What nation’s still have kings, etc., in real power (not just father-son dynasties like Syria or, say, USA)? 
I’m thinking Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Brunei. Are there many others?
I’ll nominate Swaziland.
Morocco is still a pretty authoritarian monarchy.
The Emir of Kuwait.
The various emirs of the United Arab Emirates.
The King of Nepal, if he survives the current rebellion.
I have heard that the Prince of Monaco has more power than one would expect in modern Europe.
Earlier this year, King Gyanendra Bir Bikram Shah Dev of Nepal dismissed the elected government and consolidated all govermental authority in himself. I think there have been vague promises of a new parliamentary election in a couple years.
The Prince of Leichtenstein still has some substantial powers.
Adding Tonga and its king to the list.
Saudi Arabia (though there the King is spokesman for the family oligarchy that runs the country, probably with substantial say in the debate but not unilaterally in charge of deciding policy).
It’s worth noting too that several monarchs have significant real powers as Head of State, which are no less important for their being the sorts of things that only get used in crisis situations. Haakon VII personally giving voice to the common feeling of resistance felt by most Norwegians at the time of the 1940 Nazi invasion, against the explore-whether-we-can-collaborate policy of his ministry, is an excellent example. The action taken by the Governor-General of Australia in 1975, in the name of Queen Elizabeth, to dismiss the Prime Minister, is a case of unilateral action to preserve parliamentary government in a crisis.
The fact that generally in normal times these monarchs sit back, let the ministries do the governing, and confine their public role to ribbon-cutting and such, is not a measure of what they can do in a crisis but will not do unless the situation demands it. (This makes them a useful repository for sometimes-necessary-but-dangerous-when-misused government powers.)
Qatar, also an emirate.
Having said that, the emirs of the Gulf run things with the consent of their ruling family, which is with the consent of a clan of elite families. One can be/has been removed by the family. Traditional emirates do have politics of a sort. There are elections for some offices and a slow movement toward a constitutional monarchy of some variety.
Slight hijack: There’s even a day (weekly IIRC) when citizens can have an audience with the emir an make requests, although he’s under no obligation to grant them.
Also: list of world monarchies with brief descriptions of extent of powers.
The Pope. He’s a monarch, and I assume his power is fairly absolute in Vatican City, though I doubt he uses it much.
Wasn’t it his brother/nephew/something that snapped and gunned down the then-reigning royal family a few years back?
It’s interesting that the list contains the various European constitutional monarchies but completely ignores so many non-European ones: Australia, New Zealand, Canada etc.
His nephew, indeed. Who unfortunately died too soon after, at the hospital or somesuch, so he still unfortunately couldn’t tell why he decided to gun down his family, making the current king next in line.
For some odd reason, some conspiracy theorists aren’t fully convinced by the official story…
By the way, the current king happened to strongly disagree with his late brother (the former king) policies…
I thought it was because he wasn’t allowed to marry a commoner?
Andorra is technically a monarchy. The Co-Princes are the incumbant President of France and the Spanish Bishop of Urgell. They don’t seem to have that much power as the Bishop was unable to stop recent reforms of abortion laws or the creation of civil unions. They became law with only Chirac’s signature.
The last National Geographic has an excellent article about the Maoist rebels in Nepal and generally seems to conclude that neither side (the royalists or the Communists) are coming out of the mess covered in glory as far as public opinion is concerned. I do wonder what the situation would be if the previous monarch’s more liberal policies were still in effect?
Like Poly said.
A lot of Nepalese aren’t even convinced that the royal family is dead! This is in part because any king is supposed to be a holy incarnation, etc etc.
On top of that there is the widespread hatred and distrust of the Indian government, always assumed to be meddling in internal Nepalese affairs, a charge made most usually by the royalists. Info on the violent royalist protests which happen when Indian officials visit should be easy to find on the web. Some Nepalis who do accept the killings as reality assume it was actually agents of India who did all of the shooting, non-linear as that might seem to most others.