The restoration of the old coat of arms of the Provincial Council of the Canary Islands is good news for heritage, but the institutional narrative leaves open questions. The painting was not discovered in 2026: the Cabildo had already studied it in 2018, the Parliament carried out tests in 2019, and a heritage report indicated that it may have been repainted before being covered by a tapestry. The Chamber's inventory records a "Tapestry of the Presidency of the Hall" acquired in 1987. The unanswered question is who decided to intervene and hide the canvas.
A restoration that opens, rather than closes, history
There is news that tells what has happened. And there is news that, in addition, constructs the way we should remember what has happened.
The presentation by the president of the Parliament of the Canary Islands, Astrid Pérez, of the old oil painting representing the coat of arms of the Provincial Council of the Canary Islands belongs to both categories.
The first part is magnificent news. A historical painting has been recovered. After more than four decades hidden, restorers have managed to reach the original work, removing layers of paint and working with scalpels. Heritage gains and the Plenary Hall regains an element of its historical artistic conception.
Up to there, little to discuss.
But the phrase chosen by Astrid Pérez —“It had been hidden for more than 40 years and we have returned this oil painting to the Canarian people”— deserves a second reading.
Because one thing is to restore a work and another, quite different, is to correctly tell the story of how that work came to disappear from view.
And that's where the questions begin.
It was not a discovery of 2026
The first issue that should be corrected is temporal. The painting has not just been discovered.
The Parliament itself has explained that a 2018 report from the Technical Unit of Historical Heritage of the Cabildo of Tenerife had already identified the work and had determined that it had been covered with a tapestry during the eighties, in the I Legislature. In 2019, moreover, the Chamber hired Cúrcuma, S.L. to carry out "tests on covered walls," for 450 euros. The institution expressly acknowledged this in 2024 when explaining that the 2019 tests would be repeated during the first phase of restoration.
The restoration completed in 2026 is, therefore, the culmination of a process initiated years earlier. The intervention is new; the knowledge of the painting's existence, not.
Saying this does not detract from the merit of those who have made the recovery possible. On the contrary: it allows us to explain that behind the result there is a chain of heritage actions initiated, at least documentarily, in 2018.
The fact that changes the story: it could have been repainted before hiding it
The most delicate part of the story appears in the 2019 heritage report of the Cabildo, later disseminated by Cadena SER. Technical indications led to the assumption that the canvas "was not removed from its location but was repainted and, subsequently, the banner was placed on top of it".
The difference is essential.
It is one thing to cover a painting with a canvas. It is another to physically intervene on the painting itself before hiding it.
And the current restoration provides material evidence that makes that report especially relevant: the restoration team has found several layers of decorative paint on the original work and has had to remove them mechanically, with a scalpel, until recovering the historical composition.
The sequence to be investigated is no longer simply painting–banner–forgetfulness. There are indications of a previous sequence: painting–intervention on the painting–banner–decades of concealment.
Who decided to paint over the old coat of arms? That is one of the essential questions that still has no documentary answer.
Four layers and physical evidence
The 2026 restoration has not been limited to removing a canvas. The work has found up to four layers of paint superimposed on the historical work. EFE reported that the intervention was carried out "with a scalpel" and that the team documented losses, wear, and damage to the polychromy and the support.
Studies with infrared, ultraviolet fluorescence, and digital microscopy even allowed the observation of elements of the original preparatory drawing, including the grid used to transfer the design to the final format.
The work has made it possible to recover the aesthetic reading of the work and to chromatically reintegrate the losses, differentiating the restored parts from the original.
It is a heritage recovery of undoubted interest. But precisely because we now know the material object better, it becomes even more important to know the historical record of the actions that concealed it.
The 1987 banner: the most important documentary clue
The official historical-artistic inventory of the Parliament contains a reference that can hardly go unnoticed:
“Hanging. Valance of the Presidency of the Chamber”. Author: unknown. Year of acquisition: 1987.
The coincidence with the institutional history is extraordinarily significant. Parliament maintains that the canvas was covered during the I Legislature with a valance. And its inventory registers a Presidency valance acquired in 1987.
But the investigation requires caution: we have not yet located the administrative file for that acquisition. The inventory shows that the piece existed and was acquired in 1987; it does not, by itself, demonstrate that it was the first hanging placed in front of the canvas.
