Having been lucky enough to experience both, which did I prefer and how – if money is no obstacle for you – do you decide which to prioritize?
Confession alert: I have never had an overwhelming urge to visit London. Sure, there’s tons of history there, but the city itself never really appealed to me. I knew I’d get there one day, but my expectations of how I’d feel about it were set pretty low. Did they change after visiting? Not entirely, but I did enjoy myself more than I thought.
There’s a certain small, lingering fear I think a lot of people have when they travel – that iconic sites they’ve seen pictures of and have been dreaming of seeing in person for years won’t live up to the standard they’ve conjured in their minds. I was wary about seeing Stonehenge in person.