I remember watching some documentary where a couple of researchers decoded a page of the manuscript where the page listed the 12 months of the year and then from there they linked the Voynich alphabet to some archaic language except it was spelled phonetically. But when I search about it on Google, the results make it seem that the manuscript wasn't decoded at all. What's going on?
u/Owlett had some very useful observations about this here a couple years back, and u/Yuunofyork over here pours cold water on the notion that somehow it's a "proto-Romance" language...whatever that is.
It also seems as though Bristol University itself got cold feet rather quickly on Gerard Cheshire's assertions:https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/may/17/university-backtracks-on-disputed-voynich-manuscript-theory
I will first that the scholarly consensus on the Voynich is not particularly well developed for the simple reason that it is not of very great ongoing scholarly interest at this point. The mystery is much larger than the substance of the thing.
That being said, quite a bit of computational linguistic work has been done in the past two decades, on the Voynich, and the "toolset" for such analysis has improved.
Such consensus as exists and such analysis as has been done from a computational linguistic point of view tends towards the view that the properties of the text of the Voynich are inconsistent with those of a natural language. That is to say, it cannot be plaintext in a known natural language.
In the "community" of researchers who take an interest in it or have done at some point, plaintext interpretations are thus generally dismissed out of hand as lazy pseudoscience. They happen regularly, and seldom at this point attract any substantive public attention, since they have happened dozens of times before.
Note that the term "Voynich alphabet" is itself an interpretation requiring justification. The structure of Voynichese "vords" is not consistent with the structure of any known alphabetic script, and so interpreting it as an alphabetic script is not just an unsubstantiated characterisation, but one which contradicts available evidence.
The remaining interpretations include some form of pseudowriting or cryptographic cypher. Cryptographic attacks based on known available cyphers at the time of the manuscript's creation have yielded no useful result, nor has any modern cryptanalytic strategy, and thus consideration of the latter possibility is strained.
Most of the good work on the Voynich from the past decade requires some knowledge of cryptography or computational linguistics, to consume fruitfully.
However, René Zandbergen's extensive description of issues relevant to analysis of the Voynich manuscript and understanding of the Voynich as a physical specimen is an excellent introduction for beginners, which does not attempt to impose an interpretation.
For an introduction (which is moderately technical) consider also,
What We Know About the Voynich Manuscript
Sravana Reddy and Kevin Knight
https://aclanthology.org/W11-1511.pdf