Day Trip from London to Paris

[Pet Nit Noy]

Thanks again to everyone. Wife and I have more or less decided we need to book a seperate trip just to Paris in the near future. For London would everyone recommend a tour service or just "go on your own" type trip? We are there for 5 nights so have time to "wander around" if we want to. Any absolute must sees?

 

When folks say "You don't need a tour" they're primarily focusing on the guide's navigation and hand holding. A really knowledgeable tour guide will enrich your time together with great information. Only you can decide whether you want a more in-depth experience or the freedom wander on your own. (Obviously, you can take both approaches over the course of a five night visit!)

 

If you like a very thorough explanation of what you're seeing, consider signing up for a small group walking tour with Context Travel London. If you go to their web site, you'll see their tours tend to have a limited focus. Consider adding one or two of these to your experience during your multi-day stay. Other destinations, like the Churchill War Rooms are so well done that you don't need any guide to get the most out of the visit.

 

And I know you didn't ask, but there is so much to do and see in London or in the immediate vicinity, I'd be reluctant to take a day trip to some of the more outlying places like Bath or the Cotswolds. Greenwhich, Hampton Court Palace, and Windsor would be as far as I'd travel on a first-time, five-day trip to London. And I'm not even sure I'd visit all three of these places in the same trip. London has so much to offer, you really can't go wrong staying in the city itself. (The City is the financial district, which is only a section within the city of London. Confused me at first)

[Bob++]

(The City is the financial district, which is only a section within the city of London. Confused me at first)

 

But of course it include The Tower of London, Tower Bridge and St. Paul's Cathedral among other places of interest.

 

I agree with everything PNN says above. You might do well to consider a guide for things you view from the street, but most of the interior sights have excellent directions and explanations.

[Pet Nit Noy]

But of course it include The Tower of London, Tower Bridge and St. Paul's Cathedral among other places of interest.

 

Definitely.

 

What I was really trying to communicate was that for a very long time, I thought the capital "C" City and lower case "c" city were just random variations based on the whim of the writer. Finally, I got a clue.

Edited March 25, 2015 by Pet Nit Noy

[katrina915]

To the OP,

I always look at a trip as if I might never get back. What would I regret more: doing something with limited time or regret not doing it?

 

6 hours or so of Paris is better than nothing. And you never know if you can get back as you have indicated.

 

I am probably doing something crazier. Getting off an overnight plane to London and getting on a train to Paris and then on to Normandy. Booked flight and then decided I wanted to follow my father's steps during the war. I can rest on train back, shuttle to port day and first sea day.

 

If you can divide days more between London and Paris, I would advise doing that. You will be more rested to enjoy both cities.

 

Have fun.

[Pet Nit Noy]

To the OP,

I always look at a trip as if I might never get back. What would I regret more: doing something with limited time or regret not doing it?

 

6 hours or so of Paris is better than nothing. And you never know if you can get back as you have indicated.

 

I'll share a different point of view. Different. Not better. And one that has worked for my husband and me.

 

Even thought both London and Paris are such a wonderful cities, filled with many fascinating things, I'd choose to stay in one of them. Doing this, I feel I stack the odds in favor of getting back! I'm more motivated to manage my finances -- or do whatever it takes -- to make that return trip to Europe, this time focusing on Paris.

[Globaliser]

I always look at a trip as if I might never get back. What would I regret more: doing something with limited time or regret not doing it?

 

6 hours or so of Paris is better than nothing. And you never know if you can get back as you have indicated.

But either way, you're going to miss out things that you might later regret missing.

 

You either run the risk of missing out on 6 hours' worth of stuff to see in Paris plus missing out on sitting on a train and other transport for 8 hours; or you run the risk of missing out on 14 hours' worth of stuff to see in London.

 

Which are you likely to regret more? The trip isn't more successful merely because your shoes have touched the ground in one more city.