all. 

 

I did NOT count the overnight flight on the way there in my "nights" calculations above.  those were my nights "on the ground" so to speak.

 

I think the amount of cities you cover in two weeks depends on where you MOST want to go and do.  i love to museum-hop and eat bread, so i loved Paris.  My FI would have hated it there (i went with my mom).  You could do a longer trip in London and take a (long) day trip to Paris.  You could also do a (long) day trip to Amsterdam from Paris if you base there.  you have a lot of options, but you need to figure out your priorities.  is pub-hopping a priority but shopping not so much?  do you want to museum hop or go to a soccer match?  there's different things to do everywhere.  I suggest you figure out the type of activities you most want to do, and then you and your FI each pick ONE location that is most important to you, and build a trip around those two places, perhaps throwing in a third or fourth location if time permits.

CMGragain

I didn't care for Amsterdam.  Their formerly lax policy on marijuana  had attracted a lot of outsiders who are there for the drugs.  Lots of street people.  At night we were solicited by hard drug dealers on street corners.  Such a shame.  The city was pretty, but I was uncomfortable.  I understand that they are rethinking the drug policy in regards to foreigners.
I would do 5 days in London and the remainder in Italy, since that is important to you.  Travel in Italy is easy with their train system.  Rick Steves books are very helpful for budget travelers.

MadHops21

I'm thinking that London and Italy are the best choices because as we were making our list, it just seemed very hectic and lots of time just spent traveling. We wanted to see what our top places would be visit, then cut it down from there. 

We don't care much for shopping or eating or sports, more so museums in London and country side/beaches in Italy. FI loves that feel of cobblestone cities, so Amsterdam atmosphere was good to him but that's a bit out of the way north. I believe London has some area that are like that, right? I've never been there. 

Jells2dot0

CMGragain said:

I didn't care for Amsterdam.  Their formerly lax policy on marijuana  had attracted a lot of outsiders who are there for the drugs.  Lots of street people.  At night we were solicited by hard drug dealers on street corners.  Such a shame.  The city was pretty, but I was uncomfortable.  I understand that they are rethinking the drug policy in regards to foreigners.
I would do 5 days in London and the remainder in Italy, since that is important to you.  Travel in Italy is easy with their train system.  Rick Steves books are very helpful for budget travelers.

Last time we went to London (November), we were on a very tight schedule. We used Rick's pre-planned walking tours to cover everything we wanted to see. I was easily able to plan out the touristy things based on his timelines as well as adding in things that we wanted to do that weren't in his book. Staying in a central location also helps. We stay at the same hotel in Piccadilly Circus every time.

The more I thought about it the more I was concerned for you cramming too much in. Both Heathrow and Schiphol airports are HUGE and take quite a bit of time to get through. So, even if you flew up to Amsterdam, it would really take most of the day for just for transit. I agree with @CMGragain about Amsterdam, but we stuck with the museums we wanted to see and were only there for 2 nights.

 edit- spelling

 

Jells2dot0

MadHops21 said:

I'm thinking that London and Italy are the best choices because as we were making our list, it just seemed very hectic and lots of time just spent traveling. We wanted to see what our top places would be visit, then cut it down from there. 

We don't care much for shopping or eating or sports, more so museums in London and country side/beaches in Italy. FI loves that feel of cobblestone cities, so Amsterdam atmosphere was good to him but that's a bit out of the way north. I believe London has some area that are like that, right? I've never been there. 

Yes, absolutely! I think after spending time in London, you won't really miss Amsterdam unless you really had your heart set on certain museums there. There are so many awesome museums to choose from in London that you may not feel like you missed out at all, though! We've been to:

- Natural History Museum

- Victoria and Albert

- National Gallery

- Portrait Gallery

-London City Museum

- Imperial War Museum (main and Churchill War Rooms)

-British Musem

-Westminster Abbey and St. Paul's (not really museums per se but interesting)

-Banqueting House

That is plenty to keep you busy for 5 days!

MadHops21

Jells2dot0 said:

CMGragain said:

I didn't care for Amsterdam.  Their formerly lax policy on marijuana  had attracted a lot of outsiders who are there for the drugs.  Lots of street people.  At night we were solicited by hard drug dealers on street corners.  Such a shame.  The city was pretty, but I was uncomfortable.  I understand that they are rethinking the drug policy in regards to foreigners.
I would do 5 days in London and the remainder in Italy, since that is important to you.  Travel in Italy is easy with their train system.  Rick Steves books are very helpful for budget travelers.

