Jump to content

Recommended Posts

We're trying to book a honeymoon for late June and can't decide between Corsica, Sardinia (or even mainland Italy).


We will hire a car when we're there and don't mind doing a 'twin centre' type thing as we'll have 2 weeks. Any thoughts? Ideally we'd have a mix of

- visiting sleepy mountain villages

- some mountainy activities, e.g kayaking, hiking

- a few days to see gorgeous white beaches


Not fussed about St Tropez style glamour. We thought Corsica, but some have said it's SO expensive to eat.


Thanks in advance

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/53186-corsica-or-sardinia/
Share on other sites

I've visited Sardinia but not Corsica. My general impression is that the latter is slightly more upmarket cf. the former. Sardinia is blessed with some magnificent, remote geography - beaches, cliffs, and an empty interior punctuated by a few small towns. You'll probably need a car. The small La Maddalena islands just off the north coast, with what seemed to be tropical beaches and Garibaldi's house (now a museum), were a highlight.


Whichever island you choose, have fun.

Been to both a number of times. Corsica gets the vote for its splendid scenery and being slightly more civilised than Sardinia.(Berlusconi has a place on the costa smeralda in Sardinia) Chocoholic, if you went round the island in an hour it must have been Canvey Island you went to!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • What Firkins were they? The only localish ones I remember were the Phoenix and Firkin and the Fox and Firkin. The Plough has changed its name several times, and then back to the Plough, but to the best of my recollection the Uplands Tavern was named that until it became The Actress, and The Bishop was called something else whose name escapes me (though the smell from the gents lingers in my memory) but I'm pretty sure it wasn't a Firkin?
    • These statements were in the Consultation Findings report published (later than promised) just before the licence was granted:  "The site hire fee goes directly to supporting the delivery of the council’s Events service, which supports the delivery of up to 100 free-to-attend community events per year – please refer to section 1 (Licensing and income)" I've drafted an email to request some more details of these "free-to-attend" events, as "up to" is a fairly meaningless description - could be 100, could be none? - and therefore doesn't help anyone to decide whether it is actually a benefit to the community or not. Even if it is 100, I'm not sure I could name even one of them? "The site hire fee goes directly to supporting the provision of a grants fund – the Cultural Celebrations programme - please refer to section 1 (Licensing and income)" A similarly meaningless statement in terms of gauging whether, or how much, this is a benefit to the local community. What is it, what does it do, how much of the fee goes to it? And how can the fee go "directly" to two different things? Surely, "directly" means without deviation, straight to, without being changed or reduced?? Again, I'll be asking all these questions to the events dept. I find it outrageous & insulting that a public body can try to justify such an intrusive & disruptive event with such flimsy and opaque "benefits", with zero figures or details to quantify them. They may as well not bother with a consultation, just say "Look, we can't be arsed to justify our decision, it's happening so just deal with it".  
    • Thanks so much. Yes I have. Really appreciate your kindness in replying. Thank you.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...