I think a historian is still expected to be somewhat educated. But yes, the role of the historian has changed dramatically. Eurocentric, empirical history produced by the Elite is no longer the dominate form of history. The Annales movement shows how history is not a discipline on its own, but rather requires the input of a wide variety of subjects.
Different perspectives (feminism, marxism, indigenous) and their histories are now valued as much as traditional forms of history. The Carr-Elton debate highlights the transition from empirical history to the realization that perhaps historical truth is relative to the author and reader. Similarly, postmodernism questions the legitimacy of history and suggests that historical truth does not exist in the first place.
Also the mode in which history is communicated and accessed has changed. Public history and big history are pretty iconic ideas and definitely show that almost anyone can become a historian.
So yes, a historian is no longer required to be an educated upper-class man, this is largely because of the dramatic change regarding the nature of history which has allowed for a much wider variety of perspectives and ideas.
