One can omit $0^\sharp$, as well as the need for any large cardinals, if one simply limits the class of forcing extensions. For example, perhaps one wants to consider only amalgamation and non-amalgamation in the generic multiverse of Cohen-real extensions $L[c]$, or in the generic multiverse of proper-forcing extensions $L[G]$ or $\omega_1$-preserving forcing extensions.

Theorem. If $\omega_1^L$ is countable in $V$, then there are $L$-generic Cohen reals $c$ and $d$, whose corresponding extensions $L[c]$ and $L[d]$ are not amalgamated by any $L$-generic Cohen real $e$. Indeed, there are such $c$ and $d$ for which there is no $\omega_1$-preserving extension $L[G]$ extending both $L[c]$ and $L[d]$.

Proof. Assume $\omega_1^L$ is countable in $V$. In particular, in $V$ we can enumerate all the dense subsets of Cohen forcing $\text{Add}(\omega,1)$ in $L$ in an $\omega$-sequence in $V$. From this enumeration, we can easily build $L$-generic Cohen reals. Using the proof of proposition 3 in the question, we can code any real coding $\omega_1^L$, and this real cannot be added in any $\omega_1$-preserving forcing over $L$. $\Box$.

One can omit $0^\sharp$, as well as the need for any large cardinals, if one simply limits the class of forcing extensions. For example, perhaps one wants to consider only amalgamation and non-amalgamation in the generic multiverse of Cohen-real extensions $L[c]$, or in the generic multiverse of proper-forcing extensions $L[G]$ or $\omega_1$-preserving forcing extensions.

Theorem. If $\omega_1^L$ is countable in $V$, then there are $L$-generic Cohen reals $c$ and $d$, whose corresponding extensions $L[c]$ and $L[d]$ are not amalgamated by any $L$-generic Cohen real $e$. Indeed, there are such $c$ and $d$ for which there is no $\omega_1$-preserving extension $L[G]$ extending both $L[c]$ and $L[d]$.

Proof. Assume $\omega_1^L$ is countable in $V$. In particular, in $V$ we can enumerate all the dense subsets of Cohen forcing $\text{Add}(\omega,1)$ in $L$ in an $\omega$-sequence in $V$. From this enumeration, we can easily build $L$-generic Cohen reals. Using the proof of proposition 3 in the question, we can code any real coding $\omega_1^L$, and this real cannot be added in any $\omega_1$-preserving forcing over $L$. $\Box$.

Let me also add a mention of our recent paper:

M. E. Habič, J. D. Hamkins, L. D. Klausner, J. Verner, and K. J. Williams, Set-theoretic blockchains, ArXiv e-prints, pp. 1-23, 2018. (under review)

Abstract. Given a countable model of set theory, we study the structure of its generic multiverse, the collection of its forcing extensions and ground models, ordered by inclusion. Mostowski showed that any finite poset embeds into the generic multiverse while preserving the nonexistence of upper bounds. We obtain several improvements of his result, using what we call the blockchain construction to build generic objects with varying degrees of mutual genericity. The method accommodates certain infinite posets, and we can realize these embeddings via a wide variety of forcing notions, while providing control over lower bounds as well. We also give a generalization to class forcing in the context of second-order set theory, and exhibit some further structure in the generic multiverse, such as the existence of exact pairs.