Find Children of given parents

[Cornelius88]

Having discovered the marriage of two ancestors, how can I find any children from that marriage without knowing their given names.

Thus:  Emily Elizbeth Bloggs married George W(?) Jones in Manchester in 1937.  They probably had children but I don't know any names, other than they would be John/Jane Jones and born (say) 1936 to 1950.

In computer language I would use * Jones between 1936 & 1950 but this doesn't work.

Would I use the mother's name as Emily Jones or her maiden name of Emily Bloggs?

I'm assuming that whatever terms used would work in any of the major Family History databases.

Anyone any ideas?

[heywood]

https://www.freebmd.org.uk/

You can search by surname with mother’s name

Is that what you mean? I hope it helps.
Added
The site shows “Mother’s surname’

[Deirdre784]

In computer language I would use * Jones between 1936 & 1950 but this doesn't work.

That process - without the * in the first name box, leave it blank - is effectively how you enter the details (married surname, mother's maiden name, area, date range) on freeBMD as suggested by heywood. The same applies in FindMyPast. Unfortunately you are likely to get a lot of births if the surnames are common. The 1939 register may show up the first child (if he / she has now died so is not redacted). 

Bear in mind that any children born to that couple may still be alive so cannot be named on here.

[Jebber]

On Free BMD search with the married surname, leave the forename box blank, put the woman’s Maiden name where it says Spouse or Mother, then select the start and finish  search years. You should be able to workout family groups.

Hopefully the two surnames are not extremely common.

[heywood]

To add to the above, have you searched for your family on the 1939 register on Ancestry or FindMyPast? The children’s names may be redacted but you would see if there was a child soon after marriage.

[Cornelius88]

TBH I didn't think of using FreeBMD as on one occasion it refused to allow me to input the mother's name, something which I now suspect was user error.  On this occasion it did produce the required result and named a son who appears to be the only offspring. 

@Deidre784: The names I used in the OP are fictitious although the place and time period are broadly correct.  Thanks also for the tip regarding FindMyPast, I will look at the '39 Census and see what that tells me although it won't include the above offspring.

I'm surprised that the methods of doing these sort of searches is not more obvious.  Once you have 'proved' a marriage, it is the obvious next search to carry out.

Thanks to all for the help.

[KGarrad]

Thanks also for the tip regarding FindMyPast, I will look at the '39 Census and see what that tells me although it won't include the above offspring.

There was no census in 1939
I think you must be referring to the 1939 National Register.

This was used, after the war, by the NHS and updated by them until the early 1990s.

[Cornelius88]

There was no census in 1939
I think you must be referring to the 1939 National Register.

  Yes I was aware of it and should have put Census in inverted commas Or better still used the correct terminology....

This was used, after the war, by the NHS and updated by them until the early 1990s.

I didn't realise that, although I suppose it would have been a logical choice as the most up to date info available.  Must have taken a lot of work to allow for war casualties and get it into reasonable shape

[KGarrad]

A census is a snapshot of who was where on a specific night.

The 1939 National Register includes name changes over the years. E.G. a woman's married name(s).