Monday always succeeds Tuesday, as well, due to the cyclic nature of weeks. It doesn't mean much. I guess what you are aiming at is that Tuesday is the day immidiately succeeding Monday.
By definition, Tuesday is the day immediately succeeding Tuesday. In much the same way, that 2 is defined as 1+1. Since we are only dealing with definitions here, the proposition "Tuesday always succeeds Monday" is a analytical claim.
We have to mind the context of Hitchens Razor. Hitchen used his Razor as a rational argument against theism; more positively, it's used as an argument in favor of atheism. I.e. the Razor is used to argue that 'the existence of God can be dismissed without proof'. But notice that the key proposition in play here isn't analytical. To ask whether God exists is a synthetic claim.
What you said might have shown that Hitchen's Razor is foolish somehow in relation to analytical propositions, but for the sake of the context, I think it needs to argued that Hitchen's Razor is also wrong in relation to synthetic claims. For instance, "Tuesdays are always more rainy than Mondays" is a synthetic claim. If I claimed such a thing without proof, wouldn't you be well within your right to dismiss it without proof?
