I am somewhat hesitant to delve into this discussion for the simple reason that I don't particularly like to blow my own horn. But I think that this is an important enough discussion that I feel that I should weigh in.
I am not a professional historian. The most accurate description I can come up with for myself is as an amateur historian. I have neither a graduate degree in history, nor is history my full-time job. The truth is that I have not had a formal history class since the 9th grade--my college majors were political science and economics. My master's degree is in international affairs, and I have a law degree. When it comes to the study of history, and researching it, I am 100% self-taught. But my legal training translates very well into historical work--they both require the same diligence of research, the same logical thought processes, and the same attention to detail.
Because of this, there are many academic historians who look down their noses at me. I'm beneath them because I don't have the fancy letters after my last name, or so they think. I had this discussion with Brooks Simpson last week when we were together in Phoenix. Brooks is rare on a lot of levels: he treats me as an equal, based on the quality of my work and not on my academic credentials or lack thereof, he understands that many professors are wretched writers, and that those who are good writers are often bad speakers, and vice versa, and most professors are atrocious tour guides. Brooks is an excellent writer, an excellent speaker, and he's great on a battlefield. He's one of the few academic historians that I know who do all of those things really well.
Some of us do all of those things well, and some don't. Gordon Rhea surely comes to mind--he's a fabulous writer, and, like me, he's an old trial lawyer, so he knows how to tell a story. He's great on a battlefield. I know, because I've done a number of tours with him. Jeff Wert's another. Jeff is a retired high school teacher. He doesn't have an advanced degree in history, but he's one of my favorite writers, he's really good giving a lecture, and he's one of my favorite people to lead a battlefield tour with.
At the same time, one need not be a professor to be a horrible, boring speaker. And there are lots of people who think that they know how to lead a battlefield tour, but are just awful out there. And as a former legal writing instructor, I can tell you that I have seen and endured some unbelievably bad writing in my life. These things are God-given talents. Either you have them, or you don't. None of it is dependent upon having fancy letters after your last name.
I used to get really bent out of shape over the disparate treatment by the academics, and I admit that I occasionally still do get offended--I was terribly disrespected by an academic historian a few months back, and I remain really angry about it (Brooks knows all about it and thinks I have every right to be offended and angry about it; we discussed it at length at dinner last week). But I've learned that many of them are jealous of the fact that people actually buy and read my books, that they view me as a threat, and that it's their problem and not mine. Life is much more pleasant and less stressful knowing those things.
In the end, I just do my work and hope that it speaks for itself. I have high standards for myself, and I will not permit something to be published with my name on it that doesn't meet those high standards. In the end, I allow my work to speak for me. How others perceive me as an amateur historian is not my problem, nor is there anything I can do about career choices made in the early 1980's.