Westminster Abbey vs St Pauls Cathedral

I say both. Each of these major sites is also near other major sites and transit, so each can easily be built into your schedule.

I did both, but a few days apart and first thing in the morning.

In five days you will barely begin to scratch the surface in London , and I think that You must be careful not to fall into the mindset of " Once you have seen one church , you have seen them all " I'm sure you would like to see a variety of places during your stay , but keep in mind that Westminster and St. Paul's could not be more different . They are both historical and architectural masterpieces and it would be hard to choose . If it must be a choice , do a bit of reading and homework about both , so as to choose based on your interests . Of particular interest to me , is Wren's solution to the building of the dome of St. Paul's .

Both are wonderful in different ways, and located in different parts of London.

The Abbey is an example of several types of Gothic architecture from the Middle Ages. It contains the tombs of most of the kings and queens from Edward the Confessor through the Tudors, as well as dozens of other famous Brits including writers, artists, scientists, and political leaders. It's the site of the coronation of most of the kings and queens of the past thousand years, and you can see the Coronation Chair they sit on, dating back that far. It's also where the present queen married Pirnce Philip, and where Prince William married Kate Middleton a few years back. It's located near the Houses of Parliament, Whitehall, Buckingham Palace, the Churchill War Rooms, and Trafalgar Square, among other worthwhile sights in the western part of central London. It's not actually a cathedral but looks and feels like one. I've been there several times and it always takes a few hours.

St. Paul's is an example of 17th-century Baroque architecture and one of Christopher Wren's masterpieces. It contains the tombs of many political and military leaders, like Nelson and Wellington, and other prominent Brits (but no royals as I recall). No coronations, but it's where Prince Charles married Diana Spencer (we know how that turned out), and where Winston Churchill's funeral was held. It's located in the City of London, not far from the Tower, the Tate Modern, and other worthwhile sights in the eastern part of central London. It's an actual cathedral, the seat (cathedra) of the Anglican bishop of London. I've been there several times and it doesn't normally take as long. Many people recommend the climb up many stairs into the dome, but I haven't done that.

Given my interests, I'd visit both on my first five days in London -- as in fact I did long ago. If I had to choose, I'd pick Westminster Abbey for its history and variety, but I'd hate to have to make the choice. Both charge a lot for admission, but both are free for the evensong service late most afternoons. It doesn't give you a chance to really tour either place, but does allow you to get a feel for the inside and hear the choir. That could be a way to experience either or both for a smaller investment of time and money.

Both! And be sure to take the audio guide self-tour at both locations. Very insightful.

Do them both. They are, in my opinion, completely different in every way. If you skip one I think you will regret it later.

Both are well worth a visit. I would visit them on different days.

If you MUST choose then I would think Westminster. It is absolutely packed with interesting memorials, tombs, historical objects, etc. Many things are labeled but most are not...definitely take advantage of an audio or live tour so you know what you are looking at.

I'd agree with others and do both.

We went to both on our trip to London in 2014. Westminster was by far our favorite. We happened to be there when a service was going on in one of the small chapels & were told we were welcome to attend. We enjoyed it very much and also took communion there. It was a highlight of our trip. St Pauls is nice too & we joined an impromptu tour which gave us a little of the history especially during WWII. I would agree to do both if you have time. If not, I would choose Westminster Abbey. Enjoy your trip.

No disrespect to Westminster Abbey, but St Pauls Cathedral is considered one of the architectural wonders of the world. Anyone who doesn't visit it on a first time visit to London should have their passport revoked!
See both if you have time, but St Pauls is a must see attraction, missing it would be like driving through Flagstaff AZ, and not taking a peek at the Grand Canyon.

I agree do both, but if you have to choose one, do the Abbey. Its well worth the 500 odd step climb to the top of St. Paul's if your fitness allows. It isn't actally as tough as i thought and there are rest stops on the way, but if heights and tight squeezes arnt your thing, you may not enjoy it as much as i did.

I'm not easily impressed by history, but being shown Sir Christpher Wren's tomb and knowing the guy who built St. Paul's some 350 years ago was actually in there, was quite special, even for me.

I'll go against the grain and day that 5 days in London (which I had as well) was adequate for me, and if I ever fget a chance to go back to the UK, I'll probably skip London to visit more of the rest of the country. I'd be happy to share my London itinerary if you're interested.

BUT, coming back to the point of your post, I went to both Westminster and St Paul's in two separate days and felt they were both well worth the time. Westminster took a little more than an hour, I went at 10am. I might have spent a little more time but it was super cold that day and I hustled my way through the exposed areas quite quickly.

St Paul's I gave the better part of an afternoon, maybe 2.5 hours. That included climbing the domes, which I found surprisingly challenging as a 30-something in decent shape! Those steps are not meant for people with large feet so I had to tread carefully, literally! I also returned that evening for an evensong service, though I was slightly disappointed that Monday's are the choir's day off, so they had a guest choir that was... Okay. Still moving, especially as we were allowed to sit in the quire (not sure if that's normal).

In short, I'd say it's very possible to do both and I'd encourage it, they are very different.

I would think you definitely have time for both. Architecturally and historically, one is not a substitute for the other.

If I had a full seven days in London ...

