No.
Ancestry updated their DNA sampling analysis last week. And tbh there's a fairly broad feeling that this update is particularly bollocks for anyone who is of significant British ancestry.
The problem is that Ancestry has identified certain markers they are attributing to Swedish, Danish and German (amongst others) ancestry. The problem is these same markers have been widely found within the British population for centuries meaning that Ancestry's analysis is fairly misleading.
It doesn't mean that you necessarily have a recent ancestors from a certain country. It means you have a DNA marker that is common in a certain place, but this marker could be a hang over from an older community migrating and integrating into the UK but then breeding within this same community thus retaining these markers.
We know that there was widespread settlements from the Angles, Saxons, Jutes as well as Vikings which reflect this.
There's complains that the last update over estimated Sweden/Danish ancestry and underestimated German ancestry. But the one last week is now over estimating German ancestry and under estimating Swedish!
People who have done extensive paperwork demonstrating their heritage have found that they have been on both sides of this with the profile reflecting this before the update and then loosing it post update or vice versa.
To use an example - my mum was coming up with FOUR ancestry regions last week. This week she's completely lost one of those four but she's now showing as having ancestry from SEVEN regions!!
Further to this huge numbers of Brits are complaining that they've all been given the subregion of the Channel Islands or the Island of Scotland. I managed my mum's, my dad's, my mil and DHs profile and this is definitely problematic from my paper research!!! Only my Mum and DH really should have the channel islands as realistic possibility!
The inability of Ancestry to properly separate Northern Western European ancestry from each other isn't understood by most people - the recent update and the reaction to it - highlights this problem well.
The DNA profiles can only give an impression of ancestry at this point, which is inaccurate and may have an alternative explanation.
Its only really accurate enough to give an echo of a much wider area rather than something more accurate than that.
My Dad is currently showing as part Icelandic. This is extremely unlikely for various reasons. We know from paperwork that part of my Dad's family was from the Scottish Highlands and it's much more likely that an individual or group way back when possibly even from Norway en route to Iceland added to the gene pool of a local Scottish community and this is ringing through the ages into my Dad's DNA.
In other words, you still need to back up the hocus pocus of an ancestry profile with your own papertrail - be that through your ancestry matches using other people's information to fill in gaps or your own trail of BMD chasing.
There isn't a short cut.
I'm finding that the profiles I manage do explain a lot of the 'noise' if you understand where in the UK your recent ancestors came from and what the history of that area was.
But beyond that, it really is largely noise.
You have to have a significant percentage from a particular area or a known ancestor from an area to be reasonably confident of ancestry from that region at this point. So 20 - 30% from one place is a good guide for that in the absence of known ancestor.
Anything under 10% is more likely to be noise.
If you know an ancestor to be from a certain place and this seems to find the DNA assume it does until you find something that counteracts that. If you have a known ancestors from somewhere and it doesn't fit the profile, consider whether alternative explanations from migration patterns still might explain this.
In other words it's all a bit crap really.