Last time we went to London (November), we were on a very tight schedule. We used Rick's pre-planned walking tours to cover everything we wanted to see. I was easily able to plan out the touristy things based on his timelines as well as adding in things that we wanted to do that weren't in his book. Staying in a central location also helps. We stay at the same hotel in Piccadilly Circus every time.

The more I thought about it the more I was concerned for you cramming too much in. Both Heathrow and Schiphol airports are HUGE and take quite a bit of time to get through. So, even if you flew up to Amsterdam, it would really take most of the day for just for transit. I agree with @CMGragain about Amsterdam, but we stuck with the museums we wanted to see and were only there for 2 nights.

 edit- spelling

 

I live in Chicago with O'Hare airport. I know all about spending all day at airports and about an hour straight of standing in lines for security check points. We normally leave at 530am for a plane that leave at 830. It's crazy. 

CMGragain

If you want art museums, go to Florence after Venice!  I loved it!  We stayed at Hotel Torre Guelfa, which was a modernized  tower from the 1300's.  The old tower is still there, and DH was in heaven snapping photos over the rooftops of Florence.  Worth the price, and very romantic, only two blocks from the Uffizi Gallery and the Ponte Vecchio.

TheGrimReaper

London and Paris would of course be the easiest to do at the same time.  And I'll also defend Paris. I lived in France for 4 months and have been to Paris twice, and I've never had anyone be randomly rude to me. 

TheGrimReaper

Also, if you make the time in London, I highly recommend getting out of there.  We went this past summer and, while I enjoy the city, I LOVED going to the country.  There's so much around that area that's really easily accessible.  We, personally, chose to rent a car. 

emmyg65

Yeah, I never had a problem with people being rude in Paris. They speak English because their English is probably better than your French and they're trying to be polite. But if you let them know you're trying to practice, they'll switch back.

MadHops21

I'm not practicing, I just hear about how they are offended that people come to their city (Paris) without knowing the language. I would have to be the ignorant American....

climbingsingle

daria24 said:

I could easily spend two weeks just in London, and I lived there for 6 months! I think two cities is plenty, especially because you may want to take day trips from those cities (there are so many lovely towns just an hour or two train ride from London). 

I will defend Paris. I have been twice-the first time I didn't like it at all (not due to the people there, just the over all trip), the second time we had an amazing time. We don't speak a word of French but didn't encounter any rudeness, either in Paris or the other towns we visited. But then again, we live in NYC, so maybe we are used to a more...blunt manner. Our hotel was not in the main tourist areas, and we ate a lot of places that catered to the local crows. A lot of the times our waiter/waitress didn't speak any English but we made it work and everyone was patient. And the food was incredible. 

I haven't been to Amsterdam or Italy so I can't speak to those locations. 

FI and I both live in NY - 30 minutes outside of the city. We're used to rude people. In fact, I prefer them. Nice people weird me out sometimes. FI didn't like Paris for other reasons unfortunately. 

Jells2dot0

ClimbingBrideNY said:

daria24 said:

I could easily spend two weeks just in London, and I lived there for 6 months! I think two cities is plenty, especially because you may want to take day trips from those cities (there are so many lovely towns just an hour or two train ride from London). 

I will defend Paris. I have been twice-the first time I didn't like it at all (not due to the people there, just the over all trip), the second time we had an amazing time. We don't speak a word of French but didn't encounter any rudeness, either in Paris or the other towns we visited. But then again, we live in NYC, so maybe we are used to a more...blunt manner. Our hotel was not in the main tourist areas, and we ate a lot of places that catered to the local crows. A lot of the times our waiter/waitress didn't speak any English but we made it work and everyone was patient. And the food was incredible. 

I haven't been to Amsterdam or Italy so I can't speak to those locations. 

FI and I both live in NY - 30 minutes outside of the city. We're used to rude people. In fact, I prefer them. Nice people weird me out sometimes. FI didn't like Paris for other reasons unfortunately. 

LOL SO THIS. Whenever someone is overly nice, I think they have ulterior motives. I don't trust it. That is what growing up in the NY/NJ area does to you!

MadHops21

I'm from suburbs of Chicago, so I only have road rage. I'm not cheesy nice because people just annoy me, but I'm not one for rude people. Paris intimidates me because I hear about the rudeness. 

climbingsingle

Jells2dot0 said:

ClimbingBrideNY said:

daria24 said:

I could easily spend two weeks just in London, and I lived there for 6 months! I think two cities is plenty, especially because you may want to take day trips from those cities (there are so many lovely towns just an hour or two train ride from London). 

