You'd probably be better off with a history B.A./M.A., but it's not hard-required as long as you have a substantial background in history (particularly in the area you want to concentrate in) and you've demonstrated that you have the research skills and writing ability to successfully complete a large scale historical research project, since that's ultimately going to be what you're doing to get your Ph.D. Your statement of purpose and your writing sample are going to be much more important than your transcripts and test scores (assuming that your GPA/GRE are at least decent and that you have a sufficient amount of undergraduate coursework in your sub-field), so if you can put together a strong application in that respect then it won't necessarily matter that your degree isn't in history per se.

That said, you should not get a Ph.D. in history. It's just not a good career decision in 2022. There are far more history Ph.D.s than there are jobs for those Ph.D.s, and that problem isn't likely to get any better. There are a few reasons for this, but it mainly boils down to declining history enrollments leading to a decline in tenure-track faculty positions (and the tendency to replace outgoing tenured faculty with adjuncts and non-tenure-track instructors, or just farm the teaching load out to grad students) and the simultaneous massive overproduction of history Ph.D.s. I think the figures average out to about three new Ph.D.s for every new job, so even if you have a stellar resume coming out of grad school, your odds of getting a good job with that Ph.D. are not good. You'll have spent several years in school working on a degree that didn't get you a job commensurate with your education level, and it's just not worth the opportunity cost of those lost years of work. I feel bad that I always write a similar comment when someone mentions getting a Ph.D., since I did it and it probably comes across as hypocritical, but I don't want to see people make the same mistake that I did. I learned the hard way and I don't want someone else to.

Is double majoring an option? To a certain degree, it depends on the program, but in my graduate career I never met a fellow history grad that wasn’t a history (or closely related humanities) major. That holds true for my teaching, as well. That doesn’t mean it’s unheard of, though. Some educators do go back to history MA’s later in their career. Many PhD programs fold the MA and phd together, while other split them up (1-2 years for the MA and 3-5 for the phd). I have known history majors to enter high school teaching after graduating, earning their teaching certificate during their first year. If your passion is historical research, go for the history BA. It opens up a huge amount of career options beyond being a uni prof. If you’re thinking about a graduate degree in history right after your undergraduate, I don’t see any upside to pursuing a straight ED degree.

Look around at some history doctoral programs and see what the admissions requirements are. I think it would be hard to convince an admissions committee that you'd be prepared to undertake original historical research without a lot of history coursework.

Another plan would be to start teaching, then work on a educational admin doctorate as you start working your way to a position in administration. You could get a second master's in history to support your intetest - rhe idea of a double undergrad major is a good one.