We noticed that you're using an unsupported browser. The TripAdvisor website may not display properly.We support the following browsers:
Windows: Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox, Google Chrome. Mac: Safari.

tower of london vs st. pauls cathedral

around about ireland
Level Contributor
336 posts
20 reviews
Save Topic
tower of london vs st. pauls cathedral

which is better I know I made a past post but I have now got rid of westminister abbey. I am going to london in late october so I am thinking of st. pauls cathedral becuase it is indoors incase the weather is bad. plus st. pauls is cheaper than the tower of london, but what is your views

Sheffield
Level Contributor
4,467 posts
144 reviews
Save Reply
1. Re: tower of london vs st. pauls cathedral

This is an odd question. You must realise that one is a 17th century cathedral and the other an 11th century castle. Wren or William the Conquerer. Holy place or something at the other end of the spectrum.

Neither is better - just very, very different.

But I suspect that you know that.

Halifax, Canada
Level Contributor
691 posts
10 reviews
Save Reply
2. Re: tower of london vs st. pauls cathedral

It all depends on what you want to see. You could probably spend more time at the Tower than at St Paul's, so it could work out to costing the same thing 'per hour', as such. I've been to both (twice), so here are some quick thoughts:

St Paul's:

-Addmission gets you inside to see the church, which is a masterpiece, as well as the crypts below.

-You can get incredible views of London by climbing up into the galleries - it'll cost you extra, though.

-No interior photography allowed, so be prepared to either buy a souvenir or pray you have a good memory when you want to remember small details in the future

-Not open for tours on Sunday, but you can attend church services

-You can go for a stroll across the Millenium Bridge, if the weather's ok, as it's nearby. Great views of St Pauls from the other side of the bridge

-If the weather isn't good, you're inside (as you've mentioned)

Tower of London

-Lots to see, more than a few buildings, a free yeoman warder's tour, the Crown Jewels

-With the exception of the Crown Jewels, you can take pictures (but hey do have a gift shop, if you need one- heck, they have multiple gift shops *G*)

-You will get exposed to the elements as you go from building to building.

-Open 7 days a week

-Nearby, you can visit the Tower Hill Monument, or Tower Bridge (which has great views - and will cost you extra)

Like I said, it totally depends on what you're interested in seeing. Aside from the fact that both are iconic London landmarks and full of history, they're really different experiences (as opposed to comparing St Pauls and Westminster Abbey).

West Virginia
Level Contributor
599 posts
7 reviews
Save Reply
3. Re: tower of london vs st. pauls cathedral

IMO, you could effectively do both in one day if you did these things:

Get to the Tower when they open;

Keep your time to no more than three hours at the Tower;

AND you had transport already mapped out to St. Paul's.

As others have said they are very different. My way of looking at it is one is a church and one is a museum.

Edited: 19 September 2010, 17:39
Detroit, Michigan
Level Contributor
5,316 posts
19 reviews
Save Reply
4. Re: tower of london vs st. pauls cathedral

If you can only do one, I would choose the Tower of London. That, and Westminster Abbey are what I'd consider to be London's top two "must-sees."

around about ireland
Level Contributor
336 posts
20 reviews
Save Reply
5. Re: tower of london vs st. pauls cathedral

to post number 2, what did you mean you have to pay extra to go into the galleries above? I dont think thats the case actually

but thanks for your help

Hampshire, United...
Destination Expert
for Amesbury, London
Level Contributor
6,863 posts
57 reviews
Save Reply
6. Re: tower of london vs st. pauls cathedral

Interesting; most of us seem to be suggesting that the Tower and / or the Abbey are 'better', but cost seems to be the determining factor to you, so if you wish to save £6.20, then go to the Cathedral and enjoy it. Don't worry about what you're not seeing - all three are iconic examples of London's history in their own ways, and whichever one you choose, I'm sure you'll enjoy.

But what made you discount the Abbey?

around about ireland
Level Contributor
336 posts
20 reviews
Save Reply
7. Re: tower of london vs st. pauls cathedral

I dont actually know I heard from days out guide that you spend about an hour there .Which aint that good And i prefer the look of st pauls to the abbey

San Francisco...
Level Contributor
2,173 posts
2 reviews
Save Reply
8. Re: tower of london vs st. pauls cathedral

both places have many things to recommend them. do both if you have time. the verger's tour of the abbey is very informative and interesting.

Edited: 19 September 2010, 20:12
Aylmer, Canada
Level Contributor
1,128 posts
16 reviews
Save Reply
9. Re: tower of london vs st. pauls cathedral

iI've been to the Tower of London twice and Westminster Abbey once, and never to St. Paul's. The Tower and the Abbey are two totally different things, as people have said. I had never seen anything quite like the Abbey, it is spectacularly amazing to me, and I will be going there again in Oct. with hubby as he has not been there. Dont discount the Abbey, it's a beautiful church full of history.

Richmond Hill...
Level Contributor
376 posts
54 reviews
Save Reply
10. Re: tower of london vs st. pauls cathedral

The Tower of London is quite fun - especially if you have kids.