In fact, Parliament's historical photographic archive shows the presidential header already covered in images from the early years of the I Legislature. This requires checking if an earlier piece existed, if the 1987 one replaced another, or if the inventory reflects the moment of acquisition or registration of the piece that was finally recorded.
The 1987 file should contain, if preserved, the budget, supplier, design, expenditure authorization, invoice, receipt, and purpose of the acquisition. Any of these documents could shed light on the decision.
The renovation of the Plenary Hall was much broader
The valance should not be studied in isolation. Parliament's inventory reveals a very extensive intervention in the Plenary Hall during 1985: main door, upright, pilasters, garlands, stained glass windows, columns, balustrades, Presidency elements, presidential canopy, and other architectural and decorative components.
The two large side paintings by Manuel González Méndez and the “Table, platform, and screen of the Presidency of the Auditorium”, attributed to the architect José Miguel Márquez Zárate, are also inventoried.
Parliamentary documentation itself confirms that, since the I Legislature, the Board has been taking measures through renovation and refurbishment works of the headquarters building. This is stated in the preamble of Law 2/1992 when explaining the expansion of the headquarters.
Therefore, this is not an isolated decorative decision. The painting disappeared from view in the context of a profound transformation of the building and its adaptation to the new autonomous institution.
A building with several institutional lives
The Parliament building was first the seat of the Provincial Council of the Canary Islands, before the provincial division of the archipelago; it later housed the Municipal Conservatory and finally became the seat of the Parliament. This is recorded in Decree 50/1992, which declared the property an Asset of Cultural Interest with the category of Monument.
This trajectory is important for understanding the symbolic value of the recovered canvas. The painting represents the coat of arms of an institution that predates the current autonomous system.
The institutional transition of the eighties necessarily implied a transformation of spaces, decoration, and symbols. But one thing is to note this context and another is to affirm that there was an express political order to erase or hide the coat of arms.
That order, until now, has not appeared.
The artistic context was also not improvised
The research has located references to "Artistic advice in the restoration of the Parliament of the Canary Islands" carried out in 1983 and to a "Report to the Parliament of the Canary Islands for the acquisition of Works of Art" dated 1986.
These data are relevant because they demonstrate that the transformation of the space had an artistic and heritage dimension that deserves to be reconstructed documentarily.
It does not seem sufficient, therefore, to look for a hypothetical order to "cover the painting". The entire process must be reconstructed: who advised, what criteria were used, what works were acquired, what elements of the old hall were preserved and which were modified.
Only then will we be able to know if the concealment of the coat of arms was a decision specifically directed against that symbol or a consequence of a broader institutional remodeling.
The two side paintings do not have the same documentary situation
Another nuance that should be preserved is that of authorship.
The Parliament currently identifies the canvas of the coat of arms as a work "attributed" to Manuel González Méndez and initially dated in 1906. The attribution is part of the heritage documentation, but it is not equivalent to a definitively proven authorship.
On the other hand, the two side paintings —"Foundation of Santa Cruz de Tenerife" and "Surrender of Gran Canaria"— are documented in the file published by the BOC of 2004 as works by Manuel González Méndez, dated and signed in 1906, and were the subject of a procedure for their declaration as movable Assets of Cultural Interest.
The distinction is important. The three works are part of the hall's historical program, but not all have exactly the same degree of documentary certainty regarding their authorship.
The 2019 report and the protection of the paintings
The 2019 Cabildo report gains even more value when viewed in relation to the other paintings in the hall. The document rejected the possibility of covering the two large canvases by González Méndez during the plenary sessions because covering them could affect their conservation and because their removal or covering would alter the scenographic and spatial discourse of a building declared an Asset of Cultural Interest.
That same report recommended the restoration and recovery of the third hidden canvas.
In other words, the current recovery coincides with a heritage recommendation that had already been made before the restoration became a reality.
"We have returned it to the Canarians": an expression that needs context
Astrid Pérez's phrase has evident institutional and emotional force. But, historically, it must be qualified.
The painting is not listed as a work that had been stolen, sold, transferred to a private collection, or lost outside the building. It remained there, adhered to the wall, hidden under paint and behind a tapestry.
Therefore, in a strict heritage sense, what happened is better described as recovery, restoration, and enhancement than as a literal restitution.
The difference does not diminish the merit of the intervention. It simply avoids turning a political formula into a historical description that could lead one to think that the painting had left public ownership.
