Two nights in London post cruise.

[DarrenM]

57 minutes ago, Zach1213 said:

 

Now I'm just so intrigued what your definition of both "southern England" and "city" are. The only one of those in the south is Bath, and while it's lovely, it's not a "city" in my book. 

Birmingham is most definitely South.

 

As is Cardiff which I forgot to out in there.

 

Just goes to show though, the North of England is the place to visit.

[DarrenM]

Cant believe I also missed Nottingham off the list too. And was only there a fortnight ago.

 

Great weekend, and fabulous pubs again. Nottingham is a fabulous sporting city.

 

I consider Nottingham south ish.

 

London folk consider it North. But they consider Watford North.

[K32682]

Bath was granted a city charter by Queen Elizabeth I in 1590

 

http://royalcrescentbath.co.uk/History bath.htm

 

The UK government has set 75,000 as the population for a Major Town or City.

 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/townsandcitiesintheuk#

 

>75,000 + City Charter = City of Bath. 🙂 

 

 

[Heidi13]

2 hours ago, K32682 said:

 

The  UK defines a "city" as having a population of over 75,000 so Bath qualifies but from visitor stand point it doesn't offer the same variety of attractions as London. The same could be said about Cambridge, Oxford and other similar-sized UK cities. 

 

Bath is a great place to go after you've visited London. 😉

 

The UK has no definitive definition of a city, as the status is by Royal Proclamation. Having a cathedral is a key consideration, but the population is irrelevant. I lived in Perth for many years, which at the time was a Royal Burgh, but has now received city status.

 

City of Perth has a population of < 50,000. At least a couple of cities have a population of < 2,000.

 

Bath is one of UK's oldest cities, but not because of its population. Whether Bath has the same variety of attractions depends on the definition of London, greater London or just the City of London.

[Heidi13]

1 hour ago, K32682 said:

Bath was granted a city charter by Queen Elizabeth I in 1590

 

http://royalcrescentbath.co.uk/History bath.htm

 

The UK government has set 75,000 as the population for a Major Town or City.

 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/townsandcitiesintheuk#

 

>75,000 + City Charter = City of Bath. 🙂 

 

 

 

The context of the URL you provided is not the UK definition of requirements for the Monarch to confer city status.

 

As outlined in the first paragraph of the FOI response, this definition is developed by the Census Dept for the production and analysis of statistics for Major Towns & Cities. By setting a population threshold of 75,000, they clearly state they are excluding a number of existing cities.

 

This is NOT the official UK Government definition of a city. This is an arbitrary number used by the Census Dept for analysis.

[navybankerteacher]

On 2/26/2024 at 10:08 AM, DarrenM said:

Mmmmm Opinions eh?

 

it isnt even the greatest City in Southern England, never mind the rest of England and the rest of the UK.

You do sound a bit like a regional chauvinist — while there are certainly dreary expanses, London has a broad collection which is hard to beat - even though many (if not most) of its landmarks are individually surpassed elsewhere:  Salisbury’s cathedral, for example, strikes me as far superior to St. Paul’s, and even Westminster Abbey.

[navybankerteacher]

2 hours ago, Heidi13 said:

 

The context of the URL you provided is not the UK definition of requirements for the Monarch to confer city status.

 

As outlined in the first paragraph of the FOI response, this definition is developed by the Census Dept for the production and analysis of statistics for Major Towns & Cities. By setting a population threshold of 75,000, they clearly state they are excluding a number of existing cities.

 

This is NOT the official UK Government definition of a city. This is an arbitrary number used by the Census Dept for analysis.

Of course, once you let government bureaucrats, rather than traditional usages, define things such as cities you are stepping onto a slippery slope.

[Kristelle]

5 hours ago, DarrenM said:

Birmingham is most definitely South.

 

As is Cardiff which I forgot to out in there.

 

Just goes to show though, the North of England is the place to visit.

 

 

But Cardiff is not in Southern England

[navybankerteacher]

50 minutes ago, Kristelle said:

 

 

But Cardiff is not in Southern England

Nor in Northern, Western or Eastern England.

[momofmeg]

On 2/25/2024 at 7:11 PM, davisleel said:

Planning to spend 2 nights in London after a cruise in mid-May. We want to see the sights around Buckingham Palace and go to the Tower of London. Any advice on where to stay and transportation would be appreciated.

 This last cruise we stayed near Heathrow at a Hampton Inn that had a tube stop a block away, but London was over an hour by tube. Our first trip we stayed in Earl court and the next time near Victoria station. Victoria Station is both a tube and train station so you can take the train to get there and use the tube the next day to get around London. The tube is very easy to navigate. That is your best transportation for getting around London. if you find a hotel near a tube station it is easier to take the train from the airport to make the connections to get you to the tube station. However, maybe from the train station take a taxi or Uber. It is worth the expense not to navigate the tube with luggage. Lol! Oh, the trains have luggage racks. Needless to say, Victoria Sation is a better place to get a hotel than Earl's court. Expect Victoria Station hotels to cost more than Earl's Court and needless to say by the airport the hotels are less than half the price, they are much more expensive in London. So, whichever way, it is a tradeoff. Save money or spend more time on the tube getting into London. For more convenience obliviously, you pay more. I guess that is true anywhere.

