We Have Our Brianna – Sophie Skelton Joins Season Two of ‘Outlander’

Sophie Skelton Brianna

Brianna Watch is officially over, Outlander fans.  It was announced today that Sophie Skelton will play Brianna Randall in the second season of Outlander.  Her character will not show up until the end of the season.

The press release makes it very clear who she is, so if you have not read Dragonfly in Amber, do not read any further!

Sophie Skelton is English and she is 5′ 8.”  Her age is not listed anywhere I can find at time of posting.  She can be seen in Foyle’s War, Waterloo Road, Doctors, and the online series Ren.

You can see from the photo above that her hair is already colored red, even though her natural hair color is brown.

Welcome Sophie Skelton to the wonderful world of Outlander!

You can follow Sophie on Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook.

Press Release from Amazon Prime UK:

28th January 2016, LONDON – Amazon Prime Video has announced today Sophie Skelton (Foyle’s War) will play the role of Brianna in the new series of hit drama Outlander as the second season launches this April 2016.

Brianna is the striking daughter of the lead characters Claire (Caitriona Balfe) and Jamie Fraser (Sam Heughan), who both reprise their roles in the new season.

Skelton (Doctors, Waterloo Road, Casualty) joins the previously announced Richard Rankin who will play Roger Wakefield, while returning actors include Tobias Menzies (Casino Royale), Graham McTavish (The Hobbit, Creed, Rambo), Gary Lewis (Gangs of New York, Filth), Duncan Lacroix (Vikings, Game of Thrones) and Rosie Day (The Seasoning House).

The new season begins as Claire and Jamie arrive in France determined to infiltrate the Jacobite rebellion and stop the Battle of Culloden. Thrown into the lavish world of French society, political gains prove tricky as they endeavour to alter the course of history, amid challenges weighing on the fabric of their relationship. Armed with knowledge of what lies ahead, Claire and Jamie must race to prevent a doomed Highland uprising, and the extinction of Scottish life as they know it.

New episodes of Outlander will launch exclusively in the UK on Amazon Prime Video this April 2016.”

MV5BMTgxODI1NDIxM15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNTY2NjIwMzE@._V1_SX640_SY720_ MV5BMjE4NjMyMDIyOF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMzE2ODU2MTE@._V1_UX214_CR0,0,214,317_AL_ 11062869_476053552552203_6494250148629326750_n 11751964_490972454393646_8414328083047990256_n RU2_3452

And just for giggles!

Richard Rankin11062869_476053552552203_6494250148629326750_n

Source: Amazon Prime UK, Starz, IMDB

  • Sirilicious

    Congrats on winning the role and may you embody the character as your ‘parents’ have theirs!

  • Pingback: New Official Photo of Jamie and Claire in 'Outlander' Season Two | Outlander TV News()

  • D R Allen

    A bit on the short side (“Mom” is 5’10” “Dad” is 6′ 3″), and the brown-eyed daughter of two blue-eyed parents? (genetically impossible). Still, though, she is VERY pretty, and has a LOT of meaningful acting experience! (LOVE her sighting down that arrow – such a lovely smile 😀 )

    Ah well – heel lifts and contact lenses would fix the physical problems – I trust Ron and Maril to make her into Bree Randall! 😀

    • emd04

      It’s not genetically impossible. Her parents are blue-eyed, but that doesn’t mean that there weren’t brown-eyed people in their family history, and blue eyes are a recessive trait, not a dominant one.

      • D R Allen

        “and blue eyes are a recessive trait, not a dominant one.”

        That’s absolutely correct, which is why two blue-eyed parents ALWAYS have blue-eyed children. If either of the parents had [dominant] brown-eyed genes, the child would have brown eyes (I come from LONG line of blue-eyed people – when the extended family (Great-Greats on down) sat down for Christmas supper, there’d be 16 or 20 pairs of blue eyes looking into the camera (my aunts and uncles also married blue-eyed people)! 😀

        • emd04

          Well, no, again–my father is Southern Italian. Dark in every way. He married a Scots-Irish-German girl. He has two blondes with blue eyes, and a red headed hazel haired boy. Genes are crazy, funny things. (Although I will say, after this last night, I did sit around doing punnet squares. I need to get a life.)