The big question: who decided to hide it?
This is where the investigation currently reaches its limit.
Astrid Pérez has acknowledged that neither she nor the Chamber's services have located minutes or documentation that would allow determining what political decision led to the shield being hidden four decades ago. EFE reported her words: "We don't know why or what political intention there was."
The public documentation we have been able to locate does not contradict this statement. We have not found a Board agreement ordering the painting to be repainted. Nor a resolution ordering it to be covered. Nor a document identifying the person responsible.
But the absence of that document does not mean that the investigation should be considered concluded.
On the contrary: we now know exactly what documents we need to look for.
Request 2222/2020: a missing piece
On November 4, 2020, a request for information was registered in Parliament, identified with the number 2222/2020 and registration 1302 B. Its title was “Request for minutes of the provisional Parliament and I Legislature Bureaus”. The official record indicates that it was answered on November 23, 2020, and was resolved.
The importance of this request is evident. The minutes of the Bureau are precisely one of the places where decisions on works, conditioning, decoration, furniture, heritage, Presidency, or Plenary Hall could appear.
However, the currently accessible public record does not allow consultation of the documentation provided in response to that request. Nor does it show the list of minutes provided.
This does not prove that the minutes contain the answer to the mystery. But it does raise a perfectly legitimate question: what documentation did the person who requested the minutes of the Provisional Parliament and I Legislature Bureaus receive in 2020?
That documentation should be recovered and examined before concluding that there is no clue.
A photograph that forces a refinement of the chronology
The historical photographic archive of Parliament preserves images from the provisional stage and the I Legislature. The graphic documentation allows for the study of the configuration of the hall's header and observation that the central space was covered while the two large side canvases remained visible.
The photograph is relevant as evidence of the spatial configuration, but it should not be used to automatically attribute the visible hanging to the item inventoried as acquired in 1987. The exact chronology requires cross-referencing dated photographs with acquisition and installation files.
That is precisely the type of verification that can turn a solid hypothesis into a documentary conclusion.
An additional clue: 1983 and 1986
The reference to artistic advice in 1983 and the report on the acquisition of works of art in 1986 allows for the expansion of the investigation.
If those complete reports are recovered, they could provide information on the criteria followed to artistically configure the new Parliament, which historical elements were considered compatible with the new institution, and which works were incorporated or preserved.
The history of the coat of arms may be in a specific file, but it can also be found in the context of a broader artistic decision.
A contradiction we must not create
It would be tempting to present this story as a deliberate act of political erasure and point directly to those who governed the institution in the eighties. The located documentation does not allow for this.
It does allow us to state that the coat of arms was hidden during the I Legislature; that there are indications that it may have been repainted before; that there was a profound renovation and reorganization of the Plenary Hall; that a banner was inventoried in 1987; and that Parliament has not located, at least according to publicly available information, the specific decision that explains that action.
That is enough for a journalistic investigation.
There is no need to invent culprits where documents are lacking.
What should happen now
The recovery of the canvas should be accompanied by a documentary recovery.
There are two priority files: the one corresponding to the acquisition in 1987 of the "Banner of the Presidency of the Hall" and the complete file of information request 2222/2020, including the response and the documentation provided.
To these should be added the artistic advisory reports from 1983 and 1986, the minutes of the Presidency of the I Legislature related to works and conditioning, and any file on the renovation of the Plenary Hall from 1982-1987.
If these documents appear, they will be able to answer questions that today we can only formulate.
And if they do not appear, it will also be important to know.
The painting is no longer hidden. The story is
The restoration deserves recognition. The old provincial coat of arms is once again part of the space for which it was conceived, and Parliament recovers a relevant element of its historical-artistic heritage.
But a good restoration does not need a simplified story.
The painting was not discovered now. Its existence has been known since 2018. Tests were carried out in 2019. The Cabildo recommended its recovery. The Chamber itself explained in 2024 that it had been trying to initiate the process for years.
And now we know something more: under the decorative layers there was a work that the restorers have managed to rescue; the Parliament's inventory registers a Presidency banner acquired in 1987; and there are heritage indications that the painting may have been repainted before being covered.
What we still do not know is who made that decision and why. That is the missing story.
Astrid Pérez has returned the painting to view.
Now it remains to return to public memory the document that explains why it stopped being seen.