 

Edited February 27 by momofmeg

[puppycanducruise]

We stayed at the Premier Inn Waterloo.  Clean, affordable hotel close to the London Eye, Big Ben, tube station.  It was a nice walk to the Churchill War Rooms.  We took a river cruise down the Thames to Greenwich, got the boat near the London Eye.

[Kristelle]

8 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

Nor in Northern, Western or Eastern England.

 

 

Indeed not. 

[DarrenM]

13 hours ago, Kristelle said:

 

 

But Cardiff is not in Southern England

well no, obviously not. Its the welsh county of Wales.

 

Just kidding welsh folk.

 

Its South to me though. A long way south

[DarrenM]

and just for the pedants on here, of which there are many, I also know Edinburgh, Glasgow and Dundee are not in Northern England.

 

But are all still nicer than London. Oh yes they are.😁

[navybankerteacher]

1 hour ago, DarrenM said:

and just for the pedants on here, of which there are many, I also know Edinburgh, Glasgow and Dundee are not in Northern England.

 

But are all still nicer than London. Oh yes they are.😁

Well, maybe you Durhamites can sense things unnoticed by real 

out-of-towners, but Glasgow “…nicer than London…”?   Perhaps the next time you are in the US you should spend your time in Bridgeport, CT rather than New York City.

[momofmeg]

7 minutes ago, navybankerteacher said:

Well, maybe you Durhamites can sense things unnoticed by real 

out-of-towners, but Glasgow “…nicer than London…”?   Perhaps the next time you are in the US you should spend your time in Bridgeport, CT rather than New York City.

Lol New York city, Brooklyn, etc.  holds no fascination for me. I have cruised from there a couple of times though. Once to Bermuda, once to Canada.  Traffic was horrific, worse than Atlanta and Atlanta traffic is terrible and holds no fascination for me either. I did like visiting upstate New York out in the countryside.  I have still never been to Maine and would love to go there one day.

[Heidi13]

3 hours ago, DarrenM said:

and just for the pedants on here, of which there are many, I also know Edinburgh, Glasgow and Dundee are not in Northern England.

 

But are all still nicer than London. Oh yes they are.😁

 

All personal opinion, but as a Glaswegian, I would NOT concur that Glasgow is better than London. While Glasgow docklands have improved significantly since the 60's & 70's, so has London. Even comparing the Glasgow Underground (Subway) to the London Tube is no contest.

 

Don't get me started on Dundee, as the best part of that city is driving back across the Tay Bridge, heading back to St Andrews. Personally, from St Andrews, we would take the longer drive to Perth, rather than going to Dundee. 

[DarrenM]

12 minutes ago, Heidi13 said:

 

All personal opinion, but as a Glaswegian, I would NOT concur that Glasgow is better than London. While Glasgow docklands have improved significantly since the 60's & 70's, so has London. Even comparing the Glasgow Underground (Subway) to the London Tube is no contest.

 

Don't get me started on Dundee, as the best part of that city is driving back across the Tay Bridge, heading back to St Andrews. Personally, from St Andrews, we would take the longer drive to Perth, rather than going to Dundee. 

Well as a visitor I really love Glasgow. And I absolutely adore Dundee. Granted Dundee has only recently improved, but working up there for a few months was a joy.

 

I dont enjoy London in the same way. Over crowded all the time, rip off expensive, and once you've seen the sights, well, you've seen em.

 

Though I do love Borough Market and Brick Lane.

[navybankerteacher]

14 hours ago, puppycanducruise said:

We stayed at the Premier Inn Waterloo.  Clean, affordable hotel close to the London Eye, Big Ben, tube station.  It was a nice walk to the Churchill War Rooms.  We took a river cruise down the Thames to Greenwich, got the boat near the London Eye.

We’ve often taken the Piccadilly Line from Heathrow to Gloucester Road (where you can get both Circle and District Lines - giving broad access). It’s a bit over a half hour from LHR, and the least expensive option. Many hotels, restaurants and museums in easy walk along Cromwell Road.

[DarrenM]

2 hours ago, navybankerteacher said:

Well, maybe you Durhamites can sense things unnoticed by real 

out-of-towners, but Glasgow “…nicer than London…”?   Perhaps the next time you are in the US you should spend your time in Bridgeport, CT rather than New York City.

Define nice.

 

Glaswegians are lovely people. Proper pubs. Real culture.

 

Maybe we are looking for different things.

[navybankerteacher]

3 minutes ago, DarrenM said:

.

 

I dont enjoy London in the same way. Over crowded all the time, rip off expensive, and once you've seen the sights, well, you've seen em.

