Cleopatra VII would be one of these; she's always depicted as being beautiful, but she was so inbred that she put Charles II of Spain to shame. Just look at this family treewreath:
Cleopatra's coefficient of inbreeding was a fucking staggering 0.45, so almost half her alleles were probably identical. Charles II's inbreeding coefficient was a paltry 0.25 and he looked like this, so I leave it to you to ponder how hot Cleopatra would have been exactly:
Ok, but using a hapsburg as an example of what inbreeding looks like isn't very representative. That family specifically wanted to look like that. they were very proud of their "noble countenances". That's more the result of the generations of selective breeding by the previous generation choosing marital successors. They're more pugs really, Rather than examples of the general effects of incest. If you want more general results of inbreeding, maybe look to the Whitaker's. Though, they also likely have other preexisting mental health issues in their family, and there's no data about their actual family tree.
In reality tough, it's likely one of those things that's not as consistent as "they get all fucked up looking after x amount of inbreeding" there's just too many factors at play. And I mean, speaking of pugs, they're no more inbred than golden retrievers. Golden retrievers are beautiful and loving dogs that will die to cancer by the age of 10. So even when inbreeding issues do manifest, it's not always going to make you ugly.
Are you seriously questioning if someone doesn’t understand the data in the way it was presented and then following it up with a “oh my god it’s so easy” type statement?
I don't understand why Ptolomy XII and Cleopatra III are drawn with a different connection to their parents. The local tree looks the same for both, but the lines are drawn differently.
Edit: nevermind, I scrolled down and saw the comment with the better picture.