Only three years after his triumphal entry in Naples in 1734, King Charles of Bourbon decided to establish a tapestry factory under the direct control of the Crown.
He had a clear desire of building up - from every point of view - a new and autonomous kingdom of which he had to be the founding sovereign.
In the historical area of this site, under the heading dedicated to Charles of Bourbon, we have already shown how brilliantly he succeeded in doing this and we have described the main artistic, cultural and social initiatives he undertook to modernise and improve his kingdom from a cultural point of view on one side and increase the fame and glory of the new Bourbon dynasty of Naples and Sicily on the other side.

Tapestry of Charles of Bourbon

His decision of opening a tapestry school in Naples must be understood from this perspective, also taking into account that all along his kingdom he was the undeterred builder of sumptuous palaces (the Royal Palaces of Capodimonte and Portici and most of all the Royal Palace of Caserta, just to mention a few), factories which then became famous all over Europe (such as the factory of chinawear in Capodimonte), State Schools such as the Neapolitan Academy of Drawing, etc. These buildings needed an adequate furnishing (the Royal Palace of Naples, in a state of neglect, must be completed and modernised). It was therefore clear that the tapestry weaving had a key role to play since its works were present in all royal and noble palaces of Europe. Moreover, Charles was very lucky in the implementation of his project. In fact, on 5 October 1737 – soon after the death of Giangastone de' Medici, the last Grand Duke of the Florentine family – the famous Tapestry Weaving established by Cosimo I in 1546 was suppressed and all artists and workers were left without a job.

The King was really able to seize the opportunity and, «with unquestionable opportunism and exceptional timeliness» , immediately hired the best among them by giving mandate to the Prime Minister of the Royal House, Gioacchino di Montealegre, marquis of Salas, to take direct commitment in the building of a Neapolitan Tapestry Factory (Which is undoubted evidence of the King’s clear interest). Montealegre appointed the marquis Giovanni Brancaccio (future Prime Minister) as Supervisor to the Royal Tapestry Factory to be built and tasked him with the purchasing - though with the limited means of that time - the necessary equipment to begin the construction.

Don Quixote is ordered Knight

Domenico Del Rosso was appointed as Director of the factory and G.F. Pieri was appointed as Administrator. They had been both former directors of the Florence factory. With the help of young apprentices who worked without a salary, they were able to establish the first core of a real national school. The chosen seat was a building belonging to the monastery and Church of San Carlo alle Mortelle, previously chosen as seat for the Laboratory of Hard Stones and then seat of the Neapolitan Academy of Drawing.

The Munificence of David

In 1740 Montealegre and Brancaccio issued an official statute, ruling the working method, the firm administration and the treatment of workers. The whole work was organised and directed by a master acting a s Director, who was responsible for the entire factory and directly submitted only to the supervisor and the Sovereign. He was helped by a Guardian, a Dyer, tasked with the dyeing of yarns, and a Writer, fulfilling also the functions of a treasurer. The Guardian was also tasked with the delivery of the requested material to the Director or Dyer, had to report to the Writer about this delivery and collect the money to pay the workers. The Writer had to keep a complete inventory of al purchases and inform the Sovereign of the expenses borne by the Factory .

The Director had to be at the factory one hour before the workers and leave it only when the working day was over and all personnel had left the factory. A working day lasted from 8 to 12 hours, with a short break in the afternoon.
Any mistake had to be repaired by the worker who had caused it; if this was not possible, the equivalent amount of the damage had to be deducted from that worker’s salary. Each worker, however, could express to the sovereign, via the supervisor, those situations of which he was not directly responsible and that could be prejudicial to the good functioning of the factory.