Not to rain on your parade here. But that was more the way he worked and his character then a real conviction. He had confrontations like this before 1688 in the Republic. F.i. he tried to force Amsterdam to vote for war against France for years. The major of Amsterdam made personal notes over these negotiations and he mentions the stubbornness of the prince, but also his pragmatism after the initial angry outbursts.
Compared with his position in the Republic, a position that was really quite limited, because he was financially completely dependent on the goodwill of the Regents, he still had more powers in England. William had learned to deal with meddlesome burghers.
What was then the problem William had with the bill of rights? His problem was that with the bill of rights he wasn't sure that he would achieve his main goal that was the reason to start the invasion, namely bringing England out of the French control it was in, into an alliance against France.
All his actions before 88 and after 88 had one goal, avoid a universal monarchy in Europe by France. When still in the republic he constantly tried to form alliances against France, but he saw that only inclusion of England would bring a long lasting succes against France. This was also what he constantly heard the regents that opposed him in the Republic arguing. They didn't want to bring the Republic in a war against France alone.
The bill of rights would mean that parliament would still have to approve a war with France and William wasn't sure they would vote for that. That's why he was against the idea in the first place, but if there was anyone that was groomed from birth to function as a 'constitutional monarch' it was William. And his pragmatism showed itself soon enough
Interesting.
Do you think this invasion would still happen, if he's not getting the support he received otl from Anne and her husband?