I can't explain why, but I, too, avoid looking into American-sounding hotel names when planning for a European trip. It's probably because of my fear that these hotels are specifically designed to cater to American travelers and, so, loses their authenticity and local charm. Notjing wrong with that, but, it's just not my cup of tea. <BR> <BR>On a related subject, can I assume that the same view here apply to B&B's that are operated and owned by transplanted non-locals (e,g, Americans or British relocating to, say, Tuscany)?

On my second vacation in Italy (after having studied there in college), i went with a high school friend of mine. A number of my other friends who had spent a LOT of time in Italy recommended the Hotel American in Venice as a good, moderately priced hotel that fit our budget (we were in our early 20s and just out of graduate/professional school.) My friend, who had never been out of the Midwest, whined for the same reasons mentioned above and resisted staying there until I gave in and let her pick the hotel (she insisted that I do all the work on planning the rest of the trip). As it turns out, a couple of my other friends were staying at the American while we were in Venice. When we went to meet them at their hotel, my friend, of course, went on and on about how "authentic" and "charming" the hotel was and that she wished we were staying there instead. <BR> <BR>Other than this experience, I haven't stayed in any hotels in Europe with American names (I haven't resisted them either). I can't imagine why I would. I'd much rather follow the advice of other well traveled friends than an insecurity and/or stereotype of labels.

Joe -- Sorry, I didn't mean to sound snippish correcting grammar. I guess my point was that I don't see why foreign names are, in themselves, necessarily impressive.

I'm curious about the finer points. In Rome is the d'Inghilterra (Italian for "English") okay? The Hassler (neither English nor Italian)? The Raphael (Anglicization of Italian name, Raffaele)? The Ambasciatori Palace (a cross-breed)? Fertile ground for speculation.

KT - <BR> <BR>I'd stay at Hassler even if the renamed it "Hellhole."

KT: All you list would be fine with me. My problem is particulary with American location names, like Miami, California, Beverly Hills (the worst), etc. I think you get the point.

My question has been why stay at an American or any other country's chain. When you go to a new place, part of the charm is learning how they live and the staff and other foreign travelers. Saying that, I do like Best Western because they keep the historic feel and you get the discounts. In the other hotels, you could be any where in the world and it looks the same.

Topped for andrew!

Best Western is indeed an American company with a long history, but their expansion abroad is solely as a marketing consortium and has been going on for some years. They do NOT buy properties in Europe. In fact, I don't think they buy them anywhere (although stds and hotels are very different in the US), it's a membership organization--members pay a fee and own part of the company (like a condo). Holiday Inns is a franchise abroad, also, but that's slightly different.

Steve, I know exactly how you feel! 2 Years ago, we were eagerly waiting to hear that we have accommodation in a RCI resort in Southern France. The first resort they came up with, was Malibu Village (close to Montpellier - which is actually very nice!) We immediately turned it down, beacause of the name! We were informed two weeks later, that we could have an apartment at Le Golf Bleu - and immediately took it!! I suppose it has something to do with the whole "feeling" of a place - when you are in France, you want to go for everything French - and I know some people will immediately say, it has nothing to do with the name! BUT I feel exactly like you!

The Name is not important, but rather a childish attitude. Would you reject a person because of their name or the color of their skin? <BR> <BR>The most important things about a hotel are: The cleanliness, the convnience, and the refund policy.

As an American, and reflecting upon the tragic events that occurred this week, I would be proud to stay in any lodging in any country that has bears the name of an American city or state. <BR> <BR>Leslie

The first time I read this I was disgusted. I thought these posters were just too over the top about European travel. I feel even more so now. <BR> <BR>

What I don't understand is why anyone would got to a foreign country to stay in a Marriott, Hyatt, or Holiday Inn. I'd far rather experience a country in one of "their" hotels, regardless of the name. Heck, you can stay in a Marriott anywhere.

Hey, I very much enjoy staying at the Hyatts, Hiltons and Marriotts around the world. They are excellent hotels. Stop being such pompous snobs. It is not becoming.

Hyatts, Hiltons and Marriotts have no local ambience whatsoever.

Heh, heh. Even though it's silly, I agree. I'm from Texas and once stayed at the Armadillo Hotel in Glasgow on my first night in Scotland. It just didn't seem like I was in Scotland with stuffed armadillos all over the hotel lobby! If I could afford to stay at Best Westerns, etc, I might consider it just because they're usually nice, but I really prefer locally owned small hotels (with cool names ) and local personality. I stayed at a Hotel California once somewhere in Europe and all I remember about it is that it was decorated with pictures of LA, SFO, etc. That's no fun!

Anon - I don't think you're info is quite right about Best Western. A marketing consortium? It's a chain. They advertise themselves as the largest hotel chain in the world. I was involved with some franchise work at one time (not specifically the group that runs Best Western, but one that is very similar). No chain that I worked with "buys" hotels anywhere. Individuals buy franchise rights from the company to use the name and must comply with certain franchise requirements (including signage, room standards, etc.) Best Western is a chain - even if all their hotel buildings don't look the same. I've seen this point brought up on this board before, and some people here argue about this "marketing consortium" not making it a chain. That's just not the case.

I have been to several weddings in Best Western hotels in the UK. <BR> <BR>Each hotel has been in an historic old building, stunning location and charmingly decorated rooms. <BR> <BR>Nothing like Best Westerns in America. <BR> <BR>Ownership is surely moot when the issue is what they are really like. <BR> <BR>They are usually very individual, often much nicer and more traditional than other hotels in the same town, and if no one told you you probably would never know they were part of Best Western.

I absolutely agree with UK. The Best Western hotels in Europe only use the worldwide reservation system, otherwise they are independently run. If you look at them, you are not even aware they are BWs, usually there are just small sign. <BR>A BW we use here in Zurich for business is owned by a couple and the place is perfectly run. It's a small and well-located hotel where the owners are always around to greet their guests. <BR>The place we usually stay in Paris, is a BW too. Small town house with the same staff for years. You really have to search the BW logos. <BR>Having never stayed at a BW in the US, I cannot compare.