I read a menu Saturday evening that advertized “Spanish and Continental Food.”
I’ve seen the same term associated with Greek, German, Indian and French cuisines.
Brings to mind French food to me. “Continental” is a throwback to when everything was centered around England, so elsewhere in Europe was the “contenent.” Of course at this time the only people worth talking about on the contenent (according to the British) were the French. Hence “contenental” pretty much meaning French.
Indian food would be sub-continental.
I’d assume it meant “our lazy chefs will use any recipe from anywhere in mainland Europe”
Perhaps it’s true that it once meant French, in a British context. Now, it just means mainland Europe, in a British context. And ‘subcontinental’ was always something entirely different in every way, and is rarely used nowadays, ‘Asian’ being the simpler option.
Not ethnic. 
[QUOTE=even sven]
“Continental” is a throwback to when everything was centered around England, so elsewhere in Europe was the "contenent."QUOTE]
English cuisine, therefore, can be described as incontinent.
But I don’t think restaurants consider Spanish, Irish, German, Polish, Russian, Italian, or French cooking to fall under the “continental” rubric. Each is distinct, isn’t it? By that, I mean, would they consider paella continental? What about borscht or kielbasa or rigatoni?
Could “continental,” as used in the U.S., refer to an upscale American cuisine–borrowed from classic French techniques?
Any food regime that uses Brussel Sprouts as a foundation vegie deserves all the bad mouthing that falls to its lot. Years ago Mrs G and I went out to eat in London to the Cheddar Cheese or the Savoy Grill, or some such. It was one of those places where they wheel a hind leg of a cow up to your table on a little cart. The beef and service were superb but the side dishes were lumpy mashed potatoes and, as God is my witness, Brussel Sprouts. There are times you just yearn for a Wimpy Burger, the one with a fried egg and an (unspecified) meat paddy.
The only thing worse that old fashion English cooking is old fashion Scottish cooking and the only thing worse than that is the English version of Italian cooking.
Whoops. Sounds like the last place you should’ve gone for a decent meal :wally
If a menu featured various distinct items of French, Italian & Spanish origin, then yes, I’d not be surprised to find it described as “continental”. If one specific cuisine was presented, then it would be named appropriately.
Well, in my house it’d mean food from a packet or box …but that’s just me. 
A close relative of the unspecified “Continental” cuisine is the “International” section that appears on many Chinese, Indian and non-European-ethnic restaurant menus in these parts. It means, approximately, “dishes that don’t fit this restaurant in any way, shape or form, but that we serve anyway to keep your unadventurous mother-in-law happy while the rest of you order something you actually like”. Spaghetti bolognese is a required feature of this section of the menu, cooked according to a recipe that would get any chef in Bologna tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a rail.
Hmmm…as I travel extensively, my experience with “continental” very much centers around breakfast, which for the most part means, “Our cheap-assed hotel isn’t going to give you a REAL breakfast - you’re going to get a donut, a bagel and a cup of coffee…and you’re going to like it because it’s a ‘continental’ breakfast!”
Small portions of expensive, heavy, fatty food cooked in a manner designed to disguise the nature of the original ingredients.
To be fair, this is, in fact, what they serve on the Continent. (Well, with yogurt.) As contrasted with the English breakfast, which has about three pounds of various meats, and a fried egg.
–Cliffy