 

…

True - but at least there are plenty of sights to see. And the fact that it is crowded is evidence that there is a reason to be there.

[DarrenM]

1 minute ago, navybankerteacher said:

True - but at least there are plenty of sights to see. And the fact that it is crowded is evidence that there is a reason to be there.

Or its a reason to avoid. 

 

And yes there things to see, but give me the beauty of the Lake District and its many proper pubs over a palace in London any day.

[mom says]

The thread drift has become ludicrous. The OP is an American (who I'm guessing hasn't been to the UK before)  with only 2 days to spend before returning home. Wanting to get a taste of London is a reasonable and logical ask IMO. 

 

And while I am sure there are reasons why some Brits have a sour view of London, it still ranks, among tourists, as one of the great cities of the world. We will spend a few weeks in Scotland and Yorkshire this year. But I've made it a point to end the trip with a week in London.

[SteveH2508]

On 2/27/2024 at 1:28 AM, John Bull said:

 

Hi, and welcome to Cruise Critic,

 

You'll have to forgive Darren - he's from "up north" 😏

Many of us southern softies tend to take the same attitude - there's London and there's the rest of the country.

But of course London is well worth a visit, so straight to the bones of your question..........

 

My choice for central London would be a hotel in the Westminster Bridge / County Hall / Waterloo area. Close to the London Eye & River Thames boat trips eg to the Tower of London,  and easy walking across Westminster Bridge to explore Big Ben, Westminster Abbey and Parliament Square, then up Whitehall (Churchill's War Rooms, Prime Minister's residence in Downing Street, Cenotaph, Horseguards Parade & other sights) to Trafalgar Square (Nelson's Column, National Gallery etc). then return via Northumberland Avenue and the Golden Jubilee Footbridge. About 2 miles in total.

Or if you're still feeling fresh at Trafalgar Square, leave the Square under Admiralty Arch & down The Mall to Buckingham Palace. You've now replicated the Coronation route from Westminster Abbey to Buck' Palace. Then back along Birdcage Walk or thro St James' Park, about 3 miles in total.

Evening river walks along the South Bank, perhaps as far as Shakespeare's (replica) Globe Theatre and Tate Modern - watering holes & restaurants along the way.

Direct trains from nearby Waterloo station to Southampton, or direct trains to Dover from the adjoining Waterloo East station and a number of other central London stations.

Hotels in that area are mainly big international hotels like Marriott County Hall, Park Plaza Westminster Bridge and Hampton Inn Waterloo, or national chain Premier Inn County Hall or Waterloo.

Like around the Tower of London / London Bridge area, it's not one of the most expensive areas in central London, but London is expensive and if those prices are too rich...........

 

 try around Victoria or Paddington. Broad range of hotels & prices, both with convenient to Heathrow airport but a little less convenient for the sights.

 

Even cheaper further out but some districts are fine, others not-so-fine. And less convenient for the sights, which neatly brings me to transportation.

 

Quickest & easiest way to get around London is its extensive underground  system - The Tube.

So make sure your lodgings are a short walk from a tube station.

https://content.tfl.gov.uk/standard-tube-map.pdf

There's always a tube map on tourist maps of London, on flyers, and in stations & on trains. Attractions always quote the name of the nearest tube station/s on their literature & websites.

Use that map only to plan your route underground - it's schematic, not geographically accurate. New Yorkers will know about that.

Set up an Oyster Card for cheapest & most convenient way to pay.

 

@K32682 mentioned the ho-ho buses.

Well-worthwhile for an overview, but useless as transportation because they follow a set route, they stop at  bus-stops, and they mix it with heavy traffic. So get a 24-hour ticket with either https://www.tootbus.com/en/london/home or https://www.bigbustours.com/en/london/london-bus-tours

 but don't waste your money on a 48-hour ticket. Mebbe hop off to walk Whitehall (as above) and hop back on at the other end.

Choose carefully if your lodgings aren't near the shared main route, they have different feeder routes. Other freebie add-ons vary, but both include a short river cruise from Westminster to the Tower of London or vice-versa.

Alternatively Golden Tours offer a simple round trip from the London Eye. Not a hop-on service, but covers much the same primary route as the hop-ons

route. https://www.goldentours.com/london-hop-on-hop-off-bus-tours/open-top-london-bus-tour-with-live-guide

 

IMHO the best website for visiting London is https://www.londontoolkit.com/

 

JB 🙂

 

 

 

To add to JB's excellent walking guide - this takes you past 2 of the best pubs in London IMHO. St. Stephen's Tavern is next to Westminster station and opposite the Elizabeth tower. The Harp in Chandos Place is just off Trafalgar Square.

[momofmeg]

On 2/28/2024 at 10:21 AM, navybankerteacher said:

True - but at least there are plenty of sights to see. And the fact that it is crowded is evidence that there is a reason to be there.

Every big city is overcrowded. I may love seeing the sites and the history there, but I don't like the traffic.  At least London has the tube, and it will get you to most of those historic sites.