WHAT constitutes true power - is it control, leadership, wealth? The trusty dictionary's definitions of the attributes of a powerful person are dominance, authority and a commanding demeanour.

This week US business magazine Forbes published its ranking of the world's most powerful women. The top of the list was not surprising with US national security adviser Condoleezza Rice in the number one spot, followed closely by vice-premier of China Wu-Yi and Sonia Gandhi, president of India's Congress party.

These are all high-profile, hugely influential women who are manoeuvring on the world's political stage and deserve to be recognised as females who have secured real power.

When it comes to British women, we sadly only have six entries in the list and fail to even make the top ten. Incredibly our top entry is Cherie Blair at number 12, followed by Lady Thatcher at number 21 and the Queen, who lags behind at number 22.

I just cannot fathom why this American business magazine has chosen to rank Mrs Blair above the Queen and indeed how Cherie has even made the list at all. I acknowledge she is a talented professional, but one of the world's most powerful women? No. She is not a leader in world industry and does not operate as a political figure in her own right, so why has she made the grade?

Forbes insists its list has been compiled by using a power scorecard where individuals were given points based on their CV, the size of the economic sphere in which they manoeuvre and their title.

Cherie Blair has obviously scored highly in the title category because she is best known as the wife of Tony Blair. Is Forbes therefore suggesting the easiest and quickest way to get power is to marry it? But surely this is not genuine power and influence as we know it.

"Britain's first lady", as the magazine refers to her, would probably be the first to admit she is undeserving of this ranking. It was after all the sobbing Cherie who proclaimed on national TV she was no superwoman following the Bristolgate debacle. Can you see tough cookie Condoleezza asking a conman to find her son a flat?

Forbes' low positioning of the Queen must have also raised a few eyebrows. It seems Americans see her as a nice old dear who drinks tea and feeds cake to her corgis. Apparently we Britons "love her and her sedate demeanour, not to mention her fashion sense". I'm not too sure about the fashion sense, but reading this, you'd think we were a republic not a monarchy.

As a constitutional monarch, the Queen has an important political role as our Head of State as well as Head of the Commonwealth, the armed forces and the Church of England. Yes, the great days of the Empire may be far behind us, but sovereignty equals authority. Surely the Prime Minister's consort can't outweigh the monarch in the scales of power?

One could argue British low ranking outsider JK Rowling at number 85 could also surpass Mrs Blair in the power and influence stakes. The Harry Potter books have transformed the once struggling single mother into a multi-millionairess.

Pottermania is an industry within itself with endless merchandising opportunities and lucrative film rights. So if wealth equals power, then Rowling should also achieve a higher ranking.

Importantly, the books she has created have helped to influence children to read more frequently, as well as encouraging adults to read more to their children, improving the bedtime reading experience. She may not be a star in the world of politics, but the power she commands through words and literature is immense.

Lists and rankings are always going to cause a stir. Every time you watch TV shows charting the top 100 greatest films, sporting moments or hit singles you can guarantee there will be an element of disagreement in your household and a yell of "how can Jaws be higher than Casablanca!"

At the end of the day, it is all a matter of opinion and the difficult task of quantifying power is no different.

Updated: 08:24 Saturday, August 28, 2004