          • D R Allen

            You’re still not disproving me – your father CONFIRMS what I said about brown eyes being dominant.

            Curiously enough, despite those blue-eyed blondes, his wife isn’t REQUIRED to be blue-eyed (if she shares the same brown/blue gene combo as your father), although I admit WOULD look a little odd if two brown-eyed parents created nothing but blue-eyed children 🙂 (odds in that case would be 1-to-4 for the first, 1-to-16 for the 2nd). I don’t know anything about the genetics re: hazel-eyed people, nor the relation between hair and eye colour (if there is any), so I can’t comment on that. 🙁

            [NOTE: it isn’t so much you “need to get a life”, as you “need Droughtlander to end”! 😀 ]

          • AnnieG

            Your father should check his DNA for ancestry that had blondes and blue eyes – red hair and hazel eyes might also indicate a German somewhere in the long ago family tree. Most people think of red hair as coming from Scandinavian ancestry (even for the Irish and Scots), but the hazel eyes are from the Germans. Ancient Germanic people, as recorded in Roman records, had red hair and hazel eyes.

            Your dad must have recessive genes for blonde hair and blue eyes.

    • Alicia

      I don’t care about her eyes. Contacts look stupid. Let’s just forget genetics like we forget that there is a script and a whole crew filming the scenes.

    • sixela872

      Do you mean the actress’ parents or the character’s? Brianna’s parents aren’t blue-eyed. Jamie is blue eyed and Claire has whiskey-colored eyes.

      • D R Allen

        Sam Heughan and Cait Balfe (who portray Brianna’s biological parents in the ‘Outlander’ television show) BOTH have blue eyes and do not wear coloured contact lenses during their performance. Claire only has ‘whiskey-colored eyes’ in the book, and we are discussing casting for the television show.

        The same trend is true for the characters Geillis Duncan and Roger Wakefield. In the book they both have distinctive green eyes – in the television show they both appear to have blue-eyes.

        • sixela872

          I didn’t think the eye color of actors mattered a hill of beans since no character in any of the television episodes has ever uttered a word about eye color, so I guess that’s why I was confused. There a huge focus on eye color in the books but not at all in the show so I didn’t catch the point. Thanks for your clarification.

        • JacyJul

          I appreciate your observations and accuracy about the characters D.R. Allen. No, it’s not just about “eye color,” but about the character’s looks overall – which contributes a great deal to the story itself (and PLEASE for those who are simply smitten with the TV series and haven’t invested time in reading the real, complete details of the book’s original characters – short, easy episodes of a show are always going to be good enough).

          And, as you mention, in the books, there are significant factors that tie in to Roger and Geillis both having “distinctive green eyes.” IF only R. Moore could have taken the time to direct his casting and make-up crew to adhere to the accuracy that his wife does with the costumes…

  • Anne

    This made my day!!!!! FINALLY!!! Looking at the photos of Roger and Bree side by side made me smile. Welcome to Outlander, Sophie Skelton! 🙂

  • von

    Actually I think Sophie will prove the casting department right yet again because of her acting skills. No matter what her physical differences from the character of Bree in the books, the make-up department can do wonderful things.
    Remember all the misgivings aired about Cat’s physical differences from Claire when she was cast. Well, she proved that she could convincingly portray Claire regardless.
    Why? Because she can act brilliantly and the chemistry between Sam and Cat was tangeable and beautiful to watch and we all forgot those earlier misgivings as a result.
    I believe Sophie will do similarly. Let’s give her that chance before we criticise so much about minor things.

  • Kit Pendergraft

    In looks both Sophie and Richard are perfect for Bree and Roger. I love the soulful eyes of Richard as Roger goes through a lot to give anyone pause. (Well not to say Bree doesn’t), but she seems Jaime’s side of strength, Roger seemed like 20th century man in 19th century world. Bree has Jaime as an father, Roger has him as a father-in-law.