Day 1
Tower of London & Tower Bridge
St. Paul's Cathedral
Southwark Markets, or Shakespeare's Globe, or Tate Modern
London Eye (??)

Day 2
Buckingham Palace (for Changing of the Guard ??) & St James's Park
Westminster Abbey
Houses of Parliament & Big Ben
Trafalgar Square & National Gallery.

Day 3
British Museum
Covent Garden & Soho
Regent Street & Piccadilly (afternoon tea at Fortnum & Mason)

Day 4
Victoria and Albert Museum
Hyde Park & Kensington Palace
Knighsbridge shopping - Harrods & Harvey Nichols

Day 5
Tate Britain, or Churchill War Rooms
Kew Gardens

Day 6
Imperial War Museum
Thames Cruise to Greenwich

Day 7
Hampton Court Palace, or Windsor Castle

You're probably not making the choice based on wildlife sightings, but FWIW we observed a beautiful red fox emerge from the bushes outside St. Paul's Cathedral. Later read that foxes in parts of London have become overpopulated, kind of like urban pigeons or rodents. Since we didn't know this ahead of time, seeing Mr./Ms. Fox was kind of exciting.

Coming from Australia and not being used to seeing foxes, I got a fright when I sat up in my friend's bath (suburban south London), and found myself being eyeballed by a fox from the garden.

You might not have foxes in Brisbane, but I live close to bush land in suburban Sydney, and I have seen foxes there.

I appreciate all the advice. I will try to visit both but was also thinking of a day trip out of the city so I am not sure if both will be feasible. Thinking Windsor Castle, Dover/Canterbury, Cambridge or Oxford. Any recommendation as to which would be best for mid March?

We had three days to spend in London, with Westminster and St. Paul's both on the must-see list. We went to Westminster in the middle of our first jet-lagged afternoon. It's an amazing, historic place, though we found the audio tour a bit hard to follow along to each numbered item and location. But the jet lag might have had something to do with that.

Count me among those who can't imagine making a first trip to London and not seeing St. Paul's. It's one of the most impressive architectural gems you'll ever see, as well as being another amazing, historic place. My then 17-year-old son was totally fascinated by everything about it. He and my wife climbed up to the very top and absolutely loved it, while I contented myself with the lower levels of the dome. We then caught a bit of the evensong, which as others have said, well worth the time.

So my vote is most definitely to see both if at all possible. I couldn't choose one over the other.

Thanks!! Is Windsor Castle at that time of year OK? Cambridge or Oxford?

I think Hampton Court makes a more interesting visit than Windsor Castle, probably because of the 2 different architectural styles together, as well as the Tudor connection. Toss a coin for Oxford or Cambridge.

David makes a good point about Hampton Court. It and Windsor are easy to reach from London. Canterbury requires more effort, and Dover probably not worth the additional time and effort to get there along with Canterbury as a day trip. Oxford and Cambridge are full-day trips. If I were picking it would be either Hampton Court (for history and architecture and beautiful grounds) or Windsor (for all the amazing art and furniture in the place, a glimpse at England's history and the upside of royal life).

Bouncing off my 7 day template above ...
Days 1 & 2 are certain must dos for everyone.
Then choose your preference of either day 3 or 4 (or your version of).
That leaves 2 days remaining for Oxford/Cambridge and Hampton Court/Windsor

I would go to both Windsor Castle and Hampton Court. They are both interesting and very different from one another.

It is possible to do both on the same day.
To get from Windsor to Hampton court by train you need to change trains at Clapham Junction and Surbiton, for a total journey time of about 80 minutes. However, we did this slightly differently; we caught the first train from Windsor, but got off at Twickenham and caught the r68 bus to Hampton Court. See the National Rail website for more information on the train services.

Best alternative might be to catch a taxi in Windsor and head to Hampton Court. Can't say what it would cost. The distance is about 20 miles.

If you had a lot longer and were staying overnight in Windsor, I would recommend you walk the Thames Path from one to the other. The Thames Path is a well-marked trail that follows the Thames River. If a person is into hiking, this is a beautiful all-day walk.
For anyone interested in this walk, Windsor and the Hampton Court area have some excellent hotels and budget B&B's.

About visiting Oxford or Cambridge. Both are easily reached by train from London. I would say definitely pick one and do a day trip out.

Oxford is a beautiful town for strolling around. Be sure and see the Ashmolean Museum which has an excellent art and archaeology collection. The Museum of Natural History and The Pitt Rivers Museum are also very interesting. Oxford has lots of good pubs and places to eat.

Twenty miles, Rebecca? That would be about 7 hours for me. Do I get to stop for food along the way?

acraven, a good stopping point along the way is Old Windsor, with a good pub or two for food and drink.
Almost at the halfway point, Staines-Upon-Thames, and getting closer to Hampton Court, Walton-On-Thames. Both with good pubs and cafes. A good walk for someone who loves hiking, and has several days to spare. We spent two nights in Windsor, one whole day doing the walk, and two nights at a hotel near Hampton Court.

If I had a short trip to London and saw nothing but Westminster Abbey and St. Paul's Cathedral, I would consider my trip a success. I put the two of them at the top of the list, even above the Tower of London.