I will defend Paris. I have been twice-the first time I didn't like it at all (not due to the people there, just the over all trip), the second time we had an amazing time. We don't speak a word of French but didn't encounter any rudeness, either in Paris or the other towns we visited. But then again, we live in NYC, so maybe we are used to a more...blunt manner. Our hotel was not in the main tourist areas, and we ate a lot of places that catered to the local crows. A lot of the times our waiter/waitress didn't speak any English but we made it work and everyone was patient. And the food was incredible. 

I haven't been to Amsterdam or Italy so I can't speak to those locations. 

FI and I both live in NY - 30 minutes outside of the city. We're used to rude people. In fact, I prefer them. Nice people weird me out sometimes. FI didn't like Paris for other reasons unfortunately. 

LOL SO THIS. Whenever someone is overly nice, I think they have ulterior motives. I don't trust it. That is what growing up in the NY/NJ area does to you!

So true! My parents moved to the Poconos a few years ago. It's not that far away but the people are so different and friendly! They talk to you at the grocery store. It's freaking weird! It's taken me a long time to get used to it. 

daria24

ClimbingBrideNY said:

daria24 said:

I could easily spend two weeks just in London, and I lived there for 6 months! I think two cities is plenty, especially because you may want to take day trips from those cities (there are so many lovely towns just an hour or two train ride from London). 

I will defend Paris. I have been twice-the first time I didn't like it at all (not due to the people there, just the over all trip), the second time we had an amazing time. We don't speak a word of French but didn't encounter any rudeness, either in Paris or the other towns we visited. But then again, we live in NYC, so maybe we are used to a more...blunt manner. Our hotel was not in the main tourist areas, and we ate a lot of places that catered to the local crows. A lot of the times our waiter/waitress didn't speak any English but we made it work and everyone was patient. And the food was incredible. 

I haven't been to Amsterdam or Italy so I can't speak to those locations. 

FI and I both live in NY - 30 minutes outside of the city. We're used to rude people. In fact, I prefer them. Nice people weird me out sometimes. FI didn't like Paris for other reasons unfortunately. 

Oh god we can't handle it when we go anywhere with "nice" strangers that try to strike up a conversation with you. No I don't want to talk to some rando on a plane, I want to put my headphones on and zone out. I always assume anyone trying to speak to you is trying to convert you to their religion, or getting you to donate money to their charity. Or buy comedy tickets. Those are the only three reasons people try to talk to you in NYC.

Perhaps one of the reason we didn't find anyone in Paris rude was because we barely interacted with anyone, outside of the typical ordering food, buying a ticket, etc. 

JennyColada

To preface, I am not a marijuana smoker myself, but Amsterdam is definitely somewhere I'd love to re-visit. I REALLY enjoyed my trip, the history is amazing and the food was awesome (it's quite a melting pot!).

London is an obvious choice, since Heathrow is one of the main hubs for US>Europe travel.

I think Paris is nice, if just for the "how romantic!" factor.

Italy is huge (and statistically one of the most often re-visited countries in the world!), so you could easily spend your entire honeymoon there.

I think 2 days in any city is the really a whirlwind if you'd want to spend to get any semblance of a "feel" for it (and even then it will be VERY minor). 3-4 days minimum tends to be what I aim for.

MadHops21

London is one of the biggest places we've always wanted to go. We don't care much for romance factor, but small, cobblestone, cafes-on-the-corner cities and some country side is our main idea. I'm looking into London for hotels within good areas, but it's hard to tell from just a website. 

CMGragain

MadHops21 said:

London is one of the biggest places we've always wanted to go. We don't care much for romance factor, but small, cobblestone, cafes-on-the-corner cities and some country side is our main idea. I'm looking into London for hotels within good areas, but it's hard to tell from just a website. 

Well, you won't like London if this is what you picture.  Bath would be a better choice for you.

If you really want a big city like you are describing, try Copenhagen, Denmark.  Everyone speaks fluent English.

MadHops21

CMGragain We really want to visit London for landmarks and museums. Plus, FI always was interested in possibly living there. It's far fetched, but we have some locations picked out for London. He wants Amsterdam for the cobblestone cities. 

CMGragain

London is wonderful for museums and historical sights.  Don't expect cobblestones.  It is a very modern city.  Try looking for a hotel in South Kensington.  Check Trip Advisor for recommendations.  The last two times I was in London, I was traveling with others who insisted on modern hotels.
Florence, Italy has lots of cobblestones.