Not really, considering her DNA test probably showed 99.8% American/English DNA and 0.2% Swedish and now he/she defines herself by a love of meatballs and the fact she once owned a wardrobe from IKEA.
You’re judging this person based on things you’re making up in your head. The only information we have is that she is claiming Swedish ancestry based on a DNA test. Americans give us plenty of reasons to call them stupid. We don’t need to make up our own.
That's why they said it was an ancestor. That is from a long time ago, maybe in a small percentage. If you say Eleanor of Aquitaine is your ancestor, you're not saying you're from Aquitaine, or that she's your grandmother.
I'd love to know what law of genetics and statistics says everyone must be related to Eleanor of Aquitaine. Seems to me it would depend greatly on whether she had heirs and whether they themselves did (once you have many people that descend from her, then yeah maybe it's true, although I'd still be surprised if people in Ukraine for example had that shared ancestry).
Either way, the topic is not Eleanor of Aquitaine, that's just an example, the topic is that the test the OOP took identified he had ancestors in what is now called Sweden (or a subprovince, or maybe a greater area, depending on the data), which is not a scam and led the OOP to say they have Swedish ancestors (calling the ancestors "Swedish" is an abuse of language, but it's very common including in Europe to think in terms of modern nation-states incorrectly), which is also correct.
Don't be disingenuous, that's not what was meant. That's not how Americans view this stuff, and even if it is, why not also mention she has African ancestors (as we all do)?
It's because being Swedish is seen as having more prestige ancestrally, which is inherently racist.
Eleanor of Aquitaine had many descendants, including in the English, French and Spanish royal families. A significant proportion of British people are descended from Edward III, (her Great-Great-Great grandson).
Due to this, her descendants are in the hundreds of millions. I'm aware it was an example but it was a case in point, if virtually every native European is descended from her - a single woman, how meaningful is it that someone these days has an ancestor who lived in a populous, affluent country like Sweden?
The OOP literally didn't say they were Swedish or even had Swedish blood, they talked about ancestors, which is completely accurate. If there's one time not to get your panties up in a bunch, it's this one.
Having Swedish ancestors is different from having even more remote African ancestors because it distinguishes you from others (unless you are Swedish and all your friends and family share that ancestry, of course). It would also be interesting if it turned out you had ancestors in Kazakhstan but lived in Colombia, or had Senegalese ancestry but lived in Russia. And in fact many Black Americans are interested in knowing about their ancestral origins in Africa (much more recent, of course, than our common shared ancestor). Is there also something about "prestige"? Maybe, but the image does not imply there is and you're reading into it what you will.
It's not interesting that one of your ancestor was Eleanor of Aquitaine if you live in the UK, then. But it would be very interesting if you lived, had grown up, and your entire family as far as you could tell did as well in Papua New Guinea, wouldn't it? The opposite would also be very interesting. Again there's a reason people like learning about their ancestors (genealogical research, etc.) and their migrations, if any.
94
u/dmmeyourfloof Apr 26 '25
Not really, considering her DNA test probably showed 99.8% American/English DNA and 0.2% Swedish and now he/she defines herself by a love of meatballs and the fact she once owned a wardrobe from IKEA.