Because the painting is no longer hidden.
The decision that hid it, for now, yes.
Sources consulted
List of primary and secondary sources used to cross-reference the data in the article. Institutional sources have been prioritized when official documents were available.
1. Parliament of the Canary Islands, September 9, 2026 — “The Parliament recovers one of its old coats of arms…” / information on the presentation of the restoration.
https://www.parcan.es/noticias/3421/
2. EFE, September 9, 2026 — “Provincial coat of arms in the Parliament's plenary hall restored ‘with a scalpel’”.
https://efe.com/canarias/2026-09-09/restauran-el-escudo-provincial-del-salon-de-plenos-del-parlamento-a-p unta-de-bisturi/
3. Parliament of the Canary Islands, July 29, 2024 — Start of the restoration; reference to the 2018 and 2019 reports and to the tests.
https://www.parcan.es/noticias/3090/
4. Parliament of the Canary Islands — Historical-artistic inventory of the 1980s; includes the “Presidential Banner of the Hall”, acquired in 1987, and numerous items from 1985.
https://www.parcan.es/transparencia/inventariohistoricoartistico/decada/1980/
5. Parliament of the Canary Islands — Information request 2222/2020 on the minutes of the Provisional Parliament and the I Legislature Bureaus.
https://www.parcan.es/transparencia/solicitudes_informacion/2222/
6. Parliament of the Canary Islands — Annual list of public information requests for 2020. https://www.parcan.es/transparencia/solicitudes_informacion/anio/2020/
7. Parliament of the Canary Islands, 1992 — BOPC No. 13 and exhibition on the remodeling and refurbishment works of the building since the I Legislature.
https://www.parcan.es/files/pub/bop/3l/1992/013/bo013.pdf
8. Government of the Canary Islands, BOC, April 29, 1992 — Decree 50/1992: declaration of the Parliament building as an Asset of Cultural Interest, with the category of Monument.
https://www.gobiernodecanarias.org/boc/1992/054/004.html
9. BOC, August 3, 2004 — BIC file of the paintings “Foundation of Santa Cruz de Tenerife” and “Surrender of Gran Canaria”, by Manuel González Méndez, dated and signed in 1906.
https://www.gobiernodecanarias.org/boc/2004/149/020.html
10. Cadena SER, July 7, 2022 — Information on the 2019 heritage report and indications that the third canvas was repainted and then covered.
https://cadenaser.com/canarias/2022/07/07/un-informe-del-cabildo-rechazo-tapar-los-cuadros-del-parlamen to-porque-podrian-verse-afectados-en-su-conservacion-radio-club-tenerife/
11. Government of the Canary Islands / CanariWiki — Biography of Manuel González Méndez and context of the two large canvases commissioned for the Diputación.
https://www3.gobiernodecanarias.org/medusa/wiki/index.php?title=Manuel_Gonz%C3%A1lez_M%C3%A9nd ez
12. Dialnet — Curricular reference to the “Artistic advice in the restoration of the Parliament of the Canary Islands. Parliament of the Canary Islands, 1983” and to the “Report to the Parliament of the Canary Islands for the acquisition of Works of Art. 1986”.
https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/libro/970340.pdf
13. Parliament of the Canary Islands — Historical photographic archive of the Chamber, used to contextualize the configuration of the Plenary Hall during the I Legislature.
https://www.parcan.es/galeria/verarchivos.py?ID_GRUPO=73&TIPOARCHIVO;=FOTO
14. Parliament of the Canary Islands, BOPC 1993 — Published agreement on the acquisition of a banner with the coats of arms of Spain and the Canary Islands, useful as a precedent for differentiating subsequent acquisitions. https://www.parcan.es/files/pub/bop/3l/1993/023/bo023.pdf
Astrid Pérez: “We have returned it to the Canarians”… Page 8
15. BOC / Government of the Canary Islands, 1985 — Decree 107/1985 on the transfer of powers, means and resources to the institutions of the Autonomous Community; institutional context of the transition. https://www.gobiernodecanarias.org/boc/1985/049/002.html
Note of rigor: the article distinguishes between documented facts, technical indications, and research hypotheses. No person is attributed a decision on the concealment of the canvas until documentation proving it appears.
Add La Voz de Lanzarote as a preferred Google source.
Stay informed with the latest current news.