Rashi in Sota (41a) says
אגריפס המלך. מלך ישראל היה מזרעו של הורדוס והוא שנחרב בהמ"ק בימיו
The Beis Hamikdash was destroyed in the days of Aggripas.
I thought that by the time of the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash there were no more "kings over Judea" rather Israel was directly under the Roman rule?
Since the days of Hurkanus and Aristoblus, Rome ruled over Eretz Yisroel. The kings were completely answerable to the Romans. See Bava Basra 4 where Hurdus had to get Roman approval for renovating the Beis Hamikdash.
The "Agrippas" that Rashi refers to is King Herod Agrippa II, the great-grandson of Herod the Great. It is true that there were no more client Kings over Judea proper after Herod's son Archelaus was deposed for misruling in 6 CE, But Herod's other surviving sons still ruled the northern and eastern parts of the area(Galilee, Perea, etc). Judea was ruled by Roman Procurators from then on, except for 41 - 44 CE, when Agrippa II's father Agrippa I had Judea added to his territories.
Agrippa II was appointed client-king of Chalcis and superintendent of the Jerusalem Temple from 48 CE, appointing as High Priest whoever he wished. He was rewarded with more territory in northern Israel, but had to give up Chalcis to his cousin, as time went on. Judea proper was always in charge of a procurator during this time. He was a friend of Josephus, and provided the author with information for his Antiquities of The Jews. Unlike Josephus, he was always on the Roman side during the revolt-he never switched sides like Josephus did.
Rashi was exactly right in the quote. Judea was under procurator's rule until the Revolt, but other parts of Israel were ruled by Agrippa II at that time - he still ruled territory even after the Revolt, until his death sometime between 97 - 100 CE.