  • AnnieG

    Sophie is beautiful and a good actress. And I’m sure it was easier to cast a British actress than an American due to the current shooting locations. However, I do wish they had found an American, perhaps with a Boston accent, to play Bree. Call it American pride… Also, Sophie having dark eyes and having to dye her hair doesn’t bother me, it is the fact that she is only 5’8″ tall. For me, as a reader, Bree’s height added to her ability to hold her own, to look eye-to-eye with people. If Sophie appears too short, as in her former acting work, then she will be looking up at those she is contending with – Bree, though lovely and female, can’t be too dainty!

    • JacyJul

      Well stated Annie G. Bree’s character (throughout the books) is feisty and she stands above most in a crowd. She always gets the attention of strangers due to her height and stature – and intimidated a number of men (especially in the 18th Century). I just don’t see Sophie S. as being able to pull this off but then, if Moore can re-create main characters to look entirely different, it’s no effort on his part to do away with major character traits. And again, for those who are just vested in the TV series, they’ll never understand the depth of character detail that author, D.G. so painstakingly created in the book series/original story.

  • erin

    I’m happy for her, but still think I’d have made a better Brianna. I know, check my ego.

  • erin

    Yay? Nay? Blue eyes, red curly hair, Scottish descent, 5’8″ tall… plus I’m a lawyer, so I know how to act, even if I’m not a professional actor/model.

  • JacyJul

    We knew when they cast Cait as Claire (who is 5′ 10″ bare feet) instead
    of going closer with the 5′ 7 ” (“round arsed”) main character in the
    book, there would have to be inconsistencies from there out.

    Cait has done a fine job of capturing Claire’s persona (character) in the
    book series, but is a far cry from her physical appearance. Claire, the
    character of the 9 something book series is described so often as being
    delightfully “round arsed” (to the point where Jamie Fraser actually
    makes a reference to some thinner women and seeing no attraction there
    in a later book), and, she’s often “tucking her head just beneath his

    As a writer and editor for many years, these details continue to shape (literally and physically) the main characters, so yes,it was weird to see Claire as 5 ‘ 10″ and very, very thin. As my husband stated while watching several episodes of Season One, “that’s NOT a ’round arsed gal,’ that’s a skinny woman with a rear end that
    looks like it belongs to a 12 year old.” He also winced during several episodes when Cait’s upper body was exposed with ribs and collarbone jutting out past her breasts.

    Okay, okay, I know, it’s for entertainment, but REALLY, if Renee Zellweger could gain 25 pounds (and still look pretty amazing) for the Bridget Jones movies, couldn’t
    they get a novice actress like C.B. to gain…say, at least 10 or 15 pounds? This show is based on books that contains a great deal of historical accuracy and, the fact is, in the mid 1740s to 1760s, rail thin women were not considered attractive as they would have been extremely thin due to 1) poverty and malnutrition – not good candidates
    for child bearing, or 2) illness (again, not good candidates for child bearing). Men of any status or education (i.e. Jamie Fraser) would have been attracted by a woman with at least some curves to the hips and bustand overall (again, the childbearing factor).

    Now, they’ve cast Brianna – who in all of the books is clearly defined as being inches taller than her mother, Claire, and “almost as tall as her Da,” Jamie, at 5’8″ (when
    they should have cast Claire at that height and vice versa). And, yes, it does matter because as someone else posted, it’s these physical attributes are greatly detailed throughout the books/story.

    I won’t even get into the topic that the Jamie Fraser of the book series is actually 6’4″ (and SPOILER: “Six and a half feet tall” in fancy men’s dress shoes in a scene in “Voyager”).

    Ron Moore and company should have taken time to cast the characters a wee bit more accurately – at least for all of us who’ve followed the characters in the books. And at least cast an actress somewhere at, or above C.B.’s height. Just saying.

    • Tracy Trathen

      I don’t think Sam being 6’3″ makes much of a difference….

  • Stace

    I am absolutely in LOVE with Jamie and Claire and their spectacular relationship. Diana somehow made the real, the one thing i haven’t been able to get over is that she aged them too quickly. I’m 47 and I personally didn’t want to read about Claire and Jamie in their 40’s until book 8. I am reading 6 now and I really wish she would send them back in time. Young, possibly one knowing their history and the other not. I am finishing the series because I started it, but honestly I am disappointed reading about their children and grandchildren. I hope the tv series rewrites the history of these books and does not return Claire in her late 40’s to Jamie.